Sitting of 10 March 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Marquess of Lansdowne.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz:—Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway (Vesting) Bill.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Southport and Cheshire Lines Extension Railway Transfer) Bill.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railwa(Steam Vessels) Bill.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill.
  Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STAN DING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from 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, they have certified that the Standing have not been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
Birmingham and Midland Tramways [Lords].
Hastings Tramways [Lords]
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways [Lords].
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways [Lords].

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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.:—
Birmingham and Midland Tramways [Lords].
Hastings Tramways [Lords].
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways [Lords].
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

KINGSCOURT,KEADY,AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
The following Notices stood on the papers—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do hear all Petitions presented against the Bill within Six clear days before the meeting of the Committee upon the bill."—(Mr.Field.)
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do hear all Petitions presented against the Bill within Six clear days before the meeting of the Committee upon the Bill."—(Mr. Carvill.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker, that these Motions are not in order.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already intimated to the hon. Members that they are I understand that they do not propose to move.
MR. CARVILL: I should like to give notice that I will put another Resolution down, hoping to attain the object I have in view, but which the Standing Orders now prevent.
MR. T. M. HEALYhoped it would be seen that any fresh notice was in order, as the appearance of these notices on the Paper caused inconvenience and expense to those interested in the Bill. The new notice should be carefully scrutinised at the Table.

DERRYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL,
  WADHURST GAS BILL,
  Read the third time, and passed.
GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
Read a second time, and committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1.)
Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Edmonton, Enfield, Tottenham, and Wood Green, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Edmonton, Enfield, Tottenham, and Wood Green." Presented accordingly, and read the first time to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bradford; Waterloo; Gatewen; Bersham; Plaspower; and Wharton Hall Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Wibsey; Universal; Waterloo; Gatewen; Bersham; Plaspower; and Wharton Hall Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Leith (two); Dundas; Bathgate; Newhaven; Ayr; Greenock; Hamilton; Evanton; Stenhousemuir; Inverkeithing; Edinburgh (four); Edzell; Glasgow; Dunoon; Rutherglen; Kilmarnock; and Grand Lodge of Scotland Independent Order of Good Templars; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF LAND VALUES.
Petition from Cheltenham, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Chichester, in favour; to upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTTON ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 6th March, 1902, entitled The China (Whangpoo River Conservancy) Order in Council, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 6th March, 1902, applying the provisions of The Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884, to the Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of 6th March 1902, giving effect to the Anglo-Belgian Extradition Treaty, signed 29th October, 1901, and ratified 6th December, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH SETTLEMENTS ACT, 1887.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of 6th March, 1902, relating to the transfer of British New Guinea to the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1879.
Copies presented, of Orders in Council of 6th March, 1902, constituting Spring Assize Counties Nos. 2 and 3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL SERVICE FORCE (EAST INDIA).
Address for "Return showing (a) the numbers and description of the troops known as the Imperial Service Force, placed at the disposal of the Government of India by the Princes and Chiefs; (b) the baggage animals and other transport appliances which certain Native States, hold in readiness for service in campaigns; and (c) since the institution of this Imperial Service any additions to, or diminution of, these forces agreed upon with the States concerned."— (Mr.Schwann.)
LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of 6th March, 1902, further postponing the operation of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, in the City of London, until the 1st July, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
Return presented, relative thereto [address 6th March; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]
BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, and the Local Courts, Belfast arid Cork, for the year 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2747 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUGAR CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 4, 1902).
Copy presented, of despatch from the British delegates inclosing copy of the. Convention signed on the 5th March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the. Table.

NAVAL WORKS ACTS, 1895, 1896, 1897, AND 1899.
Account presented, showing the amount of money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the amount and nature of the securities created in respect thereof; the amount of the surplus of income over expenditure for the financial year ended 31st March, 1896, and the amount of

865
money expended in pursuance of the Acts during the year ended the 31st March, 1901; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  (3.30.)QUESTIONS.

    South African War—Reverse to Lord Methuen's Force.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): I have to ask the leave of the House to read the following telegram I have just received from Lord Kitchener—
    "Pretoria, 10.30. A. m., 8th March.
    "I greatly regret to have to send you bad news about Methuen. He was moving with 900 mounted troops under Major Paris and 300 Infantry, four guns and one Pom-Pom from Wynburg to Lichtenburg and was to meet Grenfell with 1,300 mounted troops at Rovirainesfontein on 8th. Yesterday morning early he was attacked by Delarey's force between Tweebosch and Pahnietknill. The Boers charged on three sides. Five hundred I and fifty mounted troops have come in to line at Maribogo and Kraaipan. They were pursued by Boers for four miles from scene of action. They report Lord Methuen, Major Paris, guns, baggage, etc., were captured by the Boers. Lord Methuen when last seen was a prisoner." [Cheers and laughter from some Irish Nationalist Members, and general cries of "Shame."] "I have no details of casualties or any further information at present. Will keep you informed, and would suggest your delaying publication till I can send you definite news. I had already arranged to send troops to this district. I think this sudden revival of activity on the part of Delarey is in order to draw off troops pressing De Wet."
    I have also received the following further telegram—
    "Pretoria, 9th March.
    "Major Paris has come in with remainder of men to Kraaipan. His report is that the column was moving in two parties, some with ox wagons left Tweebosch at 3 A.M., mule wagons an hour later. Just after dawn Boers attacked, before reinforcements could reach them the rear screen broke; meantime a large number of Boers galloping up on both flanks. These were at first checked by flank parties, but a panic and stampede of mules had
    866
    begun and all the mule wagons with a terrible mixture of mounted men rushed past the ox wagons. All efforts to check them were unavailing. Major Paris collected some 40 men and occupied position a mile in front of ox wagons, which were then halted. After gallant but useless defence the enemy rushed into ox wagons, and Lord Methuen was wounded in thigh. Major Paris being surrounded, surrendered at 10 A.M. Lord. Methuen is still in Boer camp. Casualties as follows:—Killed: Lieutenants G. R. Venning and T. P. W. Nesham, both Royal Field Artillery; Lieutenant G. Hartly, Steinacker's Horse, and 38 other ranks. Wounded: Colonel J. G. Wilson, 3rd Battalion York and Lancaster Regiment, dangerous; Captain J. D. Outram, 3rd Battalion Highland Light Infantry, severe; Lieutenant M. Dennis, Yeomanry, severe; Lieutenant Nash, Cape Police, severe; and Lieutenant R. H. Logan, Yeomanry, severe; and 72 other ranks wounded, not yet received. Missing: Captain Tilney, 17th Lancers, and 200 others; but many of them are probably amongst those who have come into line. Lieutenants Nesham and Venning were killed whilst, gallantly serving their guns with case."
    As it has been my duty to announce this reverse, I trust I may be allowed to say one word about the commander of the troops who have experienced defeat. It is only fair to Lord Methuen, under the circumstances, to say that for two years past lie has been conducting operations week after week in a most difficult country with forces of all descriptions, entirely to the satisfaction of the Commander-in-Chief and without failure in any particular. Lord Methuen earlier in the war failed in carrying out the relief of Kimberley under conditions which, after a full survey of the position attacked and considering the composition of his force, appeared to Lord Roberts to reflect no discredit on him; and the untiring energy which he has since displayed, and the confidence with which he is regarded by all who have since served under him, deserve the fullest recognition. [General cheering.]†

    Farm Burning.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why no record appears in the Return of buildings burnt in South Africa of the farmhouses and other buildings burned during Sir Redvers Buller's march into the South Eastern Transvaal after the relief of Ladysmith.
    † See further telegram at close of this day's report.
    MR. BRODRICK: No farms were burned down during this march of Sir Redvers Buller.
    MR. CHANNING: Arising out of the reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in the summer of 1900 a number of letters from officers were published referring to farm burnings. [Cries of "Order!"] It is perfectly in order—
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think so. If the hon. Member wants further information he had better put the Question down.
    MR. CHANNING: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the information and put down a further Question.

    Miss Hobhouse.
    ME. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he gave authority for the arrest and detention of Miss Hobhouse on board the "Arundel Castle," on Sunday, the 27th October last; and, if not, when he first became aware of her arrest and detention; was it by his orders that she was detained on that vessel until the following Wednesday, and then forcibly deported to the "Roslin Castle," and carried a prisoner to England on that steamer. If these steps were not taken by his orders, when did he first become aware of them; and did he then signify his assent.
    MR. BRODRICK: The action was taken by the military authorities in South Africa, and, as I have already stated to the House, I accept full responsibility in this House for such action.

    Dysentery and Enteric Fever Commission
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the Report of the Commission of Experts, appointed in August, 1900, to inquire into the causation, pathology, and modes of prevention (more particularly as affecting armies in the field) of dysentery and its connection, if any, with enteric fever;
    868
    and, if not, if he will call for the Report, and lay it upon the Table of the House for the use of Members.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Report is now complete but has not yet been printed.

    Deaths from Enteric Fever.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of, and the number of deaths from, enteric fever during the months of December and January last.
    MR. BRODRICK: The approximate figures for December are:—Admissions, 1,507; deaths, 224. The figures for January are not yet complete.

    Execution of Commander Scheepers.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether lie will now cause inquiry to be made by telegram of Lord Kitchener I as to the circumstances attending the execution of Commander Scheepers.
    MR. BRODRICK: Many statements similar to that which the hon. Member made in a Question put on Friday last appear without any justification whatever, and I must decline to answer any further Question put by the hon. Member on this subject until he furnishes me with his authority.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:I pledge my responsibility for the truth of these statements. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry? If not, it is most disgraceful on the part of the Government.

    Prosecution of Dutch British Subjects.
    MR. LOUGHI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Matthew du Plessis, the Cape Member of Parliament for Craddock, and Mr. Rademeyr, the Member for Humansdorp, both being British subjects, were upwards of six months ago compulsorily sent from their homes in the Colony to Port Alfred without any charge having been made against them, and that they are still detained there untried; how long is it

    869
    intended to detain these gentlemen in exile; and what is the public exigency for such treatment of them.
    MR. BRODRICK: No information has been received on these matters.
    MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid it would be impossible for me to do that.

    Mrs. Rousseau.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in June last, Mrs. Rousseau, the wife of the Dutch clergyman at Pietermaritzburg, was deported from Graaff Reinet, in the Cape Colony, to Port Alfred, and that the same punishment was inflicted on Mrs. de Klerk; whether both ladies are British subjects; whether he can state upon what grounds they have been detained at Port Alfred ever since; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing them to return to their homes.
    MR. BRODRICKI have no information on this matter.
    MR. SCHWANN: Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph to find out?
    MR. BRODRICK: I can add nothing to the answer I have given the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Marais.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Marais has yet been brought to trial;.and, if so, upon what charge, and with what result.
    MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Marais has not been brought to trial, but he has been ordered to reside at Port Alfred under surveillance. Lord Kitchener after carefully considering the evidence, held that, as some of the Dutch witnesses were unwilling to appear, sufficient evidence could not he produced to secure conviction.

    Purchase of Stores in South Africa.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether an inquiry has been held in South Africa with respect to the local purchase and supply of ordnance stores; whether this inquiry has revealed transactions of a fraudulent nature upon an extensive scale; whether inferior and even worthless equipment has been furnished at an extravagant price, to the inconvenience of the military authorities and to the detriment of the public interest; and whether, in view of the forthcoming debate upon Army contracts, he will immediately submit the Report of the Inquiry to the House.
    MR. BRODRICK: The inquiry to which the hon. Member alludes was a private Departmental inquiry by four military officers, who, with the assistance of a financial Member, made a Report to the Commander-in-Chief on the purchases made by certain ordnance officers in South Africa. The Report by no means bore out the description given by the hon. Member. It has only recently been received, and no decision has yet been taken upon it. I can give no promise as to publication.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Are we to understand that the Army Vote 9, which is about to be taken today, involving an expenditure of nearly £3,000,000 in connection with South Africa, is to be—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a rhetorical statement, not a Question.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Then are Members of this House to be debarred from asking information?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not asking for information.

    Purchase of Remounts in Ireland— Action against Major Stoddert.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason for the delay in bringing to trial the action of the War Office v. Major Stoddert and others, instituted in Ireland, in reference to the alleged frauds of the defendants,

    871
    as agents for the War Office, in the purchase of remounts for the War in South Africa.
    MR. BRODRICK: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on the 6th February by my right hon. friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire?†

    Dublin District Canteen Supplies.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state under what circumstances, and on what conditions, Messrs. R. Dickeson & Co. have secured the right to supply dry goods, and a number of other articles to canteens in the Dublin military district, what steps are taken to secure competition with this firm, for what period has their monopoly been created, and who is responsible for making the arrangement.
    MR. BRODRICK: These matters rest with the General Officer Commanding the District, to whom the hon. and learned Member should address any communications he would like to make. I may inform the hon. Member that, in view of the early assembly of a Committee on the system under which canteens and regimental institutes will in the future be conducted, the Commander-in-Chief has directed that, contracts shall not be made for any period beyond next June.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand that in matters affecting the welfare of the soldier, Members of Parliament have no redress whatever in this House, but must communicate with the military authorities?
    MR. BRODRICK: Questions as to refreshment contracts are always left in the hands of Commanding Officers, and I think the hon. and learned Member will recognise the difficulty of dealing with such matters from headquarters.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then everything in connection with soldiers' requisites is a Government job, and we are not entitled to ask Ministers for an explanation!
    MR. BRODRICK: Soldiers are best safeguarded by their own officers.
    † See (4) Debates, cii., 517.
    MR.T.M. HEALY: Then abolish this parliament.

    Tenders for Rolled Oats.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that quantities of rolled oats of foreign manufacture are at present being supplied to the troops in South Africa, and that, when Scotch manufacturers of rolled oats asked to be allowed to offer for Scotch rolled oats, they were not permitted to tender, but were told that the Department only buys Scotch medium ground oatmeal; will he say why foreign oats are preferred by the Department to Scotch oats and will he see that in future Scotch millers are permitted to tender for Scotch rolled oats.
    MR. BRODRICK: No foreign rolled oats have been bought by the War Department. Samples of Scotch rolled oats were obtained from several firms in June last for hospital use, but it was decided to supply Scotch oatmeal.

    War Office Contracts.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the articles bought under Vote 8, Item G, are bought by contract; and, if so, whether tenders are invited by publishing specifications, or whether officials make contracts privately.
    MR. BRODRICK: The articles referred to are bought by contract. Tenders are invited and the contracts are placed on the resulting competitions in the usual way.

    Meat Contracts, 1899–1901.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the total sums which have been paid to the Cold Storage Company for supplying meat to the Army in South Africa during the three years ending 31st March, 1902.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The total amount paid to the Cold Storage Company from 1st April, 1899, to the 31st December, 1901, is about £4,773,000. No later figures are to hand.

    Pembrokeshire Yeomanry.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the 30th Company Pembrokeshire Yeomanry are still in South Africa, although the period for which the members of that company signed expired at the end of February in this year; and whether he can state when they will be allowed to return.
    MR. BRODRICK: These men were, like all other Imperial Yeomanry, enlisted for one year, or, if the war lasts longer, for the period of the war.

    New Battleships—Wages of Electrical Workmen.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was brought to his notice some months ago that certain electrical wiring and fitting work was being executed on board the battleships "Duncan"and "Cornwallis" by workmen not receiving the standard rate of wage recognised in the electrical trades; if so, can he state what, if any, investigation took place, and with what result; and whether he will now order an immediate inspection of the work already executed, before it is too late to ascertain what class of work has been put into these ships.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): A statement to this effect, referred to by the hon. Member, was brought to the notice of the Admiralty. Investigation was made, and it was not found that the Thames Company had infringed the stipulations in their contract as to wages. The work on the "Duncan" and "Cornwallis" is being carried out under detailed specifications and tests. An overseer is stationed at the Thames Company's Yard to inspect the electrical work in progress, and the work has to be completed to his satisfaction. The inspection is, therefore, continuous. The work will be inspected as a whole and tested at a dockyard before being finally received. There is not the slightest reason to believe that the work is not of the best quality.

