Sitting of 24 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, he has certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz.:
Rossendale Valley Tramways.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:
Exeter and District Tramways [Lords].
South Shields, Sunderland, and District Tramways [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (CRUMLINVIADUCT) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
READING GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Oakwell, Church Lane, Renishaw Park, Harrington (No.9) Pit, Tibshelf (two), Wath Main, Eckington, Bolsover, Holbrook, Southgate, Denton, Fords. and Ilkeston Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES AND RATING BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1851) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEESIMPLE) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES—OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Croydon, Rugby, Woodhall Spa, and Birkenhead; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Enfield, against (praying to be heard by Council); to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Oakwell, Church Lane, Renishaw Park, Tibshelf (two), East Wemyss, Kelty, Harrington (No.9) Pit, Wath Main, Holbrook, Bolsover, Eckington. Denton, Fords, Willsgreen, Kirkford, Townhill, Ilkeston, Little Raith, Cowdenbeath, and, Rosebank Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Bradford, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Newcastle-on-Tyne, Willesden Green, and Enfield; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (VIBRATION).
  Copy presented, of Appendices to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Vibration produced by the working of the traffic on the Central London Railway [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report, No.348 (Lagos, Report for 1900–1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1902 [by Act].
  NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
  Copy ordered, "of Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1901, with Appendices. "—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain. )
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Address for "Return of the number of all Deaths in the Administrative County of London in the year 1901, upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation, or Death accelerated by Privation; together with any observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No.351, of Session 1901). "—(Mr. Talbot. )
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Medal for Volunteer Service Companies.
  MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it can be stated what medal the Volunteer Service Companies now proceeding to South Africa will receive. Will the service of those troops be ante-dated in conformity with the dates and the effigy on the medals already issued to the troops, or will a fresh medal be struck; if so, in view of the uncertainty existing, will all dates be omitted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The only medal given for service during the present war in South Africa is that referred to in Army Order 94 of 1901. There is no date on the medal. Her late Majesty Queen Victoria gave the order that a medal should be struck to commemorate the military operations in South Africa, and, consequently, the effigy is that of the late Queen. His Majesty the King was graciously pleased to confirm the order given by Her late Majesty.

  Alleged Burning of Kaffir Kraals by the British.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the burning of Kaffir kraals by British troops, and the deportation of the occupants to Basutoland; and will he state the reasons for the adoption of such measures.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this matter.

  Murder of Abraham Esau at Calvinia.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House if the Landrost Merwe and the rebel named Snow, with others concerned in the torture and murder of the native tradesman, Abraham Esau, at Calvinia, last February, have yet been apprehended; if so, whether they have been brought to trial, and with what results.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on the points raised in the Question.

  Ladysmith Clasp.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the order that the soldiers who were sent into Ladysmith under the Geneva Convention are not entitled to the Ladysmith Clasp applies to the men and officers of the Irish Fusiliers, Dublins, and other regiments who fought at Talana Hill, and, being wounded or forced to surrender, were sent into the town under the Geneva Convention, or whether, in view of their action during the retreat And of the dangers they encountered while
  892
  at the Hospital at Intombi, he will consider the advisability of exempting them from the operation of this order.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The "Defence of Ladysmith" clasp can only be given to those troops who helped to defend Ladysmith, and cannot be extended to men who were made non-combatants under the Geneva Convention.

  Remount and Transports—Messrs. Houlders' Contracts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Major Peters who was sent out to Argentina by the War Office in connection with the purchase of horses was then an officer in the Remounts Department of the War Office; and, if so, what position did he then occupy in it; and whether he is aware that this officer's name appears as a shareholder in Houlders, which Company obtained contracts from the War Office for the transport of horses from Argentina to South Africa, in the register of the shareholders of that Company deposited at Somerset House.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a former remount officer, at one time high in the office of that Department, invested £1, 000 in two limited liability companies formed by a member of the firm of Houlder Brothers for the purpose of building the "Royston Grange" and the "Beacon Grange, "ships specially designed and employed for remount transport, and afterwards included in the Houlder Line; and whether he proposes to inquire into this matter.
  LORD STANLEY: Major Peters was a Deputy Assistant Adjutant General in the Remount branch when selected to accompany the Purchasing Commission to Argentina. He occupied the position of Assistant Purchasing Officer. I am not aware of the matter alluded to in the last part of the Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton, but I am making inquiry. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for West Nottingham,

  893
  I have no information on this subject. The officer in question has been for the last two years in South Africa; but if the facts are as stated, he will be asked for an explanation.

  Remount Department Re-organisation.
  MR. COURTNEY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any re-organisation or reform has been introduced into the Remount Department of the War, Office beyond the employment of more officers and clerks; and if he will give some information as to such reform or as to any contemplated reform in this Department.
  LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend has already explained to the House that the complete re-organisation of the Remount Department is in contemplation. It would be impossible to introduce such a re-organisation so long as the high pressure lasts.

  Hungarian Horse Contracts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can say if the Major Annesley who is stated in the evidence submitted to the Committee of the House on the Hungarian Horse Contracts as being connected with a South African Company engaged in purchasing horses at Cyrebadka, at the time when the Lewison Contract was being carried out there, was employed in Hungary in any, capacity by the War Office; and, if so, in what capacity. And whether he can throw any light upon the nature of this South African Company, or upon what became of the horses imported from Hungary into South Africa by this Company.
  In putting the Question the hon. Member said it seemed that he could not write the name of this officer so that it might appear correctly. It was Major Armstrong, not "Annesley. "
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information whatever on the points raised in the Question. No such officer as Major Annesley was employed by the Remount Department.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course not. But does the right hon. Gentleman know anything about Major Armstrong?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; but that does not prove that a Major Armstrong may not be in existence.

  Horse Purchases in Australia.
  MR. LABOUCHEEL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any horses were purchased by the War Office in Australia from Bergl, Australia, Limited; and whether, if so, he is aware that Houlders held at that time the largest amount of the shares and securities of that Company.
  MR. BRODRICK: No horses appear to have been purchased from the firm mentioned.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office, or Remount Officers sent to Australia, did at any time apply to the Stock Departments of the Australian Colonies, or any of them, in order to obtain the assistance of those Stock Departments when selecting or purchasing remounts; and, if so, whether he will state when such application was made.
  MR. BRODRICK: The purchasing officers were in communication with the local Colonial Governments, and, no doubt, they offered every assistance in their power.

  Mr. Bergl's Meat Contract.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what is the term of the meat contract with Mr. Bergl, and whether the term was stated in the forms of tender.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member will find the information in the first paragraph of the tender, a copy of which has just been presented to Parliament. (Cd.961.)
  MR. WHITLEY: Does that answer the second part of my Question?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, it is all there.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has come to a decision as to laying upon the Table of the House the

  895
  conditions of tender for the meat supply in South Africa; whether he can say if Mr. Bergl will pay the ordinary rates of railway transport on meat sent by him under his contract by railway, and whether all depôts in which his meat will be stored, both at the port of entry and in the interior of the country, will be provided by him and paid for by him; whether cattle which have been captured or commandeered by His Majesty's military forces will be sold to him; and if so, whether the price per pound at, which such cattle are to be sold to him is settled; and whether, when laying upon the Table of the House the contract entered into by the War Office with Mr. Bergl, he will also lay upon the Table a statement of any changes or modifications (if any) made in it since it was signed, together with any assurances (if any) given to Mr. Bergl before signature in regard to facilities in regard to transport, storage. or any other matter connected with the carrying out of the contract.
  LORD STANLEY: The contract has been presented to the House. The contractor will pay the ordinary railway rates mentioned. As regards cold storage, certain accommodation has been secured by the Military Authorities from the 1st April next, and it is intended that the expense incurred should be paid by the contractor. As regards the sale of captured cattle there is no provision to this effect in the contract. It is intended to hold such cattle as the reserve referred to in paragraph 8 of the conditions of contract. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, there are no modifications in the contract.
  MR LABOUCHERE: The noble Lord has not said if the conditions of the tender will be laid. Did they include the distribution of the meat? As regards the Cold Storage Stores, were they taken under military law or with the consent of the owner?
  LORD STANLEY: I must ask for notice of both Questions.

  Transport Regulations.
  MR. LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that
  896
  the German steamer "Germanius" has been chartered to load a cargo of oats from New Zealand to the Cape, he will make it a condition of all contracts for the purchase of materials required by our Forces in South Africa that such materials shall be carried in British vessels.
  LORD STANLEY: Under the transport regulations, no ship that is not registered a British ship is ever engaged by the Admiralty for the conveyance of either troops, horses, or stores. This rule is not applied to ships which the Colonial Governments may find it necessary to charter.
  MR. LAW: May it not have arisen in connection with some purchase by the War Office? Would it not be as well, in making purchases, to lay down the condition that the articles shall be conveyed on British ships?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Horse and Mule Transport.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can say in how many cases vessels engaged in carrying horses and mules to South Africa made more than one voyage with this kind of freight, and whether on the second and subsequent voyages, if any, a reduction was made on the rate of freight charged for the first voyage, in which was included a sum sufficient to clear first cost of fittings.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Most of the vessels employed as freight ships in carrying horses and mules to South Africa have made several voyages. The engagements in all cases are made by competitive tender, and the question of whether new fittings have, or have not, to be provided would naturally be an important factor in fixing the rate at which the owner tenders. I may add that it is not always the case that a ship once fitted for this service can be tendered again ready fitted, as in not infrequent instances the fittings have to be entirely destroyed at the conclusion of a voyage, to avoid infection.

  Rifle Ranges.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what progress has been made in providing new rifle ranges in the last twelve months; how many new rifle ranges have been opened in that period; how many old ranges have been closed; and how many the War Office is taking steps to acquire or construct.
  LORD STANLEY: The amount authorised for rifle ranges under the Military Works Loan since 1st January, 1901, is £106, 000. Eighteen War Department rifle ranges have been opened at home and abroad since that date, and forty-eight Volunteer ranges have been approved. Two Wear Department ranges have been closed, both abroad. I have no information to hand in regard to what Volunteer ranges have been closed. Nine War Department ranges are in course of construction.

  Promotions of Senior Colonels.
  MR. COLSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the damaging effect on the prospects of senior colonels who are considered in every way fitted for promotion to major-general, by the order that no promotion to the rank of major-general shall be made after the 1st of January, 1901, except to fill appointments of and for distinguished service, the order may be relaxed so far that selected officers should be promoted to the major-generals' list, as vacancies occur, to await appointments as they may fall in.
  LORD STANLEY: Will my hon. and gallant friend kindly refer to the reply given to a similar Question, put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex, on Friday, February 7th, † to which I have nothing to add.

  Report of the Boiler Committee.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Report of the Boiler Committee will be issued to Members.
  † See preceding Volume, p.664.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Report had already been laid on the Table of the House, and ordered to be printed. He regretted it had not yet been issued. But he did not think any inconvenience had resulted, as the matter would come up for discussion on Vote 8.
  MR. GALLOWAY: Is there not an item for the repair of the boilers of the "Diadem" in the Estimates now before the House?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is included in Vote 8.
  MR. GALLOWAY: And I take it that that Vote will not be taken before we receive the Report?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No. Sir.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANasked if the Report had not been long in the hands of the Admiralty. Why was it not issued before?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is a matter of extreme regret to me that it has not already been circulated. The Admiralty gave instructions for it to be printed, and it is in the hands of the printers. There has been no delay on our part; on the contrary, we have done our best to press the matter forward.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I can only say that it ought to have been printed long ago.

  H. M. S. "Excellent"—Canteen Sales.
  MR. HARMSWORTH (Caithnessshire): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the total receipts for articles sold at the canteen of H. M. S. "Excellent, "Whale Island, Portsmouth, for the two years 1896 and 1897 amounted to £11, 976 7s.0½d.; and that, under different management, the sales for 1900 and 1901 amounted to £22, 490 14s. 2d., leaving an increase of £10, 514 7s. 1d.; whether the expenditure of surplus canteen funds for the latter year amounted to £2, 031 4s.3d.; and, if so, whether the system of management which has proved so efficient under the presidency of Commander A. H. Christian, R. N., could be introduced throughout the service.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The management of canteens is a matter dealt with on board ship, ample discretionary powers in respect of them being vested in the captain of the ship and the Commander-in-Chief of the station. I am therefore unable to say whether the figures given by the hon. Member are, or are not, correct. As regards the latter part of the Question, it is not considered desirable to introduce any single canteen system into the service generally, as conditions vary greatly according to the size and complement of the ship, and the part of the world in which she is serving. I may add that the Admiralty are fully alive to the need of proper supervision in connection with the management of canteens and a circular letter to the Fleet has recently been issued dealing fully with this matter.

  British Somaliland—Mad Mullahs Operations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether preparations are now in progress for another punitive expedition against the followers of the Mullah Haji Mohammed Abdullah, in British Somaliland; and if so, whether he will inform the House as to the nature and extent of these preparations; and whether the expedition is being entered upon in conjunction with or with the approval of the Negus of Abyssinia.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): My noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has asked me to reply in his absence. Towards the end of December last the Acting Consul General at Berbera telegraphed that the Mullah had resumed offensive operations against the friendly tribes in British Somaliland. Six British officers of the King's African Rifles, under Colonel Swayne, who conducted the recent operations, were at once despatched, and other precautions taken, of which details will be given in Papers about to be laid. It has not been necessary as yet to consider the propriety of making any communication on the subject to Abyssinia.

  Foreign Troops at Shanghai.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, S. Molton): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether troops other than Chinese are stationed at Shanghai; if so, will he state their numbers and nationalities; and if any arrangements have been made for evacuation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord Cranborne): The troops other than Chinese stationed at Shanghai are believed to be approximately as follows: British, 860; French, 700; Japanese, 500; Germans, 800. No arrangements have yet been made for final evacuation.

  British Consuls and Commercial News.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether lie is aware that the German Foreign Office has set aside a sum of money to enable German Consuls abroad to telegraph to Berlin any facts of immediate importance to German commercial firms; whether British Consuls have authority to do this; and if not, whether he will consider the advisability of taking a similar step for the benefit of British firms.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord Cranborne): British Consuls have authority to telegraph important tariff changes, information affecting shipping, quarantine, navigation, epidemics, etc. The question whether they should telegraph information specially important to particular firms would require careful consideration before such a system were adopted. I have no information as to the German practice.
  MR. NORMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter consideration?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no doubt the Foreign Office will.

  Malta and the Coronation.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House who was recently elected in Malta to represent the Maltese at His Majesty's coming Coronation; and

  901
  further, will he say who stood for election, and the number of votes given to each candidate.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): There has been no such election in Malta as the hon. Member refers to.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how they elect such a representative?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the remotest idea.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Arising out of that, may I say that I shall have much pleasure in informing him?

  University Colleges Inspection.
  MR. WALTER PALMER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received the Reports of the Gentlemen appointed last year to inspect the University Colleges of Great Britain; and, if so, what action is being taken upon them.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have received the Reports, and am referring them to a Committee as in 1897. The members of the Committee of 1897 have consented to serve again. I understand that they will not be able to meet till May; but this will cause no delay in the actual distribution of the grants.

  Income Tax Assessment.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to assess for Income Tax profits on all contracts concluded in the United Kingdom by agents and brokers for account of houses abroad and in the Colonies; and whether, in view of this, the Inland Revenue are asking from agents and brokers in London statements as to the gross aggregate sales of each year since 1897 made by them for and on behalf of firms Abroad and in the Colonies.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Such profits are chargeable by law to Income Tax, on the average profit of three years, and the agents are required to render Returns.

  Mining Royalties.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any later official information, through, the Income Tax Returns or otherwise, of the annual amounts received by royalty owners from minerals, than that contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, published in 1893; and, if so, will he give the annual amounts received in Wales and. the United Kingdom.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No such information is available.

  Vaccination Exemption in Norfolk.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is. aware that the Clerk to the County Justices at Norwich has given notice that the Bench will not in future grant a certificate of exemption under the Vaccination Act without a medical certificate showing that vaccination would be dangerous to the child; and if he will take steps to secure observance of the provisions for exemption by the justices in that district.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I believe that different views have prevailed from time to time on the Taverham Bench as to the lines upon which these applications should be dealt with; but, as I indicated in answer to a Question on the same case put by the hon. Member for East Norfolk last Monday, I understand that the action of the justices is not now governed by any such notice as that stated in the Question. I may, however, add, as I have said often before, that in any case I have no authority over the justices in the exercise of their discretion in this matter.

  Factory Act—Fruit Industry.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to issue a special order under the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act of last year, section 41, to regulate the exceptions given, in the process of cleaning and preparing fruit.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Chief Inspector of Factories has the matter under consideration; and I shall come to a decision on his recommendations in time to bring any order which I may make into force by the first of June, when the exceptions referred to begin to operate.

  Wireless Telegraphy for Life-Saving Purposes.
  *MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any explanation as to the cause of the delay in enabling the light vessels and rock lighthouses to communicate with the shore, and vice versa, for life-saving purposes by means of wireless telegraphy, and whether he can give an assurance that the matter will not be delayed any longer.
  THE PRESIDENT or THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the answer which I gave to a similar Question put by my hon. friend the Member for the Totnes Division of Devonshire last Thursday. † I can assure him that the desire of the Board of Trade is to expedite matters as much as possible.

  Musical Copyright.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intend to introduce to Parliament this session any proposals for the amendment of the law relating to musical copyright, in order that means may be provided for protecting traders who hold copyright in musical works from the injurious results of the sale of pirated publications.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government have under consideration a Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the law relating to copyright generally. I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope that the Bill will be passed this session, but I am not prepared to deal in anticipation and independently with that part of the subject referred to by my hon. friend.
  † See page 587.

  Education—Registration of Teachers and Recognition of Schools.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, with regard to the Order in Council for regulating the registration of teachers, it is the intention of the Board of Education to prescribe the conditions on which a school can become a recognised school for the purposes specified in sections 3 and 4 of the schedule to the Order; whether these conditions will be made to cover the case of schools conducted for private profit; whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to publish a list such recognised schools, and whether the term "Elementary School, "used in the Schedule, is to be interpreted as relating exclusively to a public elementary school as defined in the Education Act, 1870, and, if not, what is the signification of the term.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ox EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): No; it is intended that such schools shall be recognised as are, in the opinion of the Board of Education, efficient. Schools conducted for private profit will, if efficient, be recognised. The publication of a list of recognised schools is a matter that shall be considered. An elementary school is defined by law to be—
  "A school or department of a school at which elementary education is the principal part of the education there given, and does not include any school or department of a school at which the ordinary payments, in respect of the instruction, from each scholar, exceed ninepence a week. "
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether any statement will be issued as to the number of schools to be recognised as soon as this conditional Order becomes established?
  SIR J. GORST: I think not. The Board of Education have very little experience at present in regard to secondary schools. It would be mere guess-work to prescribe the conditions beforehand or till some experience has been gained to attempt to give a list.

  Teachers' Registration Fees— "Experience in Teaching. "
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether experience as a private tutor will be held by the Board of Education as coming within the meaning of the expression "experience in teaching" as used in the Schedule (4) (2) (ii.) to the Order; whether it is intended that, while the teachers in Column A are exempt from payment of registration fees, the expenses of registration shall be borne by such teachers only as are placed in Column B, or in the Supplemental Registers; if not, will a Treasury Grant be made to the Registration Council on behalf of the teachers registered in Column A; and, should the income derived from registration fees fall short of the expenses of registration, will he state who is to be responsible for meeting this deficit.
  SIR J. GORST: The experience of teaching must be such as is satisfactory to the registration authority. The Question in paragraph 2 is answered by Sections 10 and 11 of the Schedule. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. The registration fees in the first years will be more than sufficient. The fees will be so regulated afterwards as to cover the cost.

  School Attendance Authorities— Bye-laws.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the number of School Attendance Authorities which have received sanction for new bye-laws since the passing of the Act under which such bye-laws might apply to children up to the age of fourteen and whether any, and, if so, what efforts are being made by the Board of Education to induce School Attendance Authorities whose bye - laws have not been revised during recent years to send up new proposals in order that they may come into line with the rest of the country.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is, 1, 621. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. There seems to be no necessity at present for any pressure. Applications are being continually made.

  School Attendance of Vagrant Children.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the neglected condition of the children of dwellers in vans and huts, so far as relates to education, and whether he can see his way to enforcing the requirements of the Education Acts in their interest.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; but the local authorities find it almost impossible to secure the attendance at school of such vagrant children under the Education Acts.

  Ceylon Stamps.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an official notice is posted at the General Post Office, Colombo, Ceylon, stating that British penny stamps, for use in prepayment of replies by post from the United Kingdom, are now on sale at the office, price seven cents each; whether he will arrange for the sale of Ceylon stamps and stamps of all the Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire at the General Post Office, and also at Dublin, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool, for the convenience of persons who wish to send stamps for replies to persons in our possessions I abroad.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the notice referred to by the hon. Member, but he is aware that the Colombo Post Office procured a supply of British postage stamps for the purpose specified. The Postmaster General has no evidence before him of any effective demand for the sale of Colonial stamps by the British Post Office, and concurs in the opinion expressed on behalf of his predecessor when a similar question was asked by the hon. Member on the 22nd of August, 1895, and again on the 26th of March, 1896. †
  †See (4) Debates xxxvi., 567; xxxix., 162.

  Firearms (Ireland) Act—Mr. Owen Maguire's Case.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Owen Maguire, principal teacher of Derryoober National School, County Galway, applied recently for a licence to carry a gun; and will he explain why this application was refused.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE- LAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The question of the issue of a licence to keep firearms is one for the consideration of the Resident Magistrate, as Licensing Officer of the district. This case has been referred to the Resident Magistrate for such further consideration and action as he may think fit.

  Valentia Harbour.
  BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no bell buoy on the sunken rock at the entrance of Valentia Harbour on the side nearest to Beginish; and whether steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to provide a suitable buoy; and whether the rock that is known as Cloheen-a-vallig, which is covered at half-tide and dangerous to navigation, at the entrance to the Cahirciveen estuary, will be perched or otherwise clearly indicated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Congested Districts Board is not a Lighthouse Authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and cannot, therefore, carry out such works as suggested. The County Council is recognised, however, by the Irish Lights Board in the matter of providing local lights, and the Congested Districts Board has offered to the County Council to make a contribution of £40 towards improving the channel to Cahirciveen.

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan, R. I. C. —Prosecution of Mr. J. B. Walsh.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the trial of Mr. John B. Walsh, at Callan, on Monday last, charged with writing a letter of an intimidatory character, Sergeant Sheridan
  908
  stated upon oath that he had made deliberate and lying misrepresentations to the defendant in order to obtain his signature for the purpose of comparison with the alleged intimidatory letter; and whether this was done with the knowledge of Sergeant Sheridan's superior officers; and, if so, whether such a practice has official sanction; and will he say what action, if any, he proposes to take in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The first paragraph does not accurately represent the facts. The sergeant stated he procured a specimen of the handwriting of the accused by asking him to fill up a form dealing with weights and measures. The accused having been returned for trial at the Assizes, I must decline to discuss further the question of the propriety of the action of the sergeant in the present case.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this police officer went twice to this man?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has declined to discuss the matter further.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this matter in mind when—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. JOYCE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a prosecution was brought against Mr. J. B. Walsh, of Callan, County Kilkenny, under 1 and 2 Will.4, c.44, s.3, for alleged circulation of an intimidatory letter; and whether he will state the reason why Mr. Walsh was not proceeded against under a more recent procedure.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At my right hon. friend's request, I will reply to this Question. The reason why the Statute mentioned was availed of is that there is no more recent Statute so applicable to that offence.

  Irish Education—Examiner in Irish.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the examiner for Irish, under the Intermediate Board, has yet been appointed; and, if so, what, are his qualifications.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The Board of Intermediate Education has been fortunate enough to secure the services of a scholar of European fame in connection with the great services which lie has rendered to the study of the Irish language.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: May I ask the name of this famous scholar?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board decline to publish it before the examination. It is only usual to disclose such names at the time of the examination.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing an Irishman to the post?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; this is a matter which must be left to the Board, who are experts in educational matters.

  Irish Courts of Summary Jurisdiction—Templemore Case.
  Mr. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Second Section of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act requires that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction shall consist of two resident Magistrates in Petty Sessions, one of whom shall be a person of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall be satisfied, and that a defendant may claim that the Magistrates shall show certificates that the Lord Lieutenant was so satisfied, he will explain why the resident Magistrate who presided in Templemore over a Court held under this Act, before which 14 persons were prosecuted, when asked by the defendants' counsel, refused to show such certificate; whether he can say if this Magistrate is properly qualified to preside over such a Court.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The constitution of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction formed under the Act is regulated by Section 11, not Section 2. The Statute does not confer upon the defendant a right to require the Magistrates, or either of them, to produce proof that the Court is properly constituted under the former Section. In the present instance, both of the Magistrates who adjudicated were qualified within the meaning of the Section.

  Hamilton Synge Estate, Co. Armagh.
  Mr. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 22 tenants on the Hamilton Synge Estate, Tullinaval, Co. Armagh, served originating notices in April, 1899; that when their cases came on for hearing in July, 1900, an adjournment was granted at the request of the receiver; that they were again postponed in October, 1900; that Civil Bill ejectments have been served on several of these tenants; that the estate is to be sold under Section 40; and that a Report to the Commission was made nearly 12 months ago; and whether he can state when these cases, now pending for three years, will come on for hearing, when an offer of sale will be made, and what course will be pursued in the case of those tenants on whom ejectments have been served.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The Fair Rent applications were adjourned, as stated, pending the proceedings under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The Report of the Land Commission under that Section was filed in the Land Judge's Court on the 15th January, and will shortly be brought before the Land Judge for consideration. I have no information with respect to the service of ejectment notices.

  Prosecutions in County Clare.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which I have not been able to give private notice, in reference to the prosecution of eleven men in Co. Clare on Saturday. According to a report in The Times the men were prosecuted under the Crimes Act, and the magistrates, finding that there was not evidence enough for a conviction, held the accused

  911
  to bail. As they refused to find hail, they were, under the Statute of Edward III., sent to gaol for three months. I wish to ask whether the Court, having been constituted as a Crimes Act Court, was competent to deal with cases under the ordinary law.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I saw the report in The Times, and I noticed that it was inaccurate in several respects. It described the charge as one of intimidation, and obviously it should have been described as one of unlawful assembly. In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that it is quite competent for any justice of the peace to hold any person over to the peace or to good behaviour, or to both. That has often been done. The power has been held to be inherent in the commission of any justice of the peace.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: But the Court was constituted under the Crimes Act, and therefore no justice of the peace was entitled to sit there except two selected resident magistrates sent down from Dublin. What I want to ask is whether, when the case under the Crimes Act broke down, the magistrates began to exercise the ordinary jurisdiction of justices. If so, should not the ordinary justices of the peace have been allowed to take part in the later proceedings? Was any such opportunity given to them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no shadow of doubt as to the legality of the proceeding. The two resident magistrates were fully competent to take the course which they did take.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: But a special Court had been constituted, and two men sent down from Dublin to form it. The case under the special Court having failed, were these resident magistrates entitled to hold the accused to bail under the ordinary law and send them to prison for not giving bail?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is still in doubt as to the law, the point can be raised by the usual process, by writ of habeas corpus. But I am bound to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no doubt.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I shall put a further Question on the subject, be-
  912
  cause the ordinary magistrates were competent to sit when the Crimes Act prosecution had been vetoed, and no opportunity was given them of attending.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself of the competence of these two magistrates?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Limerick Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the inquiry which is to be made into the condition of the Post Office, Limerick, particular attention will be paid to the sorting office, which it is stated is unfit for the purpose, and also to the telegraph instrument room, the air of which comes mostly from a laneway where mews are situate; and is he aware that, since the parcels office was burnt down, the sorting of the parcels has to be carried on in what is little better than a corrugated iron shed; and whether he will have the defects complained of remedied as soon as possible.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The conditions of the Limerick Office are not at all so bad as would seem to be implied in the Question. The sorting office is small, but is fairly high and well ventilated, and will suffice without serious inconvenience till the new office is ready. In the instrument room only two out of nine windows look on to the lane mentioned, and while it is the fact that, since the fire, the roof and one side of the parcel sorting office are constructed of corrugated iron, no serious inconvenience arises from it. Plans for the enlargement of the office have been approved, and it is expected that the work will be begun in the ensuing financial year.