    Corporal Punishment in the Navy.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen-shire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to
    874
    the Admiralty whether, seeing that judges of assize, as well as courts of summary jurisdiction, have only power to order an offender to be birched if he is under the age of sixteen, he will consider the question of amending the King's Regulations so as to restrict punishment by birching in the Navy to boys under sixteen years of age.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not considered desirable at present to make any change in the age as now prescribed in the King's Regulations.

    Armour Plates for Battleships.
    MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Bright-side): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state if any orders for armour plate have been given out by the Admiralty in respect of the battleships and armoured cruisers arranged to be laid down in the current financial year.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The only armour for which orders were given during the current financial year was that for the "Queen," "Prince of Wales," "Challenger," and some of the cruisers of the "Monmouth" class. No armour has yet been ordered for the battleships and armoured cruisers arranged to be laid down in the current financial year. Special steps, however, have been taken to issue the tenders for the armour required at the earliest possible date.

    Imperial Service (East India) Force.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will grant the Return relating to the Imperial Service Force (East India), notice for which stands on to-day's Paper.†
    †The Return referred to was as follows—
    "Address for Return showing (a) the numbers and description of the troops known as the Imperial Service Force, placed at the disposal of the Government of India by the Princes and Chiefs; (b) the baggage animals and other transport appliances which certain native states hold in readiness for service in campaigns; (c) an estimate in lakhs of rupees or other round figures of the addition to the military expenditure of the Indian Government represented by these contingents as a whole, including the cadet corps recently established; (d) since the institution of this Imperial Service have any additions to, or diminution of, these forces been agreed upon with the States concerned."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have no objection to granting the Return, with the exception of Section C.

    Indian South-West Monsoon—Proposed Meteorological Station on Socotra.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, with a view to ascertaining the earliest and precise approach of the south-west monsoon in India, he will take steps for the establishment of a meteorological station on the east end of Socotra, which, being 500 miles east of Aden and in the track of the monsoon current, would, through barometrical observations and sea temperatures, afford early indications of the monsoon.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: So far as I am aware, no proposal for establishing a meteorological station on Socotra has ever been made by the Indian Meteorological Department, and any such scheme would be attended with very great difficulties and drawbacks, on account of the physical circumstances of the islands and the impossibility of transmitting information from it after the preliminary monsoon winds have set in.

    Lascars as a Naval Reserve.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will take into consideration the question of forming a Naval Reserve of the body of Lascars employed on British merchant vessels; and if he will invite the Government of the Viceroy of India to express their views on the advisability of creating such a Reserve.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: There are such practical difficulties to the creation of such a Reserve under the orders of the Government of India, that I am not disposed to address the Government of India on the subject.

    Malta.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause to be printed a copy of the despatches mentioned in the last published Blue-book
    876
    on affairs in Malta, but which were not printed in it; and whether he will also include the statements in writing sent to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies by several Maltese gentlemen on the occasion of his recent visit to Malta.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,. Birmingham, W.): I do not propose to publish any further Papers, at present. I am informed by Lord Onslow that it is incorrect that several Maltese gentlemen, other than officials, sent him any statements in writing while he was in Malta.

    Cable Communication with Wei-Hai-Wei.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the existing conditions in relation to Wei-Hai-Wei, and the bearing of the agreement of April, 1901, on United States interests, His Majesty's Government will, in virtue of the option given in the last paragraph in Clause 3 of the Submarine Cable Contract (Chee-foo and Wei-Hai-Wei), determine the specified payment at present made to. the Company for transmitting all messages on the service of His Majesty's Government over this Government-owned line.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO, THE TREASURY (Mr. A USTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The right hon. Baronet appears to be under some misapprehension as to the effect of exercising the power reserved to His Majesty's. Government in Clause 3 of the Agreement referred to. This provision refers, only to the working of the cable by the. Company for the account of His, Majesty's Government, and does not affect the Company's rights under its agreement with the Chinese Telegraphs Administration and Government.

    "The Parliamentary Debates."
    MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state when the present contract for reporting and printing Members' speeches in the House expires.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On 31st December next, or, if the House should be sitting on that date, at the end of the then current session.
    MR. O'MARA: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration, when the contract terms are re-considered, the recommendations of the Select Committee as to separating the reporting and printing contracts, and as to—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member had better put down that Question. It is clearly out of order now.

    Smallpox at Bethnal Green.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many cases of smallpox have occurred or been reported from the borough of Bethnal Green since the beginning of the year; and what proportion of persons so afflicted was found to be unvaccinated.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am informed that 136 persons were reported to the Medical Officer of Health for the Borough of Bethnal Green during January and February last as suffering from small-pox, but thirteen of these were found not to be cases of that disease. The particulars as to vaccination are as follows:—Thirty-one were unvaccinated: of these twelve died. Four were vaccinated children under thirteen: of these none died. Seventy-six were persons above thirteen who were stated to have been vaccinated in infancy: of these seven died. The Medical Officer had no information as to vaccination as regards the remaining twelve cases.

    London Pauper Children.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of children under three years of age remaining in metropolitan workhouses at the end of each of the past three years; and the number of children under three years of age who died in the metropolitan workhouses in each of the same years.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The number of children under three years of age in metropolitan workhouses at the end of
    878
    last year was 651. The returns for the two previous years do not show the number at this age, but the number of children under two years of age in these institutions at the end of 1899 and 1900 was 501 and 512 respectively. I regret I am not able to give the information asked for in the last part of the Question.

    Private Schools and the Education Grant.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that grants of public money are now made to secondary schools where the pupils pay high fees, and which schools are carried on for profit in the shape of a dividend on the capital whether these grants are made to all other private schools on similar terms
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk, for Sir J. GORST): Grants of public money are not made to schools conducted for private profit. But schools carried on by public companies in which the dividend is limited to 5 per cent. or less by Articles of Association, are not regarded as carried on for private profit.
    MR. BARTLEY: So, if a private school is made into a limited company, it would then receive a public grant?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: That would depend upon the amount of the dividend.

    Hyde Schools.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that notice was given in December last to close six elementary schools in the Borough of Hyde, in Cheshire, on 31st March; that the deficiency in school accommodation in Hyde on the closing of these schools will be 1,800 places; that, while the managers offer to keep these schools open temporarily till the Board have had time to make good the deficiency, they do not desire them to remain open indefinitely; whether the schools will receive Government grants pro rata for the period during which they remain open after the

    879
    close of their respective completed school years; whether the Board will sanction the payment of the Aid Grant by the Cheshire British Schools Association, while the schools are under notice to close; and what steps the Board is taking to make good the deficiency within a reasonable time.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON (for Sir J. GORST): It is true that six voluntary schools in Hyde have given notice that they will close on March 31st. The Board of Education are ready to enter into a reasonable agreement with the managers to keep these schools open while the prospective deficiency is supplied; but they cannot bind themselves in advance by such pledges as are asked for in the question. As soon as the amount of deficiency has been correctly ascertained, the Board of Education will issue a notice under Section 9 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.
    MR. ASHTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the deficiency is likely to be made up?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I cannot answer that Question.

    King's Lynn Charities.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he can state how many different sets of charity trustees manage the endowed charities of King's Lynn; what is the total value of the property and the total amount of the gross income managed by each set of trustees respectively; and whether any recent alterations have taken place either in the value of the endowments or the system of management.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN, Kent, Tonbridge): From the information in the possession of the Commissioners there appear to be fifteen bodies of charity trustees administering the endowed charities of King's Lynn. Although in the case of several of the endowments I shall be glad to give the hon. Member privately details of the income, it is impossible to estimate the
    880
    capital value of all the charities, or to give their aggregate income, in view of the fact, that in the case of the Municipal Charities, which are very numerous, the Commissioners have not received the accounts of the income and expenditure, notwithstanding frequent applications. In reply to the last Question, in the case of one of the Municipal Charities, building leases have recently been granted which will have the effect of increasing the value of the endowment, but otherwise there has been no change.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can my hon. friend inform me to whom the frequent applications for the accounts have been made?
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: To the Clerk of the Municipal Trustees, Mr. Beloe.

    Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in the year 1889, the then Attorney General for Ireland issued a volume of judgments of the Superior Courts in that Country in criminal cases, consisting mostly of decisions on Law points under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1887, and that this book has been circulated by the Crown among Crown prosecutors, Crown solicitors, and resident magistrates, who habitually use it as an authority in Court; and, seeing that the book has never been put on sale, or any opportunity given to lawyers engaged for the defence of considering the cases reported in it, in order that the defendants' professional advisers may have an opportunity of seeing the decisions quoted against them, whether he will take steps to have this book put in circulation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The volume in question has been supplied to the officials mentioned, and also to the Bar and Solicitors' Libraries. A limited number of copies of the volume were originally printed, and there are at present only about twenty of them available. These copies will, however, be placed on sale at Messrs. Hodges & Figgis

    881
    Dublin, at a price to be fixed by the Stationery Office, and it is proposed to order a reprint of the work if the public demand appears to justify the expenditure involved.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the reprint is brought up to date?
    MR. ATKINSON: It is only one year behind.
    MR. DILLON: But that is very important.

    Land Court Appeal in Co. Fermanagh.
    MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state the number of appeal cases to the Chief Land Commission waiting hearing in County Fermanagh;why the Chief Commission omitted County Fermanagh on their last circuit through Ulster; and when they will next sit to hear appeals in Fermanagh.
    MR. ATKINSON: The number of such appeals is 454. The sittings of the Land Commission are arranged with due regard to the claims of the several districts. No date has yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeals pending from Fermanagh, but I will endeavour to ascertain whether the Commissioners can assign a date approximately.

    Birr Market Weighbridges.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that complaints are constantly being made as to the manner in which the tolls and weighbridges in the town of Birr are managed; and if, having regard to the injury sustained by the public through the causes mentioned, he will take any steps to enable the District Council to become the owners of the tolls and weighing machines, so as to ensure that the weighing machines will be kept in proper order, and the tolls managed in a satisfactory way.
    MR. ATKINSON: No complaints have been made to the Department of Agriculture on this matter. In reply to the
    882
    second part of the Question, the Urban District Council of Birr is already authorised under Section 31 of the Local Government Act, 1898, to purchase the franchise, or right to hold a market or fair, whether under Statute, letters patent, or otherwise.

    Shiels Charity.
    MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that under the will of Charles Shiels, dated 14th February, 1846, the Committee of Management of each set of his endowed houses throughout Ireland should consist of five local managers only, namely, the Protestant incumbent, the Roman Catholic clergyman of the parish, the Presbyterian minister, the nearest magistrate resident in the locality, and the parish churchwarden; can he explain why the wishes of the benefactor have been departed from, and why the local managers of the Dungannon branch of the charity consist now of thirteen members, of whom one only is a Roman Catholic; can he state how many of the thirty-three inmates in the Dungannon block of twenty-five houses, had resided in or within three miles from the town during at least five years preceding the date of admission; how many are paying annual or weekly stipends, and how many are imbecile, crippled, or blind; and also whether any residue of the charitable funds, and if so, how much, is distributed by the local managers, in accordance with the testator's directions, amongst persons of sober and industrious habits, residing in or near Dungannon, as may be destitute of means of support, or in need of a little assistance, to enable them to pursue their trade or calling with advantage.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Governors of the Charity have, under their Trust Act of 1864, absolute discretion to alter or dispense with any of the directions in the testator's will, as to the management of the almshouses. None of the inmates at Dungannon contribute to their support, and the funds of the Charity are expended solely in connection with their

    883
    support and maintenance. I have no information on the other matters mentioned.

    Loughglynn Police and Rent Disputes.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware that Sergeant Patrick Freyne, at present stationed in Loughglynn, County Roscommon, is a native of the district in which he is stationed; and whether this arrangement is in accordance with the practice of the Constabulary; whether his attention has been called to the fact that Sergeant Freyne is in the habit of calling at the houses of tenant farmers in his district advising them to pay their rents, and abusing them in violent language if they decline to accede to his request; whether such proceedings are part of the duty of a policeman; and whether he will cause Sergeant Freyne to be removed to some other district.
    MR. ATKINSON: Sergeant Freyne is not a native of this district. He denies having acted in the manner alleged in the second paragraph. He may have advised those tenants with whom he was personally acquainted not to take part in an unlawful combination against the payment of rent, and pointed out to them the disastrous consequences which such a course of action might entail on them and their families. In so acting he would discharge the fundamental duty of a peace officer, namely, the prevention of crime and the protection of the subject. There is no intention to remove him from the district.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that the sergeant was born in a neighbouring parish within two or three miles of the place where he performs his duties, and has he not innumerable relatives there?
    MR. ATKINSON: That is not the information I have.

    Irish Education Examination Papers— Printing Contract.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland have
    884
    again given the contract for the printing of the papers set for the annual examinations under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act to a London firm; whether Irish printers have been afforded an opportunity of tendering for this work; and whether, having regard to the fact that all other Irish public educational bodies secure absolute secrecy in the execution of similar work in Ireland, he will represent to the Commissioners the advisability of having these papers printed in future within the four seas of Ireland.
    MR. ATKINSON: This is not a matter calling for the intervention of the Government. If the Board of Intermediate Education determined that the examination papers should be printed outside Ireland, upon which point I have no information, I have no doubt they exercised their discretion wisely and well, and with the object, in the best interests of the pupils themselves, of preserving secrecy. The Government do not propose to communicate with the Board, as suggested at the end of the Question.
    MR. NANNETTI: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any English Educational Authority that sends the printing of its examination papers to, Ireland?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Omagh Rates.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his-attention has been called to the fact that the local rate (cess and poor rate combined) in the Omagh rural district in the standard year was 2s. 11d. in the pound, and that in the year now ending, 1901–02, it is 4s. 3¼d.; is he aware that the increase swallows up the agricultural grant, and leaves the ratepayer no better off than prior to the subvention, and that, in the case of the British farmer, half his rates are paid on agricultural land; and will he take into consideration this fact in dealing with the question of local taxation in Ireland, with a view to-placing the Irish farmer on an equal footing with the British farmer in respect to the Exchequer contribution in relief of rates on agricultural land.
    MR. ATKINSON: The figures given in that Question are, I believe, accurate. The hon. Member is mistaken as to the operation of the English Act. To make the change suggested would alter the whole basis on which the Local Government (Ireland) Act has been passed. The remedy is economy in the administration of the rates.

    Land (Ireland) Act, 1896—Operation of the 40th Section.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to give effect to the provisions of the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896 in the case of those estates in Ireland at present under the jurisdiction of the Landed Estates Court; and whether, seeing that on many of these estates situated in congested districts in the West of Ireland the tenants are suffering by reason of the delay in having this matter settled, he will say when it is contemplated to have sales effected and the land transferred to the tenants in accordance with the terms of the section quoted.
    MR. ATKINSON: Since 1897, as a result of the pressure brought to bear by the Land Judge, a large number of estates administered in his Court have been wholly or partially sold, or taken out of Court, and the sales are rapidly progressing. In January last new rules were made regulating the procedure before the Land Judge. These rules, which were duly gazetted, are designed to afford further facilities for rapid sales to tenants. The 40th Section of the Act of 1896 does not apply to estates in congested districts until the Congested Districts Board have notified their intention not to purchase them.