  Government Education Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if there is any likelihood of the Education Bill being introduced before Easter.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): We are hopeful on the subject.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence, which we all regret, of the First Lord of the Treasury, what the arrangements of business for this week are, especially with regard to this day. Much to our surprise, we find the Rules of Procedure down as the first Order, the understanding being that the Navy Estimates would be put down first.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With regard to the last point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am free to confess that it is due to a mistake. If my right hon. friend had been able to be in the House late on Friday night, opportunity would have been taken of postponing the Order which now stands first until tomorrow, he having previously stated to the House that the Naval Estimates would be taken today. I am afraid my right hon. friend will not be able to he in the House tomorrow, and it is also necessary that we should make progress with Supply. I, therefore, propose to ask the House, if Votes A and 1 of the Navy Estimates should not be taken tonight, to continue the Navy Estimates tomorrow. I should place a Notice on the Paper for that purpose. It will also be necessary, as soon as we can, to take the Vote on Account. Tomorrow I shall be better able to make a further statement with regard to the rest of the week.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it not proposed to take the London Water Bill on Thursday?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If we are fortunate with our Supply tonight and tomorrow, I hope that we shall be able to take the Licensing Bill as well as the Water Bill on Thursday. I am not sure whether my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will be able to be present on that day. If he is, the Water Bill will be the first Order. I will, however, make a further statement tomorrow.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the Procedure Rules be taken next?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That will be on Monday.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to give notice that the Motion taking tomorrow for Supply will be opposed by me, in the interests of the Railway Servants' Motion.

  SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on main Question [21st February], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair. "
  Question again proposed.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that when the debate stood adjourned at midnight last Friday, he was about to call attention to the question of the loss of the "Cobra, "and he would now ask the House to consider the circumstances which surrounded that catastrophe. He did not think lie was overstating the case when he suggested that there was a considerable feeling of uneasiness throughout the country as to the loss of that vessel. He proposed to put before the House certain statements that came out in the Court of Inquiry, which would, he hoped, enable hon. Members to form a very accurate judgment as to who was responsible for that most serious disaster. The ship was built on the Tyne by the Armstrong firm. She left that river on September 17th, at five p. m., and at 7.30 the next morning she foundered, no fewer than sixty-five lives being lost. The vessel practically parted asunder near the Outer Dowsing Shoal. The weather during the first watch was fine, and she steamed at the rate of seventeen knots per hour. In the middle watch, no doubt, the weather was rougher, and the ship rolled a good deal. That was explained at the inquiry by the statement that the engines were priming, owing to salt water getting into the boilers. At seven o'clock the next morning the vessel was two miles off the lightship near the Outer Dowsing Shoal, and her commander gave instructions for her to be steered in a little closer, so that he might verify his position; it was while this operation was going on that she, practically without any warning whatsoever, broke in halves.
  He thought they were entitled to ask what caused the vessel thus to part in two, and, in order to arrive at a decision, it would be necessary to relates the history

  915
  of the building of the "Cobra," and of its purchase by the Admiralty. The vessel was built as a speculation by the Armstrong Company, in 1899, and she was constructed for a very worthy purpose, no doubt, as was explained by the constructor of the building firm. He said he foresaw that there would be a demand for these very speedy vessels, and it was desired to keep the workmen au courant with that class of work. Mr. Philip Watts, then the designer for the Armstrong Company, and now Director of Naval Construction at the Admiralty, stated that he had built two vessels for the Admiralty, the "Sword-Fish" and "Spit-Fire," and in building the "Cobra" he based it on their general structural arrangements. He desired to invite the attention of the House to a comparison between the standard taken by Mr. Watts and that applied to the "Cobra." In the first place the "Sword-Fish" was 200 feet long and the machinery in her weighed 110 tons; while the "Cobra" was 223 feet long and the machinery in her weighed 183 tons, as originally designed. In addition to that there was an unusal structural arrangement consisting of a cross coal-bunker which carried 35 tons of coal, so that it was necessary to add 35 tons to the additional weight of the machinery. Thus they saw that the "Cobra" was supposed to be designed on the plan of a shorter vessel, and yet she contained over a hundred per cent. more weight. With regard to the cross-bunker he would remark that it was placed between the two boiler rooms, and this much decreased the strength of the vessel at a most vital spot. But the point he wanted chiefly to make clear was that the "Cobra" was the longer of the two vessels, and that she contained double the weight of machinery without any provision being made to render her stronger than the "Sword-Fish. "Mr. Watts, in his evidence, made some startling admissions; in fact, all the witnesses, including the Admiralty officials, did that. Mr. Watts admitted that no provision was made to carry this additional weight, and that the scantling to support the hull of the ship was just the same as the scantling which supported the hull of the "Sword-Fish." He also admitted that the machinery put in was
  916
  30 tons or more greater than the weight for which the ship was designed, and that there was no additional margin made for it "beyond the ordinary margin which was usual in all ships." Of course, they all understood what a margin was. It was not a thing to be impinged upon. It was there for the safety of the ship, yet, in this particular case, it was impinged upon to the extent of 30 tons, as the designer of the ship had admitted.
  He would remark that be had no intention of attacking either the designer of the ship, who held a first-class record as a competent man, nor the builders. All he could say was that if designers and builders liked to project and buildships that would "turn turtle, "or break in halves, that was their affair. It would soon find its own remedy, because they would lose the confidence hitherto reposed in them, and would soon find their business leaving them. But what were they to say about the Admiralty, with its enormous experience, and its responsibility to the country in these matters What were they to say to them if, as he would be able to show, they deliberately bought, with their eyes wide open, jerry-built coffin ships I That, no doubt, was strong language, but he believed he would justify it before lie had finished. Let them turn to the history of the purchase of the vessel. What did they find? It was offered to the Admiralty in December, 1899. Negotiations were carried on for some time, and it was finally agreed to purchase, subject to certain conditions specified in a letter written in March, 1900, which formed the basis of the contract. They had not had that letter published in full, but an extract from it was laid before the. Court of inquiry, and that would be sufficient for his purpose of proving that it was part of the contract under which the Admiralty bought the ship. The extract on which he relied was as follows—
  "That, the arrangements of girders and machinery space were not satisfactory as regarded longitudinal strength, and would require considerable alteration and some modification. "
  Everybody knew that that was a matter which affected the stability of the hull. Yet, after a lengthened survey, this ship was finally accepted by the Admiralty officials, and he thought he was doing them no injustice if he put before the House two points for its consideration.

  917
  He would put them in the shape of questions. First, did the Admiralty know, at the time they laid down their terms and conditions of purchase, that the "Cobra" was deficient in essential strength? Secondly, did they take care that such strengthening as was essential to make her safe was carried out before they took her over? Those were two very reasonable and practical questions. The reply to the first was that they knew perfectly well, at the time they negotiated the purchase of the "Cobra," that she had not the essential structural strength. Their letter, which formed the basis of the contract, proved that. As he had previously remarked, they had not had the advantage of seeing the letter in full, and he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he came to reply, to state whether he would agree to lay it on the Table of the House, so that they might know what it contained, and exactly where they stood. With regard to his second questions the reply was that they did not take the care he suggested they ought to have done. In the first place they failed altogether to enforce the very conditions that they had laid down in their contract letter, that the longitudinal strength of the vessel should he made efficient, and consequently they knowingly took the risks. Therefore they must have made up their minds to chance the matter.
  He was making a very serious charge when lie declared that they were responsible, in consequence, for the loss of the ship and for the loss of lives. He believed that charge was capable of proof. He had already quoted what was said by Mr. Watts before the Court, that no provision was made to carry the additional weight, and that the ordinary scantling to support the bull was just the same as that in a vessel which carried 100 per cent. less weight of machinery. Let them see how the Admiralty were advised by their own official, who went down to make surveys from time to time, and how that advice was acted upon. Mr. Deadman, the Chief Constructor to the Admiralty, was a witness at the inquiry, and he there stated that he made a Report on the "Cobra" before the Admiralty wrote the letter of March, 1900. He advised the Admiralty, in the first place, that the structural arrangements of the vessel were unsatisfactory, and that they were inferior to what was
  918
  being taken by the Admiralty from other makers, "because the scantlings were lighter than those of other vessels. "He also said that the "Cobra" after the alterations were made was not as strong as other destroyers of the same date. There was, in fact, nothing to compare the "Cobra". with, for she was longer than other vessels; her engines were built for far greater speed, and, consequently, no fair comparison could be drawn between her and vessels of that date. The witness, in fact, tried to excuse the transaction by saying that at the time the Admiralty agreed to purchase the "Cobra" they had had no experience of any vessel of her dimensions that had to carry so much weight. He did not think that that was quite accurate, for they would all remember that the "Viper" was a vessel of similar speed, but, of course, very much stronger. Therefore it was hardly fair to say that the Admiralty had had no experience. Even supposing, however, they had had no experience, would not that be all the more reason for them to exercise the greatest care in taking over a vessel that might be deemed to be a new departure? Mr. William Pine, another Admiralty official, and an assistant constructor, also gave evidence before the Court of Inquiry at Portsmouth, and he likewise made some damaging admissions. He stated that the duty was delegated to him to survey the "Cobra" before the Admiralty entered into this contract. Apparently his survey was of a very happy-go-lucky kind. He said that he had surveyed the "Viper" when she was built, and consequently he was thoroughly acquainted with her in every detail, and when he surveyed the "Cobra," he took the "Viper" as his standard. Then he admitted that
  "In making his suggestions with regard to the alterations to the 'Cobra, ' he did not suggest that she should be brought up to the Viper's' standard. "
  Thus they had Mr. Watts saying that he had taken a certain standard which he did not work up to, and the Assistant Constructor to the Admiralty also admitting that he took the "Viper" for his standard, but did not work up to it. Under these circumstances he failed to see what the word "standard" meant. An important Admiralty official went

  919
  down to survey a vessel which was known to the Admiralty to be weak, and having made up his mind that he would work up to a certain standard, he practically disregarded that standard altogether, with a result with which the House was painfully familiar. Mr. Pine further stated that he made out a list of recommendations, which, in his evidence, he referred to as Schedule A. He said, further, that there was another list made out, which he referred to as Schedule B, and which contained a much more comprehensive list of requirements than Schedule A. Both those lists were sent to the contractors, and they were invited to make their proposals in regard to them.
  What was finally done to the "Cobra"? Mr. Watts admitted that, although this vessel was known to the Admiralty to be longitudinally weak, the hull was not strengthened, but that the additions made were chiefly to strengthen the upper deck. Mr. Perritt, the head of the Naval Designing Staff at Elswick, was called in and was asked what was done; and he pointed out that though this vessel was longitudinally weak, all that was done was that a couple of angle-bars were introduced between the keel and the upper deck. No other alterations were made in consequence of the letter. Attention was called to the fact that the scantlings were very weak, and he said that he was prepared to accept these scantlings for a length of 235 feet, provided he were allowed to increase the depth of the vessel to 16½ feet, which would give 50 per cent. greater strength than they had in the "Cobra. "That was an admission that these scantlings were not strong enough. He thought that they ought to have some information from the Admiralty as to how it was that, when the original negotiations were entered into, and when this ship was found to be too weak and defective, they took her away from the builder without having the hull strengthened, as their own competent advisers suggested should be done. He admitted that his charges were rather strong, but the verdict of the Naval Court Martial held on board the "Victory" was that they found that the loss was
  "Due to structural weakness of the ship; that the Cobra ' was weaker than other de-
  920
  stroyers; and in view of that fact, it is to be regretted she was purchased into His Majesty's service. "
  That was a very strong condemnation; he did not know that a stronger could have been given. The reason he had raised this question that day was that we were on the verge of paying a tremendous national penalty for this great neglect of the Admiralty. The Secretary to the Admiralty made a most momentous statement on Friday, the importance of which he thought had hardly been realised.
  Now, what was going to be the result of the new policy of the Admiralty? Talking about the new torpedo boats and of what the Admiralty were going to do in the future, the hon. Gentleman said—
  "We have taken a measure which I think is a reasonable one. We have decided to make use of the comparatively less excellent boats for peace exercise, and to keep our new boats in reserve so as to save them from the changes and chances which appear to overtake so many of these boats during peace exercises. "
  All this arose from the loss of the "Cobra"! These boats were not to be used, not to have their qualities tested until the fateful day of national emergency! And if the "Cobra" had been placed under this rule she would have been put into the reserve and would not have been tried. The new destroyers would cost a lot of money, and, as we were now informed they were not to be used, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would insist on their being sent round the country on land to show them, so as to obtain some exhibition money to pay for their keep. He could not imagine anything more opposed to the interests of the country than that these new destroyers were, in peace time, to be put on the shelf only to be brought down when war time arose. There was a feeling of great anxiety throughout the country. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted on Friday night that he was aware of that, and that he welcomed it, because, he said, he was sure it would beget criticism. Well, he had not hesitated in bringing this matter forward, because, in many respects, the public memory was very short, and there had been great neglect on the part of the Board of Admiralty; and he thought it

  921
  would be most injurious to our interests if, because of those catastrophies to the "Cobra" and the "Viper," the Admiralty reverted, in the case of new destroyers, to a much slower speed. The effect would be that we should be out-distanced by foreign Powers, because they could build or buy in this country torpedo boat destroyers which would go, as many already had done, from the Thames to Japan, at a speed of from 30 to 33 knots per hour. If that was possible, why should we reduce the speed of our boats? Simply because of the neglect, of the Admiralty in taking over a class of destroyers which were structurally deficient. The country ought to protest against being landed in that position. We were entitled to obtain for our destroyers the same structural safety and the same speed as those built by or for other nations. It had been proved that it was possible to produce them in this country, with sufficient strength to meet any seas; and they ought to be reassured by the hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty had not come to the fixed determination to pursue the policy of reducing the speed of the new destroyers, and, above all, that these were not to be put aside into the reserve until required for war service. These boats ought to be always in use, so that the men should have confidence in them when they came to be employed in active warfare. He might say that there was the greatest uneasiness in the Navy as to the safety of those boats. [Cries from Ministerial Benches of "No, No. "] He thought he had as much opportunity as hon. Gentlemen opposite of ascertaining the feelings of seamen in regard to those boats. He did not suggest that the seamen were nervous, but when our seamen saw that these boats failed, time after time, they had not that confidence in them which they ought to have. We had lost, in the course of the last eight months, four ships and destroyers—the "Viper, "the "Cobra," the "Sybil, '' and the "Condor. "Those disasters followed on the miscalculations in relation to the royal yacht, regarding which his hon. friend had been actually accused of disloyalty in raising the question. There had been a great deal of concealment in regard to the facts connected with the royal yacht; although they all
  922
  knew that Sir William White, although technically, was not actually responsible for that disaster. But as to the "Cobra, "the House should have full information. He had no desire to create any bad feeling against the Admiralty, but he thought that this was a matter that should be ventilated in the House; and he hoped that the hon Gentleman would give such information as would reassure the House and the country in regard to it.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he wished to express his satisfaction with the reference made by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the good work done by the great contractors for the Navy, and he could himself bear witness to the conscientious and patriotic spirit in which these contractors had done their work. He should like to refer to one other point, and that was how very desirable it was that the work given out by the Admiralty should be evenly distributed throughout the year. He did not think he need enlarge on how very undesirable it was that there should be an alternation of overtime and slacktime. Undoubtedly, during the course of the year, there had been considerable apprehension and some distress felt at the very late period at which the tenders for new ships had been got out. He knew that this matter had been brought before his hon. friend, and that he had been able to find some temporary expedient whereby the mischief of that situation was, at any rate in some part, alleviated. But he hoped that in the future the hon. Gentleman would take such steps as would prevent a period of spasmodic overtime followed by a period of slackness.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought that the House would agree that his hon. friend the Member for Devonport had been thoroughly well justified in bringing before the House the strong statements he had made in his speech. It was one of the most valuable speeches which had been delivered in the House for some time. He only proposed now to make such few observations as had been suggested by a, comparatively slight study of the Estimates and the accompanying statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. First of all, he would like

  923
  to refer to an incident which took place in this House on the last occasion on which the Naval Works Bill was discussed. That Bill was brought in in the closing days of last session, although they had been calling for it for some time before. That Bill contained, to their astonishment, new proposals of great magnitude, and his hon. friend the Member for West Islington moved an Amendment, proposing to limit the Bill to the old works—an Amendment which he had supported. The Secretary to the Admiralty did not reply to him on that occasion, because the hon. Gentleman understood that he was only speaking on his own personal behalf, and did not represent his colleagues in the matter. The incident occured in his absence, and as a matter of personal explanation, he wished to say that the impression of the hon. Gentleman was incorrect, and that no one could have any authority for making such a statement. In the course he had taken, he had acted after consultation with his noble friend under whom he had served at the Admiralty. He thought it only due to himself to make that explanation. He wished to direct attention to the fact that the Naval Works Vote was still very large, notwithstanding the great amount that was being spent under the Naval Works Acts. The Naval Works Vote proper amounted to £1, 100, 000. A considerable proportion of that sum consisted of repayments under the Naval Works Acts, and if any explanation of it were to be given at that stage of the proceeding, which he did not press for, he assumed the House would be told something also of the state of affairs at Wei-Hai-Wei, for which money still continued to be taken. He should like to associate himself, and he was sure he could speak for his colleagues also, with what the hon. Gentleman said about Sir William White. He was in close personal communication with Sir William White during his tenure at the Admiralty, and he fully concurred with all that had been said in his praise, and he was extremely glad that there was, in the Estimates, a special grant of £5, 000 for him. He should have very great pleasure in supporting that grant. He did not know anything about Sir William White's successor, but he had no doubt that the Admiralty had made a good
  924
  appointment. He would suggest, however, that the emoluments of that most responsible official were not quite equal to his responsibility. He thought it would be an advantage if a change were made in connection with the office. The pension and the emoluments ought to be enlarged. He further thought that when a vacancy occurred in the office the Admiralty ought not to be compelled to search the engineering works of the kingdom for a successor. There ought to be a second in command at the Admiralty who would be capable at any moment of taking the chief place, should it become vacant.
  He proceeded to more disputable ground. He once again called the attention of the House and the country to the enormous figures in the Estimates. The net Vote was £31, 255, 000, and to that amount should be added at least £2, 000, 000 for expenditure under the Naval Works Acts, and they might also reckon on Supplementary Votes for a considerable amount. The result was that practically the House was called on to provide for naval expenditure a sum which he would put at no less than 33½ millions altogether. There was one thing which he regarded with perhaps illegitimate satisfaction, and that was, that the Vote for new construction showed only a small increase—a few thousand pounds over last year. The present Vote for £9, 058, 000 might be regarded as practically stationary, though he did not know whether he could hope that that was the culminating amount. He did riot grudge any expenditure that might be necessary, but he did grudge unnecessary expenditure, and it would be a satisfaction to him if he could find that the Admiralty had reached the summit in the matter of expenditure. The total of Vote 8, including new construction, showed an increase of half a million, and was now £15, 140, 000 or thereabouts. At present, the Shipbuilding Vote stood in relation to the total estimates as 1 to 3, but even if the Shipbuilding Vote were to remain unincreased, there would necessarily be other automatic increases which would bring the Naval Estimates to a far higher figure than at present. There was an increase in practically only one Vote—that for men. About 4, 000 men had

  925
  been added to the Navy, but that was purely an automatic increase following the increase in the number of ships. Other Votes would increase as well. The non-effective services would call for more and more money, and even if the Shipbuilding Vote were not increased by a penny they would be face to face with Navy Estimates exceeding £40, 000, 000. When there was a large increase last year he asked for an explanation of it. He did not venture to challenge the increase last year, and did not challenge the present increase. That explanation was not, however, given last year by the Secretary to the Admiralty, except in the vaguest sort of way by a comparison with foreign Navies. He was not going into that comparison now. The necessary information for making it was not in the hands of hon. Members, but a Return published on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean contained a great deal of information which might interest hon. Members on that point.
  Take one bare fact. Nine years ago our naval expenditure was £14, 000, 000, and the naval expenditure of France and Russia combined—the two Powers against whom the standard was aimed — was £16, 000, 000. What was the case last year? Our expenditure was £33, 000, 000, whereas the expenditure of France, Russia, Germany, and Italy combined—the four greatest European Naval Powers—was only £4, 000, 000 more. Last year, therefore, our naval expenditure was nearly equal to that of four first-class Powers. Take another point. Last year the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that a third of the battleships on the ocean belonged to Great Britain. He had worked out a calculation of the new ships, and he found that practically the same proportion obtained in regard to them. He would not pursue the comparison further, but he wished for information on one point. He had often asked whether any comparison could be made between the active service lists of the British Navy and the active service lists of foreign Navies. He had obtained figures on the subject six or seven years ago, but they had since been challenged by a gentleman who wrote with great authority, and who produced figures showing a much larger number on the
  926
  active service lists of foreign Navies. He called attention to the matter now, because the language used by that gentleman implied that he had received his information from the Admiralty, who had refused to give the information to the House. He could hardly believe that information would have been given to an outsider which had been ref used to the House, and he might be wrong in his assumption that the Admiralty authorities were responsible for it, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would make the point clear, and let the House know whether the Admiralty had any information as to the comparative standards of the active service lists of the various fleets of the world. If that were done it would be a valuable addition to their knowledge of the subject. He frankly admitted that even if he had a stronger objection to the present proposals of the Government than he could pretend to have, he could not regard the present as suitable for pressing for a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the war in South Africa, and he spoke about 250, 000 men being locked up in that country, and lie said that without a strong Navy they could not have been taken there, nor could they be brought back. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to the expenditure of other nations. He entirely concurred. The fact was that they had been pursuing, for some time, an international policy which had estranged and embittered the other nations of the world; and in face of that he should be sorry to press for a reconsideration of the proposals of the Government. But he thought they were entitled to urge that if the present proposals were accepted, they ought not to be regarded as normal. When the war was over, which he trusted would be soon, and when they resumed their normal condition, internationally and otherwise, the time would come for a revision of the whole of their present naval policy and a determination of the standard which ought to be their normal standard.
  Before passing from the subject of naval expenditure, there was one point to which he desired to refer. He thought the hon. Member for West Islington had done a great service to the country and the House in raising the question

  927
  who ought to bear the burden of this enormous expenditure, and who bore it. The whole Empire, the self-governing Colonies included, was served by the British Navy just as much as the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom alone, practically alone, bore the whole of the expenditure; the Australasian contribution was almost infinitesimal. The Cape alone, voluntarily, of its own accord, offered a small contribution, but that example was not followed, and he thought the people of this country ought to know— and he was sure they did not know—that it was they who provided for the naval defence of all parts of the Empire; including the Australasian Colonies. The people of the United Kingdom paid £3 per family per year in order to give the service of the Navy to people who were as rich or richer than they were themselves. Upon one occasion, when this question was raised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this thing could not go on, but his colleagues in the Government did not appear to agree with him, for the First Lord the other day had treated as an insult the proposition that the self-governing Colonies should share the expenditure made on their behalf as well as ours. That was a view with which he did not agree. How the question was to be raised he did not know. He did not desire to see the Colonies taxed, but he certainly thought that both the Colonies and our own people should know that what we were doing now we were doing at our own cost, and the benefit accruing was as much theirs as ours. He hoped before the debate closed some information would be given to the House with regard to the Australian Agreement, which it was understood was about to expire, and with regard to which they had been told during the last two sessions that the matter was in a state of transition.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.)was understood to say that the Agreement was still in force. One part of the Agreement had expired, and that related to the annual contribution to the capital fund for the Navy. The Australian contribution for the up-keep of the ships on the Australian station was still continued.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he certainly understood that the Agreement had come to an end or that it would come to an end. He only referred to the matter because he saw by a reference to the newspapers that Mr. Barton, the Prime Minister of the Federal Parliament of Australia, had been making statements upon the subject which had reference not to the Australian flotilla, as it used to be called by a certain section, but to a certain bargain with regard to the Australian squadron. What Mr. Barton meant probably the hon. Gentleman did not know any more than anyone else, but he only referred to the matter in order that it might be brought to the hon. Gentleman's mind.
  He had read rather carefully the document presented to the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty, which was a new departure in the proceedings of the Admiralty in this matter. He did not know why some parts of that document had been printed at all; he had read some of them with surprise and nearly all with disappointment. On page 9 of the Statement the First Lord spoke in vague and misty general terms of the distribution of the fleet. He said—
  "The distribution of the commissioned fleet among the stations of the globe is a product time, "
  and so he proceeded in that general way.
  "The origin of the present principle of distribution was in a period when wind, not steam, was the motive power, "
  and then he went on to say—
  "With the change brought about by steam and the electric telegraph, the actual distribution has gradually changed, and adaptibility to the needs of the time and not finality was the spirit in which the question must be viewed. "
  And there the noble Lord had stopped. He naturally supposed the noble Lord was going on to deal with the new principle. If he were not, what was the use of uttering these truisms? When this question was before the House of Commons in the previous summer upon a discussion initiated by an hon. Member below the gangway, who was supported by the Navy League in the principles he asserted, the heresies of the Navy League on the subject of distribution were pulverised by the debate which took place, but one operation of these crude and misty references

  929
  of the First Lord might suggest the adoption of those Navy League principles in this matter. Distribution was a question which only the Admiralty in common with other Departments could decide. They only could decide at any moment what the distribution of the Fleet should be, and he should be very sorry to see that control of the distribution of the Fleet taken from them.
  There was another passage which he was afraid would excite some feeling when it came to be read, as it would be, by the officers of the Fleet. The paragraph to which he referred was on page 1, and dealt with promotion. Again the First Lord commenced with vague and general observations, the meaning of which he failed to grasp, and then proceeded—
  "The sole responsibility for promotions rests with the First Lord, who, however, in the performance of the difficult and invidious, but most necessary, task of selection, is accustomed to consult his naval colleagues. "
  Of course. Then the statement proceeded—
  "I mention this because the average age of captains on promotion to the rank of rear-admiral has considerably increased of late years, and I consider that the absence from the flag list of a due proportion of younger officers is a matter of serious moment, and because I recognise that I am specially responsible for devising a remedy for the future. "
  One would naturally expect the First Lord to go on and say what the remedy was, and how it was to be worked out, but he did nothing of the kind. If it was left to the hon. Gentleman opposite to give the explanation, nobody was more competent to give it; but on this question of promotion grave dissatisfaction existed in a very important branch of the Navy. The navigating officers, or navigators as they were called, thought that they did not get promotion in accordance with their merits. In the four years from 1896–1899 inclusive, out of sixty-five captains appointed only six had been navigating officers, which was only ten per cent., and these officers did not regard that as being a sufficient recognition of the legitimate claims of the navigating officers themselves or their service to the Navy. He would be glad to know whether the hon. Gentleman admitted that there was anything approaching a grievance on the part of
  930
  these men, and, if there should be, whether it had been called to the attention of the Admiralty. The promotion of officers in the Navy was not so difficult a matter as the promotion of officers in the Army. He hoped the Navy would always be snore free from the money influence that was so bad in the Army. There were money barriers in the way of promotion in the Army which he hoped there would not be in the Navy. All such harriers ought to ire removed; they ought not to be tolerated. Every officer who joined the service should be adequately paid, and no one should be allowed to perform national service at his own expense.
  He was, unfortunately, not present on Friday, and therefore was unaware whether anything had been said with regard to the new proposals put forward in the statement of the First Lord, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a more intelligible explanation with regard to the new proposals than he at least had been able to gather from the statement of the First Lord.
  There was only one further point on which he would touch, and that was with regard to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. If it were possible, desirable, and safe, the House would probably be interested in having from the Government a statement as to the value they attributed to that Agreement from a naval point of view. There was no doubt that Japan had made enormous strides as a Naval Power. Last year she had three new battleships on the stocks, one of winch was a vessel of over 14, 000 tons, and he should imagine that the Japanese Navy was in a condition to make the alliance worth something from a naval point of view. He was inclined to think that in this unprecedented alliance with a Power like Japan we had an accession of strength, and that, but for the Agreement, larger proposals in the way of new construction would have been put forward. He would say nothing about the possible loss of alliance with Italy, or about the set off of the one alliance against the other, but perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would say whether this addition to our naval resources had counted for anything in the programme now submitted to the House.

  931
  If the answer was in, the affirmative, he should be inclined to think the Admiralty had acted wisely, and, whatever might be said of the alliance from other points of view, he agreed that so far as that of the Navy was concerned, it was an addition to the resources of the country.
  MR. YERBURGHdesired to join in the congratulations to the Secretary to the Admiralty on the speech with which he had introduced the Estimates, and expressed the belief that everybody was delighted that the hon. Member's services were at last at the disposal of the Government. It was a happy omen for the future that on Friday night important Members, representing to some extent the Liberal Party, should have declared that the day might come when even more money than was at present being spent would have to be voted for the Navy. He would not follow in detail the hon. Member for Devonport in the matter of the "Cobra," as that question would doubtless be fully dealt with later on, but he would remind the hon. Member that whatever loss there may have been, the country was the gainer by seeing, from the noble courage displayed by the commander of that unhappy vessel, that the British officer of the present day was true to the traditions of the past. With regard to the destroyers, he was astonished to hear the hon. Member declare that officers regarded their appointment to the command of those vessels with feelings of considerable apprehension. During last summer he met various officers commanding torpedo boats, and so far from there being any feeling of apprehension, these officers had every confidence in the boats they commanded, and there was a general concurrence of opinion that the best thing that could happen to a young officer was to be appointed to the command of one of these torpedo destroyers. That was the view of practical experience which might be set against the theory advanced by the hon. Member The hon. Member for Dundee appeared to agree practically with the views set forth in the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington. Various figures were thrown at the House by the mover of that Amendment. He was not able to follow them,
  932
  but, if he had been so able, he should have agreed with those who said that figures could be made to prove anything. Broadly speaking, the expenditure on the Navy for the present year represented, in the way of insurance, about 2½ per cent. on the whole of the sea-borne commerce of the Empire, or 3½ per cent. on the total sea - borne commerce of the United Kingdom. He had looked up the records of expenditure during the last great naval war, and he found that in 1800, in comparison with our then trade, we were paying about 18 per cent., and in 1814, 28 per cent., which percentages in the present day would be represented by something like £157, 000, 000 and £240, 000, 000 respectively. Everybody agreed that the great lesson to be taken to heart from the South African War was that this Empire depended on its sea power. Even the hon. Member for West Islington admitted that we must have the two-Power standard. But there were other risks than those concerned with commerce against which we had to insure. A war, even if successful, would throw an enormous burden on the country. The Franco-Prussian War was estimated to have cost the two countries engaged £500, 000, 000. It had also to be borne in mind that in a contest for the mastery of the sea with two great naval Powers, even if successful, we should be deprived of a very large portion of our Fleet. But the question had also to be looked at from the point of view of insurance against an unsuccessful war. That was an issue no one cared to contemplate, but if the views of the hon. Member for West Islington prevailed, such a prospect might be opened up. This expenditure was an insurance of our commerce and of our Empire against war of every kind; even against an unsuccessful war; and looked at in that light, it could not be said we were spending too much on the Navy. If it were alleged that too much was being spent on the Army, common ground might possibly be found, but, so far from that being the case with the Navy, he was of opinion that not enough was being spent. He fully agreed as to the necessity for the most careful supervision of every item of expenditure; that was sound doctrine to which exception could not be taken.

  933
  The House had been told, in effect, that the Navy now reached the two-Powers standard. That standard had been abandoned by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but, even taking that standard, would the Navy, at the present time, if engaged in a war with, say, France and Russia, be up to it? Numerical equality was not sufficient, we must have a superiority in numbers. According to the Report of the Admirals on the Naval Manoeuvres of 1888, to maintain an effective blockade it was necessary for the blockading ships to be to the ships to be blocked in the proportion of five to three. If our Navy had such a duty to perform, would they be strong enough for it? Further, on the principles laid down in that Report, had we enough responsible officers for the destroyers if such a crisis arose? Those were plain questions. He had perfect confidence in the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates, and would accept Ids reply as accurately representing the situation, but after careful study, he had come to the conclusion that of late years we had not reached the two-Powers standard. That standard had never been arrived at. Therefore he did not hesitate to say that until we had arrived at that standard, we were not spending the amount of money on the Navy which we ought to spend.
  Another consideration which he would put before the House was, that, under the new conditions of naval warfare, we could not afford to capture the enemy's vessels, and use them in our own Fleet; neither could we improvise battleships. We would find that, in the next great naval war, we would have to rely upon the ships in our hands at the time we engaged in war. It should also be borne in mind that in nearly all our great naval battles we had had superior numbers on our side. There had been, he was aware, notable exceptions, when we had had some great heaven-born genius to command our Fleet, and that had, in such cases, been sufficient to neutralise the superior numbers on the other side. In considering what was the proper standard, the House must remember that up to the present, England had always had superior numbers, and we must get rid of the
  934
  notion, once for all, that one Englishman was as good as three foreigners. The extraordinary advance made by Germany in shipbuilding had to be considered. The fact that men of light and leading-in naval administration in Germany regarded as quite within the bounds of possibility, in the distant future, a contest for the commercial supremacy of the world, had to be taken into account, and we must dismiss from our minds the somewhat worn-out doctrine that the two-Powers standard was enough. We could not, in the interests of national safety, leave out of consideration the fact that Germany was building a magnificent Fleet, and her officers and men were undergoing the severest possible training. The time might come, therefore, when Germany might be able to challenge this country's. supremacy of the sea. In those respects he ventured to say that the programme of the Government fell lamentably short of what was expected. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty breathed a spirit of reform, and showed that we were marching with the times. Criticisms had been made against the doctrines of the Navy League, but he thought the League could claim credit in one direction at least. What the League urged last year was that the Mediterranean Fleet, upon which the safety of the Empire so largely depended, was not strong enough in battleships, cruisers, and destroyers. What were we told in the First Lord's statement? We were told that the Mediterranean Fleet was to be strengthened. Therefore, so far from the Navy League being convicted of heresy, he thought subsequent events had shown that they were absolutely right.
  With regard to promotion to flag rank —looking forward to the enormous responsibilities which would in the future be placed upon those in command of ships, and looking at the hazards of war under present-day conditions — he thought the House would agree with him that we must have younger men, whose nerve had never been shaken, for we ought to have men in the prime of life to command our battleships. He was glad to see that the question of victualling had been referred to in his

  935
  hon. friend's statement. This was a grievance which had been keenly felt by the men, and it was satisfactory to everybody to know that the hours had been altered, and that they would not, in future, have to go from four in the afternoon to six next morning without something to eat. All those were very necessary reforms, but he wished to know from the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be possible to institute those changes earlier, for by doing this, he would be granting something which every well-wisher of the Navy would like to see. With reference to the appointment of Admiral Fisher, everybody who was acquainted with the career of that officer and who knew his great services during his command of the Mediterranean Fleet, which he improved to a marvellous state of efficiency —everybody who knew his earnestness, and thoroughness, and his devotion to his profession, would feel delighted to hear that that distinguished Admiral was coming straight from the Navy to take part in the administration of the Admiralty.
  MR. CAINE (Cornwall, Camborne)said he did not desire to pose as an expert upon guns and ships, but he took it for granted that our naval architects were as good as any others in the world, and that a ship built in one particular year by this country was as good as another similar ship built in the same year by any other Power. He would take France and Russia, the two likeliest Powers to find themselves operating together in case of a European war. A comparison of the naval forces of Britain with the combined fleets of France and Russia gave the following figures—

  Nation.

  Number.

  Tonnage Total

  Tonnage Average

  Battleships—Britain

  68

  798, 000

  11, 600

  France

  35

  330, 000

  9, 400

  Russia

  22

  236, 000

  10, 700

  Total, France and Russia combined

  57

  566, 000

  10, 000

  That showed that Britain had a margin of eleven battleships over and above the combined fleets of France and Russia. He thought those figures ought to be sufficient to dispel the statement made by the hon. Member for Chester and
  936
  other hon. Members that Britain was not up to the two-Powers standard. When he came to deal with cruisers, the overwhelming power of Britain was visible at a glance. The figures were—

  Number.

  Tonnage

  Tonnage

  Total

  Average.

  Britain

  161

  800, 000

  5, 000

  France and Russia combined

  99

  500, 000

  5, 000

  These figures showed a surplus to Britain over both Powers combined of 232, 000 tons of battleships and 300, 000 tons of cruisers. He called that a very respectable advantage, and taking into account the superiority of their ships and their naval strength in other ways he thought Britain was nearer to a three-Powers standard than two. They found the same supremacy as to the personnel of the Navy. Our men had long service—25 years—and in five or six years of that time they might become expert fighters. They could handle a cutlass with anybody and they were handy men for all kinds of duty. As fighting men they were equal to any the world could produce. They were greatly superior to those of the French, Russian, German, or any other Fleet, except, perhaps, the American. Roughly speaking, we had 110, 000 men, France and Russia combined only 70, 000, so that both in point of quality and numbers we were very much better than these two Fleets. There were many other ways of estimating the two and the three - standard Power. For instance, Mr. J. Holt Schooling, who was acknowledged to be a competent statistician, had prepared some careful tables, and, whatever might be thought of his conclusions, they might rely upon his figures and draw their own conclusions. Mr. Schooling took the figures of fighting tonnage given in Government Returns, and discounted them according to the age of the men-of war. His estimate was—
  The 1895–1899 ships were worth 100 per cent.
  The 1890–1894 ships were worth 80 per cent.
  The 1885–1899 ships were worth 60 per cent.
  The 1802–1884 ships were worth 40 per cent.
  Before 1880 ships were worth 20 per cent.
  If they took these figures and applied that percentage to France and Russia our supremacy was brought out in a stronger manner than in the statement just quoted. Taking the Admiralty

  937
  returns for 1900 the hon. Member found the following statistics—

  Percentage of Total

  Tons.

  tonnage.

  Great Britain

  821, 605

  39·4

  France

  339, 599

  16·3

  Russia

  262, 912

  12·6

  Italy

  193, 004

  9·3

  Germany

  191, 259

  9·2

  United States

  184, 144

  8·8

  Japan

  92, 420

  4·4

  After the tonnage had been depreciated on account of the age of the ships the figures were—

  Percentage of Total

  Tons.

  Tonnage.

  Great Britain

  604, 141

  38·3

  France

  220, 635

  14·0

  Russia

  221, 988

  14·1

  Italy

  112, 899

  7·1

  Germany

  152, 929

  9·7

  United States

  176, 708

  11·2

  Japan

  88, 088

  5·6

  On the basis of these figures we had not only a double-standard but a treble standard power. Our Fleet had a fighting strength equal to that of any three nations that could combine against us. He was very glad that it was so, but on the other side hon. Members sometimes spoke as if they had a monopoly of patriotism. Hon. Members k on the Opposition side were just as desirous of maintaining the Fleet at full strength, in order that it might be ready to take the seas against any combination that could be brought against us. Board of Admiralty after Board of Admiralty for the last twenty years had kept up the wholesome principle of maintaining our Fleet at a point of undoubted supremacy, and he should feel inclined to support any vote of confidence which could by any possibility be brought. He wished to say a word in regard to the percentage in the cruiser class of ships, which he thought were of greater importance age in the cruiser class of ships, which even than the battleships. After the tonnage had been depreciated on account of the age of ships the figures were—

  Percentage of Total

  Tons.

  Tonnage.

  Great Britain

  650, 799

  46·5

  France

  255, 351

  18·3

  Russia

  111, 063

  7½9

  United States

  120, 379

  8·6

  Japan

  103, 141

  7·4

  Germany

  81, 626

  5·8

  Italy

  76, 958

  5·5

  Our cruisers, therefore, and that of our new ally, Japan, were stronger than
  938
  the Fleets of all those other nations. To assume a pessimist view of the Navy was a very great mistake. If the actual tons of fighting weight were taken we still came out supreme. The statistics were as follow—

  Tons of Fighting Weight, 00 omitted,

  Taking the Navy of Japan as the Unit of Strength, the Degrees of Strength are:

  Great Britain

  1, 347

  6·38

  France

  543

  2·57

  Russia

  397

  1·88

  United States

  349

  1·65

  Germany

  282

  1·34

  Italy

  218

  1·03

  Japan

  211

  1·00

  It would be seen from a mere casual examination that we might possess our souls in patience and confidence. It was clear that Great Britain possessed 100 tons fighting weight to every 70 tons of France, Russia, and Germany combined.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was impossible for him to reply to the many points of great interest which had been raised in the course of the debate until the Speaker left the Chair. He suggested that the Vote might now be taken.
  THE EARL OF DALKEITHsaid that although many questions had been raised in relation to the Navy, solutions had not been put before them. He thought they were entitled to rather more information than the Secretary to the Admiralty had given in regard to some of the points raised in previous speeches. He should like to impress on his hon. friend what had already been alluded to, namely, the necessity of giving extra assistance to the Lords of the Admiralty. The First Lord in his statement referred very strongly to the danger of centralisation, and gave some information as to how lie proposed to carry out decentralisation. They would like to know whether it was intended to impose more responsibility on the commanders, and also on those in charge of foreign stations. They wished to know further whether it was intended to increase in any way the Naval Staff of the Admiralty. The Intelligence Department had also been criticised. He should not like to say whether it performed its duties efficiently or not, but certainly it had not a very large staff. It had often been

  939
  said that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty should have special assistance. He did not think that any one could say that the Intelligence Department was too large for the work it had to do. Referring to the Constructor's Department, the noble Earl expressed his agreement with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. The development of our Navy had proceeded so enormously, and the number of ships laid down was now so very much larger than before, that the question of salaries should be re-considered. It was more than one man could do to design such a large number of ships, and vet at present that was work for which the Chief Constructor was entirely responsible. He believed there was a certain amount of misapprehension in regard to the Engineering Department. There was no doubt that the boilers and the engines of the Navy had not been entirely satisfactory. That was shown very much in the statement, because, although a large number of boilers had been criticised, and some had been condemned, the First Lord was unable to name any particular boiler which he would recommend as solving the question of what ought to be introduced in future. Dealing with the dissatisfaction prevailing amongst the engineering class of the Navy he said that, without expressing an opinion one way or another on the merits of the complaints, it would be admitted that when so important a branch of the service showed signs of considerable dissatisfaction it might be taken as an indication that the conditions with respect to pay and duty were not such as they should be, or else that the responsible heads of the Admiralty had not properly considered the matters brought before them. He hoped the House would receive an assurance that the Admiralty would do what they could to meet the case of the engineers.
  As to the question of personnel, they might assume that the Admirals were too old for the work they had to perform and that it was desirable to have younger men. They were all glad to find that the First Lord intended to do everything he could to improve gunnery as much as possible. There was one way of securing greater efficiency in gunnery in the future than in
  940
  the past, and that was that the commanders and first lieutenants of ships which had the best gunnery record—rather than the best record for polishing brass—should be selected for promotion. The First Lord had said that in the education of young officers, proficiency in foreign languages required further encouragement. He would suggest that more satisfactory progress might be made in foreign languages if these young officers were relieved of certaim irksome and comparatively needless duties while their ships were in harbour. However excellent the personnel of the Navy might be, that would be of no use unless our ships were up to the mark. He was glad to see that several cruisers and battleships were to be rearmed with heavier guns. He did not know whether that policy was to be carried out in regard to the ships which had been laid down before the present Board took office. The new ship "Monmouthshire, "which was 400 tons larger than the sister ship of the same class, had two guns less, although he admitted that her guns were 7·5 inches instead of 6-inch guns in the latter. On the whole, he thought that the House had every reason to be satisfied with the Navy Estimates and the statements made in exposition of them; but he hoped that when they came to discuss the Estimates in detail the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to dispel some of the doubts which had arisen in regard to the policy of the Admiralty in the future.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he welcomed the intervention in the debate of the noble Earl who had just sat down; because he spoke from personal experience in the Navy. He only wished that there had been in the House some naval expert who had been accustomed to deal with modern ships and modern guns, and who could advise the House on many of these questions. He hoped that disadvantage would soon be remedied; and that some naval men, whether Liberal or Conservative—men, for instance, like Lord Charles Beresford or Captain Lambton—would be able to assist them in their deliberations in the House.

  941
  He congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty on the manner in which he had introduced the Estimates. He had noticed for many years his clever and able criticisms on naval affairs from below the gangway, and like many other Members he was glad to find that he was now in a position of responsibility. He was looking forward to some of the fruits of the hon. Gentleman's labours as dictated in his criticisms when below the gangway. He was sorry to say that as a rule, whenever an independent Member got on to the Treasury Bench and became responsible for the work of a Department, the Department, like a huge octopus, wound its arms around him, and practically crushed out his individual view. He trusted that the hon Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to assert himself and bring his views to bear on the Admiralty with effect. He had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. Although that right hon. Gentleman's criticisms were general, lie believed they were right in every respect. There was not a man on either side of the House who was not anxious to have a strong and powerful Navy, and so far as he had been able to gather the opinion of the locality which he represented —he spoke with regard to Tyneside, which was a great commercial shipbuilding part of the country—he was satisfied that no amount of money would be refused by the country to Government which showed that it was necessary in order to bring the Navy up to the requisite strength to protect the vast interests we had. When he considered the great increase of our territory, the vast increase of our commercial interests in various parts of the world, and, what was more important still, the large increase in the navies of other countries, he thought the country was quite aware that it was absolutely necessary that we should not spare any expense with regard to the Navy. He knew from experience that there had been a good deal of anxiety on this question. One point of anxiety was as to whether our ships were numerous enough and strong enough to keep off any combination likely to be brought against it. He was not an expert on this question, and was
  942
  quite prepared to leave it to those who had made a study of it and were well able to handle it. But there was another point on which great anxiety had been shown, and that was as to the efficiency of our ships. When they found that after the Royal yacht was launched it was unable to stand upright, it made one think there was something seriously wrong at the Admiralty. Then again, recently'the "Condor" had disappeared, and statements had been made by men who knew perfectly well what they were talking about; that our ships were not sufficiently stable to carry the great weight of guns that the Admiralty were putting upon them. Why had the "Condor" disappeared? They were unable to learn, and it gave some colour to the statements that our ships were not sufficiently stable, and that in case of a severe storm they would be found top-heavy and capsize. Another ship, the "Wasp, "had disappeared in the same way. In our commercial yards co-efficiency had been made greater, whereas in the dockyards co-efficiency had been made less.
  With regard to boilers, he did not pretend to be an expert, but he knew something of them as a very large boiler owner both on land and sea, and he confessed that he looked with a great deal of alarm on the present state of things when he found that the Committee appointed to go into the question of boilers stated in its Interim Report that the particular boiler adopted by the Admiralty—the Belleville boiler—was not suitable for our ships. And yet we had had a building programme for five years presented to the House, and the hon. Gentleman had not said a word as to w hat boiler was to be adopted for the new ships. The lion. Gentleman said that the Babcock and Wilcox boilers were to be tried; but were the Government going to continue putting in Belleville boilers which had been condemned by a Committee appointed by this House? He could not understand why they had had no Report from the Boilers Committee in order to help the House to form a right opin on upon this subject. He wished to know whether that Committee had reported, and if so, why had the Report not been laid upon the Table. Surely, when they were dealing with a, question involving the expenditure of

  943
  millions of pounds, the House had a right to every information upon the subject. Had the Government come to the conclusion that the Babcock and Wilcox boiler was suitable for our ships or not? He should like to have an answer to that point. Surely, if a certain boiler had been condemned, it was best when building new vessels to put in such boilers as we had tested and known for years to be suitable for the Navy. Commercial men were very much alive to their own interests, but had we seen any large development in our mercantile vessels of either the Belleville or the Babcock and Wilcox boiler? They did not see commercial gentlemen ordering for their vessels of great speed and size such boilers as these. What was the reason? Was it that the Admiralty alone were able to judge what a good boiler was? It was a very serious matter; and he was very anxious before they went any further into this large expenditure that they should have the Report of this Committee in order to give them some guidance upon this question.
  He was very glad to hear that the Admiralty were taking the advice of his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead, and were putting heavier guns upon their ships. That was a very good thing, provided their ships were capable of bearing the extra weight, but the House must not forget this fact—that those ships were not designed for heavier guns than they possessed at the present time, and he wished to know why heavier guns were not provided when the ships were built if it was considered safe to put them on board. He was afraid that heavier guns would be likely to make them top-heavy, and he asked the Admiralty to be very careful in putting this additional weight upon the ships. It was all very well to satisfy the demands of this House by putting on heavier guns, but he wished to be satisfied upon the point that the ships upon which they were putting those guns would be as capable of being properly managed in a rough sea as they would be with a less burden upon them. Those were questions which he should like the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer. The hon. Member opposite had stated that the only test for the Navy was a test of war, and
  944
  he hoped such a test would never take place. He differed from his hon. friend altogether upon that point. Tests in the Navy were common enough, for it was easy to test them in heavy seas to see whether they could fire their guns with some degree of accuracy, and whether the ships were adapted to the purpose for which they were intended. They could test ships pretty accurately without having a war. He knew that war opened their eyes upon many questions, but he repudiated the idea that vessels could not be thoroughly tested to see that they were capable of doing what was expected of them in a state of war. The statement made by the hon. Member for Devonport rather alarmed him when he said that it was not the intention to test these vessels. Surely that could not be correct, because such a course would not be adopted by any commercial firm. They must test their ships before they were actually required for warfare.
  Referring to Sir William White, he denied that in the remarks which he made last session about the Royal yacht he had intended any personal attack upon the late Chief Constructor. He did not then know who was responsible, and lie was glad to find that Sir William White was not personally responsible. He thought, however, it was unwise to put the whole responsibility for the designs of our ships on one pair of shoulders. This was not done in other countries, and surely we had enough shipbuilding capacity in this country to make up a board of supervision or inspection which would be useful to guide the Admiralty in coming to a decision. Had it come to this, that the safety-of this country and the stability of our vessels and our power to command the seas were to depend upon one man, and that man very poorly paid for a position of such responsibility? He knew something about commercial salaries, and, considering the vast responsibilities put upon their Chief Constructor of the Navy, it was a perfect scandal to pay him such a mean and contemptible sum as that which he received from the Government. A man who came to a position of this kind from some of our leading private shipyards should not be called upon to make such a great personal sacrifice.

  945
  Such treatment prevented the country getting the best men, for how could we expect a man to come to work for the Admiralty at less salary than he was getting in other large shipbuilding yards? He hoped that the present Chief Constructor would be paid a salary which was commensurate with his ability and responsibility.
  He was very glad to hear the Secretary to the Admiralty state that there was going to be some improvement with regard to the food of our sailors. As a matter of policy it seemed a very strange thing that at a time when we had such difficulty in getting competent sailors, and when other countries were giving large bounties to mercantile ships to train sailors for the Navy, that this country should be stinting British sailors in their food. He would have thought that that would have been the first thing the Admiralty would have looked after, and he was surprised that it was even considered necessary that they should have to go into that question. If we wanted men for, the Navy, we must not only pay them I well, hut we must also make the conditions of their life as comfortable as possible. He was very glad that the Government were now beginning to realise their responsibility in this matter. He also understood that something was going to be done for the mechanical engineers, and it was a very extraordinary thing that something had not been done before. Great changes had come over the methods of manipulating ships, and one was very much surprised to find that the mechanical engineer had not had more consideration. Unless our ships were well manned with engineers they would be practically useless, and he asked the Admiralty to consider this matter very carefully. He wished to know if the Government were going to do anything to make the position of mechanical engineers better on board ship. He thought they ought to take higher rank, and lie could not understand why mechanical engineers should have any lower rank than the gentlemen who sailed our ships. If these men were competent to do the work he would find no fault with them, but he thought it was wise to improve the position of the mechanical engineers in order to draw into their ranks capable workmen with
  946
  not only a practical but a scientific training. He was sure that if the Government did this it would be found to be greatly in the interests of the Navy. He repudiated in the strongest terms any suggestion that hon. Members sitting on those Benches were not as anxious to see a strong Navy as lion. Members sitting in any other part of the House, and lie was certain that whatever demands might be made by the Government for money, either to build ships or supply more men and guns which were considered to be necessary for the safety of this great Empire, the House would readily vote all that was asked for.
  MR. MACDONAdrew attention to the fact that the wants of the Navy with regard to men might be, to a large extent, supplied from the watermen and lighter-men working on the Thames. Many of these men were sailors, and used to navigating their barges across the Channel to Boulogne and other places, and, in his opinion, they ought to be utilised. In May last a large number of them gathered together and offered to volunteer to protect the Port of London if they were treated in the same manner as other men of their class in the other ports of the Kingdom, but strangely enough the Port of London had been excluded from the privileges conceded to other ports. These men were trained to this life and had been working on the river for generations past, and the knowledge they had acquired of every nook and cranny of the river was historical. It was only common sense that these men should be utilised, and the Government had the opportunity to use them. One of the disused men-of-war now lying at Portsmouth, anchored off London Bridge, and used as a training ship, and another one or two anchored lower down the river to serve as a home of rest for these men and for sailors coming home from abroad, would not only tend to make the Navy more popular, but tend to give it a good supply of the class of men it so badly needed.
  MR. POWERsaid that during the time he had been in the House he had seen all the Estimates rise

  947
  enormously, the Navy Estimates among the rest. It was not many years ago since the Navy adopted the standard of a fleet equal to that of two other Powers, but he noticed that they were not now satisfied with that standard, because according to the figures they were now trying to exceed the naval strength of any three Powers. Many hon. Gentlemen favoured the naval expenditure from a British point of view, but he could not look at it from a British point of view. No doubt from the British point of view it was necessary to vote this large expenditure, bemuse for the protection of the commerce of Great Britain it was necessary that she should remain master of the sea, but from the Irish point of view there was little force in that contention. It had been truly said that this expenditure was, to some extent, an insurance fee for the safe transit of goods, and he knew that the bulk of British trade was large, and that the money paid for the Navy only came to a small percentage on the amount of trade, hut, if the people were to be charged in these Navy Estimates, who derived the advantages given by the Navy? He failed to see why the Colonies should not be called upon to pay a share. Ireland had no trade to protect—England had taken good care that she should have none, because she killed the trade of Ireland by her laws, and her commerce by differential treaties. Ireland was called upon to pay largely in excess of the amount she ought to pay, and he thought in this matter she had been wrongly treated. But he rose principally to call attention to the way Ireland was treated in a matter that might be of small importance to this country, but of great importance to Ireland herself. Again and again he had pressed the Chief Secretary for Ireland to apply to the Admiralty for a few small gunboats to protect the Irish fisheries. The Admiralty had steadily refused to grant that request. They hid ships to send abroad, but none to protect the few industries left to Ireland. What had been done in the case of Scotland? The Scotch Fisheries Board had boats of their own, but in addition to those the Admiralty had placed three gunboats at their disposal to patrol the coast to endeavour to preserve the fisheries from the harm
  948
  the steam trawlers did. Twelve years ago a Bill was passed, which prevented steam trawlers coming to the coast of Scotland, and consequently the trawlers had now gone to Ireland. All sorts of promises had been made by various Chief Secretaries of Ireland upon this matter, but they had all been forgotten, and he now wanted to know what the Admiralty were going to do. They were asking no favour of the Admiralty; making no ad misericordiam appeal. They only asked in this matter to be treated like other parts of the Empire. As things stood, they had to pay too large a proportion of the Naval Vote, and in return got no benefit at all. The Admiralty was pledged in this matter, yet for the last 14 years they had left the coasts of Ireland without any protection whatever, with the net result that the fisheries, which were fairly prosperous in the past, were in a dreadful condition, whilst in many places rod fishing had been destroyed altogether. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory reply to his appeal.
  SIR FORTESCIJE FLANNERYthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates had no reason to complain of the manner in which the debate had been conducted, for, although one or two local matters had been introduced, the discussion had, in the main, been confined to the broad questions of Naval sufficiency. The hon. Member for Dundee—whose speeches were of some importance in these debates, as he was the only representative of the Naval administration of the last Government—had asked how far the alliance with Japan had affected the Naval programme for the present year. He ventured to say that any Government which allowed its programme to be reduced by a single ship or a single man because of an agreement extending over five years would be worthy of the severest blame. Whatever might be the reply of the Admiralty to those who had complained of the smallness of the present programme, he felt sure the Japanese treaty would have nothing to do with it. The hon. Member for Dundee had also repeated his colourless criticism of last year as to the sufficiency of the Estimates. He had