    Shooting on the Clanricarde Estate.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 24th February last a tenant on the Clanricarde estate was prosecuted for shooting a hare without a game licence and fined two pounds; and, seeing that the agent on the estate
    886
    presided at petty sessions held at Woodford on the occasion, what steps, if any, will be taken in this matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: The prosecution was at the suit of the Inland Revenue. The defendant was convicted and fined, as stated. He is the son of a tenant on the estate of the Marquess of Clanricarde. The agent of the estate was not disqualified from adjudicating in the case, and no action is called for by Government as suggested.
    MR. ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling in the district is one of utter contempt for the law as administered?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Mayo Prison Governorship.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the vacancy in the governorship of the Mayo Prison, caused by the transference of Mr. M'Gann to Armagh Prison, has yet been filled, arid if it is proposed to make the appointment from the ranks of those engaged in the prison service.
    MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

    Prison Regulations at Kilkenny.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the grounds on which the Governor of Kilkenny Gaol has withheld from Michael Glennon, a bail prisoner at present confined there, copies of the Irish People newspaper, sent him by his friends, whilst allowing him to read other Irish newspapers; whether in this matter the Governor acted on his own responsibility or on instructions from the Irish Executive; and whether he proposes to have the prohibition of the Irish People newspaper withdrawn.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Governor withheld the copies of the print referred to on the ground that they contained matter of an objectionable character. He acted on his own responsibility and

    887
    in the discharge of his duty under the 24th of the prison rules. The Government do not propose to issue any instructions to the Governor, such as suggested.
    MR. DILLON: Then are Governors of Irish goals to be set up as censors of newspapers?

    Irish Congested Districts Board—Resignation of Lord de Vesci.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a large portion of West Cork is scheduled as a congested district, and contains a number of important fishing stations, and also was represented on the Congested Districts Board by the Rev. Charles Davis, late parish priest of Baltimore, he will appoint as successor to Lord de Vesci a representative from the district.
    MR. ATKINSON: The vacancy on the Congested Districts Board caused by the death of the Rev. Charles Davis, P.P., in 1892, was filled by the appointment of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe. The Government have no reason to believe that the interests of the Congested Districts in West Cork have been neglected, as the Question would seem to imply. On the contrary, they are aware that much has been done to promote and foster the fishing industry in that part of Ireland. The vacancy caused by the recent retirement of Lord de Vesci has been filled by the appointment of the Earl of Shaftesbury.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration communications received with reference to the representation of the other districts?
    MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: What consideration have they received?
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they have received no consideration whatever?
    MR. O'MARA: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the special qualifications of the Earl of Shaftesbury?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Irish Land Valuation.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Valuation will not under any circumstances revise the valuation of land in Ireland and will he explain how it was that a re-valuation was made in 1899 of that portion of the Great Southern and Western Railway which runs through the No. 1 Tipperary Council District, and the valuation reduced by a considerable amount.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioner of Valuation has no power, under the Valuation Acts, to increase or lessen the total valuation of lands in any townland. The effect of the revision, in 1899, of the valuation of that portion of the the Great Northern and Western Railway which lies in the district mentioned was to increase, not reduce, the rateable valuation of the railway in that district.
    MR. CULLINAN: Is it not a fact that in several districts the valuation has been reduced?
    MR. ATKINSON: The total valuation of the railway has been increased.
    MR. CULLINAN: That is not the point.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether general instructions have been issued to Local Government Board Inspectors to furnish Councils concerned with their reasons for rejecting applications in connection with schemes of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, if not, whether such instructions will be issued.
    MR. ATKINSON: It has been the invariable practice of the Local Government Board to communicate the reasons

    889
    for rejection, in every such case, to the local Council concerned.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is customary for inspectors to the Local Government Board to reject applications made for sites for labourers' cottages on large holdings situate at a distance from public roads, notwithstanding that the approaches to those holdings are the same as used by farmers who live on either side; and whether lie will instruct the inspectors that such sites should not in future be rejected, especially in cases where labourers already live on those holdings.
    MR. ATKINSON: Section 6 of the Labourers Act of 1883, as amended by Section 3 of the Act of 1886, prescribes that lands cannot be taken compulsorily except they "immediately adjoin, and are accessible from, a then existing public road. "It is not customary for inspectors to reject applications for cottages merely on the ground of the approach to the site, if such approach is a public road, i.e., one over which an undoubted public right of way exists.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this session to amend the Labourers Act?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

    Ballyhaunis (Mayo) Police:
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of a force of police under Sergeant Lyons, of Ballyhaunis, at Island, Co. Mayo, on 24th February last when a man named Patrick Healy, while thanking the people for assistance given by them to the Island tenants in bringing home turf, was set upon by Sergeant Lyons, who struck him with his baton and ordered the constables to disperse the crowd with their batons, with the result that a man named Owen Carney and his wife were knocked down by a constable; and will he state the reason for this attack, and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that on the date mentioned a crowd, of which Patrick Healy was a prominent member, lighted a bonfire in the immediate proximity of the house of an individual who has been subjected to intimidation because he is employed as herd on a grazing farm. Healy addressed the crowd and was using language of an intimidatory character, which was endorsed by the crowd, when Sergeant Lyons called upon him to desist in his attacks. This Healy refused to do and the sergeant thereupon called upon the crowd to disperse, as the gathering under the circumstances was an unlawful assembly. The crowd not only refused to disperse but persisted in its illegal course, and the sergeant then ordered the police to disperse it by force. Healy and Carney were struck, but neither Carney nor his wife were knocked down. Mrs. Carney, who had a stone in her hand, incited the crowd to stone the police. The sergeant performed his duty with judgment and tact, and no action is called for as suggested in the Question.
    MR. DILLON: Then are we to understand that in future in Ireland a police sergeant is to be the judge of what is an unlawful assembly?
    MR. BLAKE: And are we to take lit that an assembly becomes unlawful immediately a particular speaker uses unlawful language?
    MR. ATKINSON: That is an abstract question.
    MR. BLAKE: But it is the natural outcome of your answer.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are the police to decide whether or not an assembly is unlawful?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And as to this sergeant, has His Excellency satisfied himself as to his legal knowledge?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Ranagissaun Police.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Constables Ward,

    891
    Hyland, and Marshall, of the Ranagissaun Police Barracks, Kilmovee, Co. Mayo, on Thursday, 27th February, in stopping the local band from playing on the public road, at a time when there was no meeting and no disorder of any kind; and whether he will see that such interference is not repeated.
    MR. ATKINSON: The constables named had good reason to believe that it was the intention of the band to proceed in the direction of the house of a bailiff on a property in this locality, for the purpose of intimidating him. The police requested the leaders of the band to take another road, which they did. The band was not prevented from proceeding in any other direction. There was no undue interference with the band on the part of the police.
    MR. DILLON: What constitutes "good reason to believe" in the minds of the Irish police?

    Irish Estates in the Land Court.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of forthcoming Irish land legislation, he will be prepared to grant the Return relating to Irish Estates in the Land Judges' Court, notice of which stands on to-day's Paper.†
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that the preparation of the Return asked for, with the accuracy without which it would be misleading, would, for reasons too complicated and numerous to be dealt within reply to a Question, makedemands upon the time and labour of the staff of the Court which would seriously impede the work of the Court. I shall be happy to show my hon. friend the Report I have received, if he desires to see it

    Tralee and Dingle Railway.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has
    †The Return referred to was as follows—
    "Return setting out (a) the number of Estates in the Irish Land Judge's Court; (b) the gross rental of such properties; (c) the number and names of the receivers in charge; (d) the date upon which the said Estates were placed under the Court; and (e) the number subject to sale under the fortieth section of the Act of 1896."
    892
    received any communications recently from the Kerry County Council relative to the Tralee and Dingle railway; whether, considering the condition of this line, the responsibility which rests on the Government because of sanctioning the curves and gradients, and the amount of rates of the county, which renders it impossible to give help out of the rates, he will have inquiries made into this matter and so prevent loss of life.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has received the communications referred to. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Report made by the engineer appointed by the Board of Works in 1884 stated that special and ample brake-power should be provided and always ready for use on the heavy inclines, and that with adequate traction for heavy loads on these inclines the proposed railway might be efficiently worked. The line when constructed was passed by the Board of Trade. The Board of Works adhere to the opinion that with the proper working required by their engineer, and proper maintenance, the gradients and curves approved by them could be efficiently worked. It does not rest with the Board to take action in this matter.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Did not the engineers of the Board of Works disapprove the line?
    MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Richmond Hospital, Dublin.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of the Imperial grant allotted to the Richmond Hospital in Dublin; and why this institution is not required under its charter to receive pauper inmates gratuitously; can he say to what class of inmates the funds of this institute are applied; and whether, in the matter of the special cases of paupers sent for treatment from Nenagh Union, he will explain why the custom in existence for the past thirty years of receiving such paupers free should be departed from by the authorities at Richmond Hospital.
    MR. ATKINSON: The amount annually voted to the House of Industry Hospitals, of which the Richmond Hospital is one, is £7,600. No such conditions as mentioned are attached to the payment of the Parliamentary grant, and the hospital authorities contend they are entitled to charge the guardians of poor law unions the sum of 2s. per head per day, for the maintenance and treatment of pauper inmates sent by these unions. If the hon. Member will refer to the Report of the Select Committee of the House issued in 1854, and to the Report of the Viceregal Commission of 1855, he will find much information as to these hospitals and the class of patients treated in them. As already stated by my right hon. friend, the hospital authorities are not aware that workhouse patients w ere maintained for thirty years before 1895 without payment.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have privately informed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the accuracy of the statement in the Question is within my personal knowledge as Chairman of the Nenagh Union for some sixteen years?
    MR. ATKINSON: I have given the hon. Member the effect of the Report I have received.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: It is not a correct report.

    Mallaranny Foreshore Rights.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say to whom the Crown parted with its rights to the foreshore between high- and low-water mark near Mallaranny, Co. Mayo, and by what instrument, whether by patent or otherwise.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I understand that the Crown rights in the foreshore near Mallaranny were granted to one John Brown by patent in the 29th year of King Charles II.

    Irish Gold Ornaments.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state when the trial
    894
    between the Treasury and the British Museum for the recovery of the Irish gold ornaments will take place.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The time for delivery of defence expired on the 8th inst., but the defendants have taken out a summons asking for a fortnight's further time. This will be opposed; but I cannot commit myself to any opinion as to when the trial will take place.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he was anxious the Irish Academy should have notice when the trial was likely to take place.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will see to it.

    Debased Silver Coinage in Ireland.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the inconvenience to business in Ireland arising from the amount of debased silver coinage now circulating in that country, he will take iteps to have all worn silver coins withdrawn.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I presume that the Question refers to worn silver coin. I have never heard that any debased coin is in circulation in Ireland. Worn coin is withdrawn from circulation in Ireland, and forwarded to the Royal Mint for re-coinage, by the Bank of Ireland, which has a large number of branches in the country, and has made uo complaint of any inconvenience to business. If the hon. Member can furnish me with any facts on which his Question is based, inquiry shall be made.

    Illicit Stills in Ireland.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many prosecutions have taken place and convictions obtained, respectively, in the provinces of Ulster, Munster, and Connaught in connection with discoveries of illicit stills.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The figures for the year ended 31st March, 1901, are as follows—

    Ulster

    34 prosecutions and 22 convictions.

    Munster

    12 prosecutions and 8 convictions.

    Connaught

    70 prosecutions and 52 convictions.

    Chinese Operations—Parliamentary Recognition of Military Services.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in recognition of the conduct of our Military and Naval forces, both British and Indian, during the recent operations in China, His Majesty's Government will propose that Parliament pass a vote of thanks to them for their services.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that we are entirely in accord with him as to the estimate we have formed of the admirable conduct of the troops engaged in the recent Chinese operations; but from the strictly military point of view the operations seem not to have been of a character which would justify the very exceptional treatment which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Will the right lion. Gentleman consider whether it is in any way possible to remedy what may seem to be a somewhat invidious distinction between the members of the naval force who have received recognition and those of the military force?
    AIR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware there had been any exceptional treatment of one portion of the forces, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars I will make it my business to inquire.

    "The Times "—Publication of Exclusive Information as to Cabinet Meetings.
    MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the fact that special and exclusive information was communicated to The Times as to the Cabinet Council originally arranged to be held on Friday last and as to the principal business to be laid before that Cabinet Council; whether he has found out through what channel that information reached The Times, and whether he can assure the House that similar leakage will not occur in the future.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine that what the lion. Gentleman refers to is one
    896
    of those conjectures in which all newspapers are at liberty to indulge, and in which most of them do indulge.
    MR. DILLON: It is not conjecture; it is a statement of fact.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    John M'Kean, Esquire, for the County of Monaghan (South Monaghan Division).

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. JEFFREYSin the Chair.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,332,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,, 1903."
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the Vote included a large sum for equipment sent to South Africa, and for the information of hon. Members who might not understand exactly, he would explain that ordnance stores included wagons, medical equipment, arms, accoutrements, and almost everything issued to a soldier from Woolwich, whether made at Government establishments or by private contractors. A large proportion of these stores had been put out to contract, and it was his object to show that many of them had been manufactured of inferior material and that the very lowest class of workmanship had been put into them. Upon this Vote was a sum of £2,000 for the payment of inspectors for the inspection of these articles, and an additional sum for the wages of civilian superintendents employed in the inspection of stores at the factories, of £34,000 with a further addition of £115,000 only to the South African war. These large sums for inspection, taken in conjunction with the state of affairs in South Africa, showed that there had been fraudulent transactions on a large scale, and as the Committee had had no opportunity of looking at the details of

897
these Estimates—as they had not been put before the Committee—he moved, "That Mr. Deputy Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Under the powers conferred upon me, I must refuse to put the Question.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Am I to understand. Sir, that you decline to put the Question?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Then may I be permitted to continue my remarks?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he desired to draw special attention to Vote "A," the pay of the civilian staff, and the wages in the Ordnance Department at Woolwich. A considerable number of men were employed at Woolwich at a rate of wages in direct contradiction to the fair wages resolution. It was the custom of the authorities to employ pensioned soldiers, and in that way they were able to obtain labour at 15s. That was gradually increased, first to 17s., then to 19s., and finally to 21s, a week. It had been said that although the nominal wages were only 31s., the men often brought that up to 21s. by piece work, but he contended that the wages paid were only 19s., 20s., and 21s., which at Woolwich was not a living wage. At the Ordnance Stores there were a large number of men paid a high rate of wages for overlooking men occupied at the Stores, and the result was that whist the lower class labour was sweated, a great deal of the public money was squandered on these higher class men. These men were paid far less than men doing similar work for private firms, and he contended that cheap labour was bad labour, and that the Government ought to have the best labour obtainable. It had been said that the men employed by the Government had many advantages, but those advantages were no greater than the men themselves could obtain from their Friendly Societies at the cost of 6d. a week, and the fact that the Government
898
gave these advantages was no reason for their not paying the rate of wages current in the locality. It was said that these advantages cost the Government 1s. 2d., but that was no reason for defrauding a man of his legitimate pay. It was a sort of trick system carried out by the Government of the day. If the Government were not prepared to pay the current wages, they could not get the best quality of labour, and as a result of this inferior labour it was well known that the Boers had been able to supply themselves with a considerable amount of ammunition owing to the cartridges falling out of the faulty bandoliers carried by our soldiers. So small were the wages paid to the employees at Woolwich, that men employed in the dockyard during the day had been known to go hawking vegetables and other things about the streets at night. That was not a condition of things which ought to be necessary in order that a workman of the Government should get a living wage.
This matter was closely related to the housing question, and he had been told that the question could not be considered in regard to Deptford and Woolwich without its being considered in respect to the whole 30,000 labourers in Government employ all over the country. But surely it was a question that could be dealt with most effectually by paying the trade union rate of wages in the various localities. It was a well-known fact that Woolwich was one of the most difficult places for a workman to obtain house room. He had either to go to Plumstead, or had to pay, if he wished to live in Woolwich, the same price as he would have to pay in the centre of South London. In Woolwich the average price for one room was 3s. a week, and a man who wished to live under conditions of common decency had to pay 8s. 6d. or 9s. a week for three rooms. The Government had declared more than once its anxiety to deal with the housing question. That question had been brought before the House, which had heard the most shocking details described. All those shocking details were rampant at Woolwich. A man at Woolwich who received 19s. or 20s. a week had out of that to pay a sum of 8s. or 9s. a week for his room accommodation, and had to