  949
  asked this year, as last, whether the Estimates were sufficient or excessive, and he had pointed this year, as last, to the remarkable growth of the Estimates as compared with ten years ago, but he had not ventured, nor did he last year, to allege that the Estimates were excessive.
  He desired in the most emphatic manner to associate himself with what had been said as to the clearness and lucidity with which the Secretary to the Admiralty had introduced the Estimates, and he believed that the same spirit of independent criticism and energy which the hon. Gentleman had previously displayed would continue to actuate him, notwithstanding the trammels of officialism to which he was now subjected. The Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty had been referred to in very uncomplimentary terms, but those criticisms, he believed, were of no importance whatever. In common with many other Members, he had read and studied that Statement most carefully, and found in it evidence of mastery of detail, of an earnest desire to understand the whole of the matters for which the noble Lord was responsible, and a clear indication that he was anxious for the advancement and improvement of every detail of the Navy under his care.
  The debate had been made remarkable by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman for East Fife and the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire. Those gentlemen had declared themselves in favour of a strong Navy. That apparently was the first declaration of the new Party, and the first writing on the clean slate. If ever there was justification of full debate in the House and of agitation outside, it was to be found in the present Estimates looked at in the light of the complaints made a year ago. No less than seven particular faults then found in regard to the Mediterranean Fleet had been remedied, or a promise given that they should be. There were to be distilling ships, hospital ships, repairing ships, training ships, depot ships, a torpedo base for destroyers, and no less than 24 destroyers added to the Mediterranean Fleet. In fact, substantially all the demands as regarded that Fleet, based on the highest authority, had been met or satisfaction promised.
  950
  The broad question with which the House had to deal in the present debate was whether sufficient naval preparation for safety was being made. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said that there were 49 ships put into the water during the current year, and then went on to say there were GO in the building, and 27 to be added under the Estimates now introduced, making altogether 87 ships that would be under construction in the coming financial year. That was a large sounding statement. If it went forth officially to the country that 87 ships were to be under construction, what possible chance could there be for the suggestion that sufficient naval preparations were not contemplated by the Government? But the 49 ships put into the water were again mentioned amongst the 87.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member was quite mistaken. He spoke of the ships that were completed or would be completed during the present financial year, and he spoke of them quite apart from the ships that would be under construction next year.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid that of course he accepted his hon. friend's correction, but he supposed he would not allege that those 49 ships were finished and that none of them would appear in the 87 ships.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI should have said ships that would be or have been completed.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid if that was so it was pleasing to find that the programme on that point was so much larger than would appear from the way the numbers were set forth in his hon. friend's speech. But there was yet another point. How many of those forty - nine and eighty-seven ships were ships of a large class, and how many were destroyers? He suggested that at least thirty-nine of the vessels named were destroyers, and, without in the least degree desiring to undervalue the importance of destroyers, he would point out that any statement, to be regarded as fairly setting forth the

  951
  details of naval preparations, should distinguish between vessels of large size and destroyers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member would find all the details in the First Lord's Statement.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he found them in the Statement, and also in the Navy Estimates, but when it was stated that so many vessels were under construction, the House, or those Members who did not read the Navy Estimates, should not be allowed to suppose that battleships and destroyers had the same value; and they should not be lumped together without any classification. There ought to be a distinction between battleships and destroyers in the enumeration. A battleship took four years to build; a destroyer could be built in a year, or even in nine or ten months. A battleship cost £1, 000, 000; a destroyer cost perhaps £80, 000. In time of emergency or stress a destroyer might be built, even after the outbreak of war, in time to be of use, but to do the same with a battleship was impossible. How many battleships in the present Navy Estimates had been added to the fleet? The First Lord's Statement said that it was not so much the date on which the ships were commenced, as the date on winch they were completed and ready for commission that was important. It was for that reason that he ventured to draw so broad a distinction between small vessels completed, and large vessels which would not be completed for three or four years. He complained of these Estimates as being insufficient, because they did not attempt to bring up the admitted leeway of new construction in past years. Lord Rosebery admitted that in 1897, 1898, and 1899 there had been very serious deficiencies in construction. He did not think he was exaggerating those deficiencies when he said that for those years they amounted to something like £4, 000, 000. It was not suggested that anything like that additional amount had been provided for new construction in the present Estimates. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his Statement, suggested that the difficulty of finding and training the best officers and men limited the rate at which new construction could proceed. The late First Lord of the
  952
  Admiralty limited new construction on the ground that it was physically impossible to push on faster with the ships, and the present First Lord now suggested that he could not get the men and officers for the ships, even if he built them faster. It seemed to him that there would be no difficulty in finding the most highly trained men and officers for the Navy if the ships were ready for them, and the suggestion that they should in any way reduce the speed of the construction of ships out of regard for the difficulties of training officers and men, was one which he thought would not commend itself to the House or to the country generally.
  He had analysed the rate at which ships had been added to the Navy during past years. According to his calculation, in the financial year which was just closing, five battleships, six cruisers, and thirty-seven smaller craft had been added to the Fleet, and it was estimated that five battleships, seven cruisers, six smaller craft, and ten destroyers, would be added to the fleet in the coming financial year. Reference had been made to Germany, and there had been an important debate upon naval affairs in the German Parliament. In Germany a great amount of excitement had arisen over the publication of a confidential document which disclosed a naval expansion which was never dreamt of in this country. That document disclosed that it was the intention of the German Government in future to supply to the German Navy two battleships and four cruisers each year up to the year 1910. Then they saw the United States adopting an entirely new policy as regarded the Mercantile Marine and the American Navy. It was a matter of very grave concern to this country that so many of our mercantile fleets were being bought up by United States capitalists. This was part and parcel of an entirely fresh policy which was being adopted by America, and which was increasing the importance of the American Navy. The whole position of matters had changed as compared with the time when the two-Power-standard was set up in regard to France and Germany, and still more in regard to Germany and the United States, and he ventured to say that the safety of the country was not sufficiently provided for, unless we extended the two-Power-standard and made it nearly, if

  953
  not quite, a three-Power-standard. His hon. friend seemed to half promise that something of this kind might be done in the Supplementary Estimate, and he hoped that the expressions of opinion which had come from both sides of the House would have the effect of pushing on those Supplementary Estimates, so that they might be brought before the House at an early date. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had made his declaration, and so had the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and it was perfectly evident that there was a large section of hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side of the House, whose profound conviction was that we must enlarge our naval preparations if this country was to be considered safe. There were many other subjects which had been touched upon in the debate, but there would be further opportunities of discussing them. There were the questions of scouts and destroyers, the final completion of vessels in the contractors' yards, the new system of designing ships by contractors instead of being designed at the Admiralty, and the lamentable retirement of Sir William White, and the appointment of his successor. There was the question of the new type of water-tube boiler which was being adopted, and also the important question of the engineers. All those matters were waiting to be dealt with, and he did not doubt that they would be dealt with thoroughly in Committee.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he could quite understand why English Members were anxious to increase the strength of the Navy and why they were anxious to have a larger amount of money spent upon building war vessels. In Ireland, however, they had not the same interests in such expenditure. The House was now asked to vote a sum of £30, 000, 000 for the Navy, and Ireland would be asked to contribute something like £3, 000, 000 to that sum. He wished to know what Ireland was going to get in return for that sum of money, for £3, 000, 000 was a large amount for a poor country like Ireland to contribute towards the Navy. They had a right to ask what Ireland would get in return in. the shape of protection to her commerce
  954
  or in satisfying the very moderate demands which had been made by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford. Every man who knew Irish history knew that Ireland possessed a good trade before its connection with England, but that trade had now been destroyed, and consequently the Navy was absolutely useless to Ireland. A demand was made last year by the Irish representatives, and that demand had been repeated this year, that the Admiralty should send in return for the money contributed by Ireland to the Navy two or three ships to protect the Irish fisheries along the sea coast. Last year they got a promise from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would use his influence in this direction with the Admiralty. Some vessels had been sent to the Scotch coast to protect the fisheries there from foreign trawlers, but in Ireland no vessels had been sent for this purpose. The only vessels which were protecting the fisheries were those sent, paid for and equipped by the Irish Board, and they were paid for out of Irish money. Therefore he could not see what advantage Naval expenditure could be to Ireland, for their trade and commerce was now absolutely non-existent. Canada and Australia, which had a large and ever increasing commerce all over the world, were protected by the British Navy, but they were never asked to contribute a penny towards the expenditure which was yearly laid out on the Navy. On the other hand, Ireland, a poor country, whose poverty was caused by the action of the British Government, was asked to contribute not alone an equal and fair share, but according to British experts enormously beyond what ought to be its share. The Irish people were told to consider the great advantage it was for a poor country to be linked with a rich a rid powerful country. They knew what the advantage was.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House only covers matters relative to the Navy Estimates.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he was simply reasoning as to what the advantage of the Estimates would be to Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is considering the financial relations between Ireland and England, which is not in order.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he would pass on to the next subject. A few days ago they discussed the treatment meted out to the chaplains in the Navy. He did not intend to go into that at present. The efficiency of the Navy considerably depended on the class of men they got to enter the Navy. When Irishmen knew the treatment they were to receive when they entered the Navy, and when they further knew that the moderate demands Irishmen made from these Benches were not listened to, he hoped that instead of spending their genius and energy in the Navy they would find some more honourable and patriotic employment.
  MR. DAVID MCIVERsaid he wished most strongly to urge the desirability of a close relationship and good feeling between the Royal Navy and the higher branches of the mercantile marine. He regarded as a worthy scheme what was sketched out in Lord Selborne's statement in regard to shipbuilding. In busy times it took three or four years to produce a war ship, though in times like the present it could probably done in a shorter period. He had seen a good deal on board ships both of officers and men, and he could state that whether we took the naval officers or the bluejackets there were no finer men in existence. He did not regard Lord Selborne's scheme as quite adequate in regard to the future policy for the training of officers and sailors. While other nations of the world believed in the usefulness of destroyers, he did not think it was our duty to build battleships and destroyers too. He looked with a great deal of doubt on the power of the Navy being able to accomplish all that was claimed for it. He doubted, for example, whether the ships of the Navy would be able to protect convoys laden with grain intended for home ports, for in his judgment our mercantile traders were better sea-going ships than those of the Navy. He did not think we were right in placing too much reliance on the Royal
  956
  Naval Reserve. He was far from saying that there should be no reliance placed upon it, but if the men were wanted we should find many of them at the other side of the world. It was a very good system, but we ought not to expect to get so much out of it as many people expected. He believed the naval volunteers would be of real value for the purposes of defence. He called attention to the fact that foreign nations, especially Germany, maintained a very close association between their Mercantile Marine and Navy. The German Government encouraged the building and the use of very fast vessels, and such vessels as the "Deutschland" were far more useful than torpedo-destroyers. This country ought to do more to encourage our great mail companies by placing them in the possession of as much revenue as similar companies in Germany enjoyed from their Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I would appeal to hon. Members to allow the discussion to close and to permit the Speaker to leave the Chair. The discussion began on Friday, when a division was taken upon what may be called the main principle of the Estimates, and it has been continued for several hours this evening. My hon. friend desires to reply to many of the criticisms which have been made, but he cannot do so until the opportunity is afforded in Committee on Vote A.
  MR. NANNETTIrose to continue the discussion, when
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put. "
  Question put, "That the Question be now put. "
  The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 95. (Division List No.43.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, George H.

  Morgan, David, J. (W'lthamstow

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Foster, PhilipS. Warwick, S. W.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(B'te

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Penn, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. O'msby-(Salop

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigwood, James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS. Edm'ds

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gretton, John

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Renwick, George

  Bull, William James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybri'ge

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward. H.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Russell, T. W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hornby, Sip William Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Chapman, Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Smith, JamesParker (Lanarks.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Spear, John Ward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Knowles, Lees

  Stock, James Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stroyan, john

  Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Tomlinson, W. Ed. Murray,

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Whitely, H. (Ashton-und. -Lyne

  Denny, Colonel

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Doughty, George

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfri'sshire

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Delany, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Bell, Richard

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dillon, John

  Blake, Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Caine, William Sproston

  Cullinan, J.

  Ferquson, R. C. Munroe (Leith)

  Caldwell, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Field, William

  958

  959

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Newnes, Sir George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

  Runciman, Walter

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Nolan, Joseph(Louth, South)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hon. C. R. (NHants

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

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, M.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, P.4. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Leyland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Levy, Maurice

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

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Walton, JohnLawson, Leeds, S

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke, (York, E. R.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  M'Govern, T.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

  Price, Robert John

  Mooney, John J.

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR TILE NOES—

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Reddy, M.

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Moulton, J. Fletcher

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Captain Donelan.

  (7.38.) Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 51. (Division List No.44.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gore, Hn. G. R C Ormsby-(Salop

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Colston, Chas. Edwd. H. Athole

  Greene, Sir EW(BurySEdin'nds

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W (Leeds

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir MichaelHicks

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Bell, Richard

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Heath, James(Staffords, N. W.)

  Bigwood, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Denny, Colonel

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Doughty, George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bull, William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Butcher, John George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Caldwell, James

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edwd. H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

  Keswick, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, George H.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lambton, Frederick Wm.

  Chamberlain J. Austen(Wore'r

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

  Lawson, john Grant

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leyland-Barratt, Francis

  Chapman, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lee, ArthurH (Hants., Fareham

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

  Levy, Maurice

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Price, Robert John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Long. Col. CharlesW, (Evesham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Stock, James Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Purvis, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stroyan, John

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'dliniv.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, K)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  M`Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Runcirnan, Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walth'mstow

  Russell, T. W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Murray, Rt. HnA Graham(Bute

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Penn, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  NOES.

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

  Lundon, W.

  O'Donnell T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  MacDonell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Blake, Edward

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Caine, William Sproston

  Mooney, John, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Whereupon the Deputy Chairman took the Chair of the Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 122, 500 men and boys be em-
  962
  ployed for the Sea and Coast Guard Service for the year ending on the 31st pay of March, 1903, including 19, 805 Royal Marines. "
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)said he wished to direct attention to the personnel of the Navy. The number of men and boys on the Estimates was, he believed, the maximum number the Committee had ever been asked to vote. In addition some 20, 000 men were provided in the Naval Reserve. That seemed to be a very large force, but it

  963
  was practically certain that in time of war they would be obliged to include a great many more men. When they considered the reserves of men which foreign nations were able to draw upon, it was evident that something should be done to supplement the existing force they had. At an interesting meeting at the Mansion House last month, it was stated that no doubt in time of war they would have a quarter of a million of men afloat. He was very glad to observe that the First Lord of the Admiralty had appointed a Committee to deal with the question of the Naval Reserve, and he was especially glad that one of the terms of reference to that Committee was to find out how far a naval volunteer movement could be utilised towards contributing to the remaining requirements of the Fleet. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe called attention to the fact that in his constituency there were about 12, 000 men who could be called upon in time of war to man the defences of the Thames. He hoped the Admiralty would consider whether the reserve of volunteers should be confined simply to home defence. It would be very ludicrous for a man on board a ship, when he had sailed beyond home waters, to request the Captain to transfer him to another ship on the ground that he was not liable to serve beyond the British seas. If the volunteer movement were to be of any use—and from the enthusiastic meetings which had been held in the City of London and in several large towns it seemed as if it would—it should be clearly laid down that a volunteer might be called on to serve anywhere in the event of war. Otherwise, they would be face to face with another sham, and would be relying on another broken reed. He hoped, if officers and men came forward and gave their services to the country, that the Government would behave towards them in a generous spirit. It should be remembered that in the last naval war, that between the United States and Spain, the United States had a great many volunteers serving on board their ships, and the Secretary of the Navy issued an interesting Report detailing their services and stating how highly their efficient aid was approved. He also wished to call attention to the
  964
  question of supplementing the existing surgeons of the Fleet. It was a curious fact that the only officers who were not represented in the Royal Naval Reserve were the surgeons. There were no facilities given to surgeons and doctors to join the Reserve. He had heard expressions of opinion on the part of several gentlemen who would only be too pleased to join the Reserve a ssurgeons; but the Admiralty; for some reason or other, refused to grant them concessions. It seemed to him that in time of war the Navy would require a great many more surgeons than were on the active list, and he could not understand why medical gentlemen were not allowed the same privileges as other aspirants to join the Naval Reserve. The difficulty was met, as far as it possibly could be, by allowing medical officers to enrol themselves for temporary employment by the Admiralty. But it seemed to him it would be a great advantage if medical men were given some sort of training on board ship in view of the duties they would be called on to perform in time of war. He was told that most of those gentlemen would not require any retaining fee; they would be glad to have simply the privilege of serving in the Royal Navy Reserve. If the Admiralty could not see their way to allow medical men to join the Naval Reserve, they could at all events allow them to form part of the proposed volunteer movement. With reference to the Naval Intelligence Department, the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire showed that there were only 13 officers in that Department as compared with 18 in the corresponding, German Department, and he also stated that Germany had some 13 naval attachés who looked after the interests of their country. That was a most important branch of the Navy, and it looked as if it were treated in the Navy in the same manner as it had been treated in the Army. The Navy authorities, like the military authorities, did not employ any thing like the same proportion of officers as was considered necessary by foreign nations. They had heard the other day in connection with the buying of remounts that the War Office did not inform the Military Attaché at Vienna that officers were being sent out to buy horses. The presumption was that the Government did not think much of the Military Attachés, but at the same time there

  965
  could be no doubt that the duties of those gentlemen were very important. The Attachés could inform the Admiralty of new developments in foreign Navies, and he ventured to think that there were points on which this country could learn from other Powers, and therefore he hoped that more attention would be paid to the Intelligence Department of the Navy.
  MR. MAJENDIEsaid he desired to bring to the attention of the Committee the question of the warrant officers. Over and over again commissions in the Army were given to men raised from the ranks, whereas no such thing occurred in the Navy. It seemed absurd that this should be so in the junior and not in the senior service. Only three persons had been promoted to honorary rank in the Navy. The warrant officers would be quite content if the rank of honorary lieutenant were given on their being pensioned. What inducement could be offered to men who entered the Navy if, when they had attained the rank of chief petty officer, they were on retirement reduced to the rank of first class petty officer as regards pension? The matter had, he believed, been considered, and the Admiralty were in favour of his suggestion, but up to the present it had not been carried into effect. Then with regard to the personnel of the Naval Reserve, Putting the number of the personnel of the Navy at 120, 000, which he believed was rather over than under the mark, if war broke out, and we became actively engaged, our losses might amount to say thirty or forty per cent., and therefore he hoped that the Committee which was to be appointed to inquire into this matter would see their way to recommend that the reserves should be tremendously increased, and that the question of the naval volunteers should not be lost sight of. Before the war broke out the Volunteers were looked upon as a paper force, but since they had been to the front and done yeoman service for their country it had been discovered that they were by no means a paper force. Therefore lie said, with regard to the naval volunteers, give them a chance. He advocated that a volunteer force for
  966
  the Navy should be started, and that it should be made as efficient as possible. A graceful tribute had been paid by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Admiral of the Mediterranean fleet, to whom the thanks of the country were due for all he had done for that fleet, because he, in conjunction with Lord Charles Beresford, had brought that fleet to a state of efficiency which it had never attained before. [8.4.]
  WILLIAM ALLANsaid he wished to say a few words on Vote A, which dealt with the number of men and officers. He would confine his remarks to the engine-room section under the Vote. The number of men in the engineering branch of the Navy he thought was totally inadequate for the number of ships which were at present afloat, and their ships were very much undermanned in the engine room. According to the statement in the Estimates there were only 918 engine-room officers, and this total included assistant engineers and the temporary service men for the whole Fleet. A remarkable contrast was presented when they compared the duties and responsibilities of engine, room officers with other Departments. They had no less than 391 paymasters and 420 medical officers in the Fleet. If they compared the duties and responsibilities of the officers of those two branches with those of the engineer officers it would be found that the number of engine room officers was far too few for the safe and perfect manning of the Fleet. They had not anything like the number of engineers which they ought to have. They had no engineers' Reserve at all, and they could not put their hands upon any extra men to look after the machinery on board their warships when they might be wanted. The Navy was at present short of over 800 engineer officers, 1, 300 artificers, besides a large number of firemen. He wished to know if anything could be done to increase the number of engineer officers so as to equip their vessels with a full complement of men at all times. If they were to mobilise their Fleet to-morrow it would be found that they had not enough engineer officers to man all their ships. There was no Fleet in the world more under-

  967
  manned in the engine rooms than the British Fleet. There were far too few engineer officers, and an effort should be made to increase their number, not only for the sake of the efficient handling of the vessels, but also for the security of the Empire in the event of a war.
  MR. PLUMMER,said he wished to say a few words from the layman's point of view. He welcomed the assurance that the relations existing between the Admiralty and the large manufacturing establishments for the production of ships and armour plates were of a most cordial character. He heartily concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Haddington, who, on Friday last, said that these establishments were really part of the national defence, and constituted a valuable national asset and reserve power that ought to be carefully cultivated. They were indeed supplementary dockyards and arsenals, the value of which he was glad to know the Admiralty was more and more recognising. A continuity of policy towards these establishments was necessary; they could not be expected to lay down costly plant unless they had fair expectation of getting some share of the work of the nation—in short, a return for the capital expended. He was glad to know that the Secretary to the Admiralty was fully alive to the importance of this, and also to the importance of another subject to which in passing he would allude, namely, that, in dealing with the replies received from time to time regarding tenders, of giving, due consideration to the important element of time for delivery. He ventured to think that it was sometimes better to expend a considerable amount of money more in securing that a contract should be completed within a given time, than that the order should go to another yard in another part of the country, where perhaps it would be found that the conditions, with respect to the time of delivery, were not carried out. It would, in that case, be false economy to give the work where it could not be carried out in a given period. This was a matter which in the past had not had sufficient attention paid to it by the Admiralty, but he hoped that in the future it would not be lost sight of.
  He cordially endorsed the reference of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the
  968
  new Chief Constructor, who had not only rendered distinguished service in connection with naval matters, but had, in connection with the Reserve Forces, done notable work. He was commanding officer of the Volunteer regiment which had the honour of providing the Elswick Battery for South African service. The re-gunning of the Navy was a satisfactory feature in the Government programme, and he hoped it would be earnestly continued until all the effective vessels on the active list were efficiently equipped. He said "effective vessels, "because he was rather of the opinion, which was shared by others, that there were still vessels on that list that could scarcely justify their claim to be considered as efficient and effective.
  Some transfers had taken place during the past year, and others, he had no doubt, under the active scrutiny of the Secretary to the Admiralty, would be transferred in the coming year. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had noticed in the Globe of Friday last a novel method which the Admiralty formerly had of getting rid of obsolete vessels. An extract quoted from the Globe of March 14th, 1838, was as follows—
  "It is rumoured that the Government is about to present the inhabitants of Harwich with two or three ships of war for the purpose of breakwaters, which will form a beautiful promenade, exceedingly inviting to any visitors who are in the habit of visiting this very pleasant watering-place, and will also protect Government and other property."
  He did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty should follow the example of his predecessors by offering obsolete ships to fashionable watering-places, for he would probably find it very difficult to secure an acceptance from any such place. He suggested, however, that it was more than ever desirable that inefficient vessels should be transferred from the active list and given an opportunity of doing useful work in more peaceful paths as training ships, and in similar directions.
  He very heartily supported the proposal to grant pensions to the widows of all men who lost their lives in the service. The recent disaster to the "Cobra" had brought the inequality of the existing condition of things very forcibly to the front. He was sure the House would not rest satisfied until the dependents of men who lost their lives when on duty, whether in time of war or peace, received

  969
  equal pension benefits. He also noted with extreme satisfaction the encouraging reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the questions raised in regard to the status of naval engineers. If the more generous treatment indicated by the hon. Gentleman's speech were given to that deserving class of men, he would be doing not only a service to the men themselves, but to the nation in whose service the ships were employed. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member for Gateshead that the vessels were practically useless unless they were properly engineered by a satisfied and well-paid staff.
  MR. CALDWELLdesired to know to what extent merchant vessels would be utilised as cruisers in time of war. There could be no doubt that subsidised merchant vessels would prove an important factor in a naval war. This was fully realised by Germany and by France. Ger-Ian vessels on the Atlantic and on the China station were much superior in speed to British vessels. The P. and O. steamers could not compare with vessels under the German flag on the China station. Year after year the Germans were producing 12, 000 ton boats for the service to China, and the very highest the P. and O. sent was 8, 000 tons. The same could be said with regard to the Australian service. Supposing war were to break out, what would be the value of these ships in the case of the German Navy? They were ships of enormous speed compared to anything belonging to the British. They were able to manœeuvre and go from place to place in a way that the P. and O. and Canadian Pacific boats could never follow. We should have to despatch some of the quickest of our naval boats to go about guarding our great lumberers which carried mails. The hon. Member for Gateshead had referred to the want of engineers. In the German boats to which he had referred there was practically a reserve of engineers and seamen who could be employed on iron-dads in the event of war. Therefore, we must look to what other nations were doing. The German Government were giving subsidies to these boats which were not much greater than the money we gave
  970
  in connection with the mail contracts. I We gave subsidies to the P. and O., and some other great lumbering boats which went at twelve knots an hour, as against the German boats which could steam at twenty-three knots an hour. These foreign subsidised ships came into competition with our mercantile marine, to the injury of our carrying trade. He thought they were entitled to have this matter brought before the Admiralty. He found that the Canadian Government were entering into a mail contract for ships which could only steam twelve knots an hour. These were not boats of the newest construction, and no other nation would dream of subsidising them. If we were going to subsidise vessels, these should be of the highest speed and newest construction. Germany had practically a valuable reserve in her mercantile marine at very little cost. He held that we should be getting the services of a mercantile marine which could compete with that of other countries, by giving no subsidies unless the ship-owners studied the requirements of the Navy in this respect. During the war in China a P. and O. vessel, the "Athenia," was chartered by the Government as a hospital ship. Surely the Admiralty ought to provide hospital ships of their own for use in small wars instead of chartering vessels at the rate of £1 per ton per month. He remembered a discussion in the House on the great loss of life which had been occasioned by the want of a hospital ship in the Suez Canal during one of the Egyptian campaigns. He had another suggestion to make, and that was that some of our fast cruisers should be utilised for carrying the mails to India, China, and Australia at the rate of twenty knots an hour. That would bring the various countries into closer communication than at present, while it would form a capital training for officers and men, and make them acquainted with every part of the world. Moreover, if there were any defects in the cruisers they would be discovered during these voyages, and our expensive fleet could be utilised in that way for the benefit of the country, instead of playing into the hands of the shipowners.
  MR. ARTHUR, LEEsaid he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to a comparatively small matter, but one which was of great importance to a section of his constituents. Men of the Royal Marines, who had married with the consent of the authorities and were stationed at Eastney or Forton, where there were no married quarters, got a lodging allowance of 6d. a day, which, however, was quite insufficient. This grievance was increased by the fact that that allowance was stopped when the men were sent to sea, and the families left behind were practically turned into the street. The lodging allowance, small as it was, should be continued to their families, at least to the extent of 4½d, per day, when the men went to sea. The money might be paid into a fund which could be administered by the Commandant. He urged the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider this matter favourably.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the debate had touched upon a large number of questions which were of very real importance in connection with the administration of the Navy. He most readily recognised that the invitation which he had ventured to address to lion. Members, to put questions to him, had been responded to, and he felt it a duty to answer, as far as he was able, those questions of detail as well as those of higher public importance. His hon. friend the Member for Gateshead had touched on two questions, one of which, with his permission, he would defer dealing with till a subsequent occasion. He thought it would be fairer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, and would give more satisfaction to himself, if they had a square discussion in regard to the question of boilers, after the hon. Member had in his possession the latest documents and information which the Government had in regard to them. The hon. Member touched on the gunning of the ships of the Fleet. The hon. Member knew that he and himself had been allies on this matter, and if he felt that there had been a want of progress in that direction, lie would be as much distressed as the hon. Member. But his criticism was
  972
  hardly justified by existing circumstances. He understood the hon. Member to say that we were under-gunning our large cruisers compared with those of other countries. That was not the fact. Take the case of the "Drake" and the "Cressy" class. In the case, for instance, of the "Léon Gambetta," a cruiser of 12, 351 tons—
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: An old ship.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid she might be an old ship, but she was not yet finished. She was to carry two 7.6-in. guns† and fourteen 5.6-in. guns. That armament did not compare at all with that of the "Cressy" or the "Drake." The "Jean d'Arc," another French cruiser of 12, 000 tons, carried two 7.6-in. guns and sixteen 5.7-in. guns. Again, this armament was not comparable to that of the "Cressy" or the "Drake." The "Drake," with a displacement of 14, 000 tons, carried two 9.2-in. guns and sixteen 6-in. guns—an infinitely superior weapon to the 7.6-in. gun and sixteen 6-in. guns; and the "Cressy," with a displacement of 12, 000 tons, carried two 9-in. guns and twelve 6-in. guns. Still, lie quite agreed that it was high time that the Admiralty should devote their energies to giving a powerful armament to our ships. In an amateur way lie had made a study of the gunnery of the Navy ever since the time of the Armada, and he had found that heavy guns had usually carried the day, and that in every conflict since the time of the Armada that fleet had been victorious which had guns of the heaviest calibre. He did not lay that down as a canon. [Laughter.] He pleaded guilty to having committed an unintentional crime. He only made the statement as an amateur, but it would show that he was not unaware of the importance of the question that had been raised.
  Then, in addition to the gunning of new ships, a question had been raised by more than one hon. Member tonight with regard to those ships that were being converted. It had been asked why the ships which were now being converted, or were about to be converted, were not armed in
  †Mr. Arnold-Forster intended to say four, not two.