899
keep his family on 13s. or 14s. a week. A man under those conditions had to do one of two things—he had either to deprive himself of sufficient nourishment, or to play the part of a bad citizen, a bad husband, and a bad father, and deprive his wife and family of sufficient nourishment. How were that man's children under those circumstances to derive any good from education? They could not learn when only half fed. But the worst aspect of this dreadful state of things was from the point of view of the women. He would not mince matters; the women were either obliged to deprive themselves of sufficient food, or to sell their bodies in the public streets. It was disgraceful that the Government of the day should be sweating their labourers in this manner. The poorest district of London recently passed a resolution that its road-sweepers should not be paid less than 24s. a week; yet the Government were paying miserable wages- He moved to reduce the amount of Item "A" by £100.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Item 'A' (Civilian Staff and Wages of Army Ordnance Department) be reduced by £100."—(Captain Norton.)
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The hon. Member has raised the question of whether we are paying a fair rate of wages to those whom we employ, and he has impressed upon the Committee the necessity of the Government being, in these matters at any rate, on a level with the best employers of labour in the country. With that, on the whole, I am not prepared to disagree. I think we should endeavour to help those who serve under us as long as they are assisting us to the best of their ability. But we must also remember that, as a Government, we have to look at these matters rather as if we were managers of a business on behalf of the country, and to see that we do not set up a standard which will end, although there is a pecuniary advantage to the labourers, in a loss to the State. In all these matters our object must be to get the cheapest material and the cheapest form of labour, combined, as it must be, in
900
both cases with the best class of material and the best form of labour. With regard to 21s. not being a living wage, I am not disposed to accept the payments made by Vestries as the current rate of wages. One must go to the other districts where similar work is carried out, and compare the work done in our factories with the work done in other parts.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Oh, no; the housing question comes in.
LORD STANLEY: I must disagree with the hon. Member. In alloting work, a certain amount to the factories and a certain amount to the trade, the whole question of the rate of wages must come in, and we are entitled to compare the rate of wages that we pay with that paid in other districts where similar work is done. The rate of wages has been for some time a bone of contention in this House, and it has on various occasions been dealt with by the Government of the day—chiefly by the Government now on this side of the House. The minimum rate before 1891 was 17s.; in 1891 it was raised to 18s.; in 1893, to 19s., and in 1897 to 21s. Then in 1894 the hours were reduced from 54 to 48 per week. That gives an average roughly, with the benefits which the labourers get, of per hour. The benefits—which after all, must be taken into account in comparing like with like—are that the employees get free medical attendance, free hospital in case of accident, sick pay at half-rate after the three years service, paid holidays for a certain number of days in each year—nine days at Woolwich and Pimlico, the period varying at other places—and a gratuity on discharge at the rate of a week's pay for each year's service. I do not think you will find any private employers who give those advantages, and we are perfectly justified in taking them into account. Then the hon. Member referred to one form of labour as being very much underpaid—that of the packer.
CAPTAIN NORTON: No, I did not specially refer to the packer. The men I specially alluded to were those employed at less than 24s. a week. The packer gets more than that.
LORD STANLEY: I think the hon. Member referred to the packer, and said he ought to get more.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I merely mentioned him in order to describe to the House the class of work that was done.
LORD STANLEY: The packer is one of those who get 24s., apart from the other benefits. As to the men who get 21s., the store-house men at Pimlico are classified in three grades, of whom the third class get 21s. and the first class 24s.
CAPTAIN NORTON: But we are on the Ordnance Vote now.
LORD STANLEY: Yes; I ought not to have alluded to that, perhaps. In the ordnance factories nearly all the men who are rated at 21s. get, as a matter of fact, more than 24s., many of them being on piecework. But I want to point out that the labour is not in any way skilled labour. It is absolutely and entirely unskilled labour, and I hold that if you go all through the country—barring the Vestries, which I am not prepared to accept as a standard—you will not find that 21s. is a low rate of pay for absolutely unskilled labour.
CAPTAIN NORTON: What about the dockers' 6d. an hour?
LORD STANLEY: I do not know what the dockers' hours are, and, as my right hon. friend points out, the docks do not provide, as we do, for a continuity or certainty of service. That must be a point in every man's consideration when engaging himself to any particular work. Out of the 6,600 labourers in the Ordnance factories, only 2,600 are rated at 21s., and even of those the majority earn over 24s. on piecework. I cannot now go into the question of the housing of the working classes. I admit that to a certain extent it may be bound up in this matter, but it is not a question that can be gone into as a whole on the Ordnance Vote. We are bound to take things as we find them in that particular respect, and my inquiries have not led me to the conclusion that there has been such an enormous increase in rents at Woolwich as the hon. Member has pointed out.
CAPTAIN NORTON: No increase They have been rising steadily for ten years past.
LORD STANLEY: After all, we have done something to meet that, because in that period we have raised the wages by 4s. and reduced the hours by six per week. We are perfectly prepared, and it is our duty to do so, to watch the whole movement of the labour; market, and to endeavour to bring our labourers up to the scale of those employed by private persons. This we have tried to do by giving to totally unskilled labour what we believe to be the market rate—21s. In addition to that, the cost of the benefits given to these labourers in 1900–1 exceeded £65,000, which is not a small bonus for an employer to give to his employees. I am with the hon. Member in wishing to see our workmen treated as fairly as the workpeople of private employers, but I cannot say that the remarks of the hon. Member or my own inquiries would justify us in making any increase in the rate of the wages we are now paying.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he thought he had made it quite clear that all the advantages quoted by the noble Lord could be obtained by the men on payment of 6d. a week into a friendly society. As to the current rate of wages in Woolwich for unskilled labour, it was 24s., and the Government did not pay it. He therefore thought his case was perfect.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERrecognised that in some respects the reply of the noble Lord was a good one. He agreed that the Vestries were not a safe standard to go by, but taking the ordinary labourer in districts like Woolwich, the rate of wages was certainly higher than 5d. per hour. Moreover, it made a great difference as to a living wage if the rents were so much lower. As to comparing the rate of wages at Woolwich to that in other places, the men at Armstrong's Works at Newcastle received higher wages than those at Woolwich for exactly the same class of work. No doubt where the men were on piece work they were able to earn a good living wage, and if all the men worked on that

903
system it would be an answer to the Motion before the Committee. But a large number of men did not get piece work, and in the name of those men it was asked either that all should be given piece work and so enabled to earn a living wage, or that they should be paid the wage current in the locality. The rents had been very high—in fact, London rents—for the last ten years, but the increases of wages to which the noble Lord referred as counterbalancing the increased rents, went back to before that time. When the present Leader of the Opposition was at the head of the War Office, a housing scheme, was proposed for Woolwich. If anything were done in the way of that scheme it would probably meet much of the difficulty of these underpaid men, but at present they had to pay preposterously high rents in proportion to the wages they received. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division unless a more satisfactory reply was given.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to ask the noble Lord a question upon a matter which arose on page 60 in reference to the item for the wages of civilian subordinates employed in inspection of stores at the factories, amounting to £147,700. In the first place, the number of the civilians employed in this way was not given, and that seemed to be an extraordinary piece of information to have omitted. In every other head of employment under Class A, the numbers employed in 1901–02 and 1902–03 were given, and yet under the largest and most important item in the Vote, the number of men employed was not given. He wished to know the number of civilian subordinates employed and the conditions under which they were employed. Really the very essence of this Vote was inspection of stores. A large part of this inspection of stores was performed for the Navy, and not for the Army at all. He noted that last year £74,000 was taken as an appropriation in aid on account of stores inspected for the Navy, but on page 62 it would be seen that £90,000 had been put down, apparently for the same item. He thought it was a mistake to entrust the Army officials with the inspection of the
904
stores for the Navy, for military men did not, and never would, understand naval requirements. The employment of these military civilian subordinates inspecting naval ordnance was wrong, and ought to be altered. He asked that the discrepancy between the £74,000 and the £90,000 in the appropriation in aid should be explained, and whether the system of inspecting naval stores by military civilian inspectors was still being kept up and encouraged.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE. FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): In reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I desire to say that, in the first place, I do not think it would be feasible to give the numbers in such a case, nor would it be possible to have two sets of Inspectors. The number of men employed in inspection naturally varies very considerably, for many men are often taken on for a short term and turned off again. I do not think that the War Office could undertake to lay down the precise number of men employed in the inspection of stores. The hon. Member has also gone into the question of the relations between the Admiralty and the War Office, but I do not think we could have a better system. The Admiralty are represented by the Vice-President of the Ordnance Committee on the Committee which chooses the pattern of the guns, and therefore I do not think that my hon. friend need be under any apprehension that patterns desired by the Navy would be given the go-by. I do not say that the present system has worked admirably, but, so far as I am aware, there is no complaint on the part of the Admiralty as to the way the system of inspection is carried on.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the question raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn would be more in order upon the Navy Stores Vote. He understood from a lecture which had been delivered in Scotland by an hon. Member of this House that the two Departments of the Army and Navy had come to different views with regard to the new powder. With reference to the recent discharge of men at Woolwich,

905
the Secretary of State for War had stated that it was impossible for him to give the number of the men. He understood that it was a very large number, and he had been informed that a good many things previously made in the arsenal were now being made by contract. He had no objection to this if the things supplied were cheaper and better, but the Comptroller and Auditor General had called the attention of the War Office in his report to the fact that under long running contracts they were paying more than double the prices for articles which they made equally well themselves. He entirely supported what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for West Newington in regard to the wages paid at Woolwich Arsenal.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that no reliance could be placed on the prices attached by the Department to their material. Half of those prices were quite fictitious. He thought that if his right hon. friend could not tell the Committee how many men he was going to employ upon inspection in 1902–03, surely he might tell them how many he did actually employ for the year 1901–02. He could not see any difficulty in doing that.
MR. BRODRICK: The men employed on the wages sheet have never been given, although I could, if necessary, give the numbers employed upon any given day, and I shall be willing to supply them to the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has raised a very important point in regard to the question of the discharge of workmen which has taken place at Woolwich. Woolwich and the other depots have been working up to their very utmost limits on all classes of stores. I am sure that I shall have the Committee with
me when I say that we consider it to be neither good policy nor safe for the country to go on the principle of working Woolwich up to its fullest available extent and to trust to chance to be able to find manufacturing firms to provide us with a certain amount of our stores when war breaks out. In the first place, we must give larger orders to the trade in ordinary years in order to be able to get our supplies when war breaks out. Another point insisted upon in this House, and one which I am absolutely certain is sound policy, is that our largest power of expansion should be in Woolwich itself. You would have to find there, in case of emergency occurring, a larger expansion than any of the private firms who execute contracts could be expected to turn out. For that reason we must keep Woolwich down to such a condition that it will be able to expand in case of emergency. Of course we shall have regard in doing that to where there is a startling divergence in price. I trust also that our prices are a great deal nearer the cost prices then the hon. Member behind me thinks. From time to time, as he is probably aware, very careful investigation has been made into this subject. I am by no means saying that it does not require careful watching. On the contrary, I think that in all those manufacturing questions we must watch carefully the cost of production. I have been giving personal attention to that subject at this moment, and I think we shall be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that we are not unduly giving out stores to the trade which we could manufacture more economically ourselves.
(5.18.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 63.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Burns, John

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Caine, William Sproston

Delaney, William

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Caldwell, James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Abrnose, Robert

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barlow, John Emmott

Carew, James Laurence

Dillon, John

Blake, Edward

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Donelan, Captain A.

Boland, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Doogan, P. C.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Edwards, Frank

Brumner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crean, Eugene

Emmott, Alfred

Bnrke, E. Haviland-

Cullinan, J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Walter

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Schwann, Charles E.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gilhooly, James

M'Kean, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Soares, Ernest J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Kend'l (Tipperary, Mid

Sullivan, Donal

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Helme, Norval Watson

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

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

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jacoby, Tames Alfred

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Dowd, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

Whitley J. H. (Halifax)

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Mara, James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Labouchere, Henry

O'Shee, James John

Young, Samuel

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Power, Patrick Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE. AYES—

Levy, Maurice

Rea, Russell

Captain Norton and Mr. Warner.

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

Acland -Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Lees

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Duke, Henry Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart

Lawson, John Grant

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

Fitzt Gerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Banbury, Frederick George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, RtHn W. G. Ellison

Banes, Major George Edward

Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Bartley, George C. T.

Flower, Ernest

M'Iver, SirLewis (Ediinburgh W

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Galloway, William Johnson

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Garfit, William

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

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

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

Morgan, David. J (Walthamstow

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

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

Myers, William Henry

Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Chamberlain. J. Austen (Worc'r

Graham, Henry Robert

Parker, Gilbert

Chapman, Edward

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Pease, Herb Pike (Darlington)

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

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Percy, Earl

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Grenfell, William Henry

Pierpoint, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hall, Edward Marshall

Plummer, Walter R.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Midd'x

Pretyman, Ernest George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

Purvis, Robert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pym, C. Guy

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Handles, John S.

Crossley, Sir Saville

Higginbottom, S. W.

Rasch, Major Frederic Garne

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Denny, Colonel

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

908

909

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Williams, Rt Hn JPow'll-(Birm.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Round, James

Stroyan, John

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

Russell, T. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Worsley- Taylor, Henry Wilson

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart—

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wylie, Alexander

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

Valentia, Viscount

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wallace, Robert

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Original Question again proposed.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall)said he found the Estimates of £1,713,000 for guns and carriages showed a decrease as compared with the current year of £1,107,000; £2,088,000 for equipment stores, a decrease of £2,414,000; and £2,051,000 for ammunition, a decrease of £640,000. He could only suppose that these Estimates were framed in the belief that the war would be over in nine months. The news they had heard that day was not likely to give much confidence in the wisdom of taking the amount for this Vote for nine instead of twelve months. The question of harness and saddlery had been before the Public Accounts Committee last year, when a Report as to the prices given for saddlery and harness, submitted from the Comptroller and Auditor General, gave rise to considerable discussion. It appeared that there had been a want of inspectors and of storage room, and that the Government were obliged to hand over a large sum to the Rhodesian Horse to buy their own saddlery. In the same way, a large sum had been handed over to the Yeomanry Committee for the purchase of their saddlery. The result was that there was great competition in the saddlery market, and the price per set was raised from £6 9s. 6d. to £11. He wished to ask whether any additional storage had been found, and whether additional inspectors had been appointed both at home and abroad. Again, the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the large purchases of stores that had been made at the Cape. He mentioned the sum of £29,880 for bandoliers, and £12,848 for water bottles, and remarked that the rates
910
paid seemed largely in excess of the home prices. In conclusion, the Auditor General said that he had been informed that a special inquiry had from time to time been made, and that the Secretary of State for War pro, posed to deal with the question when the result of that inquiry had been placed before him. He (Sir Arthur Hayter) wanted to ask whether any decision had been arrived at as a remit of that inquiry, and whether a strict control was now kept over purchases made abroad, because it had never been the practice to make purchases abroad for these very large sums, always much in excess of the home prices.
Silt JOHN COLONI13asked if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could give any information as to the reserve of guns and ammunition. Five years ago he had raised this point, but was asked to postpone pressing it, and promised that a statement would be subsequently made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman did make a statement to the House with reference to a new system of the War Office for creating a reserve supply Of guns and ammunition; but, practically, there had been no such reserve or even a standard fixed for a reserve of guns and ammunition. He had not been able to trace any sign of the expenditure necessary to create such a reserve. He wanted to know whether the figures in the Vote represented not only the cost of manufacture of guns and the production of ammunition for current needs, but for building up a reserve. Some things had come under his observation which made him think that they did not. He happened to be down at Woolwich last week, when lie found the cadets being

911
drilled with obsolete guns. In regard to submarine mining, he wanted to know why it was that under sub-head E there was a charge of £45,000 for "boats and vessels," and under sub-head I another charge of £92,000 for "submarine mining (including vessels and repairs) and electric light." He asked this question because under the system of soldiers protecting naval bases they seemed to be setting up quite a series of little Admiralties under the War Office.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the Secretary of State for War had stated the other night that very satisfactory results had been obtained from the guns purchased in Germany, and that a Committee was inquiring into the whole matter of obsolete guns. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could say when the Committee was likely to report and whether the manufacture of the new guns was to be conducted at home or abroad.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that reference had been made to the lecture delivered in Scotland by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, in which he described the work of the Explosives Committee and stated that that Committee had invented a new powder. In listening to the speech of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War he also found that the right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Committee had invented a new powder; and he wished to ask the Secretary of War whether he could give any description of the new powder, or whether it was only a modified cordite. No one who knew anything of the subject would imagine that that was a new invention. It was only a modification in the manufacture of the cordite, and had been very well known and used abroad for some considerable time. He did not wish to take away any credit from the Explosives Committee, but he really wanted some information in regard to this new cordite. He further wanted to obtain some information as to the supply of ammunition to rifle clubs. Many excellent rifle clubs had been started in Scotland; one, in which he was particularly interested, had been founded by a brother of Colonel Thorneycroft, who had such a gallant
912
record in South Africa. But Mr. Thorneycroft had not received much encouragement from the War Department. The club was told to apply for ammunition through the National Rifle Association, and then they found they would have to subscribe a guinea to the National Rifle Association, and having done so, they likewise found that they would have to pay £5 per 1,000 rounds, which they could have obtained from private dealers at £4 2s. 6d. The men in the locality of this rifle club were all miners and farmers, and took a deep interest in it, and any number were ready to join the club. The membership had, however, been restricted at first to fifty, and they had done all their shooting at their own expense. It had been agreed to increase the membership to 150, but there came in the difficulty as to the supply of rifles. At present they had only six rifles, which, of course, were insufficient for 150 men. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to encourage these clubs, he should supply more rifles to them. According to report, any number of Mauser and other rifles had been captured in South Africa, and why should they not be distributed to the rifle-clubs?
MR. JAMES HOPEwished to ask whether the increase in the item for hydraulic power, under sub-head F, portended any greater activity at Woolwich Arsenal, contrary to the assurance given by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland two years since.
MR. O'MARAsaid he wished to call attention to the contracts for the supply of Maxim guns. Four years ago, a contract had been entered into with the firm of Vickers, Maxim & Co., for the supply of a large number of these guns at £105 apiece, while the same weapon could be produced at the Royal Ordnance Factories at £85 apiece. £20 was added as a contingency to allow the manufacturers to make a profit. At the present moment it happened that the War Office were paying £105 for Maxim guns, which the Government themselves could make at less than £50. That accentuated the point which had been already made, that at the present time the War Office were discharging men from Woolwich, although they could make guns at half the cost charged by the manufacturers. That required to

913
be explained by the Secretary of State for War. He observed that the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out to the Secretary of State that very excessive prices had been paid for guns, and that after full inquiry the Secretary of State allowed the agreement to continue for its full term without modification. He wished to know what the full consideration was which was given to the question, and why the right hon. Gentleman did not endeavour to modify the contract, or, if it were not modified, why guns were still being purchased from the contractors instead of being made at the Government Ordnance Factory. He noticed that 205 guns had been delivered by the manufacturers during the two years ended March, 1901, apart from 180 guns supplied to the Navy. He also wished to know how many guns had been ordered from the contractors during the present year. He desired further to direct attention to the refusal of the Secretary of State to lay before the Committee the Report of the proceedings at the Court of Inquiry held in South Africa. An enormous sum, amounting to £638,000, was spent in South Africa on articles which could have been shipped from England, and the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General stated with reference to it—
"In these instances no contract appeared to have been entered into, and no certificate that the prices were fair and reasonable was given,on the bill voucher."
The Comptroller and Auditor General brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State, and was informed that a special inquiry had for some time been in progress with regard to the local expenditure, and that the Secretary of State proposed to deal with the question raised when the results of the inquiry had been before him. Those results had been in the right hon. Gentleman's possession for some time, and yet the Committee was now asked to vote money without the information which the Secretary of State had. He did not think that that was fair, and he trusted before the report stage was reached that a Paper would be circulated, dealing in full with the Report of the Committee which had inquired into the jobbery that had taken place at Cape Town. He begged to move the reduction of sub-head B by £50, 000.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item B (Guns and Carriages) be reduced by £50,000."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had consulted the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to what the words "ordnance stores" meant, and the noble Lord was unable to inform him. His own view was that guns and carriages were ordnance stores. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform him. If guns and carriages were not ordnance stores, he would sit down; but if they were, as he believed they were, he would proceed. The point he wished to direct attention to was that it had transpired that something approaching £1,000,000 sterling had been spent in South Africa on ordnance stores—an entirely unusual proceeding. The Comptroller and Auditor General thereupon entered into correspondence with the War Office, and pointed out that sums had been spent in South Africa on ordnance stores which included not only guns and carriages but also requirements of other kinds. He could not understand why ordnance stores should ever have been ordered in South Africa at all. Undoubtedly very serious scandals had arisen in connection with those purchases, which had been inquired into by a Committee in South Africa, which had reported. He understood that there was also another Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Reginald Gibbs sitting at the War Office on the same subject, and it was in regard to that Committee he should like to have information. This was the time and place to receive information. It was no use for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say that it was a confidential Committee which was only to report to him. The Committee was entitled to such information as the right hon. Gentleman possessed with regard to expenditure on warlike stores in South Africa, including the Report of the South African Committee and also the Report of Sir Reginald Gibbs' Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General had only alluded to a small portion of the amount spent. What he was speaking of was a sum of £600,000, plus £200,000 for ordnance stores. Whether it was spent on guns or carriages he did not know, but they were entitled to have some information.

915
There was a very large expenditure in 1901, probably it was going on in 1902, and conceivably it might be continued in 1903; and if it went on at the same rate, over two millions would have been spent in stores which could have been furnished from Woolwich or from a contractor in this country. He did not complain of the purchase of ordnance stores in South Africa, but the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the very gravest suspicion and the very gravest abuses had arisen in connection with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee in South Africa, which had reported; he had another Secret Committee sitting at the War Office, and under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman was bound to tell the Committee whether the expenditure on ordnance stores outside this country was still continued, and secondly, what explanation he had to give as to the alleged scandals which had arisen. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should inform the Committee as to the effect of the Report of the Committee which had sat in South Africa.
MR. BRODRICKsaid he would clear up the subject at once. His hon. friend was mistaken in thinking that a Committee had sat in South Africa in regard to those purchases. What actually happened, he understood, was that during the year 1900, and the beginning of 1901, very large purchases of saddlery, and other items of that description, were made by ordnance officers at Cape Town, in accordance with the requirements of Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. It was possible, when 30,000 or 40,000 local troops were to be armed in two or three months, that there should be items which were deficient. As his hon. friend had said. the expenditure was very large, and attention being called to it, Lord Kitchener looked into its history, he thought, in connection with a general scheme for distributing ordnance stores. It was obvious that during the campaign, with supplying depots at Cape Town and Bloemfontein and elsewhere, the whole scheme became one of great magnitude and great complexity, and one which Lord Kitchener decided required
916
re-organisation. He, therefore, despatched his financial adviser to report on it. Communications had passed between Lord Kitchener and himself on the subject, and as there were certain points upon which, it appeared to him, information was required, he had appointed a War Office Committee to report on them. He had no desire to have any concealment about these matters, but he must guard himself. It was obvious that if the business of the War Office was to be properly conducted the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State must have the power of asking officers to make investigations without being bound to publish everything brought out in their reports. He could not undertake to present the Report which had been alluded to in the House. The Report only reached him a few days ago, and he had not yet been able to make a thorough investigation of it. All he could say was that the Report was very different from what had been suggested. It was practically a statement that there was no suspicion of fraud on the part of any officer in connection with the matter, that, on the whole, the best system had been pursued, and that the troops had been properly supplied, and generally it cleared his mind of any suspicions he might have had. He could not go beyond that now, but he would undertake that the whole question should be completely threshed out. An opportunity would occur on the Vote for his salary, and on that he would make a statement and give the fullest information in his power to the Committee. He was fully sensible of the fact that it was necessary that no doubt should be left in the mind of the Committee as to what had been done.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he did not suggest that there had been fraud on the part of any officer, but on the part of the contractors.
MR. BRODRICKagreed that that was so. There was one other point with which he wanted to deal. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had spoken very warmly and sympathetically with regard to the supply of rifles to Rifle Clubs. The Government was quite as sympathetic as the hon. Gentleman, but he explained that the calls on the stores of rifles.

917
were very numerous, and the War Office were obliged to be very careful not to deplete the stores too much; but he thought it was possible that as time went on they might be able to deal more successfully with these Rifle Clubs. With regard to the question of field artillery, although the Expert Committee had made a great number of experiments, they had not yet advised as to a new type of gun. This was in itself a matter of such importance that he thought it would he unwise to change the present type of gun before very definite advice was obtained from the Committee. The object was to get a gun with a longer range and which was a quicker firer, and both these advantages were present to a certain degree in the guns obtained from Germany.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: asked why the Volunteers had not yet been supplied with the 4·7 in. gun, and pointed out that nothing had been said with regard to the reduction in the manufacture of heavy guns.
MR. STUART WORTLEYthought it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would say a word as to what was being done at Woolwich with reference to the manufacture of guns.
MR. BRODRICKreplied that with regard to the manufacture of heavy guns at Woolwich, the Government had no intention of departing from the pledge given by the Secretary of State two years ago. Although 4·7 in. guns had not yet been issued, it was hoped that by the end of the year thirty batteries would be in the hands of Volunteers.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERwas glad to hear that the case of the Volunteer Rifle Clubs had been taken up. It was a matter in which he took the deepest interest, and he thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee, and also to the country at large, to know that the progress of Rifle Clubs was increasing most rapidly. They had now affiliated with the National Rifle Association, of which he was the Chair-clubs. It was one of the
918
conditions the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid clown that the Rifle Clubs should be affiliated with some association already formed and in progress. He might also inform the Committee and his right hon. friend that since Mr. Astor's munificent gift of 10,000 guineas, which had been placed in the hands of himself and a few friends as trustees, to promote the formation of these Rifle Clubs, letters were pouring in to the extent of something like fifty a week from proposed Rifle Clubs, in the hope that they might be formed on the lines laid down. They needed rifles, and he hoped his right hon. friend would see his way to grant a further issue to Rifle Clubs, which, he felt satisfied from his long experience, would be of the greatest benefit to the country in promoting good shooting.
MR. NANNETTIsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely ignored the question which had,been put to him by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny. What he wanted to know was why the Government were dismissing men from the arsenals, and at the same time giving out orders to private firms for the manufacture of these guns at £105 apiece, when the same thing could be produced in the arsenals at less than half the price—£50. It was, he contended, part of a deliberate system which the Government were pursuing. Though they could manufacture these guns, and other articles, as he could show, at half the price, yet they were giving the work to outside contractors. It was a perfect scandal that the taxpayer should be compelled to pay £105 for a Maxim gun which could be manufactured by the Government for £50. They were entitled to ask the right lion. Gentleman to give some answer to the charges that had been made against the Government.
(6.12.) LORD STANLEY: The answer is very simple; this gun is a patent belonging to Vickers-Maxim. It is their patent, and nobody but themselves could manufacture:t. We, however, came to an understanding that they should make guns for us at a certain rate, and that we should use their patterns in our factories. That was made on a three years contract,

919
which has now practically expired. Of course, when you are dealing with a patent, you have to pay rather more than you would have if it was open to all the world to manufacture the article, and in this case we have to pay rather more than the gun's value, but at the same time we had also in this case the permission to manufacture, which was of very great value to us, in our own arsenals. That agreement is now coming to an end, and we are now in negotiation and hope to obtain future guns at a much lower rate.
MR. NANNETTIsaid the answer had not yet been given. If the Government had the power to manufacture in their own arsenals, why did they not manufacture these guns instead of driving away their own men?
MR. WHITLEYsaid he did not consider that the explanation of the noble Lord was in the least adequate to the case which had been brought against the Government. The Committee would see that in his report the Comptroller General had himself protested against this expenditure. He would like to know how many guns had been obtained at a price of £105, and how many similar guns had been produced at the Government arsenals for £50 each. Could the noble Lord give the terms of
the agreement? Were the Government obliged to send to the contractors an equal number at 100 per cent. profit to the number made in their own ordnance factories? The statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General was a very serious one, and unless a more satisfactory explanation were given, he hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division as a protest against such an expenditure of money.
MR. O'MARAdid not consider the statement of the noble Lord at all satisfactory, and he pressed for some further explanation as to why the Government were paying £105 for guns which the Comptroller and Auditor General said could be bought for £50. How many such guns were obtained from the contractors last year? He considered it was a case of scandalous jobbery that guns which could be made at £50 apiece in the ordnance factories should be bought at £105 each from contractors. and unless a more satisfactory reply was forthcoming he should certainly divide the Committee on his Motion.
(6.18.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 64.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Emmott, Alfred

Levy, Maurice

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lloyd-George, David

Ambrose, Robert

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lundon, W.

Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Atherly Jones, L.

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Blake, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Boland, John

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kean, John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gilhooly, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Caine, William Sproston

Grant, Corrie

Murphy, John

Caldwell, James

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

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

Carew, James Lawrence

Hayter,Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y Mid.

Causton, Richard Knight

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

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

Crean, Eugene

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Delany, William

Kennedy, Patrick James

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

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kinloch,Sir John George Smyth

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dillon, John

Labouchere, Henry

O'Shee, James John

Donelan, Captain A.

Lambert, George

Perks, Robert William

Doogan, P. C.

Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington

Pirie, Duncan V.

Edwards, Frank,

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Power, Patrick Joseph

Price, Robert John

Soares, Ernest J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Priestley, Arthur

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rea, Russell

Sullivan, Donal

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

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Tennant, Harold John

Young, Samuel

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Yoxall, James Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Roche, John

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)

Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Whitley.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Agg Gardner, James Tynte

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Finch, George H.

Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

Allen,Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fisher, William Hayes

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fison, Frederick William

Moore, William (Antrim N.)

Austin, Sir John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Bailey. James (Walworth)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Galloway, William Johnson

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Balwin, Alfred

Clara, William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Gibbs, Hn. AGH. (City of Lond.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Myers, William Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Gordon, Hn J E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Banes, Major George Edward

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bartley. George C. T.

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

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parker, Gilbert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Graham, Henry Robert

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Bignold, Arthur

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bigwood, James

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Pierpoint, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Greville, Hon. Roland

Plummer, Walter R.

Bowles, T Gibson, (King's Lynn

Hall, Edward Marshall

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.

Purvis, Robert

Bull, William James

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Pym, C. Guy

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hardy,Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

Randles, John S.

Campbell, Rt Hon J A. (Glasgow

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derb'shire

Henderson, Alexander

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Higginbottom, S. W.

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hoare Sir Samuel

Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chamberlain Rt. Hon J. (Birm

Hogg, Lindsay

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Chapman, Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Runciman, Walter

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Russell, T. W.

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

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Seely, Maj. J. EB. (IsleofWight)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Knowles, Lees

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Simth, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant

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

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Lee, Arthur E (Hants., Fareham

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Denny, Colonel

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stroyan, John

Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lowe, Francis William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers.