  973
  the first instance with a heavier class of gun. He had his own views as to that, but it must be admitted that circumstances had changed. When these ships were designed, the 4.7-in. guns of a ship of the "Talbot" class would have penetrated the armour of any cruiser afloat, but that was not the case now. We had to face the fact that many of the cruisers now afloat carried armour not penetrable by the 4·7-in. gun, and that did furnish a reasonable explanation of the change now being made. It had been very reasonably asked whether the enlarged armament and protection of these vessels would affect their stability or seaworthiness. One hon. Member had suggested that these ships were out of date, but there was no foundation at all for that. The proof of the pudding was in the eating. These ships went all over the world, and encountered all sorts of weather, and the Admiralty had reports from their commanding officers as to their good behaviour at sea, and there was not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that they were unstable or unseaworthy in any way.
  The question had been asked, what would be the effect of these additions, which were not contemplated when the ships were designed, and he had thought that it was only due to the House to make inquiries and to ascertain. With regard to the effect of the alterations, he found that the "Royal Sovereign," with a displacement of 14, 000 tons, would carry an additional weight of 180 tons; the "Barfleur" and the "Centurion," with a displacement of 10, 500 tons, 360 tons; the "Powerful" awl the "Terrible," with a displacement of 14, 200 tons, with four extra guns and their proper ammunition supply, 240 tons; and ships of the "Minerva" class, with a displacement of 5, 600 tons, 90 tons only; and in order obtain this considerable advancement armament and protection it was not e petted that more than one-tenth of a knot would be lost in speed in any ship.
  As to distribution, he was not moved by the criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee, who attacked the Statement of the First Lord and described the paragraph which dealt with this matter as misty and vague. As the noble Lord had said, the distribution of the fleet must and did alter from time to time according
  974
  to the circumstances which had to be confronted. One hon. Member criticised the Admiralty for not giving employment to a sufficient number of naval officers within its walls, and contended that it would be a great advantage to the Lords of the Admiralty to have the assistance of more naval officers. Did the hon. Gentleman realise the extent to which naval assistance was already provided? Already there were four Naval Lords, all of whom were admirals of great experience; there was a Director of Naval Intelligence, also an admirals a Superintendent of Ordnance Stores, also an admiral; a Superintendent of Naval Reserves, also an admiral; and the Hydrographer to the Admiralty. There were also a number of subordinates of these officers, all officers fresh from the sea, whose work was a most valuable feature in the administration of the Admiralty. It was most desirable that hon. Members should call attention from time to time to the undoubted congestion in the Admiralty, but they ought to be told that steps had already been taken ill that direction. In order to relieve the pressure on the Admiralty, much greater power had been given to commanders-in-chief and admirals-superintendent of dockyards.
  The hon. Member for the Shipley Division spoke of the extent of foreign progress, referring especially to the programmes of Germany and the United. States, and supported the view that our own programme was inadequate. He did not think he could with advantage add anything to what he had already said on that question, but he could assure the hon. Member that the progress being made by foreign countries was being very carefully watched. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of prospective construction in Germany or elsewhere, he might remind him that promises were not always performed. The Admiralty had before them at this moment promises of construction on the part of foreign countries which had not always ripened into performance, but when they did ripen they would have the earnest attention of the Admiralty.
  An hon. Member had alluded to the loss this House had sustained through not having in the House a larger number of Members who had had experience in the Navy. That was a misfortune for which

  975
  he was not responsible. With regard to the question of inviting Volunteers to join the Navy for service only in home waters, he did not think there was any intention of that kind at the Admiralty. He believed there were many men who would be very glad to servo their country in an emergency, but who would not undertake to serve on the lower deck in any part of the world, because their private circumstances would not permit it; and he conceived there might be some system, of volunteering which would combine the conditions of service all over the world with those which could be rendered in local waters in the case of the safety of the country being threatened.
  A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the passage in the First Lord's Memorandum respecting the promotion of naval officers to nag rank. The best method for the rejuvenation of the Hag rank was to appoint to ships in commission younger post-captains and pass them on in due succession to the flag rank, and not by the supersession of I Admirals in command; by that means they might hope to arrive at the desired result. It was of the greatest importance to the Navy that younger officers should command our ships, and that they should then pass on to flag rank, in which they could perform most important service.
  He admitted the importance of what had been said as to the necessity of officers in the service being acquainted with foreign languages. The Admiralty had appointed to the Channel Squadron an officer for the teaching of French. They had given facilities for the learning of foreign languages, especially French, to ships in commission, particularly in the Mediterranean, arid they gave greater encouragement to those possessed of a knowledge of these languages on entering the "Britannia." But it was difficult for an executive officer, considering the pressure on his time, to obtain a colloquial knowledge of a foreign language, and he did not think for a moment that they would be able to give the officers any very great opportunities of learning modern languages while they were serving on board ship. His hope was in the direction of doing more to encourage half-pay officers to visit foreign countries in order to learn their languages.
  976
  The hon. Member who suggested that the Admiralty had withdrawn some of the newer destroyers from the ordinary service was entirely wrong. All the Admiralty had done was to adopt the ordinary procedure of giving over for practice purposes boats that were not of the newest type. The hon. Member for Devonport had made a suggestion of weight in stating that the Admiralty should not, in the effort to obtain a more staunch type of destroyer, abandon a high rate of speed. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be the case, but there were many circumstances which demanded a more powerful class of boat. Many hon. Members had seen the German boats which came to this country, and went from here to the Mediterranean, which were fine, strong boats. They did not rival in speed some of our fastest boats, but for the ordinary rough and tumble they were very fine boats indeed; and the object of the Admiralty was to secure that they had two classes of destroyers—boats able to keep the sea in rough weather, and boats which, in fair weather conditions, could attain a very high speed.
  As to the case which had been laid before him with regard to the Royal Marines, he would take pains to ascertain whether it was not possible to put the Marines on the same footing as the Army in that respect.
  The hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire asked some question with regard to subsidised cruisers. That was a matter that had received the most careful consideration from the Admiralty. They had entered into an arrangement with the companies for a larger utilisation of subsidized cruisers in time of war. They had made agreements with seven companies instead of four; they had subventioned eighteen ships instead of eleven; and the number of ships placed at their disposal without pay was thirty-two instead of seventeen.
  The Admiralty had not lost sight of the necessity of an increased medical service for the Navy in time of war. But it was a mistake to suppose that the Admiralty, merely by paying a retaining fee to doctors, could obtain exactly what they required. They were making arrangements by which they would obtain the services in time of war of a number of qualified medical officers;

  977
  but they had riot found on inquiry that they could much improve their position by giving doctors retaining fees in time of peace. It had been found in the case of the war in South Africa that medical doctors of the very highest rank were ready to assist the troops in the field in the matter of medical service; but those were not gentlemen who would have availed themselves of a retaining; and the Admiralty believed that if they were to offer a retaining fee, they would obtain, no doubt, doctors of considerable merit, but of less qualifications than those upon whom they could rely to give their services to the country in time of war.
  He had so often dealt with the question of gunboats that it was almost unnecessary to say anything further. It had been said that in the supply of gunboats for the protection of fisheries, Ireland was treated worse than Scotland. As a matter of fact, the number of gunboats patrolling the Irish coasts was larger than the number patrolling the coasts of Scotland. But the Admiralty could not accept the duty of undertaking to enforce the by-laws of any local authority. The fate of the "Cobra "had also been referred to. The "Cobra" had been built by a very eminent firm of naval architects; and it was considered of importance by the Admiralty that she should not pass to any foreign Power. She was inspected by Admiralty officials, and, while she was found to be inadequate, from an Admiralty point of view, in the matter of construction, she had made a good many runs in unfavourable weather; and it was believed that when considerable structural alterations had been made in her she could be brought safely round to a Royal dockyard. No one regretted more than he the fate of the ship, but it was not really known how she went to the bottom, and it would be most unfair to lay the blame on the Construction Staff of either the Admiralty or the Elswick Works for that most unhappy episode. That matter had been fully dealt with by the Court of Inquiry.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his first remark in connection with the personnel of the Navy concerned naval volunteering. First of all, could the Secretary to the Admiralty give the Committee any information on a matter he had not named, viz., that of
  978
  the protection of coaling stations—a matter which had been in dispute between the War Office and the Admiralty, and one which, it was feared, might, in time of war, throw upon the Navy a strain which would be very detrimental to the performance of the ordinary duties of a Navy, especially those of an offensive Navy such as ours must be in time of war. Last year the matter was left in a most uncertain condition, and the Committee ought to have, either from the War Office or from the Admiralty, some statement showing that the matter had been fought out by the Cabinet, as it certainly was a matter requiring settlement. The question was raised in Parliament last year in a most unfortunate manner by a Statement by the Secretary of State for War, which was afterwards repudiated by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The matter could not be left as it then stood, but no allusion had been made to it this year, either in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War or in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it was the duty of Parliament to press for a decision on a matter so vital. An obvious case in point—which had been put forward not as covering the whole ground, but as showing what it might lead to—was that of Sierra Leone. There was a very unhealthy place; nobody had ever wanted to take it over, but the Navy insisted, and had always insisted, that it was an absolutely essential coaling station. That being so, it was necessary that the Navy and Army should settle as to its defence in time of war. The Navy must not be unnecessarily tied to the defence of these places, which, no doubt, required some local garrison of their own. These considerations illustrated the fact that, although our naval operations as a whole must be offensive in time of war, there were a number of parts of the world in which locally there would have to be defensive operations. The Channel Islands might be quoted. A fleet could not be perpetually tied up, circling round the Channel islands, but defensive operations had not been provided for. At the time of the Fashoda scare it was proposed to have a torpedo station at Alderney, but that was not a place from which Jersey could be defended, and the defence of Jersey was no easy matter. Had

  979
  the Admiralty thought out the naval volunteering question in connection with such problems as these? What was it intended the naval volunteers should do? The Secretary to the admiralty had said that a portion of them were to serve in what he called "local waters." To serve how? Were they to serve on torpedo boats or destroyers? Of all men, those who served on such vessels required to be the most highly trained. The most highly trained seamen in the world were none too good for serving on torpedo boats and destroyers, and it would not do to put half-trained volunteers to service of that kind. Before the Admiralty began in any degree to rely on a force of naval volunteers, the House ought to be told what danger these volunteers were meant to meet, the kind of craft they were to man, and how far they were intended to be worked into any system of local defence for those places in winch the policy of the Navy would have to be a defensive policy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER made an observation which did not reach the Press Gallery.
  * SIR CHARLES DILKE* SIR CHARLES DILKE hoped the Committee would not be led away on this matter and think they had tapped a very valuable and large source of supply. The number of volunteers who would be content to go abroad under all circumstances and serve on the lower deck of a battleship would be very small. The number who would volunteer for service in local waters would, no doubt, be larger, but the Committee wanted to know of what use they were going to be. Were they to be trained men whose services would be of any real value to the Navy? Then there was the question of the Colonial Naval Reserve. Those who first brought the matter before the House were not the persons to heap contempt upon the idea. He was one of those who, for years, had pressed on the Committee the view that in Newfoundland something might be done in that direction. The Admiralty now seemed to have the idea that in every other Colony as well it would be possible to raise such a force, but there they would be leaning on a broken reed. The wages paid to seamen in the Australian Colonies
  980
  and New Zealand were so enormous that it was impossible to hope that any large supply could be drawn from that source. Although wages were low in Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces of Canada, yet there were difficulties, of which the Admiralty were well aware, which made him personally doubt whether in any Colony there was so hopeful a field as in the particular case of Newfoundland. In that case they were told that legislation was necessary, but he was sure the House would welcome whatever measures were required.
  It was not necessary this year to say much on the question of personnel at large, as the subject had been referred to a Committee, in whose proceedings and Report the House would be greatly interested. The subject was debated last year in another place, and the state of things then revealed and admitted was very grave. Lord Brassey, who brought the matter forward, said that—
  "We had failed to raise Reserves on any adequate scale, and that the resources we formerly possessed for manning the Navy front the Reserves were failing; it was no longer possible to maintain the Reserves at the strength voted by Parliament."
  That was true, and no attempt was made to deny it. The Gentleman who replied for the Government said—
  "It was obviously impossible to rely on the Mercantile Marine as a Reserve for the Navy in anything like the same proportion as in days gone by."
  Lord Goschen then gave his opinion, and pointed out that—
  "There was a tendency to create Reserves which were merely Paper Reserves, upon which we could not count in time of war, or else Reserves winch had not had the necessary training."
  Those were the difficulties the Committee had to face, and he could not see how they were to be adequately dealt with, without bringing in, to some extent, the principle of short service. He knew the enormous advantage they gained from the long-service system, and would be the last to desire to interfere with it so far as the great majority of the men were concerned, but he was convinced they would never get in any system of Reserve the number of men required for the complete mobilisation of the Fleet on the-outbreak of war, and to provide for the wastage of war, without bringing in, to

  981
  some extent, short-service men alongside long-service men. In other countries short-service and long-service men served side by side without the slightest difficulty, and he believed they could serve side by side in our Navy just as they did in the Army. Then, the complete absence of anything like a Stoker Reserve was one of the most formidable dangers the Personnel Committee would have to deal with. Personally, he agreed that the engine-room complements were too low, but as it was a matter with which that Committee would have to consider, it was unnecessary to enlarge upon it. The question of the training of the officers of the Fleet had been mentioned. The hon. Member for Devonport had put some questions with regard to the training at the very top of the tree—the school of Naval Strategy, as it was called. When the question was raised two years ago, just before Mr. Goschen left office, those interested were politely laughed at by the Admiralty, but last year the present First Lord of the Admiralty claimed credit in the House of Lords for having, as he said, laid the first stone of such a system. Information ought to have been given to the House as to the continuance of that experiment, and the hon. Member for Devonport was entitled to some reply from the Secretary to the Admiralty on the point.
  With regard to the new programme, it appeared to have been assumed by the Committee, and certainly by the Admiralty, that all the dangerous delays of the past were over; that we had made up our arrears, and that the deplorable condition of affairs revealed last year and the year before was at an end. The Report of the Committee on that question presided over by the Secretary to the Admiralty, would be read with much attention when it appeared. He believed, however, that the hon. Gentleman himself must feel that the excuses that he had to give from day to day with regard to delays were not satisfactory. One had only to compare the statements of the First Lord of two years ago, of last year, and of this year, to find whole catalogues of ships still very heavily in arrears and increasing in arrears each year, upon the original statements made. Take for example the statements made with reference to the "Vengeance," a
  982
  ship which was included in the programme of 1897, which was promised two years ago for the summer of 1901, and which was mentioned this year as being a battleship which would be completed and passed into the Fleet Reserve in the course of the present year. The delay which had occurred in completing the "Vengeance," the "London," the "Bulwark," and the "Venerable," was undeniable proof of his statement that these delays still occurred, and the Committee ought to press for a mull Report of the Committee presided over by his hon. friend, which they hoped might throw some light on the extraordinary delay that had occurred. He now came to the triangular duel which had been going on in these debates with regard to the programme of new construction in the laying down of new ships for this year. If this were an ordinary occasion, he should certainly have criticised the hon. Member for Dundee with more ferocity, but if he did so he was afraid of being accused of doing it in the interests of some party which was yet unborn. Therefore, he wished to criticise his hon. friend with all friendliness. The hon. Member for Dundee had complained that the Estimates this year were too large.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, no.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that was what he understood the hon. Member to say.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that he had simply repeated on this occasion the criticism he made last year. The Estimates were substantially the same as last year, and last year they showed a great increase.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the hon. Member for Dundee went on to say that he was not going to push his grumble too far so long as the war in South Africa was going on, and that when the war was over the Estimates would have to be reduced.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I said "reconsidered."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that practically meant the same thing as "reduced." He was not in a position to judge whether the money was well

  983
  expended or not, and in that matter they were obliged to trust the Admiralty. With regard to the programme of new construction which was before them for the present year, he emphatically asserted that it was infinitely small as compared with previous years, and its smallness was totally unexplained. The answer given in this respect was one which could not be satisfactory either to the Committee or to the country. The hon. Member for Dundee had made a suggestion to the Government. He suggested that their programme would have been larger but for the treaty of alliance with Japan, and he asked if the Government had considered that alliance in drawing up their programme. The hon. Member for Dundee had suggested that the programme would have been larger but for this alliance, and the strength of the Japanese fleet. The hon. Member for the Shipley Division said he was convinced that the Government had not considered, and no British Government ought to consider, such an alliance in such a connection and he asserted his conviction that the Government had not taken the Japanese fleet into consideration. In that remark he was cheered by the Secretary for the Admiralty, and so they might take it that the Government repudiated the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dundee. That was not their reason, and therefore they had to consider this programme upon its merits. Some years ago there was a vote of censure moved by the Conservative Party upon the Liberal Party, for insufficiency in their shipbuilding programme, and he spoke in favour of that vote of censure, because he thought that the defence was insufficient. The view which he took at that time was confirmed by the great increase in the Navy Estimates which followed in the succeeding year. The programme which was now before them was the same programme which was censured by the Conservative Party at that time, namely, two battleships and two cruisers. In 1893 the programme, the smallness of which led to the vote of censure, contained two battleships and two first-class cruisers. In 1894, as a result of that vote of censure, he supposed, the programme was increased to seven battleships in the year and six second-class cruisers. In 1895 theta were no battleships, but four first-class cruisers and four second-class cruisers were laid down. In 1896 the programme
  984
  included five battleships and four first-class cruisers, as well as a large number of third-class cruisers. In 1897 there were two programmes in the year, but he would only deal with the first programme, in which there were four battleships. In 1898 there were also two programmes, and the first programme included three battleships and four armoured cruisers. The other night, when he attacked the Government on this point, the Secretary to the Admiralty said that the programme was not extraordinarily small, and lie asked what would happen if they made an enormous increase in one year followed by a sudden drop the next year. He wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that he was calling attention to something altogether out of the common, because the smallness of the programme of the present year was altogether out of the common. The Secretary to the Admiralty in his reply took the programmes of the four years 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902, and he took battleships and first-class cruisers only. In 1899 he said there were six, in 1900 eight, in 1901 nine, and in 1902 four. Taking his own figures, where was the steady continuity of which the Secretary to the Admiralty spoke? He would say no doubt that there was continuity in the amount he took upon the Construction Vote, but where would that continuity be in three or four years time? Unless they took some extraordinary measures next year to make up for this singular drop, there would be exactly that jumping up and down in future years which the hon. Gentleman said he was anxious to avoid. There had been only one programme for a good many years past which was in the least comparable as regarded smallness with the present year, and that was the programme of 1895, and that programme followed the programme of 1894, which contained seven battleships. He could see no explanation for this in what had been stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Dundee suggested that the Alliance with Japan had some bearing upon this matter, but this idea had been repudiated and the programme had to be defended upon its merits. He confessed that the present condition of Europe did not seem to him to be such as to justify this altogether abnormal departure from the standard

  985
  of past years, f or what he had pointed out was an extraordinary drop. In 1897 they had four battleships, and in 1898 three battleships and four armoured cruisers in the first programme.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: And what else was there?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that he had taken exactly what the hon. Gentleman himself put forward.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: But the total number of ships for that year was 27.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the hon. Gentleman was going to count sloops and torpedo boats as ships he would give up the game. He counted only battleships, armoured cruisers, and first-class cruisers, simply because they were what the lion. Gentleman took himself in his Statement. He was prepared to take battleships and first and second-class cruisers, and even then he could not see any excuse or any possible defence for the meagreness of the programme presented to the House, which appeared to be based upon some pessimistic consideration, not of the finances this year, but of the state of the finances in the years into which the main expenditure on new ships would fall. Unless this deficiency in the programme were made up in some way we must in the future again see those ups and downs in naval expenditure which many of them had so bitterly deplored in the past.
  MR. PENNcalled attention to a sentence in the First Lord's Statement in which it was stated that no ships, however excellent, would be effective in the hands of an inefficient personnel. He believed that to be absolutely indisputable from any point of view whatever. Upon the next page of the same Statement there was another paragraph which caused him no small amount of uneasiness. In that paragraph the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the training of seamen should be directed towards acquiring a knowledge of the structure of machinery of the modern man-of-war, and the capacity of dealing with repairs. If that suggestion were
  986
  carried out, it would go far to defeat what he and many hon. Members had fought for for years, namely, provision for a much larger increase of skilled labour in the engine-room complement of His Majesty's ships. The sailor had never yet been brought up to the use of tools, and he was not a skilled num who would be useful for repairing machinery. If the machinery was going to be handed over to the care of seamen, he thought the last state would be worse than the first, and be could not think that this new proposal was in any way a sound departure. In war time there might be a hostile fleet between some of the ships and the dockyard, and it would be well that they should be able to attend to certain repairs, without having to run in to the dockyard. The increase in the number of engineers and artificers did not appear to him to be in proper proportion to the increase in the fleet. He strongly emphasized the view that the men should be able to put matters right themselves, but that they should not be absolutely overworked. There was a common belief prevalent that when the ship was in port, it was an easy time for the men below. On the contrary, it was their hardest time, and they were glad enough to get to sea for a rest.
  He did not propose to deal at any length with the boiler question, because it would be more properly discussed under Vote 8. In the Interim Report of the Boiler Committee it was laid down that, in view of the large waste of water that went on with water-tube boilers, cylindrical boilers should be fitted for distilling purposes, and he noticed that that recommendation had been disregarded. He did not propose to push the matter further at present, and he merely asked for information upon it. He wished to say a word or two upon the admirable and excellent departure of giving private builders opportunities of carrying out certain conditions laid down by the Admiralty instead of having the plans and specifications drawn up at Whitehall. That practice tended to decentralisation, and he believed that it was a policy which would lead very largely to improvement in His Majesty's ships, because they would have brought to bear upon them not only the vast skill of the Admiralty officials, but also the skill of the highly trained and highly paid persons in private yards who were capable of fulfilling any conditions

  987
  which the Admiralty might lay down. The First Lord had stated that the number of stokers in the Fleet Reserve had been largely exhausted, and their place had to be taken by civilians. He wished to point out that the stokers, who had been more or less in charge while the ships were in the dockyard, and the Fleet Reserve would know the run of those ships, and be more familiar with them when put in commission, and they would be able to give information to the engine-room crew, who would be pitch-forked as strangers into those vessels. Lastly, he asked when the House would have the further Report on the trials of the "Hyacinth" and "Minerva," and what prospect there was of receiving another interim, or a final report of the Boiler Committee.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had dealt at some length with the question of construction, and he wished to associate himself with the right hon. Baronet in expressing dissatisfaction with the naval programme of this year, which was he thought, not sufficient to maintain the position which this country ought to be in. He also agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had said with regard to our coaling stations. As the question of Reserves of men and the whole subject of the personnel of the Fleet had been referred to a Committee, he would defer his criticisms upon these points until the matter had been thoroughly examined. With regard to the higher education of the officers, he thought that what was needed was not merely to educate them in the higher duties of naval strategy, but in the higher duties of administration. In his opinion there was a perilous congestion at the Admiralty which prevented the naval Lords from giving adequate attention to Naval problems. Every Naval Lord should have attached to him a captain or a commander, who could relieve the Naval Lord of much of the routine work under his direction. This would be a means of education in itself. He also thought that in all the home manœuvres recently held, and which formed a basis for discussion, it was never contemplated by the Admiralty to exclude Press correspondents. The Press had always been present in the ships, and the correspondents had
  988
  almost become umpires from the independence of their views. They had certainly largely promoted the advance of naval knowledge. He wanted to know whether the Admiralty were going to persist in excluding Press correspondents from being present in ships when Channel and Mediterranean fleets were combined for exercises. He could not see what justification there was for that, and he wished emphatically to express the desire that the Admiralty should recall their decision, and that next year they should riot put that restriction in force, so as to cover up the operations of these combined fleets from the public.
  As to the question of foreign languages, he quite agreed with his hon. friend that there was a difficulty, especially in regard to young officers, but if the Admiralty were eager that officers on half-pay should become interpreters, they must take a more liberal view in the matter of pay. The Table given on page 5 of the First Lord's Statement as to the various employments of officers wanted amending, because they could not tell from it what naval officers were on half-pay. Again, there was a Table showing the additions to be made to the personnel of the Navy this year. Did all the 266 officers mentioned in the Table belong to the executive branch, and if not, how were they sorted out He asked the same question in regard to the 143 warrant officers. His study of the figures showed that there was a great increase in the "miscellaneous" branch of the Navy. There was a danger in that. He did not understand that, they were fully trained combatants; in fact, he was very sure they were not. He wanted to know on what principle these increases of branches had been made. He could not discover any principle which ruled the ratio of increase of any branch of the Fleet. For instance, the increase of engine-room artificers was 3·8 per cent.; last year there was no increase at all. This year the increase of stokers was 25·8 per cent.; last year it was only 13·3. Last year the increase of seamen was 30·7 per cent.; this year it was 38 per cent. Last year the increase of marines was 37·4; this year not a single man, was to be added. He asked his hon. friend if he could give the House a glimmer of the principle which ruled

  989
  the increases on the different branches, and their relation one to another. All the inquiries he had been able to make convinced him that this was a hand - to - mouth system, and he did not think that that was wise. The gunnery branch of the personnel consisted of two divisions; first, that portion specially trained for executive duty, and second, the Royal Marine Artillery, which was a very expensive and very highly trained force. He wished to draw attention to the fact that while they were not keeping up the number of Marine Artillery they were consequently allowing the gunnery training sadly to deteriorate. If the meaning was to gradually extinguish that part of the service, why did not the Admiralty say so, and not spend the money of the country on a force which was not, under conditions imposed, fully trained? He would take the last battleship that had been commissioned —the "Irresistible." There were forty-five first-class gunners, but two-thirds of these were recruits, while the remaining third had not revised their naval gunnery, because they had had no time to do it. In fact, some of those old gunners had never completed their training according to the standard laid down. Of Marine Artillery gunners 68 were stowed away in the "Duke of Wellington" not doing artillery but dockyard work. That was a misappropriation of the force. He could assure the iron. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that there was considerable discontent because the Marine Artillery gunners had not received the rating and pay of Second Captains of guns, while that rating had been granted to the Infantry Marines.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to ask whether under the new scheme of organizing the Naval Ordnance Department, warrant officers had found that employment which had been promised to them for many years. He also wanted to know the reason for the delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Victualling Committee. The explanation in the First Lord's Statement would not hold water. There was a very strong feeling that the recommendations of the victualling Committee ought to be given effect to at once. That Committee found that the food of the Navy was inadequate, in variety at all
  990
  events, and he saw no reason for hanging up their decision for another year. He did not know if the Chancellor of tile Exchequer were responsible, but, if not, surely effect should be given at once to the recommendations of the Committee in squadrons near home. The hon. Member for Portsmouth put a Question on Friday night with reference to the Greenwich Fund. He did not want to go into detail, as the question had been brought up year after year, and the hon. Gentleman knew exactly what it was. He wished to know whether the Government were inclined to give the men concerned the pensions to which they said they were entitled. There did appear to be an express contract in their favour. He was glad that the ten years confirmed service which had to elapse before engine-room artificers were eligible for warrant rank was now to count from the moment a mart joined. He understood that concession had been granted. He did not desire to discuss the question of the Reserves in detail, but there was one question which he thought he was entitled to ask in connection with them, and that was, the number of pensioners who had joined the Admiralty Fleet. Reserve, other than seamen pensioners. The seamen pensioners' Reserve had become part and parcel of the Admiralty Fleet, and it would be useful to know how many new pensioners had joined. [MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER gave the figures, but was not distinctly heard in the Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned on Friday night that it would be obligatory for all pensioners at the expiration of their service to become members of the Fleet Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All seamen after the expiration of their first period of service—12 years.
  *MR. KEARLEYsaid he thought it applied to all pensioners. Now he understood that all men who elected to leave the service at the expiration of their first term would be compelled to join the Reserve, but that would be a very long time ahead. It would be at least 12 years before it could come into effect, and, therefore, the Committee need not give any more attention to it at present. Persons reading the debates might think that a great reserve system was to come into force in a year or two, but that was not the case. The hon. Gentleman

  991
  stated that the Colonial experiment of inducing men to join the Reserve had succeeded in Newfoundland, and that any difficulties which had cropped up had been legal difficulties. He should like to point out in connection with the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of the Victualling Committee, that the reservists who joined in Newfoundland made very serious statements about the food. They said they were practically half starved, and he would therefore advise the hon. Gentleman, if he seriously intended to encourage Colonists to join the Reserve, to establish new food arrangements; otherwise the Colonists would not accept the existing regime, as sailors who had no other alternative did. They were told that a Volunteer Reserve was about to be established. He expected that the hon. Gentleman anticipated that the same class would join the Volunteers for the Navy as did for the Army—merchants, professional men, and so on—and therefore he thought it would be necessary for the Admiralty to alter their methods and to throw down the barriers which at present prevented a man from having an open career from the bottom to the top. There had been serving in South Africa and China warrant-officers who had distinguished themselves very much. He had already called attention to the fact that those men were not eligible for the Distinguished Service Order, because the statute governing that Order stated it could only be given to commissioned officers. The hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a great grievance in the matter and finally, instead of the Distinguished Service Order being enlarged, a new Order was set up, called the Conspicuous Service Order. He had read the case which the Admiralty had put before the King asking him to establish the new Order, and it seemed to him that it was a class distinction. Why a man who showed gallantry should not be as eligible for the Distinguished Service Order as an officer, he failed to see, and surely in these democratic days the Admiralty would have done better, instead of setting up a new Order and creating a class distinction, to have thrown down the barriers of the old Order, making it open to all men. If volunteers joined the Navy, they and the Colonists would be the very first to express most serious dissent from such a class distinction. He thought it was
  992
  important to call attention to matters of that kind, because only the other day it was elicited that some distinction was made on board transports in the food for ordinary soldiers and for volunteers. The case was so indefensible that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office said that instructions had been given that it should not recur. That showed the spirit which obtained, when it was possible that such an insult could be offered to a man as differentiation in his food. He said deliberately that the Distinguished Service Order should not be limited to commissioned officers, but should be treated in a democratic way. With reference to the personnel, he desired to say a few words as to the scarcity of skilled ratings in the Navy. They were dangerously weak in all branches of the service, and the reason was that the pay and prospects were not sufficient to encourage men to join. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth referred to the stokers. Everyone knew that stoking was the weakest branch of the Navy; but it was the worst paid and the hardest worked. The naval shipwrights also were thoroughly weak, and the Admiralty had had to resort to the expedient of taking boys into their own yards and passing them through an inadequate apprenticeship of four years in order to get them to join the Navy. That was a doubtful expedient, and he warned the hon. Gentlemen that there would be very serious difficulties in the Government yards with ordinary shipwrights who had had to serve six years apprenticeship. Surely the Admiralty ought to have the same apprenticeship conditions as were required for ordinary shipwrights.
  His final word would be on the necessity of training men in the Navy to shoot. He thought the Committee would agree that gunnery was the most important thing in the Navy. However skilful a commander might be, the last word rested with the man behind the gun. A good shot might be almost said to be born, not made, and he thought the Admirality would do well to pay the greatest amount of attention to developing good shooting among the young men who joined the Navy, and the way to do that was to test everyone entering the Navy, how-

  993
  ever young he might be, to see whether he had any natural aptitude for shooting. If he had, then he should be trained and his qualities developed, and hen they found they had got good men the Admiralty should endeavour to retain them by offering them proper inducements. When the fateful day arrived, first - rate shots behind the guns of the Navy would be worth the weight in gold of the shots they fired. At present magnificent shots were at liberty to leave the Navy after their first term or at the age of 38. Surely it was a short-sighted policy to allow a man who was a valuable shot to leave at 38 years of age, with many years of usefulness before him. They knew to their cost that there were many Boers in the field in South Africa over 60 years of age who were still capable of using their rifles to great advantage. There were men in the Navy at present who could scarcely miss with big naval guns, and who could rain shot on a ship like hailstones. A man of that kind would be able to demoralise his adversary in five minutes, and send him to the bottom in a quarter of an hour. It was Captain Scott who had developed modern gunnery in the Navy, and he had brought about an astounding improvement. Take the record of Captain Scott's ship the "Terrible." In the prize-firing competition throughout the Fleet last year, the 6-in. guns of the "Terrible" made 101 hits in 128 rounds, but the average of the Fleet was only about 35 per cent. of hits. Let the Committee assume that the "Powerful," the sister ship to the "Terrible," had a record of only 35 per cent. of hits as compared to the 80 per cent. of the "Terrible "—he was not asserting that the "Powerful" actually had so low an average—and entered into a single-handed contest with the "Terrible." It was a thousand to one on the "Terrible," yet the ships were equal in every other quality except firing. Therefore, he ventured to call attention to the necessity of increasing the shooting qualities of the men. They should be tested young. As an instance of good shooting, he would mention the name of a petty officer on the "Terrible" whom he thought deserved to be mentioned in the House of Commons. That was William Grounds, who as a Gun
  994
  Captain worked a 6-in. quick-firing gun. In the annual prize firing competition in His Majesty's Fleet last year, he achieved the phenomenal record of firing eight rounds ill olio minute from the 6-in. gun, and hitting the target every time, and this from a ship steaming 12 knots per hour. When he arrived at the age of 38, he would be able to leave the service, and no effort or inducement would be made or offered to retain him. In the event of war breaking out, what would they not give to have a man like William Grounds, with such a splendid record? His only reward now was a cheer from his mess-mates when he went below to a dinner of salt beef. If he had been shooting at Bisley he would have won the Queen's prize, and the money and glory attaching to it. Good shooting at sea was worth far more to the country than good shooting at Bisley, and he would press on the Admiralty to give the matter their serious attention and encouragement. They had made one concession by giving the Marines all advantage which had hitherto beendenied to them. The Marines were unable to qualify as seamen gunners, but that had now been conceded. The commanders of ships and admirals of squadrons should be given to understand that in future the test of efficiency of a vessel would not be polished brass work or white paint, but gunnery, and it would not be a bad thing to let it be known throughout the Navy that a ship would be tested by its gunnery record and that the officer ill command would be denied promotion until at all events the record of his ship was very much more than 35 per cent. The next naval war would be in favour of the nation that had the best gunnery, and if the Admiralty took the matter to heart and worked away at it, he was perfectly certain they would soon have the best gunnery of any navy in the world, so that when the time came the Navy would be able to give an excellent account of itself.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)said he desired to reply to a Question which had been put by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and also by the hon. Member for Devonport. The point raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth was with reference to the widows and children on the Greenwich

  995
  Fund. He understood the hon. Member to say that the widows' pensions depended on the old age pension fund at Greenwich. In the original foundation charter of 1694, under which the Greenwich Fund was administered, and also in the confirming Act of 1696, it was provided that, among other purposes, the fund was for the maintenance of widows and the education of children of men slain or disabled in the service. The money was provided for that particular purpose among others, but out of a very large sum only £5, 500 had been devoted to widows and children.
  MR REGINALD LUCASasked if the money came from the Greenwich Fund or from Imperial sources.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it came from the Greenwich Fund, but he understood the hon. Member to say that it came from the old age pension fund at Greenwich. That was not the case. Under the original foundation of the fund, one of the objects of the fund was that to which the money was now devoted, and it was not diverted from, but devoted to, the purpose for which it was intended. The hon. Member also raised the question of the pensioners who had reached the age of 55, and who had not yet obtained a pension of 5d. a day. That matter was very fully dealt with two or three years ago by the present Secretary to the Treasury, and therefore he did not think it necessary to go into it at any great length. But the hon. Gentleman opposite made a statement that there was a clear understanding that all pensioners who reached the age of 55 should receive that pension. He really did not think that the hon. Gentleman could substantiate that statement, because when the whole question was investigated by a Committee in 1892 they reported that there was no very clear understanding either on one side or on the other. It was not proved that it was incumbent on the Admiralty to pay the pensions, and the fact was that after the Report of the Committee a compromise was arrived at, and the Greenwich Hospital Fund was considerably increased. Needless to say, every possible effort was being made by the Admiralty to increase the yield of the funds by judicious investments, and he was glad to say the tendency was towards increase. So far
  996
  as the funds would allow, every pensioner on reaching the age of 55 would get a pension, but the number of pensioners eligible bad increased more rapidly than the funds available, and consequently there were a number of men who had reached the age of 55 but had not yet received the pension. The cases were considered on their merits. It should be remembered that it was not a pension standing by itself, but was in addition to the pension of £31, of which the men were already in receipt. It was therefore better that each case should be considered on its merits, and those in need receive the preference.
  MR. POWERsaid the hon. Member had been misinformed in regard to the point raised by him earlier in the debate. The Committee had been given to understand that Ireland was treated far more favourably than Scotland in regard to the protection to the fisheries afforded by the Admiralty. But that was not the ease at all, as would be seen by references to previous statements in the House. In February 1900, Mr. Plunkett said—
  "There are no gunboats employed for the purpose mentioned on the Irish coast,"
  while, in the same session, the Lord Advocate stated that, in addition to the three cruisers or gun-boats employed by the Scotch Fisheries Board themselves, there were three boats placed at their disposal by the Admiralty. The request for similar assistance in regard to Ireland had been again and again refused, so that the reply given to the Committee was not at all in accordance with the facts.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he did not desire unduly to labour the question of the old age pensions, but he represented a large number of men who believed they were entitled to receive those pensions. The matter was discussed in 1898, when the matter was apparently settled to the satisfaction of the Committee, but not to the satisfaction of the men concerned, and he would be wanting in his duty, after the interest he had taken in the question and the promises he had made, if he did not state that the matter could not be left in its present position. So long as these claimants were left unsatisfied, so long must those who represented them bring the matter before the House. Some years ago, when a Committee sat

  997
  on the question, the late Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, then Duke of Edinburgh, stated that there was no purpose to which the funds at Greenwich could be better and more properly applied than that of pensioning old seamen. Before the same Committee, an official of the Admiralty admitted that men entered the Navy partly because of the inducement of these pensions being held out to them as a prospect for their old age. On a subsequent occasion, in reply to a Question whether, if the justice of the ease was put before Parliament, Parliament would make the ample concession which these old pensioners demanded, the answer was given that if a case was made out, Parliament would undoubtedly make the concession. He believed a good case could be made out, and he desired to say that he reserved to himself the right of again bringing forward the matter when an opportunity offered; he would then amplify the case and ask the Committee to judge it on its merits.
  MR. DILLON(11. 27.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.) called attention to the increase in the number of men and boys asked for, and, as a protest against what he considered extravagant expenditure, moved to reduce the number by 5, 000. The number of men had been increased from year to year, and there was not the slightest prospect of a cessation. In 1893, up to which time the yearly increase had been very slight, the Navy cost £14, 000, 000 or £15, 000, 000 for the year; the expenditure now find reached £33, 000, 000. What had the Empire gained by that 'enormous increase? In that connection he had been greatly struck by a publication issued last year by an association with which the present Secretary to the Admiralty used to act in co-operation—the Navy League.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I was never a member of the Navy League.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had not accused the hon. Gentleman of being a member of it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I was never a member of it, and I never acted with it.
  MR. DILLONsaid that at all events it was a very influential body, which made a great deal of noise, and had undoubtedly been responsible for a great deal of the enormous additions to the Navy in recent
  998
  years. That association said last year that the power of England at sea was at a lower ebb than it had ever been at before. That, according to the Navy League, was the result of the increases of the last seven or eight years, and he was not at all sure there was not some justification for the statement. He had watched these events closely, and he maintained that the extreme development of the German, Russian, and French Navies dated from the period when England began to increase its Fleet. The Government of this country was responsible for that ruinous competition now going on among the great Powers as to who was to have the greatest possible Navy. What had been the result of the insane course which the Government of this country had entered upon? The result was that first of all they were told —he always thought that it was an excessive fallacy—that we were bound to keep a Fleet equal to any other two fleets in the world. England had assumed an attitude of such arrogance in the face of the world that the idea had been pretty generally spread abroad that the only safety of this country lay in being able to sweep all the other Navies off the seas if they combined against Britain. Such a tone of mind was a form of madness which would inevitably lead to the heaping on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the country an utterly ruinous burden. The Irish people were entitled to view with growing alarm and anxiety the enormous increase in the armaments of this country. He fully admitted the force of the arguments, if they were used with less arrogance and in a manner less calculated to inflame the jealousies and the fears of foreign Powers, that this country should maintain a great Fleet in order to secure mastery of the seas and to protect her commerce. But Ireland was a poor little country with no commerce to prey upon. He did not believe it would make £10 a year difference to Ireland if the whole of the British Fleet disappeared tomorrow. Except in the port of Belfast, they had nothing to plunder or lose. How could it be but a constant source of exasperation to the Irish people that they had to pay a full share of the cost of this enormous and ever-increasing Fleet, while Australia and Canada, which obtained immense benefits

  999
  from the Navy, got their share of protection without paying a penny for its support? It was monstrously unjust, and really it appeared grotesque to the Irish Members to hear all the talk at present about the loyalty of the Colonies, which obtained this protection while impoverished Ireland was bound to pay a share for the cost of the Fleet. It was not Ireland alone that suffered from these unbounded armaments. This country had been passing through a period of prosperity, but he believed the time was at hand when the war tax would press heavily on the people of this country. The taxpayers would find that they were severely punished, and the reaction would be all the stronger on account of the extravagance of the Government in connection with the Fleet.
  He desired to draw attention to the manning of the mercantile marine. The Secretary to the Admiralty complained of the failure of the Naval Reserve. He had often heard gloomy pictures drawn by naval experts of the dreadful position in which this country would be placed if engaged in a severe naval war. It would be utterly impossible for this country to make up for the wastage of war at sea. It was a most extraordinary thing that the people of this country, who had the greatest mercantile marine in the world, should show themselves so persistently indifferent to the manning of that service. Their merchant ships were now very largely manned by foreigners, and those who spoke on behalf of the British seamen were howled down and made little of by Ministers when they called attention to the fact that the manning of British ships by foreigners was going on day by day. The number of foreigners enormously exceeded the number of Englishmen, and if Britain were tomorrow to look to the merchant marine for reinforcements in time of war, it would be found that they were leaning on a broken reed. So far as he knew, that peculiarity was confined to England. He did not believe that either France or Germany, or any other country, had a, merchant marine manned by foreigners, and it appeared to him an extraordinary thing that the British Government and the Naval authorities should allow- this to go on. On a recent occasion the ques-
  1000
  tion of the la scars was raised. The great P. and O. line was subsidised to an enormous extent, utterly out of proportion to the service it did to the State. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, that line ought to have on the Eastern seas ships infinitely superior in point of speed to those it kept float carrying the mails of this country. The P. and O. Company insisted upon its right to man its ships largely with lascars.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This vote is for 122, 500 officers, seamen, boys, and Royal Marries for His Majesty's ships and the Royal Marine divisions. It has nothing to do with the manning of merchant ships.
  MR. DILLON: Yes, but the main. Question has always been discussed on the first Vote. [Cries of "Order!" from the Conservative Benches.] I am perfectly in order. The hon. Gentlemen do not seem to be accustomed to hear these matters discussed, or to know what is in order. The Secretary to the Admiralty traversed the entire field of the Vote. That has been the invariable custom. It is only an accidental thing that the Secretary to the Admiralty made his statement before the Speaker left the Chair. As a rule, the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the First Lord, has made his statement before the Speaker left the Chair, but as soon as the Speaker left the Chair the general discussion was resumed. I have said all I have to say about the Naval Reserve.
  The hon. Member, referring to the position of the engineers on board His Majesty's ships, said he had for many years listened to the discussions on this subject, and he had never been able to understand why it was that there should exist a pig-headed and narrow-minded jealousy about giving this body of men their proper rank. Why should a man possessing the technical skill of an engineer be placed in a position of inferiority to the executive officers? He had always thought it a most monstrous thing. He supposed it was a survival of the views of discipline held in the old days when ships were propelled by sail. The engineer ought to be placed in a position of equality with the executive officers of the ship. He wished to know on what ground this request was refused, because it ought to be the natural desire of the

  1001
  Admiralty to remove the grievances of the engineers. He moved to reduce the number of men by 5, 000.
  (11.47.) Motion made, and Question put, "That 117, 500 men and boys be employed
  for the said Service.—(Mr. Dillon.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 188. (Division List No.45.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Blake, Edward

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cremer William Randal

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid.

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES;

  Ffreneh, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Captain Donelan.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

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

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arnold-Forster, thigh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G'rld. W. (Leeds

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpoo

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'm ts

  M'Arthur, William, (Cornwall

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Blnndell, Colonel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bond Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Brigg, John

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ham ilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

  Bull, William James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Caldwell, James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Norman, Henry

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph,

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pixie, Duncan, V.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lambert, George

  Rryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rurvis, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pea, Russell

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham

  Renwick, George

  Doughty, George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. lion. Heneage

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Staleyhridge

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leveson, Gower, Frederick N. S

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Levy Maurice.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Round, James

  Stanley Hon, A. (Ormskirk),

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Runciman, Walter

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Stock, James Henry

  Willoughby de Eresby (Lord)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Stroyan, John

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Seely, C. H. (Lincoln)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seeley, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick E.)

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford East)

  Treveleyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. T'yside)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Sir William Walrond and

  Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. FLYNNsaid he had intended to speak earlier in the evening, but having listened to so many experts he had not had the opportunity.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer 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, 153; Noes, 73. (Division List No.46.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'w'r Hamlets

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Lincs.)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (B'te

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds

  Hamilton, Marg. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Purvis, Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bull, William James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Renwick, George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Round, James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

  Shaw-Stewart, N. H. (Renfrew

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb. T'neside

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lncas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Doughty, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stock, James Henry

  Burning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stroyan, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfri'sshire

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Finch, George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gardner, Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Sir William Walrond and

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Blake, Edward

  Lambert, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Boland, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brigg, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Landon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Caldwell, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Runciman, Walter

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Delany, William

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dewar, John A. (Invernesshire)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dillon, John

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norman, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

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

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

  Captain Donelan.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  (12.5) Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 40. (Division List No.47.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lee, Arth. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finch, George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

  Balfour, RtHnGer'ldW. (Leeds)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bond, Edward

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Brigg, John

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bull, William James

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Butcher, John George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Caldwell, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

  Hamilton, Marg. Of (L'nd'nderry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morton, Edwd. J. C. (Devonport

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Joicey, Sir James

  Murray, R t. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Keswick, William

  Norman, Henry

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lambert, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Runciman, Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isleof Wight)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Whiteley, H(Ashtonund. Lyne)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Rea, Russell

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

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Renwick, (George)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stock, James Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stroyan, John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Talbot, Rt. HnJ. G. (Oxfd Univ.)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Round, James

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Blake, Edward

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. Sligo, (North)

  Reddy, M.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Captain Donelan.

  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again tomorrow.

NEW BILL.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Weir, and Mr. John Dewar.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
  Resolved, That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the Standing Orders relating to houses occupied by persons of the labouring class and the Clauses usually inserted in Private and Local Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills in pursuance thereof; and to report whether any Amendments should be made in such Standing Orders and Clauses, and especially whether any and what provision should be made for better securing the re-housing of all persons of the labouring class who may be displaced in connection with the undertakings to which the Bills relate, whether displaced under the powers given by the Bills, or otherwise.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith. —(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of Morley—Sat Speaker.

OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Standing Order No. LXXXVI. considered (on Motion) and dispensed with in so far as it orders that the Committee for Privileges shall not proceed to the hearing upon any claim to a title of honour until fourteen days after printed cases shall have been delivered. — (The Earl of Morley.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
Committee for Privileges met, and adjourned sine die.
The speeches delivered by counsel before the Committee for Privileges to be printed. (No. 22.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR 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:
Northumberland Electric Tramways [H. L.]
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads [H. L.]
Wrexham District Tramways [H. L.]
Swindon United Gas [H. L.]
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Hamilton Gas Provisional Order Confirmation [H. L.]
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Rossendale Valley Tramways.
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:
South Shields, Sunderland, and District Tramways.
Exeter and District Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON UNIT ED ELECTRIC RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Messrs. Lee and Pembertons, of 44, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, solicitors, praying for leave to present a petition of the Earl Cadogan and others, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No.92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No.92 to be considered tomorrow, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Robert Voss, town clerk of metropolitan borough of Bethnal Green, praying for leave to present a petition of the Borough Council of Bethnal Green, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No.92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No.92 to be considered tomorrow, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION (EDUCATION) BILL [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BRYNAMAN AND NEATH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
HASTINGS HARBOUR DISTRICT RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
SADDLEWORTH, SPRINGHEAD, AND LEES TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
KING'S ROAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Standing Order No.92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of Robert John Pettiward and others; leave given to present the petition.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHARING CROSS, HAMMERSMITH, AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BRADFORD-ON-AVON GAS BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Order of the House of the 17th February, 1896, viz.:
Treaty Series, No. 1 (1902)—

1. Agreement additional to the Postal Convention between the United Kingdom and France of 30th August, 1890. (Signed at Paris, 11th December, 1901.) [Ratifications exchanged at Paris, 17th January, 1902.] (21st February.)

2. Navy (Water Tube Boilers)—Report on trials of H. M. S. "Hyacinth, "H. M. S. "Minerva," and R. M. S. "Saxonia" (with diagrams). (22nd February).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

COLONIES (ANNUAL).
No.348. Lagos (Report for 1900–1901):
EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Report and tables for the year 1901.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (VIBRATION).
Appendices to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the vibration produced by the working of the traffic on the Central London Railway.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

TASMANIA.
I. No. 57. The Electoral Act, 1901;
II. No. 58. The Constitution Amendment Act, 1901.

SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Statement of the funds, 5th January, 1902.

LUNACY.
Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number of patients seen, by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended the 31st December, 1901.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Corporation of Greenock, Scottish Temperance Legislation Board, John Street E. U. Congregational Church, Aberdeen, Corporation of Leith, Corporation of Aberdeen, Corporation of Paisley, Glasgow and District Branches British Women's Temperance Association, Scottish Sabbath Protection Association, Greenock Total Abstinence Society, Dowamvale United Free Church Gospel Temperance Society, Inhabitants of Largs, Inhabitants of Renfrew, Dundee Presbytery of United Free Church, Aberdeen Temperance Society, Edinburgh Total Abstinence Society, Scottish Temperance League, Camphill Church (Glasgow)Temperance Society, Camphill Church (Glasgow) Band of Hope, and persons signing (3); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of Edinburgh Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Association; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Wandsworth Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—REMOUNTS, TRANSPORT, AND MEAT CONTRACTS.

  MOTION FOR JOINT COMMITTEE.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the notice which stands in my name on the Paper is, I think, a very clear and moderate one. The issue it raises is simply this. Will His Majesty's Government give facilities to Parliament to exercise one of its highest and most constitutional privileges, the right of inquiry? Parliament has no power to make appointments or to alter the ordinary course of administration, but it is the grand inquest of the nation, and it is the duty and the privilege of Parliament to make inquiry into the actions of the Executive and of its officers and agents in order to secure the reform of abuses, to check maladministration, and to fix on the agents of the Government who are guilty of carelessness, or negligence, or worse, the full responsibility for their actions. There seems to me to be a strong primâ facie case for an inquiry in connection with the contracts and purchases made for our troops in South Africa. I do not intend to go at length into a great many of the allegations that have been made, but shall confine myself to charges that have been brought under four heads—with regard to remounts, meat contracts, contracts for transport in South Africa, and freights for transport from this and other countries to South Africa. As to the remounts, I notice that there appears in this morning's papers a statement from Colonel St. Quintin, who was the agent of the Government, in respect of the first purchase of horses. The case that he makes on his own behalf seems to be this—that the ordinary price paid by the Australian Government for remounts was £26, that the average price paid for the 3, 800 horses bought for the British Government was a little over £29, that the limit to which he was allowed to go was £40, and that therefore, by securing horses at £29, he had really been the means of saving the money of the taxpayers. I think Colonel St. Quintin has rather missed the point. I do not doubt for a moment that the Austrian Government are in the habit of paying £26 to £28 for their remounts, but the horses that the Austrian Government get for that payment are exceedingly different

  847
  animals from those which Colonel St. Quintin obtained for his £29 odd. I imagine that in the case of the Austrian Government the sum of £28 represents pretty much what goes into the pockets of the breeders of the horses, and that the animals they get are of considerable substance and very useful. But the 3, 800 horses supplied to Colonel St. Quintin were bought in the markets for from £8 to £12 each, and were animals of an altogether inferior type, sadly wanting in stamina in the field, and quite unable to properly fulfil the heavy duties that were laid upon them.
  Our charge against the Government on this particular point is that with regard to these 3, 800 horses, which cost the taxpayer £111, 000, certainly not less than £45, 000 went into the pockets of four gentlemen, who made an altogether undue profit. With regard to the subsequent purchases, we find fault with the War Office for not making further inquiries before they entered into new purchases, for taking the word of one man—Colonel Maclean—for not considering other offers, for not consulting our Embassy at Vienna, and for again taking their horses from the same agent, Mr. Hauser. Similarly, in other parts of the world, in England, Ireland, the United States, Texas, Argentina, and Australia, cases are to be found, notoriously plentiful, in which men have made vast sums of money by passing on horses, bought at very low prices, to the Government agents at comparatively high prices. I do not want to bring any charges whatever against these persons, who took advantage of their opportunity to make money. What I say is that it does not show the exercise of due care by the agents of the Government, or by the Department responsible for them, that it should be possible for these large sums of money to be made. There is no greater proof of this than the action of the War Office itself, for we are told by the Secretary of State that in consequence of the facts that have come to his knowledge he has decided on an entire re-organization of the Remount Department. He has also taken very sharp action against the Inspector-General of Remounts himself, to whom, indeed, has been meted out what was pretty well known in the old days in the
  848
  country from which I come—Jethart justice from Jedeburgh, where, the old ballad says—
  "In the morn men hang and draw.
  And sit in judgment after. "
  The Government must have assured themselves that they had sufficient grounds on which to have so acted, and I regret that the opportunity was not taken of opening up the whole question of remounts and going into it thoroughly.
  I pass to the question of the meat contracts, which is extremely clear and simple. In the first place it would seem that for frozen meat and fresh meat alike a contract at the rate of 11d. per lb. was entered into with the Cold Storage Company. Later on, another contract was entered into for frozen meat at 7d. per lb. and fresh meat at 10d. per lb.; and now, in the last contract, which conies into force on 1st April, the prices are 5½d. per lb. for frozen meat and 8½d. per lb. for fresh meat. Here, again, it is clear that very large profits were made by the Cold Storage Company. The statement of their amount varies very much. from the least, £1, 100, 000, which, I believe, may be called a sort of official estimate.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): What is the basis for the assertion that they made that amount of money?
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Their own, balance sheet.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the balance sheet show that they made it as pure profit?
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I can hardly quote the source from which I got that particular figure, but it is one which I cannot doubt is a true figure. I am putting it at the lowest amount. The highest amount, given by Mr. Bergl, who is now the Government contractor, is a profit on the first contract for the first year and a half of £4, 500, 000 and of £1, 500, 000 on the last contract, or £6, 000, 000 in all. I think it is perfectly clear that the profit, at any rate on the frozen meat, must