Loyd, Archie Kirkham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Macartney, RtHn. W G. Ellison

Thornton, Percy M.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W

Tuke, Sir John Batty

922

923

Valentia, Viscount

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

Wylie, Alexander

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.)

Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E R (Bath)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Worsley-Taylor, Hy. Wilson

Original Question:again proposed.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he thought this was the proper time to bring up the question of rifles. He saw that in the Vote under consideration there was a slight increase, but unless there was a much greater increase provided for, he thought the supply would be insufficient. Last year they were desperately short of rifles. Hon. Members would remember that when the Reserve Regiments were formed they were without rifles for nearly four months, and last year many of the embodied Militia were still using worn-out rifles. Many of the rifles used not only by the embodied Militia but also by the Regulars last year were distinctly worn out, and were now gradually being replaced. He did not think that there was sufficient excess provided for in this Vote to supply the Volunteers and Rifle Clubs. There was another point to be considered. The Indian Army would shortly require a large number of rifles, and a large reserve would be necessary to meet that demand. He was sure this Vote was totally inadequate in this respect. The Volunteers required new rifles and it was no use giving a Club six rifles to train fifty men with. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Ammunition) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought it was understood that the question of ammunition had been postponed.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that under the circumstances he would not move.
LORD STANLEY: Perhaps I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member without moving. We are going to take this year every single rifle that the ordnance factory and the trade can give us.
MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the question of the change in the Government cordite, which he said was of intense importance, not only on account of the quality of the ammunition itself, but of the very disastrous and discreditable story attached to it. In his opinion the War Office practically stole Dr. Nobel's invention, and so disfigured it as to make it unrecognisable and very much worse ammunition than it was before. He understood that the change to be introduced in the manufacture of cordite, was simply a reversion to the method of Dr. Nobel, being not a change in the materials, but in the proportions in which the materials were used. He believed that the change was a good one, because the original form adopted by the War Office was an extremely bad one, for it eroded the guns to such an extent as to be quite alarming. Therefore, he thought a change to cause less erosion was a proper one. He should like some information from those who were competent to give it as to the real change which had been made in regard to cordite ammunition.
MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that such an expression as "discreditable," which has been used by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, might be misleading to the Committee. I deny that anything discreditable has occurred. Of course in the early stages of the cordite question there was a discussion as to whose the invention was, and this was made the subject, at all events, of one or two actions. The question has been tried in the Law Courts and the position of the War Office made perfectly clear. What has happened more recently is that the Explosives Committee have found a modification of cordite which causes less erosion than the old cordite. I must sly, however, that that cordite ought not to have its reputation taken away. It has been a very good friend to this country. I cannot allow the War Office or the Explosives Committee to lie under

925
the imputation of having committed a fraud on anybody by the course that has been taken.
MR. COCHRANEsaid his right hon. friend had not answered the point which he had raised. The right hon. Gentleman, on the Army Estimates, echoed a statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington in the country—that the Explosives Committee had invented a new powder. Modified cordite was no new invention whatever, but merely an alteration of the proportions, bringing them back to exactly the same as the invention of Dr. Nobel, the only difference between the Government cordite and the ballistite of Dr. Nobel being as to the process. In one case it was described as soluble, and in the other as insoluble.
MR. HALDANEsaid that as his name had been brought in, perhaps a word or two from him would be right. There was a somewhat condensed and efflorescent account of what he said of this new powder at a harmless village lecture, written by a reporter who was not present at the meeting, and the matter was very much inflated subsequently. He did not claim for the Explosives Committee that they had made any wonderful invention whatever, but a very considerable modification of cordite had been adopted, a fact which had already been announced. As to the claims of inventors in an article like cordite or ballistite, it was very difficult to say whose invention it was. The Courts of Law had ruled that the Government cordite was altogether outside the Nobel and the Maxim patents. The great difference between the two was that the Government stuff was not so liable to erode, and was more highly nitrated than the other and was excluded from the Nobel patent. As to the question of the proportions of nitro-glycerine to nitro-cellulose, there was no secret in theoretically fixing upon any particular proportion, for everybody had tried it, and it was wholly a matter of experience. What had taken place was that the Government, following the advice of the Explosives Committee and other experts,
926
had made a very considerable modification in the proportions of cordite, which they believed would have extremely good results in lengthening the life of our guns by reducing erosion. Foreign Governments had made similar modifications. A series of observations, much more minute and detailed than any experiments which had before been entered upon, had been carried out by the Explosives Committee, and this had proved to be a better powder than any other they had used up to the present. Certainly the Government was absolutely free from infringing anybody's invention, and the Government cordite was outside any patent which had been in existence for many years. He thought it was a little beside the point to revive the old cordite controversy of 1890 over the old Nobel patent and make such a fuss about the matter. What had been done had been done perfectly openly, and with the knowledge which had been acquired since that time, and so far as his own judgment went the Government were absolutely free from any infringements.
MR. COCHRANE: Then it is not a new invention?
MR. HALDANE: Anything that is new and has not been used before is a new invention. The patent in controversy in express terms excluded the kind of nitro-cellulose, which the Government used.
Sin CHARLES DILKEsaid he had started this question, and he did not know whether he would be allowed to cross-examine the learned Gentleman who had just spoken. As the Committee would remember, he said that it would probably be preferable to put the Question when the Navy Vote was brought forward. He asked whether the learned Gentleman could give any information as to the bulk of the powder. The difficulty in changing the larger guns, if the bulk of the powder was greatly changed, would be enormous.
MR. HALDANEsaid he had already gone at possibly too great length into the question whether they had taken somebody else's invention. He thought he would be travelling altogether beyond

927
the limits of propriety if he ventured to express an opinion on the question now raised.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty will tell us anything he properly can.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERstated that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office had told the committee that they were taking every rifle the arsenals and the contractors could supply. What he wanted to know was whether expansion at Woolwich Arsenal was going on so as to extend the power of manufacturing rifles.
LORD STANLEY: We are making all the expansion we can.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked what was to be the increased power of producing rifles this year at Woolwich, as opposed to the contracts. It was important that the arsenals should be in a position to increase the output considerably. If the noble Lord would tell the Committee the amount of money that was to be spent on the arsenals it would give them some confidence.
MR. BRODRICK: We have been working the arsenals and the trade up to their full power during the last two and a half years.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that was a most unsatisfactory answer. The Committee had no assurance that fresh machinery was being laid down to increase the output of the arsenals. It did not matter whether they got 100,000 more or less from the contractors. He moved to reduce the vote £100 because there was no assurance as to increasing the power of output.
CAPTAIN NORTON: asked whether the Committee which was inquiring into the Metford and Lee Enfield rifles would also investigate the qualities of the Krag-Jorgensen rifles. It was a Swedish weapon and was free from certain defects which were in our own rifles with respect to the magazine and the sighting.
LORD STANLEY: The Committee have made certain suggestions. Experiments are at the present moment being carried out, and. he was glad to say, most successfully in the direction which the hon. Member indicates. Only a little alteration in the present rifle will be necessitated in order to secure the desired improvements.
MR. SETON-KARRsaid he wished to know whether the question of loading was being carefully considered. There was another point, with regard to the length of the rifle upon which he desired information. It was said that the new rifle would be slightly shorter. His right hon. friend the Secretary for War was, of course, perfectly well aware that that was a very important matter, because if cordite powder was used with a shorter rifle the range must be reduced. He should like to know whether any new powder had been invented which would give the shorter rifle the same range as the longer rifle. If the cavalry were to be armed with a rifle instead of a carbine, he took it that the cutting off from the length was a very important matter. He was quite aware that it might not be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions in detail, but he should like an assurance that the various points were being considered. One of the worst defects of the small bore rifle was that it was liable to fall open when carried. There was also an immense waste of ammunition in loading. He had not been able to understand why there should he a cutting off. He was inclined to think that our Lee Enfield was one of the worst arms at present in use in the various armies of the world. The importance of the rifle had been emphasised in the South African war, and the Committee who were inquiring into the question should carefully consider the points he had mentioned.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONasked how it was that the Estimate for carbines and pistols, which was £10,000 for the current year, had suddenly jumped up to-£57,000.
LORD STANLEY: It arises entirely because we are going to arm the field artillery with revolvers. With regard to the question of my hon. friend the Member for St. Helens, I am sure lie and the Committee will understand that the investigation we are making at present with respect to the rifle must be kept confidential. At the same time I can tell the Committee that there are three things which are being thought of in particular in connection with the rifle, namely, lightness, sighting, acid loading. We hope to get all these things perfectly arranged. Nothing that we shall allow to be done to the rifle shall in any way detract from its present range.
CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether the War Office would not introduce a perfectly new and improved rifle.
Loup STANLEY: At present the rifle in use will fulfil all our requirements.
MR. COURTEYAY WARNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. NANNETTIsaid that there was a sum under sub-head F of £790,000 for Miscellaneous Services. What did that mean? Was it for the purpose of establishing factories for manufacturing goods for the War Department? Then, under sub-head G there was a sum of £806,000 for harness and saddlery. He wanted to know if that was for work done in the Government's own stores or for contract work? He wanted to know did the Government utilise to the full their existing workshops for manufacturing purposes? He was aware that at the present moment in one barrack in Ireland there was a workshop capable of accommodating thirty workmen in the saddlery and harness department, and yet only six were employed, and these simply on repairs. Why did not the Government utilise all their stores and workshops instead of letting the work out on contract to be done by foreigners at sweating wages? He also wanted to know how much of this money went to Ireland. They in Ireland were compelled
930
to pay their share for the upkeep of the Army; and it was but fair that work required for the Army in Ireland should be done in that country. The Duke of Connaught the other day had stated that a great deal of this sort of work could be done in Ireland more satisfactorily to the State and to the benefit of 'Ireland. In order to obtain some definite information on these points, he would move to reduce the Vote on Item G by the sum of £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item G (Equipment Stores) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
MR. SETON-KARR: said he wished to ask a question on Item D. The right hon. Gentleman had said the other day that the War Office had not made up its mind as to whether the Imperial Yeomanry were to be armed with the pistol or not. Properly used, he believed the pistol was a most effective weapon at short range. He himself had seen in another country the pistol used a great deal, and it was extraordinary what an efficient weapon it could be made if the men were trained in its use. Had his right hon. friend made up his mind on this point? For his own part, he thought the cavalry should be armed both with the rifle and pistol.
LORD STANLEYsaid that all this question was under discussion at the present moment, and it would be impossible to give any definite promise now on the subject.
CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether under "Miscellaneous Services" anything was taken for coals. He noticed that the Cape Government had been paying from £2 6s. 10d. to £2 16s. 10d. per ton for coals.
LORD STANLEYsaid that that came on under another Vote.
COLONEL LEGGEsaid that in connection with the item of harness and saddlery there was a matter to which he wished to draw attention, viz., the weight carried by cavalry horses. It was stated a year

931
ago that the light cavalry horse carried 18 stone 10 lbs., and the heavy cavalry 20 stone 4 lbs., and that the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the War Office. Had any final decision been come to in regard to the question?
LORD STANLEYsaid that no definite decision had yet been arrived at, except that every possible means had been taken in South Africa to lighten the weight to be carried by the cavalry horses. He quite admitted that the weights mentioned seemed excessive, and it was hoped that some means would be adopted for lightening them in the future. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for College Green Division of Dublin, all contracts were put out and tenders asked for, and, all other things being equal, the lowest tender was accepted. If Irish manufacturers put in a lower tender than English they would get the contract.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that in connection with the supply of accoutrements, harness, and saddlery, he would draw the attention of the Secretary for, War to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General complained that no less a sum than £1,800,000 had been advanced to the British South African Company; as agents for the War Office, for the provision of arms, stores, etc., in connection with the Rhodesian Field Force, I and that no accounts of the receipt and issue of the stores have been supplied to his Department for verification. What steps had the right hon. Gentleman taken to protect the public interest in this matter?
LORD STANLEYsaid that the Rhodesian Field Force was raised as a special force at a time of great emergency, and the British South African Company; were used as War Office agents because of their great local knowledge as to the proper equipment and provision for such a force. The War Office were pressed for all the accounts of the expenditure, and the whole facts would be laid before the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that as this Vote covered accoutrements he should like to know if there; was now any settled form of pack. He
932
wished to know if they were still sending out the Militiamen with packs different to the Regulars. The Militia Reserves were sent out with packs different to the rest of the regiment, and this caused the greatest inconvenience to the men.
LORD STANLEY: I think these questions ought to be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, and I am prepared to have everything ready to lay before that Committee. I hope the Committee will agree that the Committee specially appointed for this purpose shall be allowed an opportunity of looking into these facts, and then that Committee could lay their opinion and their impressions before hon. Members for the House to deal with.
MR. O'MARAsaid his hon. friend the Member for the College Green Division of Dublin had brought a very important matter before the House when he inquired what proportion of this money was spent in Ireland. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether it was not a fact that of this £2,088,000, the saddlery and accoutrements were manufactured by Jewish firms and sweaters who did not pay their employees the Trades Union rate of wages. Although he would like to see the money spent in Ireland, he did not expect the War Office to give contracts to Irish firms at a higher rate than to English firms. He wished to know what opportunities were given to saddlery and harness firms in Ireland to tender, and what papers in Ireland were the War Office specifications published in? He would like the Secretary of State for War to give a promise to publish in one of the leading Irish newspapers the specifications inviting tenders for saddlery and harness. At the present time there was a large tanning business carried on in Ireland, and Irish manufacturers could tender as cheaply, if not cheaper, than English firms. He wished to obtain a definite pledge that these specifications in the future would be advertised in an Irish newspaper. At the beginning of the war saddlery was purchased in the Colonies at £11 a set, whereas the War Office was now able to obtain them at £6 9s. 6d. He trusted that the Government would not continue to purchase saddlery at

933
£11 from the Colonies when they could get the same article at home for £6 9s. 6d.
MR. NANNETTIsaid lie was not disposed to put the House to the inconvenience of a division after the debate which had taken place. If the noble Lord would promise to advertise the specifications in the Irish papers, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STANLEY: I think the hon. Member will find that these things are advertised in Ireland. I will undertake to inquire into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. BRODRICK: I understand that it is necessary to take the Excess Vote before the end of the financial year. This question can be discussed upon a subsequent Vote. My suggestion is that we should take this Excess Vote to-night, it being understood that a discussion shall take place on the Vote for Transport and Remounts.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was necessary to take this Excess Vote before the end of the financial year. He denied that—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is out of order to discuss the Excess Vote at this stage.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested is rather an unusual and unprecedented one, and I am not sure that there is any precedent for it at all. I never heard before of the House being asked to pass an Excess Vote with a sort of understanding that on some particular Vote in the Estimates a discussion should occur. That is a very different thing from an agreement to discuss the whole Army question generally on such a Vote as the Vote for Provisions. This seems to me to be an extraordinary course to pursue.
MR. BRODRICK: My desire is only to adopt what is the most convenient practice to enable the House to pass this Excess Vote before the end of the financial year. If it is understood that a discussion will be allowed to take place upon this matter, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to allow this matter to go through.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERpointed out that the Excess Vote related to a great many subjects, and that might make the questions they wished to discuss irrelevant to the Vote for Transport and Remounts. He might say that as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee they had not yet discussed this question at all.
MR. WHITLEYsaid there was an item paid to the British South Africa Company which would not occur in any subsequent year, and therefore any Chairman would be perfectly right in ruling them out of order in raising that matter on Estimates for the subsequent year. He did not think they should allow the Vote to pass in this way.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was one other point about torpedoes which was a very serious matter. There was an item on page 62 of £13,000 for Brennan torpedoes. He wished to know why £13,000 was put down in the Estimate for Brennan torpedoes, although for a year past the War Office had ceased to manufacture them altogether. The War Office no longer manufactured Brennan torpedoes, and therefore this £13,000 must be merely for the repair of those which existed, and for their modification. The fact was that the Government had given up the Brennan torpedo because it was dangerous to those who used it. When the Brennan torpedo was started in the water, no human being knew what it was going to do. If the War Office had not come to that conclusion, why had they given up the manufacture of these torpedoes? They gave up the manufacture of them in 1900, and refused to give any information with regard to their manufacture. In the Estimates now there was only a lump sum a £20,000 for repairs. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean breast of the matter. There was only one place on the coast