  849
  have been very heavy indeed. According to the Australian Meat Trades journal of January 7th, 1902, the price of Sydney mutton quoted in Smithfield Market on January 6th was 2⅞d. per lb., while on the same date the prices for beef at Sydney were—prime bodies, 2¾d. per lb., second quality bodies, 2⅝d. per lb.; and for mutton — prime wethers, I¾d. per lb., second quality 1⅝d. per lb. If it was possible to purchase meat at that rate, it must be very profitable indeed to distribute it in South Africa at 5½d., 7d. and 11d. per lb. I am not throwing any aspersion on the present contract, but I think it will be evident to your Lordships that there is plenty of margin for profit to the present contractor if he can buy prime beef at 2¾d. per lb. in Sydney and prime wethers at 1¾d. per lb.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): Will the noble Lord tell us if these quotations are for meat delivered in the same way as is provided for in Mr. Bergl's contract? In that contract there are minute and precise conditions as to the manner in which the meat is to be prepared. I would ask the noble Lord if he has satisfied himself that the low figures he has quoted relate to meat distributed in the same manner?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The amount I speak of is the price in the ordinary market at Sydney, and the buyer would, of course, have to take it from Sydney to South Africa.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is the meat sold by the joint or the carcase?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I imagine, in the case of frozen meat, as dressed carcases. My point is, if Australian mutton can be sold in London at 3d, per lb. surely it could be sold in South Africa at a similar price. I next cone to the question of the transport contract in South Africa. It is said that our principal transport contractor made almost outrageous terms with the authorities there. I do not pretend that I can prove these allegations. All I can put forward are the statements ordinarily made, and my case is that the statements, whether they are true or
  850
  not, are so serious that they ought to be inquired into. It is said that the contractor for the transport received as much as £2 10s.0d. to £3 a day for wagons and oxen. The wagons, in many cases, were not worth more than £15 apiece, while the oxen which he supplied were so small and lean that they were scarcely able to draw the wagons when they were empty, much less when they were full. It is stated that in case of the loss through capture or death of these wagons or oxen the compensation the contractor was entitled to receive was no less than £70 for each wagon and £16 each for the oxen. A further statement is made that when a number of the oxen were offered for sale in South Africa, the farmers would only give from 25s. to 40s. each for them. The story that my noble friend Lord Carrington told the House the other night with regard to the wonderful prize ox applies much more to the method adopted with regard to these trek oxen, because everybody who has been in South Africa comes back with the same story, that the contractor was in the habit of having a posse of his own men following at a respectable distance, and that when these: oxen dropped and had to be outspanned, though they were put down against the Government as abandoned, they were brought into camp in the shades of evening, and next morning again inspanned. The next day they possibly dropped again, and so, again and again, these oxen were paid for at the full contract value as killed or abandoned oxon. As to freights, it is alleged, with, I believe, much truth, that very heavy prices were paid for freights, and that, especially at the beginning of the war, unnecessary charges were paid by the Government to a very large extent for demurrage. I think it could be shown, in connection with horse transport, that the rates, whether from Argentina, Hungary, or Australia, were altogether inordinate. Messrs. Houlder carried horses from Argentina at £16 a head, and I am told that they, with Mr. Bergl, also bought a number of very indifferent ponies in Australia at from £4 to £6 a head, passed them on to the Government at £13 a head, and then transported them from Australia to South Africa at freights running as high as £15 a head.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I ask the noble Lord whether, if there is an inquiry, he is prepared to prove all these statements?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Certainly. After all, the contracts are in the hands of the Government. At the same time that Messrs. Houlder were charging these frieghts; another firm in Australia were taking 5, 000 horses to South Africa for General Baden-Powell at £8 per head. Again, the contract price for conveying the Hungarian horses from Fiume to South Africa was, first, £26 3s.4d., and later on £28—an altogether extravagant rate. I have at this moment two Canadian horses in my own stable. They were brought from Canada to the Thames, being on the sea seventeen days, and yet the freight was no more than £5 each. These are matters which, whether true or not, are worthy of being inquired into. If they are untrue, it is only fair to the people against whom the allegations are made that they should be shown to be untrue. If, on the other hand, they are true, then the responsibility should be laid on the shoulders of those who have made what must have been extravagant and improper contracts on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I put forward these things simply as specimens of what is the common talk everywhere, and on these data I say that an inquiry should be granted. What has been the answer of the Government to the demand for such an inquiry? One would have imagined that they would have said they were anxious to clear these matters up, and would consent to an inquiry. They might, on the other hand, have said, "We will not give you an inquiry because these evils are non-existent, or, if they did exist, we have taken steps to remedy them." But that is not the answer of the Government. On the contrary, they admit the desirability of an inquiry, but say we shall not have it till the end of the war. That seems to me to combine all the disadvantages of both courses. How do you imagine that an inquiry into these things can be carried on at the end of the war? You know perfectly well that when the end of the war comes, everybody will be throwing up their hats with joy, and will be very little inclined to go into this or any other subject. There is
  852
  this other point, that the necessary evidence to show the truth or not of the statements will become more and more difficult to get at as time goes on. If you want to get at the truth of the transactions which are alleged to have taken place, the sooner you get to work with the inquiry the better.
  The Government might fairly object to an immediate inquiry into the conduct of the war, but this is absolutely excluded from the Motion, though there are many matters that require examination, such as the treatment and feeding of the horses, and the neglect to lay hands on horses in South Africa, instead of leaving them to supply remounts to De Wet and other Boer commanders. The Government have, by their own action, estopped themselves from the plea that it is impossible or undesirable to carry on an inquiry while the war is going on, for they have, with good results, carried on three inquiries. Allegations were made in the House of Commons against the hospital management in South Africa, and a Commission was issued, the inquiry being carried out on the spot while the war was going on. The Report that followed showed that the hospital arrangements, which had been thought to be perfectly adequate, were inadequate, and, as a result, those arrangements were immensely improved. Then, again, a number of ladies were sent to report on the condition of the concentration camps, and at the end of their Report they mentioned ten several heads under each of which they attributed considerable improvement to the fact of their inquiry. Then also severe strictures upon the manner in which Austro - Hungarian horses had been purchased led to an inquiry from which good results have proceeded, or, at least, it has justified the Secretary of State in announcing an entire reconstruction of the Remount Department, and, as I have already said, very severe action against the head of that Department. I shall not further labour my argument. I hold it a duty to, press for this inquiry for the purpose of securing economical and efficient administration. I do not bring forward this. Motion in any sense as a Motion of censure, it is simply a Motion to get at the truth; and if, having got at the truth, we find that individuals have failed to do

  853
  their duty, then to bring those individuals to justice, which, I am sure, is desirable in the interests of good administration.
  Moved to Resolve, "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament be forthwith appointed to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by the War Office, or on its behalf, for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of our troops in South Africa. "—(Lord Tweed-mouth.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench is one of immense importance, and of a very comprehensive character. It seems to me to be the culmination of discussions which have been carried on in this House during the past fortnight, principally between the two Front Benches, and I do not think it is undesirable that other noble Lords, who have no special interest or desire to defend or screen the Government from the charges made, should intervene in the debate. For myself, I venture to address your Lordships entirely in that capacity. I have no desire to defend or attack the Government. I admit to the fullest extent that the noble Lords who have brought this question before the House are doing what they have a perfect right to do; I will go further, and say that it is their duty, as an Opposition, to call attention to what they consider to be abuses in administration. I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to listen to the charges that have been made and the answers given by the Government with an absolutely impartial mind, and I am bound to admit that on several points there seems to be a primâ facie case for inquiry; nor has this been gainsaid by the Government. The Government admit that for the sake of the service it is desirable that the questions which have been brought forward, and which throw doubt upon the good administration of the War office, should be thoroughly investigated, but whether the maladministration amounts to what is too commonly called a scandal I think it is too early to say. The word "scandal" has been somewhat prematurely, and too often, used in these discussions. It may be discovered that there are individual
  854
  scandals, but I think we should not affix that name to any actions until we are quite certain that we are in a position to do so. My noble friend, in moving this Motion, very frankly told the House that the evidence winch he quoted with regard to remounts, meat contracts, freights, and transport was hearsay evidence. It may constitute a primâ facie case for inquiry, but your Lordships should not condemn the Government without hearing what they have to say on the subject.
  I am not in a position—I have not the knowledge—to answer in detail the points that have been laid before the House, and all I can venture to submit to the noble Lord is, has he considered whether the circumstances in which the low prices he mentioned have been offered are the same circumstances as those in which the prices were fixed in the Government contract? That is the very essence of the question. At such a time of pressure, almost intolerable pressure, as existed at the end of 1899 and the beginning of 1900, it is perfectly clear that there must be higher prices paid to middlemen than would be paid in ordinary times. But the real question is whether the inquiry should be held now or at the end of the war. Before dealing with that, I should like, if the House will allow me, to say a few words with regard to the impression which these debates have made upon my mind and upon the minds of many noble Lords who take an impartial view of the subject. I would ask the House to consider whether in every respect the evidence that has been adduced has been brought forward in an absolutely fair manner, with the simple object of the public good, or whether there may not be to some extent other motives, which I will not specify, behind. When there is such evidence as the statement of a waiter at some obscure Hungarian inn brought forward with a rhetorical flourish, and interviews with rival contractors reported to show the extent of gains, it appears to the mind of an impartial man that there is an appearance of animus which may, for the time at any rate, have distorted judgment. Another point is that, in bringing forward these criticisms no one ever refers to the circumstances under which the administration by the War Office has been carried on. I will not for a moment maintain that the circum-

  855
  stances are an excuse for maladministration, but, in fairness, they should be mentioned. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave some figures the other day as to what had been done during the last two and a half years at the War Office, and at the risk of repetition I will venture to bring those figures again before your Lordships, for I do think that they should be impressed upon those who wish to judge the action of the Government.
  The machinery at the War Office in the year 1899 was, as the noble Marquess told us, designed to send out, at the most, two Army Corps, viz., 70, 000 men. That machinery had been approved by successive Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, as sufficient for our military needs, and their decision was acquiesced in by the military authorities. But in one year—in fact, from 1st October, 1899, until 1st August, 1900—no fewer than 250, 000 men were placed in the field, including the Colonial contingents, and before the end of last year there had been 388, 000 men placed in the field. It cannot be gainsaid that this great Army has been provided in circumstances of unexampled difficulty, and that in spite of all these difficulties everything has been provided which was necessary for the conduct of war. These facts—they are seldom referred to—ought to be borne in mind by your Lordships before you turn your attention to such criticisms as we have just heard. It ought to be recognised that the production of this enormous number of men and their maintenance in South Africa was an enormous strain on a machine which was doing five times the work it was meant to do at the utmost. Is it fair, then, to assume, as the noble Earl below the gangway assumes, that the revelations as to the remounts is only the lifting up of a corner of the curtain which conceals the utter want of businesslike, administrative capacity on the part of the Government? It seems to me that this is generalising in a very rash and hasty way and without sufficient evidence. The facts I have mentioned seem to me, at any rate, to show that the Government is not so unbusinesslike as suggested, and also that those who make suggestions are not prepared to make any allowance whatever for the circumstances in which the Government acted. If, as I think is not
  856
  improbable, the profits made by the middlemen in the cases mentioned were excessive—and I fully admit that this is a question which ought to be thoroughly and drastically inquired into—I contend that it is most unfair to infer from that that the Government have displayed an absolute want of administrative capacity in the conduct of the war. I was surprised the other night to hear the noble Earl below the gangway draw a parallel between the inquiry which is now asked for and that granted on Mr Roebuck's Motion in 1855. I do not think that is a fair parallel. In Mr. Roebuck's own words at that time—
  "The troops were without shelter, without food, without clothes, and without ammunition, and out of 54, 000 men sent from England at that time, there remained before Sebastopol only 14, 000 men, of whom less than 5, 000 were in good health. "
  Is it to be wondered at that such a statement sent a thrill of anger and indignation throughout the length and breadth of the land, and is there any sort of reason for assuming that anything of the kind exists at the present moment? Is there any possible analogy between the condition of our Army in South Africa and that Army which was wasting away in the trenches before Sebastopol? We are accustomed to rhetorical language in this House, and we can discount it, but to use similar language to a popular audience in a provincial town to urge people on this small basis of fact and false analogy to get up an agitation against the Government is, I think, mischievous to the highest degree, and hardly consistent with those feelings of patriotism with which the noble Earl to whom I am referring is always actuated in his public life. I now turn to what is the real point.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I do not think I have ever been fairly off the point; but I wish now to turn to the real point at issue—namely, the time of the inquiry. Nothing could be more general than the terms of the noble Lord's Motion, which is to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by the War Office, or on its behalf, for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of our troops in South Africa. It does not

  857
  seem to me to be businesslike to hold this inquiry when so many officers whose evidence may be required are at the seat of war, and I think it would be dangerous and mischievous that evidence in one direction, which might reflect on individuals until it was answered, and which could he answered by witnesses at the seat of war, should have to remain unanswered for a considerable time until they came home. I do not think my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth has had much experience of the administration of a large Office, but anyone who knows the work of a large Department knows how, pending an inquiry affecting that Department, business is dislocated and the staff almost paralysed by the necessity of producing and preparing the evidence and statistics required from day to day by a Committee of Inquiry. An inquiry so searching as the one now proposed could not be conducted without dislocating and paralysing business at a time when our paramount duty is to devote all the energies at our command to the successful prosecution of the war. The inquiries cited by the noble Lord who moved the Motion as having been already granted by the Government, such as that into the hospitals in South Africa, are in no way analogous to the inquiry which he seeks. I am certain that we are all, in whatever part of the House we sit, anxious not to impair the efficiency of the Government in prosecuting the war to a successful issue; but I am equally certain that if this Committee is granted the effect will be inevitably to produce that result. For that reason I shall, without the slightest hesitation, give my vote against the Motion.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not propose to take your Lordships over any of the ground which has been so ably quartered by my noble friend the mover of this Motion. I wish at once to associate myself with what was said by the noble Earl on the Woolsack, and to state that I do not intend either to attack or defend His Majesty's Government; but, with all due deference to him, I shall try to stick a little nearer to the Motion before the House than he did in the earlier portion of his observations. Nor shall I follow the noble Earl into the analogies of the Roebuck inquiry. As I understand, he supports His Majesty's Government in
  858
  resisting this Motion, and I can quite understand that the Roebuck inquiry, which led to the fall of the Government of that day, is not a very great invitation to His Majesty's Government or to its supporters to grant this inquiry. I entirely agree with the noble Earl on the Woolsack that the question raised by the Motion is one of circumstance and time, and it is for that reason that if we go to a division I shall vote for the Motion. It is a question for the present moment and for the circumstances of the present moment, because the people of this country are thoroughly uncomfortable about these contracts, and probably none more so than the Government themselves, whose odd reasons for refusing the inquiry are a sign of some sort of apprehension as to its result. In my humble opinion they had much better have the matter cleared up by an inquiry such as would follow the adoption of the Motion now before your Lordships. Moreover, I quite agree with what fell from my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, that the advantage of having this inquiry now is that it is an inquiry quite separable from other considerations suggested by the war, such, for instance, as its good or bad conduct, its wisdom or the reverse. I repeat, therefore, that this seems to me preeminently a question for inquiry at the present moment. The noble Earl said that it would be impossible now to get the necessary witnesses, because most of them were at the front.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I said many of them.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: But Mr. Bergl, Colonel St. Quintin, and Mr. Hartigan are not at the front, and would no doubt be quite willing to come forward and give evidence. I know that your easy-going agents have covered, in their operations for the purchase of horses, a very large portion of the world's surface, and when I was in South Africa I saw a great number of Russian remounts. Really, the activity of the Governments' agents reminds me of Bishop Heber's hymn:
  "From Greenland's icy mountains
  From India's coral strand. "
  At all events, the Government's agents seem to have visited most of the countries mentioned in that fine piece of sacred verse. But it is much easier to get at these gentlemen now than it was in Bishop

  859
  Heber's time, and I cannot see that there would be any difficulty in the way of their coming to give evidence, whether they be in Russia, Hungary, Argentina, or the Western States of North America. By the way, I have heard that lately very large purchases of horses have been made in the Western States of North America. I understand that something like 17, 000 horses have lately been sold to the Government and have been delivered at Kansas City. I know the average price which should be paid for a remount in that part of the world, and as I am interested to know the price which has been paid by the Government for these horses, I will put a Question on the Paper at an early date.
  To return to the Motion before the House, we are told that a piecemeal inquiry of this sort would do a great deal of harm; but this is a curious suggestion to come from a Government which, when the interests of their friends call for it, do not display any objection to piecemeal inquiry and piecemeal legislation, as the Agricultural Rating Act and the Tithe Rent Charge Act show. I have just come back from South Africa, and I am satisfied that the war is now being extremely well carried on. I agree with what the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne said the other night, that in questions like that of remounts it is not quite fair to look only at what I will call the face price paid for the article. What you have to consider is whether you have got value for momey. The difficulty of forming any impression in South Africa is the great size of the country; you see so little. I went on trek for a short time with a column, and the cavalry columns I saw were very well mounted, taking them all round. I agree with what was said by the noble Earl on the Woolsack as to the completeness of the transport. One of the most distinguished of our column leaders said to me—"Whatever they may say about the war, it will put us the length of a whole street ahead of any other nation in the matter of transport, "and I should be glad if the noble Marquess who bore the hard stress of the period of surprise and crisis in the early part of the war could go out and see how efficiently the machinery which he has put together and developed is working now. But all this does not divorce me from my conviction that on these particular contracts a joint
  860
  inquiry of the kind we are asking for tonight would do good all round. It would, as I have said, satisfy a great many people who are very dissatisfied now, and, unless the Government are really nervous about something, I cannot help thinking it would also be to their own advantage. This Motion does not involve anything like an impeachment of the conduct of the Government. All we ask is that there should be an inquiry in the interests of the tax-payers. I do not believe that this Motion is in the nature of a Party move. I repudiate the suggestion, but I assert that the interests of the tax-payers cannot be served or properly protected by an indefinite postponement of this inquiry. When the division is taken I shall vote for the Motion with confidence and satisfaction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I do not think a greater disappointment could have fallen to the originator of the Motion than to have as a supporter the noble Lord who has just sat down. The noble Lord, in supporting the demand for an inquiry, gave very emphatic testimony as to the present efficiency of all those services which he desires to have considered and inquired into.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not know that I quite said that. I am an honest man, and I spoke well of what I saw. I saw good horses and good meat in South Africa, but I should like to know what was paid for them. It is the contracts I want inquired into.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No one who has the honour and privilege of the acquaintance of the noble Lord would doubt for one moment but that he would accord justice to those with whom he is brought in conflict, but I think the noble Lord has not apprehended the real draft of the Motion which your Lordships have been called upon to consider. I do not think that any of the arguments which he has addressed to your Lordships have really disposed of the very weighty arguments with which my noble friend on the Woolsack concluded his speech. I would ask your Lordships first of all to consider what is the nature of the proposed inquiry. It is to be by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

  861
  I do not think that even a Royal Commission is a more serious or solemn tribunal that a joint Committee of both Houses appointed to inquire into the efficiency of one of the great Departments of the State. And what is to be the scope of the inquiry? The Committee are to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by the War Office, or on its behalf, for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of our troops in South Africa. Has any one of your lordships the slightest conception as to how many purchases and contracts those terms would apply to? I do not exaggerate when I say that these purchases are not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands in number, and that these contracts are numbered, not by thousands, but by tens of thousands, and they cover every month since the autumn of 1899—two years and a half of contracts and purchases by the War Office and on its behalf, affecting every single article which an Army in the field requires, affecting the ships which took those articles to South Africa, the outfit of those ships in every detail, every article of ammunition and offence, every article of clothing, equipment, and stores. The mere inventory of the points of the inquiry would occupy volumes. And who are the agents by whom these purchases and contracts have been made? They are, not a few, but hundreds of officers, not only in England and South Africa, but scattered throughout the world. It has been suggested by no less an authority than Lord Rosebery that this inquiry might at any rate be begun. Is it seriously contended that, having taken up the ease of one article of equipment or of one contract, when a bona fide suggestion has been made to the tribunal that all was not wise or well in the conduct of that contract, made, perhaps, two years ago, and when the question is asked by the Chairman of the Committee who has made the contract and the answer is "Captain So-and-so" or "General-So-and So" who is serving in the field in South Africa—is it suggested that there and then the Joint Committee shall shut up that matter, and that the inquiry with regard to that purchase or contract shall come to a full stop?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am exceedingly sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but my remarks had reference solely to the inquiry as to remounts.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I entirely accept the noble Lord's contradiction. But, without putting any responsibility for the suggestion on the noble Earl, is it not clear that that point must arise in the course of the inquiry? Is the inquiry to stop at a certain point with regard to one contract, and are the Committee of both Houses then to go on and fish for another accusation in reference to some other contract? Such a course would be perfectly impossible; it would be making a farce of this most solemn and important tribunal. And what about justice to the officer concerned? At the very least his competency is involved, and possibly his honour. Is he to be allowed to go on serving his country in South Africa while, in black and white, in evidence in London, is a suspicion, even possibly an indictment, against his competency, and perhaps his honor? Such a suggestion is preposterous. How can you expect a man to go on serving you cheerfully in the field when you hold the sword of Damocles over his head? There are three classes of people involved in the making of these contracts. The first class, and by far the smallest class—the only ones my noble friend mentions—are the casual employees of the Government. They are, of course, available to give evidence. The second class, and by far the most numerous class, are the men who have made purchases, not only in South Africa, but the world over. The immense variety of articles which have been supplied for the Army in the field have not been drawn from England only, nor from South Africa only, but from all parts of the world. Is the whole system of supplying the troops in the field to be disorganised by recalling these men to answer vague and indefinite accusations? The third class are the men in South Africa. The Commander-in-Chief is responsible above all other men for the contracts and purchases made in South Africa. Are you going to recall Lord Kitchener to answer to the Joint Committee of both Houses, or are you going to allow the inquiry to go on—the inference being natural in such circumstances that the real person responsible was Lord Kitchener—compiling a list of accusations, more or less serious, to which

  863
  Lord Kitchener on his return to London may be asked to answer by way of welcome?
  The number of officers in South Africa who would be involved in such an inquiry amount to some hundreds, and include Lord Kitchener's headquarters staff. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord would never have moved for this inquiry had he ever been at the head of a great spending Department. The whole country knows that for two and a half years the staff of the War Office have been slaving as only men can slave who have their hearts in the service of the country. I have myself a personal friend there, who has not had a single day's holiday from the beginning of the war till October last, having worked till midnight every day, and frequently on Sundays. At the end of October he was given three months leave, but he had not been away more than a week when he was telegraphed for to come back, and he has been at the War Office ever since. If these officials are called for examination before the Joint Committee, they will have to neglect their work in connection with the War in South Africa. Would the Joint Committee for a moment allow an official to state that he had not had time to look into certain matters upon which he was questioned? Certainly not. The officer would have to obtain the information, and while he was working up the evidence, he could not at the same time perform his duty to the troops in the field. The noble Earl and his friend have sot themselves up as the apostles of efficiency; but I do not hesitate to say that, if they wished to be instead the apostles of inefficiency, they could not possibly adopt a better method than that of turning the whole of the work of the War Office for the last two and a half years over to a Joint Committee of both Houses for investigation. I am told that this proposal is made in the interests of the tax-payers; but the interest of the tax-payers is that the war shall be efficiently conducted and speedily finished, and nothing, in my opinion, could so militate against the consummation we all desire, so far as the efficiency of the officers in question is concerned, than to require them to attend and answer to this inquisition
  864
  now, at a moment when the whole of their energies are required for the performance of their duties on the spot.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, I do not intend to traverse the ground which was covered by the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I propose to devote the few observations which I shall make to the question whether this inquiry should be held now, or he postponed until the end of the war, for I understand that the necessity for some kind of inquiry is admitted by His Majesty's Government. It is true that it is not safe to act in a hurry, where matters of policy or of legislation are concerned, but I am not at all sure that where administration is concerned, the moment, I will not say of panic, but at any rate of public uneasiness, is not the right moment at which to make inquiry. In all our public offices there is such a dead weight of tradition, and also such a power of esprit de corps, which is very good in itself, that some great popular interest is needed for the holding of a really valuable inquiry. I venture to think that it is better that somewhat exaggerated charges should be made and inquired into, than that no attempt should be made at inquiry. As an instance, I would mention the original charge brought by Sir Blundell Maple in the House of Commons, with regard to remounts. I am quite prepared to admit that Sir Blundell Maple's charge was not altogether happily worded. It allowed people to suppose that imputations were made against officers, which Sir Blundell Maple himself afterwards denied. When the matter was considered by the small Committee whose Report caused so much sensation in the country, the blame of the Committee was practically confined to Sir Blundell Maple. There never was so polite a Committee; all the excuses that were made by the witnesses were anticipated by the Committee, and their shortcomings lightly passed over. I confess, therefore, that so far as Departmental inquiries are concerned, it is impossible, from the point of view of the public, to have any very great confidence that through them it is possible to get at the bottom of matters about which suspicion is entertained.

  865
  Suppose the inquiry is postponed for two or three years. Well, blunders of two or three years ago run a very fair chance of being condoned. It is argued by the First Lord of the Admiralty that it is impossible to get on the spot the men whose evidence is required. As to that, I presume, even when the war is over, that there will be a considerable force retained in South Africa. Those officers who are still kept out there will not then be available for the inquiry. Again, other officers will receive appointments in India or in the Colonies which they will proceed to take up with very little delay. It would, no doubt, be held to be most unfair to those officers that their careers should be interfered with by their being detained in England to give evidence before a Joint Committee whose inquiry would undoubtedly be a very long one. The fact is, it is impossible to get a perfect inquiry, or to suppose that every human being who might give valuable evidence on these contracts can be found in London at one given time. If, therefore, the inquiry must necessarily be in some respects imperfect, I think it would be less imperfect if held now than it would be by the nature of the case if held after the lapse of years. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty said it would be necessary to inquire into hundreds of thousands of contracts and purchases, and that consequently the task of the Joint Committee would be an almost insuperable one. As to that, my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth pointed out that he only suggested inquiry into four matters—namely, the contracts for meat, remounts, freights, and transports.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot help what the noble Lord suggested. The words in the Motion are "to inquire into all contracts and purchases for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of the troops in South Africa. "
  THE EARL OF CREWE: But after moving the Motion my noble friend proceeded to limit it to the four subjects named, and I have no doubt that the wording of the Motion could be easily amended. If it is difficult now to inquire into the matter, owing to the great number of people at present scattered all over the world who might have to be called, and
  866
  the enormous complexity of the subject generally, surely it will be infinitely more difficult two years hence to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question. My noble friend the Chairman of Committees, who made what I venture to think was a speech on behalf of the Government, at least as good as any which could be made from the Bench opposite, dealt somewhat severely with the attitude of those who desire this inquiry, and he endeavoured to show that there was no, analogy whatever between the present case and the well-known case of 1855, when Mr. Roebuck's Motion was carried in the House of Commons. It is true that in one sense the cases are different; so, also, is the scope of the demand. Mr. Roebuck's Motion was to inquire into the condition of the Army, but there is no proposal in this Motion to inquire into the condition of the Army; and, so far, the scope of the two inquiries is entirely different. In looking back to the debates at that time, I am struck by the identity of the arguments now advanced against an inquiry with those urged against inquiry during the Crimean War. The arguments then used were that the unforeseen had happened, and that everything had had to be done in a hurry, that it was not a matter on which one Party had any right to blame the other, for they were all responsible, that great difficulty had arisen as to the numbers of the enemy, that everybody had believed that the war would have been of short duration, and that it would not be necessary for the troops to remain through the severities of a Russian winter, and that, therefore, it could not be supposed that the necessary provision had been made. You hear the same observations now. It was also argued in 1855 that that was not the moment for the inquiry, because the Duke of Newcastle, who was Secretary of State for War at that time, was engaged in a most searching reform at the War Office; and Mr. Sidney Herbert, who has left an undying memory of devoted public service at the War Office, used the very expression which has been made use of tonight by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, for he said—
  "Show me, if you can, an instance where so large a force—27, 000 men—was transported to the seat of war with such expedition, and landed with such success. "
  All these arguments did duty then, and they are doing duty now. The noble

  867
  Earl on the Woolsack was rather hard upon us, for having, as he said, introduced some degree of Party feeling into the matter. I think it is not altogether disadvantageous, I will not say that Party feeling should be displayed, but that there should be a body of men opposed to the Government, who, without, I hope, any fractious behaviour, regard it as their duty to watch the operations of the Government with a critical eye. And when it is pointed out that matters of national defence should be regarded as above Party, I would remind your Lordships that in 1895 it was the question of a defect in the defence of the country which incidentally had the effect of turning out the Government of the day. In a matter of this kind it will not do to allow the Government to be the final judge; it is not only that their personal feelings may, to some extent, be involved, but every head of a Department has a loyal dislike to seeing his subordinates overhauled by an outsider. I hope it is not too much to appeal to your Lordships to set aside for once your adherence to Party ties, and to support my noble friend.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, as one of those who voted for Mr. Roebuck's Motion in 1855, I should like to assure my noble friend who has just sat down that there is no real analogy between the present case and the state of things at the time of the Crimean War. In the latter case the Government had failed to carry on the war in a satisfactory manner. They had failed in supplying the Army in the Crimea with the necessaries of war, with a result that the troops suffered grievously on the heights of Sebastopol. Our Arm had sustained the honour and glory of British Arms, but the Government had utterly failed in supplying to the Army what was required even for their sustenance. Naturally, Mr Roebuck brought forward a Motion which amounted to a vote of censure, and for that Motion I had the honour of voting. I think we have some reason to complain of the vague charges winch had been made by noble Lords opposite with regard to remounts. The noble Lord who moved this Motion did not confine himself to remounts from Austria-Hungary, but referred to England and Ireland, and Lord Rosebery the other night also referred to
  868
  my county, Yorkshire. Now, we have sent out some very excellent horses from Yorkshire, and we believe that they have done extremely well. I have in my hand a letter from an officer in the Yeomanry who is engaged in supplying these remounts. He, with other officers, is naturally very much concerned at these charges, and he protests against the whole Yeomanry remount organisation being exposed to suspicion because some persons have been found acting dishonestly, and he states, as to the horses obtained by the Yeomanry Committee in Yorkshire, that they could not have obtained sound horses in peace time for less, and that the officers took more care of the Government money than if they had been buying for themselves. I thought there was much force in what was said by the noble Lord on the Woolsack as to the circumstances under which the contracts were made. Noble Lords opposite seem to have forgotten the stress that existed, and how important it was to supply the Army in the field with everything that was necessary for carrying on the war. Noble Lords opposite haggle about these things now, but if they had been in office I have no doubt they would not have carried on the war with any success. I remember Majuba Hill, and I am convinced that if noble Lords opposite had been in office we should have lost South Africa altogether. I feel bound in the circumstances to support the Government in resisting this inquiry. I believe this to be only a Party move, and I appeal to your Lordships to rally round the Government and support it in carrying on the war to a successful issue.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I came down to this House this evening with a perfectly open mind, not as to how I should vote, I admit, though I am even open to conviction on that point, but as to whether I should speak. I really am more compelled to speak, not on account of any references to myself, but on account of the references to the German waiter, rather than with regard to any great novelty of argument which has been produced on either side of the House. With regard to the speech of my noble friend who has just sat clown, I am quite sure he is sincere in his intention to rally round the Government, which he says it is the duty of every Member of this