935
where these torpedoes were of any use and that was the narrow channel between Hurst Castle and the Isle of Wight, and even there they were less useful than dangerous.
MR. BRODRICKdefended the Brennan torpedo, which he had seen used with absolute accuracy and destructive effect by a man who had never touched one before. It was a formidable weapon. The Navy, he believed, would be heartily sorry if the secret of the Brennan torpedo, which had been rigidly kept, became known to any foreign Power. A sufficient number had been manufactured for the installation of the system, and in this Vote no provision was therefore taken for fresh manufacture
MR. WILLIAM ALLANasked at what range the Brennan torpedo was an effective weapon.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that everything connected with the torpedo was a secret, and no information would be allowed to leak out.
MR. O'SHEEraised the question of the treatment in prison in South Africa of the Boer Commandants, one of whom had already been shot. He believed another was about to be shot, and he was anxious that the Secretary of State should give some satisfactory statement to the Committee as to the treatment of the Boer Commandants in prison.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! I This is not a Vote for prisons. This is Ordnance.
MR. O'SHEEsubmitted that he was in order in asking what was the nature of the prison stores dealt with under the Vote. He was dealing with Item 8, page 2. He simply desired to ask what these
ores were and how they were used. He submitted he was perfectly in order in asking as to these.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must not allude to prisoners, though he may allude to the stores.
MR O'SHEEsubmitted that he was entitled to ask questions as to the treatment of the prisoners, but said he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman. In his opinion, some explanation with regard to the matter should be forth-coming. No one connected with the War Office had given any explanation whatever with regard to this sum of £200,000. He also drew attention to the sum of £92,000 in connection with submarine mines, and expressed the opinion that the item should be properly explained. He assumed that it had nothing to do with submarine boats, and that being so, some explanation ought to be given with regard to the increase of £14,000. Of course, that increase was easily accounted for if submarine mines were included in this Vote.
MR. O'MARAcalled attention to the item of £9,000 for balloons, which he thought had been of little use in South Africa. He noticed that the sum voted in other years for this purpose had been largely exceeded, and he wished to know what had been the experience in South Africa as to the utility of these balloons. He further drew attention to the discovery of a new explosive, but pointed out that very little had been said as to in what respect it was better than the old. He hoped some explanations would be given on both these points.
(7.43.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 65.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Austin, Sir John

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Agg-Gardner,.James Tynte

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bignold, Arthur

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Baird, John George Alexander

Bigwood, James

Allen,CharlesP. (Gloue., Stroud

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Banes, Major George Edward

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Priestley, Arthur

Bull, William James

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Purvis, Robert

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pym, C. Guy

Butcher, John George

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Randles, John S.

Caldwell, James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Henderson, Alexander

Rea, Russell

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V. C. W (D'rbyshire

Hogg, Lindsay

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Holland, William Henry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope,. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hozier, Hon. Jame S Henry Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Channing, Francis Allston

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Chapman, Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Runciman, Walter

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Russell, T. W.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Keswick, William

Colonm, Sir John Charles Ready

Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lambert, George

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lawson, John Grant

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Davies.SirHoratioD.(Chatham

Levy, Maurice

smith,HC(North'mb,Tyneside

Denny. Colonel

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lowe, Francis William

Stewart Sir Mark J. M?Taggart

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney. Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Strachey, Sir Edward

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dyke, Rt. 'Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Emmott, Alfred

Manners, Lord Cecil

Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fenwick, Charles

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Ferguson, Rt Hon Sir J. (Manc'r

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Tufuell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Finch, George H.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fisher, William Hayes

Morgan, David. L (W'lthamstow

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Fison, Frederick William

Morrell, George Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, Arthur. H. A. (Deptford

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Garfit, William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (T'unton

Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick

Mentz, Philip A.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

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

Murray, Rt H. A. Graham (Bute

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gordon. Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Nicholson, William Graham

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Graham. Henry Robert

Nicol. Donald Ninian

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Green, WalfordD. (W'dnesbury

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

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

Parker, Gilbert

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

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

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wylie, Alexander

Groves, James Grimble

Perks, Robert William

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pierpoint, Robert

Haldane, Richard Burton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Plummer, Walter R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pretyman, Ernest George

938

939

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Blake, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

O'Shauglinessy, P. J.

Burns, John

Mc Veagh, Jeremiah

O'Shee, James John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Kean, John

Roche, John

Crean, Eugene

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dillon, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Young, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. O'Mara and Mr. Flynn.

Hammond, John

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

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): By leave of the Committee—there is no Question before it—I may perhaps say that we do not propose to put from the Chair tonight the Question of the Excess Vote on the Army Estimates. That will come on at a later period. Whether it would be proper to give much time to the discussion, will, I think, depend on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. That Report may be of a character which would make it most improper that the thing should be passed over without very full discussion. But before coming to a decision on that point, we must wait and see what the Report of that Committee is. I may, however, remind the Committee that, although the question will not be brought before it until after Easter now, it will not be possible to include it in any general closure of the finance of the year. The Supply Rule, if the House be pleased to pass it in anything like the form in which it appears on the Paper, applies only to the finance of the present year, and, therefore, will not touch the Excess Votes which refer to the finance of the preceding year.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So that the Committee may understand that there will be—what shall I call it?— a decent opportunity, a reasonable opportunity, for discussing the Vote at another period of the session?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not within the power of the Government to prevent the matter coming on.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERwas understood to say that the Public Accounts Committee could not possibly deal with the question before Easter.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
2. £3,356,400, Naval Armaments.
3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903." (8.5.)
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that there was a net increase of £76,000 on this Vote over that of last year. He quite recognised that it was important, from the point of view of administration, that this Vote should be taken as early as possible in the session, but there were a few questions which he would like to address to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. One had relation to the progress which had been made with the works under the Naval Works Acts. There was in the Vote a sum of £297,000 for annuities—
"In repayment of advances under the Naval Works Acts, 1895 to 1901."
He apprehended that this was not the only Vote on which discussion of the works could be taken, and certainly the Committee had been in the habit of discussing them under the First Lord's salary. What he said now, therefore,

941
would be without prejudice to his right to ask for further information when Vote 12 came on at a later date of the session. He thought that the Committee should have from the hon. Gentleman a more specific statement than that given the other day as to the estimated amount of expenditure in connection with the Act passed last session. As to the old items, the only one that interested him particularly was Gibraltar He gathered from the statement which accompanied the First Lord's Memorandum that so far as the inshore defence of the harbour of Gibraltar was concerned, the work was now within measurable distance of completion. What had always been in their view was the necessity of protecting the Fleet from torpedo attack, and they had been anxious to push on with the construction of the seawall. The other part—the dockyard extension, was not yet near completion. The question of the harbour scheme had been left somewhat obscure last year. It would be remembered that the Report of the Gibraltar Committee gave some countenance to the suggestion that it would be possible and desirable to build another harbour on the eastern side of the Rock. The statement laid before Parliament was incomplete, in respect to a reasoned Estimate as to the cost and value of such a harbour. As he understood, the First Lord of the Admiralty proposed to take further advice before coming to a definite conclusion. That was a matter which belonged to the Admiralty itself. No report of any Committee, however eminent, could take away responsibility from the shoulders of the First Lord and the Government, in regard to so important a work as this; and, without regard to the advice given them, the Committee was entitled to ask whether the Admiralty had come, on its own responsibility, to any decision in regard to an Imperial work of such magnitude as the Eastern harbour. Was the proposal for such a harbour a living proposal? The remaining portion of the works carried on under the Estimates was of a great deal less importance. Portsmouth appeared to be the scene of the greatest activity. There was £26,000 for No. 13 Dock, and £45,000 for No. 13 Dock, and a large sum for a new.steam factory. All these were serious
942
items, which would demand the attention I of the hon. Gentleman. The only other item to which he would direct attention; was the sum of £13,000 for a new pier at Wei-Hai-Wei. Would the hon. Gentleman be at liberty to tell the Committee what was to be the use of that new pier? He did not want to press the hon. Gentleman on these matters, but he thought some explanation should be given.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to emphasise what had fallen from his hon. friend, that this Vote ought not to be taken until the Committee were acquainted with the Estimates of the Expenditure under the Works Acts. He admitted it was impossible to get exact Estimates, but the Committee should be able to get some notion of it year by year. The Committee ought to be told not only what the expenditure was likely to be in the present year, but next year as well. With regard to Wei-Hai-Wei, the entrance to the port was four miles broad (or across), and the difficulty of protecting the anchorage from torpedo attack from Port Arthur in time of war was so great as to make it impossible to make Wei-Hai-Wei a naval base in time of war, he had no doubt, therefore, that the expenditure on that place was peace expenditure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had always been of opinion that Wei-Hai-Wei was valueless, and the Government had now come round to his opinion. It was presented to the House as an answer to the taking of Port Arthur by Russia; but Port Arthur remained in the hands of Russia, and we had left Wei-Hai-Wei. The real truth was that this was one of the numerous mistakes.made when Lord Salisbury was away from the Foreign Office. Amateurs were put in his place, and all sorts of mistakes were made. What was to become of Wei-Hai-Wei? The Government had given it up as a naval base; they had given up fortifying the heights round it, and what remained? A sanatorium for the Fleet—it was absurd. He believed that just as the Government were frightened out of Port Arthur by Russia, so they had been frightened out of Wei-Hai-Wei by Germany, in the same manner as they had been frightened out of their right to search for contraband of war by the same Power. The result of that was, they had stopped all search in South

943
African waters for contraband of war, and German steamers were keeping up the intercourse between the Boers and Europe. With regard to the Works Vote, the charge for works was increasing more than the Vote showed. The total expenditure was £27,500,000. There was the Works Department and the Works Loan Department, which was even more incompetent than the Works Department. The Works Department had impressed upon each successive First Lord a policy wholly inconsistent with the idea of maintaining the supremacy of the sea by ships and guns and men. He regarded this Department with great jealousy he had tried a fall with it, and had been badly worsted in the case of Gibraltar. The present First Lord was not strong enough to hold his own against the Department. He had no doubt that he had convinced the First Lord that he was right about Gibraltar, that the works which were being conducted when he was sent there, and were still being conducted, made Gibraltar a serious weakness, and not a source of strength, and that it was necessary to build a harbour on the eastern side. His Committee brought back a unanimous Report. It was rejected, and he was himself treated with obloquy for having taken, at great trouble and at a great expense of time and money, a part in the preparation of that Report—a Report of a Committee comprising an eminent admiral, an eminent general, an eminent civil engineer, and himself. That Report was rejected because the Commander-in-Chief at Gibraltar disagreed with it. Still they were told by the First Lord that the Admiralty was nevertheless going to survey the eastern side to see whether it was practicable to build a harbour on that side, and how much it would cost. That was perfect nonsense. The Admiralty was already in possession' of recent soundings, and nothing was better known than the set of the currents and the formation of the Rock. He could only regard the statement as a means of evading the recommendation of the Committee to proceed with the construction of the harbour. What had the Government been doing with regard to this survey? Did they really seriously mean to pursue the construction of a harbour on the eastern side? They knew there was no more difficulty in building a harbour on that side than on the west. A good deal had been said of the Levant wind, but that
944
would not prevent a harbour being built. This was a serious matter. In the words of their military advisers, the only method of securing the safety of Gibraltar now was by occupying all the territory from Tarifa right round to the eastern side of the Rock. That would require 40,000 troops, and were we to find 40,000 its time of war for this purpose? He felt bitterly disappointed that his labours in this matter had been set at naught and thrown away. What surveys had been made? Had any extra surveys at all been made? He did not believe that there had, because none were necessary. He wished to ask what the Government had been doing. They had chosen to reject the considered opinions of their military advisers, and they had chosen to reject the unanimous Report of the Committee of which he was the humblest member, on the plea that the Committee did not quite know what it would cost. He said that the Committee had had full information. Everything connected with the soundings and the winds at Gibraltar were well known. Were the Government prepared to admit that the reasons they gave were merely a pretext for setting aside the Report of the Committee, which they did not intend to put into effect?
MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to refer to the rebuilding of the Nelson Monument at Portsdown. A contract had been entered into for £1,091, but when the contractor finished the work he found that it had cost him £1,411, and the Admiralty recommended to the Treasury that he should be paid the difference. It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim, and also the present Secretary to the Treasury, who were, he believed, responsible for that irregular business, were riot present. They had heard a great deal about contracts during the session, and probably much more remained to be said. He hoped that some explanation would he given why, a contract having been entered into, nearly 33 per cent. more than the amount was paid to the contractor. He supposed that many men found they were out of pocket at the end of a contract, but they did not find the outside world making good to them the difference. He thought he was entitled to ask before the Vote was passed for some information of such irregular business.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not think that the Government had given any satisfactory explanation as to why they had abandoned Wei-Hai-Wei as a naval station. They had often observed, in connection with the present Government, that they came forward with a great flourish of trumpets and said that a certain place was very important, and then after a short time it w-is found that everything that had been said was entirely wrong. Wei-Hai-Wei was taken as a set-off against the Russian occupation of Port Arthur, and it was stated at the time that it would be a most important naval centre for the British Fleet in Chinese waters. At present the nearest British coaling station was at Hong Kong. Shanghai was not a British possession; it was a treaty port, and the Germans and the Japanese had permanent barracks there. He maintained that Hong Kong was too far distant to be effectively used as a coaling station. When he was at Wei-Hai-Wei the "Terrible" was in the harbour. Were the Government going to keep the "Terrible" there, and was their idea to use the "Terrible" to defend the place instead of proceeding with the fortifications? He understood that the fortifications were almost completed, and he should have thought that it was worth while finishing them. Even if it were to be used only as a hospital or sanitorium for the Fleet, surely it would be none the worse for being protected. He could not conceive why the necessary works should not be finished and guns planted on them, as the fortifications would be able to assist the Fleet in case of need. The giving up of Wei-Hai-Wei was another example of the vacillating policy shown by the Government. The alliance with Japan did not remove the necessity for keeping Wei-Hai-Wei as a naval base. They ought to have a naval base, and, being in possession of Wei-Hai-Wei, it ought to be protected, and the world ought to be shown that it was the naval station of this country, and that they meant to defend it as such. He thought the reason why the fortifications had been given up was to impress other nations with the fact that England did not intend to take bits of China. But they had a right to fortify Wei-Hai-Wei; they had actually begun operations, and to
946
give them up now because they thought they were inexpedient would not assist the Government one whit as a reason against any other country fortifying any other part of China. He complained that he could not really get at the bottom of the policy of the Government with reference to Wei-Hai-Wei. He himself believed that it would form a very good base for the purpose of a coaling station, or for repairing the Fleet. It had a good harbour, and plenty of room for large vessels. Having seen the place, he ventured to say that there was plenty of, room for vessels to enter the harbour in time of stress, and to get the temporary shelter they needed. He thought that in the course of a year or two the Government would again change their minds, and would ask the House of Commons for a large sum of money in order to put guns on the fortifications. A sum of £13,000 was asked for for a new pier. For whom was that pier intended? It was not intended for military purposes, and it was not required so far as the Navy was concerned, as launches would be sufficient. To ask £13,000 for the pier at a mere watering-place was, in his opinion, an expenditure of public money not warranted under the Navy Votes. Wei-Hai-Wei might be made into a watering place, he given gardens, a pier, and landing places, but that was all civil expenditure, and ought not to come under the Navy Estimates at all.
SIR JOHN COLOMBthought it an extraordinary thing that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark should come out as an advocate of reckless expenditure, for that, he contended, was what his argument came to. He agreed, however, that Wei-Hai-Wei was a crucial example of the ridiculous way in which we manage our system of Imperial defence. When Port Arthur was acquired by Russia, this country acquired Wei-Hai-Wei. He thought at the time it was perhaps a wise thing to do. We were then immediately told, on the authority of and by the War Office—not by the Admiralty at all—that Wei-Hai-Wei was a most important place for a secondary naval base. Hon. Members would I remember sitting up through a long night in July until the morning broke fighting this question. From the first he had steadily endeavoured to defeat and