  869
  House to do, and I am quite sure, too, that his exhortation will be listened to in a favourable spirit by your Lordships. I myself am of opinion that the Government will have a majority on this occasion, which is quite according to precedent, and, I believe, not unknown in the annals of the past. My noble friend said that if noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench had been on the other side of the House, the conduct of the war in South Africa would have been inefficient, and that we, or they, would have lost South Africa. He is, of course, quite open to entertain those opinions; but I do not know how anybody who cannot see into the books of destiny can be quite confident in that opinion. He has referred particularly to the Roebuck inquiry. He will remember that the result of that inquiry was to upset a Conservative Prime Minister, who had proved himself inefficient, and to substitute for him a Liberal Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is mistaken. I was in those divisions. Surely that is not the case. It was Lord Palmerston who was upset.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It was Lord Aberdeen, a highly successful Conservative predecessor of the noble Marquess, both in the Foreign Office and as Prime Minister.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If you include him as a Conservative Prime Minister. I never thought of that.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then I do not know what a Conservative Prime Minister is. It is not for me to define him, but at any rate Lord Aberdeen answers to the ordinary definitions of Conservative Prime Minister. He served as Foreign Secretary under the Duke of Wellington, and subsequently under Sir Robert Peel; and he led the House on the Conservative side until he headed a Coalition Government. Anything more Conservative I cannot imagine; but, if the noble Marquess disowns him, I will not press the point. Then my noble friend proceeded to point out that the cases were totally different, because the war in the Crimea had been inefficiently carried out by this anomalous Prime Minister, whereas, in the present case, it has been most efficiently carried out by what I hope I may call a Conservative
  870
  Prime Minister. I can only say, as regards that, that I think even my noble friend will admit that the end of the war is somewhat officially overdue. I do not know whether he is conversant with the declarations of his leaders on that subject, but I think he must be aware that the war was over in October, 1900, and that we are still engaged in warlike operations of an anomalous description, which answers very much to the purposes of warfare. Then he read a letter from Yorkshire with respect to horses. I am quite willing to give up the case of Yorkshire, which weighs so much on my noble friend's mind. But he must remember that the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, who spoke with such efficiency the other night, and whose speech seems to have been altogether overlooked by the noble Earl on the Woolsack, who spoke of these as purely Party debates, brought forward a very strong case from Yorkshire of a noble Lord who offered four horses in his stable to the Remount Commissioners. They selected the worst, disdaining his advice, and for horses he was prepared to take £5 for they paid £80 or £100. I do not want to labour these points. They are, I admit, ancillary to the purpose of our debate; but I wanted in a friendly manner to remonstrate with the veteran survivor of the Roebuck Committee on the points he has raised against us. This debate had a somewhat ominous commencement. I do not mean in the speech of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, which I still venture to think is almost an impregnable statement of his case, but in the appearance of the noble Earl on the Woolsack. I know that on occasions when Governments are criticised it is usual to bring forward some noble Lord, an impartial person, integer vitœ scelerisque purus, and who descends, as it were, from the heavens above, and gives an impartial verdict on the subject before us, and in which he invariably leans to the Government that has instructed him in the matter. I hope he will not mind my saying that he produced almost the impression of having a brief, which I seemed to see peeping out of his coat pocket.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I should like to explain that I have had no communication whatever with the Government,

  871
  about the speech which I have made to the House, and that my facts were entirely derived from the Return placed before the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is, as I suspected, one of those pious impulses which always arise in debates when Governments are censured. When my noble friend on the Woolsack rose to address us I was for a few moments deceived into the belief that the illustrious seat which he occupies in the temporary absence of its distinguished occupant would impart, by some electric process, some judicial aspect to his observations. But I was soon deceived. We had all the old remarks about the patriotic duty of an Opposition, that, in fact, it is to obliterate itself and never to offer any criticism of any kind on the Government to which it is opposed. He offered those remarks in a perfectly impartial spirit, but they amounted very much to what partisans on either side of the House are apt to say, and I decline to think that the mere fact of his being on the Woolsack imparts to his observations that severely judicial character which I am sure he would wish them to assume. I came in for a considerable amount of the judicial scourge in the course of his summing-up. First, it was, I think, about the waiter. Let us say something about the waiter. I am the more ready to mention him because I observe that he produces a general feeling of geniality and hilarity in the House such as is produced by the Under Secretary for War when he addresses us. People seem to think it is a very wonderful thing that anybody should attach any weight to the evidence of a waiter: I really do not know why a waiter is to be put outside the confines of humanity and disbelieved on his oath. But, after all. you must remember that the waiter in question is not even the ordinary waiter with which your Lordships are familiar; but he is a head waiter, who is the manager. The noble Duke the Duke of Devonshire laughs. I hope he sees nothing disreputable in the character of a manager. He is the manager of an hotel; and by-the-by—I am now referring to what fell from the Under Secretary for War the other night—I would say that
  872
  inquiries point out that there are two luxuriously fitted-up hotels in this place where the horses were bought. So that the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War was either deliberately misinformed by his informant or else he was instructed by people ignorant of the facts of the case.
  Of late I have had a great deal of attention devoted to me by junior members of the aristocracy; but one of them for whom I have the most sincere regard, and who is connected with the War Office, is reported to have said—I am not sure that he was rightly reported—that he should be ashamed, that he should blush, or do whatever is right in the circumstances, if he believed the word of a German waiter against the word of a British officer. That was obviously directed against me, because I am the person who read the affidavit of the German waiter; but I have, fortunately, not been put in the position of that compromising choice, because I have never heard what the word of the British officer is against that affidavit. I believe it would be a very good thing: if the officers who were charged with having their expenses paid by Mr. Hauser—I do not know who they are—were to rely on oath by affidavit to that charge. It would, at any rate, to some extent clear up the situation. I only brought forward the German waiter as one of the indirect pieces of evidence, proceeding on sworn affidavit, which seemed to show that there is some scandal, if I may use the word in the presence of the noble Earl, that must be cleared up. Of course, if German waiters or anybody else are allowed to go on swearing these imputations on agents of the British Government, they will come to be believed; and it is part of the argument for an immediate and prompt inquiry that these officers may have an opportunity of asserting on oath what actually took place and so clearing any cloud that may rest even momentarily upon their fame. The noble Lord on the Woolsack repudiated the word "scandal." He said it was a word much too commonly used. I do not think the noble Lord has read tile Blue-book. Has he read the account of Captain Hartigan's evidence of the corrupt agreement he drew up to introduce Mr. Lewison, of whom he knew

  873
  practically nothing, to the Remount Department? If that be not a scandal, if a contract drawn up on stamped paper, which can be produced in a Court of Law, giving him 2½ per cent. on all purchases made by the Government, be not a scandal, I really am very much at a loss to know what a scandal is, and I am inclined to think that if the member of the Government who usually sits in that exalted position were occupying it tonight, he would not be able to deny that there was an element of scandal in the state of things revealed in the Blue-book.
  LORD HARRIS: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting him. Captain Hartigan was a private individual when he made that contract with Mr. Lewison. I do not quite see where the scandal is as regards the War Office or the Yeomanry Committee with reference to Hartigan.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I never mentioned the War Office or the Yeomanry Committee, I said there was a scandal in connection with Captain Hartigan and the purchase of these horses, and I said it requires investigation. If you put it off to the end of the war you are not likely to see much of the people concerned. Now we come to the Roebuck Committee. My noble friend on the Woolsack rebuked me for having alluded to that Committee. He said there was no analogy whatever between the Roebuck Committee and the inquiry into the remounts. I do not think the noble lord can have read my speech. I do not think he could have listened to me even in this House. I did not plead it as an analogy for an inquiry into the remounts, because, of course, the circumstances are different. The Roebuck Committee was a much more large and exhaustive inquiry than that we are asking for. I only cited the Roebuck Committee, both here and at Liverpool, to show how different was the spirit of Parliament in those days and the spirit of Parliament now. I cited it to show that in the days of Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen private Members of Parliament were not afraid to assert their own opinion, and to vote against the Government when they saw reason to believe that there was a scandal to be inquired into. That was the limit of my
  874
  allusion to the Roebuck Committee, and I hope the noble Lord will on some future occasion explain how it is I was destitute of patriotism in that allusion. Of course, I do not wish to take too high a line in this matter. If the Government are indifferent to an aspersion much more upon them than upon their officials, then it is only for us who think differently on this subject to shrug our shoulders and pass on. If they do not believe that the state of things revealed by the Remount Committee does indicate the necessity for further and drastic inquiry, that is their affair and not ours. The responsibility lies with them and not with us. If they are not so sensitive as we are with regard to what is said all over the Continent and in half the daily papers in England about what are called in the organs of public opinion—I do not care to use the word myself—"these scandals, "that is a matter for the Government, not for us. But let them remember one thing, that the postponement of inquiry has a very deleterious effect on their position. My noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth cited cases in which they were compelled to make inquiries, and where they had inquired, without any serious inconvenience, where they were perfectly able to inquire. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his picturesque and animated speech, attempted to prove a great o deal too much. He quoted the case of a friend of his, to whom I trust a statue will be erected in front of the War Office, who had had no holiday since the war began, and who, when he had a holiday, was recalled by telegraph. He argued from the analogy of this black swan that it would be impossible for anybody at the War Office to find a moment's time to give evidence before any Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say that.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is not what you said, but what your argument comes to, otherwise I do not see the force of pointing to this unfortunate gentleman without a holiday. The noble Earl said also there were hundreds of thousands of contracts—
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And purchases.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Contracts and purchases, and that they affected a large number of officers now in South Africa, and even Lord Kitchener himself. He drew a picturesque scene or conjured up a vision of Lord Kitchener returning from South Africa, and instead of being met with all the paraphernalia of a triumph, being confronted with the gaunt form of a Joint Committee. I think these are fantastic imaginings. I do not imagine any noble Lord honestly thinks that Lord Kitchener or any leading officers in the field are affected by any evidence that is likely to be given about contracts. The noble Earl also drew a picturesque view of these officers suffering agonies from the imputations on their conduct contained in evidence before the Committee. Now I do not take such a gloomy view of the state of mind of our officers in South Africa. I doubt if any one of them has the slightest reason to fear any evidence that may be given before the inquiry. What I do think they may dislike is that these charges should be bandied about perpetually in the public Press, and more especially in the responsible organs of the Press, while the only answer given on the part of the Government is—"Postpone all this until the war is over, let everything remain unanswered until the war is over, we are prepared to bear the responsibility until the war is over." Cynics may say that at the real end of the war— not the official end— we shall all be in a state of great jubilation and triumph, and I myself shall be so pleased that I shall hardly wish to look back on the past at all, and I confess I shall be much more languid about inquiry into the question of remounts then than I am now, and that, I take it, is the average state of mind among the population. It is at that moment the Government promises us, not merely an inquiry into remounts and contracts which we now hear involve hundreds of thousands of articles, and before the war is over may include millions, but an inquiry into every branch and detail of the conduct of the war. Why, the Siege of Troy will be nothing to it! If such an inquiry is really conscientiously conducted it will last for ten years it will be buried under scores of Blue-books, and nobody but an
  876
  antiquarian when that inquiry has taken place will have the slighest interest in its results. That, I am afraid, is the scheme of the Government in postponing this inquiry until after the war. I myself had hoped that this was not their plan; I hoped that the very reasonable proposition of my noble friend would be accepted, that they would be prepared anxiously and chivalrously to clear themselves at the earliest possible opportunity, but from the state of the Benches opposite I see that is not their course. I regret it, I deplore it, in their own interest. At any rate, I feel that, whatever the result of the division may be, we have done our best to impress on the Government the gravity of the issue before us, and the responsibility and result does not rest with us.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOVVNE: My Lords, my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has so well expressed the arguments upon which we rely in resisting this proposal that I will add very few words to those he has spoken. The noble Lord who introduced this subject began his speech by declaring that the issue before us is simple, and so it is. It is not whether there shall be an inquiry or not, but whether that inquiry shall be now or at a later time. It was unnecessary for the noble Lord to remind us that it is a constitutional right of Parliament to institute inquiries, and it was not necessary for him to travel over old ground to show that there is a primâ facie case for investigation. We will not dispute that the allegations made demand inquiry, and up to this point we agree. But, meanwhile, I cannot help thinking that it is scarcely to the public advantage that we should occupy ourselves in disputing across the floor of the House as to whether a certain horse which cost £26 ought to have cost £20, or whether meat supplied at 5¾d. per lb. should have been bought at a lower figure. We are ignorant of the circumstances and conditions in which the transactions took place, and consequently we discuss them at very great disadvantage. Upon the question whether inquiry should take place at once or stand over, I say at once, if we on this Bench consulted our personal convenience and predilections we should unhesitatingly vote for immediate in-

  877
  quiry. It would be far preferable that these charges should be gone into and that we should know where we stand than that there should be an indefinite postponement, and we should have the additional advantage that we should be spared these weekly discussions, which, for all I know, may be repeated at the same interval of time as the session advances. I should have thought that if anyone was interested in not relegating this subject to an inquiry which would have the effect of withdrawing it from Parliament, that feeling would be found on the other side of the House, because if this subject were withdrawn from the cognisance of the House and relegated to a Joint Committee the Opposition would, so far as I can see, be deprived of the one topic upon which they are able to join forces for the purpose of attacking the Government. But, while we deny altogether the charge of the noble Earl below the gangway that we wish to avoid inquiry, we have to consider other aspects of the question to which I cannot help thinking he has not given sufficient attention. I desire to support as strongly as I can what my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has said as to the deplorable effect that would be produced on the efficiency of the public Departments if at this moment while the war is going on they were made the subject of a far-reaching and hostile inquiry of this character.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Why hostile?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Well, I will not use the word hostile if the noble Earl does not like it, but the whole character of the suggestions showed a hostile attitude.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Well, I will say an attitude of suspicion. The noble Lord has had a large experience of public affairs, but not so much of the inside of a public office as my noble friend and I. We know perfectly well that it is impossible to expect any officials to give not only the whole of their time, but of their attention, while
  878
  they are conscious that these charges are hanging over them, and that inquiry is in progress, which will require them to tax their memories in order to prepare their defence, and to turn their thoughts in the direction, not of holding their own in the public interest against the wiles of contractors, but in the direction of making good their case under the cross-examination of astute Members of Parliament. Another reason why inquiry should not take place at the present time is, that beyond all doubt a great number of the persons whose evidence it would be necessary to take are beyond our reach. The noble Lord has spoken as if the only testimony that would be required would be that of the persons engaged in making these contracts, but, surely, if inquiry is to produce the desired results, we should require not only the evidence of the persons who bought the horses, but of the men who rode them; not only the evidence of the men who made the contracts for meat, but of the officers and men who consumed it. It is only in that way that you will get the most important portion of the case—that part which goes to show, not only whether the price paid for the commodity was the proper price, but whether the quality of the horses, of the meat, or of the fodder procured was good or bad. My noble friend Lord Crewe, protesting against the postponement of the inquiry, said that if we put it off, all the indignation of the country would have evaporated. I should have thought that if this inquiry is to be conducted in a judicial spirit it would be better that some of the animus and indignation which may have distorted the public view should have had time to pass away and be replaced by a calmer and more moderate attitude of mind. We have heard something of precedent. We have been told that we ought not to resist inquiry, because we have already granted inquiry into hospitals, concentration camps, and remounts. These three inquiries, however, were of a very special and restrictive kind, and do not compare in any degree with the more far-reaching kind of inquiry to which your Lordships are now asked to consent.
  But if we are to refer to precedents, I will venture to lay before your Lord-

  879
  ships a precedent much more to the point. In 1884, after one of the Egyptian campaigns, there was a great outcry against alleged shortcomings — I will avoid using the word scandals—in the Transport and Commissariat Departments, and a House of Commons Committee was appointed. That Committee sat, and had not concluded its inquiry at the end of the year 1884. At the beginning of the year 1885, a Motion was made for the reappointment of the Committee; but at that time another phase of the Egyptian operations had commenced. The Nile Campaign and the Suakin Expedition were in progress, and my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, who was then Secretary of State for War, resisted the Motion for the reappointment of the Committee upon the very ground upon which we are resisting it this evening —namely, that while operations were proceeding in the field it was not desirable that there should be an inquiry of the kind. The case to-day is infinitely stronger than the ease which at that moment Lord Hartingdon put before the House of Commons. In the first place, the operations now proceeding in South Africa are of a much more serious character; and in the next place the Committee which sat in 1884 had already commenced its operations, and had taken a great deal of evidence, so that the inquiry was actually cut short in 1885 with the consent of the other House of Parliament on the ground that it could not be carried on without danger to public efficiency. These arguments still weigh with us, and we believe that it will be contrary to the public interest that this inquiry be commenced at once. But when we say that, we have no idea of shirking the inquiry, and we undertake that if at the proper time that inquiry is demanded we shall certainly not stand in the way.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I shall stand in this place but a very few moments before the division which I suppose will take place; but there are one or two things which have been said in the course of the debate to which we ought to give sonic answer. We have often been twitted in this House by my noble friend who is usually on the Woolsack, and who tonight is absent—I am sure we all regret the cause—with asking Questions
  880
  and founding debates upon them without coming to a vote, or even a Resolution. We thought that on this matter, after the frequent discussions we have had on the several subjects comprised in the discussion, we ought to test the opinion of the House by making a Motion. With regard to the First Lord of the Admiralty's reference to the great scope of the inquiry, my noble friend would be perfectly ready to confine his Motion, if such were the desire of your Lordships, or if such a change would induce your Lordships to agree to the Motion, to limit it to four subjects—remounts, meat, freights, and transport. The noble Earl now sitting on the Woolsack at one moment said it was our legitimate business—our duty—to find fault where it could be found with the Administration, and yet further on in his speech suggested that we were actuated by Party spirit. That has been answered by my noble friend below the gangway. But I should like to add that I maintain that we should have been singularly wanting in our duty if we had not brought this subject before your Lordships; because we think a very serious scandal has occurred in regard to these various contracts, and that it is to the public advantage that debate should take place, and that inquiry should be made. I admit the great difficulties in which the Government found themselves at the commencement of the war. I quite admit there was a greater emergency than they had foreseen, and that they had to arrange gigantic operations, probably on a larger scale than had ever been arranged in this country before.
  I fully admit that the War Office has had too great a burden put upon it, and in some ways has not received the amount of credit deserved for having sent out such a large force to South Africa. But while making that admission most freely, I think we must throw great blame on the Government, not only for their want of foresight, which in many cases prevented them from dealing, with these questions in time, but for the manner in which they ultimately did deal with them. The questions of the contracts are very serious indeed. It is a gross scandal that the middleman in one instance should have pocketed

  881
  out of £110, 000 something like £44, 000, and on the meat contract the same kind of thing can be said. The case for a Committee has been admitted by the noble Marquess. The head of a great Department always feels that he is bound to make his Department as efficient as possible, and that if he cannot secure efficiency and any scandals arise he is always liable to be called upon by the Houses of Parliament to account for his inability to carry on the administration efficiently. The argument used regarding the effect upon the Department of such an inquiry is a reductio ad absurdum. Such an argument would prevent inquiry into even greater scandals. I totally deny that a great office could be so disorganised in the case of a necessary inquiry as to be perfectly inefficient. A primâ facie case for inquiry having been made out and admitted by the Government themselves, the sooner that inquiry is given the better. There is a point with regard to precedents. In the year 1856 there was an inquiry, which I remember very well, that was made by most distinguished general officers at Chelsea. That inquiry was made in consequence of the report of two very able men who were sent out to the Crimea on purpose to investigate the charges made. I do not say such an inquiry as that can be held now; but in the case of an inquiry such as we propose that precedent of obtaining evidence on the spot could be followed, and able men could be sent out to obtain evidence and bring it home. I will only use one further argument, which seems to me of great force, and that is that the Government themselves have allowed several inquiries lo take place, though, perhaps, of a somewhat different character to that we now propose, namely, that with regard to the Medical Department, and that with regard to the Concentration Camps. Not only did the Government institute those two inquiries, but they also appointed a Departmental Committee over which Sir Charles Welby presided; and, although that Committee never left London, the result has been to disclose a state of things which certainly was not creditable to those engaged in the Department. Why cannot the precedents thus set by the Government be again followed in this case? I feel
  882
  that we are perfectly justified in the Motion we have brought before the House, and I shall certainly, with the greatest confidence in the patriotism of the act, vote for the inquiry which it proposes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl who has just sat down has touched on very many different subjects and has wandered over a wide field of controversy, and if I rise now it is not for the purpose of following him into those devious paths, but in order to remind him of the points that are actually at issue before us. The noble Earl has spoken of former inquiries which he said estop us from offering any objection to the inquiry now suggested; and as an illustration in argument he went back to the year 1856 and said there was a Commission appointed in that year which should force us to accede to the proposal now made.
  EARL SPENCER: I only referred to the fact that they sent out two able men to obtain information which the noble Marquess opposite said could not be obtained except by bringing officers home.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was due to the simple fact that the war was over.
  EARL SPENCER: The inquiry was begun during the war.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Undoubtedly, but the war was over in March, 1856.
  EARL SPENCER: February, 1856.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There would, therefore, be no difficulty in carrying out the inquiry But our objection to an inquiry now is that from more than one point of view it would seriously hinder the prosecution of the war; in the first place, because, as has been well said, it would paralyse the administrative1machinery by which the war is carried on. The noble Earl who has just sat down denies that. He seems to think that, if the War Office had only the good fortune to be presided over by a sufficiently virtuous public officer, there

  883
  could be no hindrance to its operations in consequence of an inquiry like this being carried on. I am surprised to hear the noble Earl make such an observation at all, and I am sure that his experience of public life cannot carry him to that conclusion. I remember very well an inquiry conducted in time of peace under Lord Randolph Churchill into the fighting Departments of the Government, and I remember hearing the bitter complaints of the extent to which all business was brought to a standstill while the officials were getting up the case they had to submit to the Committee. Of course, men will not submit to have the case decided against them, and their own defence shut out, because they are compelled to spend their whole day and time in considering their duties and giving up their powers to the public service, and are not able to make that elaborate investigation into the past history of transactions which is necessary. The effect of an inquiry, in the first instance, I have no doubt would be very seriously to limit the pace at which the War Office can go. As matters now stand, it is worked to the utmost. Every opportunity it has is devoted to the public service, every hour it can spare is taken up by the absorbing demands of what, remember, is the largest expedition which has ever been sent out from these shores. That expedition can only be carried out, initiated, and sustained by the constant, unremitting efforts of the officers upon whose shoulders the conduct of the expedition is thrown; and if you take them deliberately from their proper duties, and insist that, instead of their performing those duties, they should employ their days and nights in answering a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, you will undoubtedly feel the result in a diminution of the fervour and effect with which the war is carried on, That, on that side, is our answer. Commence this inquiry now and you diminish the power of the Government and of the War Office for carrying on the war, and you will see a diminution or a retarding of the prosperous results as the effect of the imprudent course you have taken.
  But then there is the other side of the question. You cannot investigate what is alleged against these men without
  884
  summoning not only them, but all who have had an opportunity of bearing witness as to the matters which are called in question. There has been talk of hanging the inquiry up. Yes, but just look at the imputations that are made. I do not wish to repeat them for fear of seeming to give emphasis to them and of drawing graver inferences than the circumstances admit; but you can not think of the whole story which we have had with respect to the remounts in Germany, and the whole story we have had with respect to the prices of the meat that was sold for the sustenance of the Army, without seeing, though there may have been no such intention on the part of those who have brought these things up against the Government—without seeing that, if a verdict hostile to the Government and to its servants is adopted by the public mind, the honour of many excellent and perfectly guiltless men will be seriously impeached; and when you have set up a machinery to impeach a man's honour you cannot say: "We cannot go on with the evidence just now, we will hang the inquiry up until the war is over. "All the time you are dawdling over it these accusations are being repeated, exaggerated, and carried through the length and breadth of the land; and you not only seriously damage the reputations and prospects of the officers brought in question, but you inflict upon those who, as members of an honourable profession, feel, more bitterly than any other persons can do, the severest mental torture; for you are telling them that in the sight of their countrymen it is to be an open question for many years whether they are honest men or not. You have no right to inflict such an injury upon them; and, if you suggest fetching them home, of course it must be obvious that with so large an army, scattered in various places, performing various duties, you cannot summon them away from the front and bid them to give up their military work without very seriously affecting the efficiency of the forces by which the war is being carried on. Well, what is said on the other side? You will undoubtedly do great harm to the work at the front, and you will undoubtedly do great harm to the reputation and interests of these officers. And for what

  885
  reason? Why are you bringing this inquiry forward at this moment? The noble Earl on the Cross Benches told us that the war might be compared to the siege of Troy, and that it would be ten years before the investigations of the Committee, When they were begun, would terminate.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I said the Committee would last ten years.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not much encouragement to us to commence the investigation; because whether the war ends sooner or later an investigation which lasts ten years cannot be considered of much value. What noble Lords opposite say is that when the war is terminated we shall not be in so good a position for investigating these matters as we are now; that we should seize this opportunity, when everyone is so much excited about the matter, to enter upon the inquiry; and that we shall never again have the chance of conducting it under such favourable circumstances. I think the indignation of the public was the particular quality which the noble Lord who moved for the inquiry pressed upon us as a reason why we should accede to his proposal. If you asked noble Lords opposite why we should order the generals to come back from the front to give evidence, they would reply "To keep up the indignation of the people. "
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Marquess is not representing our views.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am trying to understand them as best I can. I admit they were a little cloudy. Evidently the view is that the officers are to be recalled from the front for examination because the British public would lose their indignation if the subject were allowed to be delayed. They say that if a wait of one or two years were to take place no one would care a bit about the inquiry; that when peace comes the people would be throwing up their hats and would forget to obtain justice for the delinquents. I object to disorganising the public service and to paralysing our military operations in order that we may keep up the fever of public indignation which is necessary to support the Motion of censure brought forward by the noble Lord. I am afraid the noble Lord must be content to work in a cooler atmosphere. He must be content to wait until the feelings of indignation are entirely evaporated; and I can give him very little hope that, if the British public do examine this matter quietly and impartially, and not under the frenzied inspiration of the noble Lord, they will do otherwise than decide that, considering the difficulties they had to meet and the tremendous task that was thrown upon them to do, the Army fulfilled that task in a manner such as no army that had ever been sent forth from the shores of England ever fulfilled it before.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 88.

  CONTENTS.

  Northampton, M.

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

  Reay, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Brassey, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Carrington, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Crewe, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Durham, E.

  Davey, L.

  somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Denman, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Portsmouth. E.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Welby, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

  Battersea, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President. )

  Bath, M.

  Derby, E.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Landsdowne, M.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclouch

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal. )

  Zetland, M.

  and Queensberry.)

  Argyll, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery,

  Dudley, E/

  Marlborough, D.

  E. (L. Steward.

  Essex, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Wellington, D.

  de Montalt, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Howe, E.

  Brampton, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L (M.

  Ilchester, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton. )

  Granby. )

  Lauderdale, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly. )

  Lichfield, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller. ]

  Newton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Morley, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Onslow, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Romney, E.

  Farquhar. L,

  Rothschild, L.

  Scar bourgh, E.

  Gage L. (V. Gage. )

  Rowton, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington. )

  Stanhope, E.

  Harris, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul)

  Southampton, L.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller. ]

  Hothfield, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.

  Frankfort de Montmorency,

  James, L.

  Galloway. )

  V.

  Kelvin, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Tweeddale L. (M. Tweeddale. )

  Addington, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss. )

  Alverstone, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Lilford, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Belper, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.