947
destroy the contention of the War Office. The question of naval bases was one, not for the War Office, but for naval opinion to decide; it should rest with the Admiralty. It was deliberately stated that a large expenditure was to be incurred in fortifying this place because the War Office considered it necessary as a secondary naval base, but, when asked what they meant by a secondary naval I base, the War Office was really unable to say. An announcement was now quietly made by the Admiralty that the fortifications were not to be proceeded with, and that the contention of the War Office was not to be pressed. What did it mean? It meant that naval opinion, which should have been consulted at the start, was consulted only at the end, and probably the general "hard-up-ness" of the situation in other directions had enabled the Admiralty to triumph over the War Office. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark that guns and so on should be placed at Wei-Hai-Wei to shelter our ships in case of war, all he could say was that the business of the British Fleet would be on the sea, not in harbour. With regard to coaling depôts, he was glad to see the Admiralty were going on with the work at the Falkland Islands. He would like to know, however, whether it was the policy of the Admiralty to finish these coaling sheds as soon as possible. In the case of our numerous sailing ships coming round the Horn with grain stuffs for this country, if war broke out the first question to arise would be the collection and sheltering of those ships and the means of protecting them until they could be brought safely into port. The Falkland Islands were the only places we had in a position to be of any use for that purpose as a base and coaling station for the cruisers so engaged. Everybody recognised the importance of the Gape route in case of any obstruction in regard to the Suez Canal, but when the Cape route became a matter of serious importance to this country, so did the route round Cape Horn. He therefore asked whether the sum taken this year represented the full amount the Admiralty could manage, to spend on this work, as it was important that these preparations should be made, and
948
that there should be no delay in regard to these small but necessary arrangements at the Falkland Islands.
MR. O'MARAthought the hon. Member had somewhat misrepresented the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in saying he had come forward as an advocate of reckless expenditure. What his hon. friend really intended to point out was that the Government in asking for this expenditure on a pier were either proceeding too far or not far enough. He was not himself a naval expert, but he understood that the naval authorities were not going to fortify Wei-Hai-Wei, and that they had handed it over to the Colonial Office for administration. That was so, because in the Civil Service Estimates a sum was asked for by the Colonial Office in consequence. There was, however, this Vote appearing in the Navy Estimates, and some explanation should be given as to why the Colonia Office could not, out of its Vote, provide this pier with the other necessary attractions, such as niggers and so on, at this watering place in China. He could not understand the system of finance under which the Government could come and ask for Votes under two different heads for the one place. Another point worthy of notice was the fact that out of this large sum of £1,100,000. only £5,000 was to be spent in Ireland. There was no doubt that Ireland would occupy an important strategical position in the next naval war. The fleets would have to mobilise either in the Bay of Biscay or off the coast of Ireland, and the nearest ports of refuge would be on the south or west coast of Ireland. Consequently, it would be only an ordinary precaution on the part of the Admiralty to establish in Ireland a proper naval port at which repairs could be carried out. He moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,095,000, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. O'Mara).
MR. WILLIAM ALLANasked for an explanation of an item of £4,200 for a water-tube boiler shop at Haulbowline, seeing that neither engines nor boilers were made there.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)thought it would perhaps be convenient at this point to reply to the points which had been raised. The first question of importance to which attention had been called was to the expenditure under the Loans Act. The total estimated expenditure under that Act for the two financial years ending in April, 1904, was £6,492,000. Up to March 31st next, approximately one-half the period, it was expected there would have been spent £2,700,000, or not quite one-half the total amount. They were beginning several large works, on which during the first year the expenditure was small, but the expenditure next year would probably be larger, so that they were not likely to be greatly below the total estimate. That brought him to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the progress that was being made with the two great works for which they received the authority of the House last year—he referred to the breakwater at Malta and the provision of coaling stations for the Navy. As to the works at Malta, no actual visible progress had been possible, because no expenditure was possible until the Vote had been authorised by Parliament, and he could not agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the amount of care and knowledge which was required before undertaking great engineering works of this character. Soundings which were sufficient for purposes of navigation were not sufficient for the purposes of constructing a breakwater. He should like the hon. Member for King's Lynn to produce his evidence to show that any engineer had stated that the soundings which had already been taken and the information in the possession of the Admiralty were insufficient to enable them to proceed with the work.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that those soundings to which he referred were produced before the Committee, and were in the possession of the Admiralty now.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that those soundings were sufficient for the purposes of navigation, but not for the construction of a breakwater. In regard to Gibraltar, the pledge given by the First Lord of the Admiralty had of course been fulfilled—that they would take steps to investigate closely the question of the eastern side of the harbour. A very distinguished civil engineer had been despatched to Gibraltar, and he was now making a most accurate survey and recording observations as to winds, currents, and weather. This engineer went two or three months ago, and he was making borings and close soundings. and when his report was made, the subject could be re-considered. Until this engineer's investigations were completed, the question remained where it was last year. In regard to the Malta breakwater, careful borings and soundings had been completed, and the necessary plans were being prepared. With regard to the coaling stations, although no great progress with the work was visible, many of the plans were in a forward state. A large work was being undertaken on the mainland opposite Hong Kong, and plans were also in a forward condition for the erection of a large coaling station at Portsmouth. Big works were in progress at Portsmouth, where No. 12 and No. 13 docks were being lengthened in order to enable them to accommodate large cruisers. No. 13 dock would cost £45,000, and when lengthened it would take all classes of ships. No. 12 dock was being lengthened in a similar manner. The great machine shop at Portsmouth was also receiving attention, and he believed that this was part of the policy advocated in the debate on naval questions a few nights ago. This question was raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, who stated that some of their appliances in the workshops at Portsmouth were obsolete, and their machinery was not up to date. This new workshop at Portsmouth was the result of the policy pressed for by the hon. Member that new machinery should be available in order to work to the best advantage. This new machine shop would certainly cost £188,000.
MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid that was only a small machine shop, for he had put up one that cost £320,000.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that this new machine shop would be 270 feet by 590 feet. It would be entirely worked by electric power. In regard to Wei-Hai-Wei, the opinions of two opposite schools of thought had been laid before the Committee. The hon. Member opposite stated that the Fleet ought to be able to maintain and protect Wei-Hai-Wei. But it was not the duty of the Fleet to protect its own coaling stations. The object of a fleet in war was to attack the enemy, and it must be perfectly free to carry out that duty. It had now been decided to make Wei-Hai-Wei a station to which the Fleet might resort in peace time, which would be of great value to the Fleet. This pier about which a question had been raised was for the use of the Fleet, in order that the crews might land upon the Island, which without a pier would be absolutely impossible. The harbour of Wei-Hai-Wei was subject to very heavy seas, and at many times of the year the state of the weather would make landing impossible without a pier. On the island it was proposed to maintain a hospital, a recreation ground, a canteen, and a coaling station—not on a very large scale. It was to be a summer sanatorium for the Fleet, and a station where manœuvres could be carried out in an extremely healthy climate. Commanding officers who had reported from this station were unanimously of opinion that Wei-Hai-Wei was, perhaps, the very best available harbour of the kind for the crews, and it was even a better climate than that of Japan. Therefore, for the purposes he had named a more suitable station could not be found.
One or two other questions had been asked him. As to the works at the Falkland Islands, they were progressing, and would be completed during this financial year. The sum of £20,000, which was unspent, and led his hon. friend to suppose that the work would not be finished this year, was the result of a saving on the original estimate. That was the result of the Government Works Department having carried out this work with their own workmen, and they had thus been enabled to save £20,000 upon the Vote. He thought that was very creditable to
952
the Works Department, more especially in view of the statement made by his hon. friend behind him that his Department was the most incompetent part of the Admiralty staff. With regard to the question raised as to the payment of £400 above the original contract price for the Nelson Monument at Portodown, this occurred three years ago when the matter was not personally before him. He understood that the matter had been carefully considered, but if the hon. Member would give him notice of a Question on the subject, he would give him an answer.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: What about the Haulbowline water tube boilers?
MR. PRETYMANsaid that was for the necessary repairs to water tube boilers, with which a large portion of the Fleet was furnished. There were similar shops for all kinds of boilers.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to allude to two most important questions which had been raised. One was the eastern dock at Gibraltar. He did not know whether the hon. Member for King's Lynn was satisfied with the answer given on this question, but he must confess that, from a totally different point of view, he did not regard the answer as entirely satisfactory. What the hon. Member told them was that a distinguished expert had been sent out to continue the investigations which were commenced last year by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He had hoped that the hon. Member would have been able to tell the Committee that on its own responsibility the Admiralty had settled, once for all, whether there was to be a dock on the eastern side. His own wish was that the answer should be in the negative, because he did not think that a harbour on the east side was one which would justify the expenditure on its construction. Referring to the-position of Wei-Hai Wei, he said the hon. Gentleman had not been unfairly dealt with by the Committee, but they desired information as to how that place would be affected by the announcement recently made. It was declared by the Admiralty three years ago that Wei-Hai-Wei was to-be a secondary military base. When an explanation of that phrase was asked,

953
they were told that Wei-Hai-Wei was to be in Chinese waters a port similar to Gibraltar in the Mediterranean, before the present great expansion of works took place. It was stated three years ago that we were going to build at Wei-Hai-Wei a coaling station, store-houses, and a naval hospital. These were all specific statements, and he wanted to know whether they still held good.
Mr. PRETYMAN: It is proposed still to have a coaling station there, but not on a very large scale. There will also be a canteen, recreation grounds, and small stores.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Practically the policy at Wei-Hai-Wei with regard to the Works Department is still to be persevered in, notwithstanding the general change of view by the War Office and the Foreign Office.
MR. GROVESasked whether it was a fact that on the bar at Sheerness the greatest depth of water, and that only for a limited period, was thirty-six feet. He asked hon. Gentlemen to imagine what would be the position in the case of a naval battle extending up the eastern coast of England if an ironclad drawing twenty-eight or thirty feet of water received such injury that her watertight compartments carried her down a few feet more than her usual depth. That ironclad, when seeking refuge, might not be able to enter Sheerness. Was the hon. Member aware that within recent times a Member of the House, who was engaged in the shipping trade, made an offer to the Admiralty, when expending money on a commercial graving dock, to enlarge the length and width of the dock to admit modern ironclads for a subsidy of £10,000, and that the offer was refused by the Admiralty at the time? He wished to know whether the Vote now before the Committee provided for increasing the depth at Sheerness.
MR. MANSFIELDSaid he had not heard any reason given why they should not vote for the proposed reduction. The main in the street would say, looking back on the history of Wei-Hai-Wei, that we took it because we were ordered out of Port Arthur
954
by Russia. We then took this port to show that we had got an equivalent. It was to be a wonderful place when fortified. What was the reason for the Government's change of front in regard to Wei-Hai-Wei? The only explanation was that it was the War Office that conceived the idea of fortifying it, and therefore must it now be given up. It seemed to him that the War Office would be better engaged attending to its own business. If they were to have a change of work as between one office and another, he would suggest that the Admiralty should take to the buying of horses. It could buy them quite as well, and he was certain that it could not buy them worse, than the War Office. What had been stated in answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn showed that the Admiralty had been as lax in regard to soundings round our foreshores at Gibraltar as the War Office had been in regard to maps of South Africa.
MR. DILLONsaid that every session for two or three years past several hours were wasted in Committee in debates between experts as to whether Wei-Hai-Wei should be treated as a first or a second-class naval station. When that town was first taken from the Chinese, the First Lord of the Treasury and the representative of the Admiralty made most eloquent speeches, in which they assured Parliament that all the best experts concurred in regarding Wei-Hai-Wei as the best naval station in the north of China, and they were told over and over again that it could be made a more powerful naval base than Port Arthur. Now, what value were they to attach to the opinions of the naval experts at the Admiralty in view of what had occurred? They were now told that all idea of using it as a naval base had been abandoned. If so, why were they going to spend more money on it? When they heard the representative of the Admiralty calling for money to spend on a new pier, a hospital, a canteen, and a recreation ground for a small coaling station, that was in pursuance of a Chinese, not a European policy—a policy of "saving their face." He would recall the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury had said that Wei-Hai-Wei could never be a commercial town, because the British

955
Government had given an undertaking to the German Government that Wei-Hai-Wei would never be connected to the back country and that no railway would be built. It was therefore an isolated spot, cut off from the interior German territory. They were told now that a pier and a hospital were to be built, and he assumed therefore that Wei-Hai-Wei was to be permanently retained. If that were so, what a mockery was the whole policy of this country! We had found fault with the Russian Government for encroaching on the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire, and we had entered into an alliance with the Japanese nation to guarantee the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire; but England was just as guilty of interfering with the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire as either Germany or Russia. The English Government now announced to the world that they intended to retain Wei-Hai-Wei, although it was acknowledged to be of no substantial use as a naval station. What folly and nonsense, then, it was to enter into an alliance to maintain the territorial integrity of China. On principle it did not matter whether a town like Wei-Hai-Wei was taken, or a whole, province like Manchuria. He maintained that Wei-Hai-Wei ought to be returned to the Chinese Government as a guarantee of the sincerity of the English Government in the wish to maintain the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire. When Wei-Hai-Wei was taken over, a Chinese regiment was enrolled as a garrison. Was that regiment to be transferred elsewhere?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member could not discuss the question of the Chinese regiment under this Vote.
MR. DILLONsaid he understood that the question of the policy of retaining Wei-Hai-Wei was involved in this Vote; and he had simply alluded to the Chinese regiment as part of that policy. If ruled out of order, he would raise the Question on another opportunity.
MR. CALDWELLsaw no use in erecting a pier at Wei-Hai-Wei, for ships could be discharged and men landed
956
by means of steam tenders. He understood that Wei-Hai-Wei was to be placed under the jurisdiction and control of the Colonial Office, and the sums asked for in this Vote should have been embraced in the Colonial Office Vote, which included already £12,000 for Wei-Hai-Wei. It was unfair to disperse the Estimates in that way, because the Committee did not comprehend the total sum that was to be expended in a given place. Given the Government policy that the place was to be a sanatorium, there was no ground whatever for the expenditure of money on a pier where, as a matter of fact, the Navy could use its launches.
MR. O'MARAsaid he desired to ask a question with reference to the contract the Admiralty had entered into with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company for a cable to Wei-Hai-Wei. What use would that cable be if the place was only to be used as a seaside resort with a pier and a band on it!
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything with regard to a cable to Wei-Hai-Wei in this Vote.
MR. O'MARAsaid he might not have been strictly in order, and would not pursue the matter. He wished to know if it was naval strategy that made it incumbent on the Admiralty to spend money on a pier at Wei-Hai-Wei. The Admiralty disclaimed any intention of making it a naval station, and, therefore, he thought his Amendment to reduce the sum by £5,000 was a very reasonable one, especially as £1,000 could not be obtained for piers on the west coast of Ireland, where they would be much more useful.
MR. PRETYMANsaid in reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Salford as to entrance to Sheerness, the river at the entrance was sufficiently deep in any state of the tide for the largest vessels. The bar was above that, and the channel there was not accessible to ships in all states of the tide. The largest ship in the Navy had a draught of about twenty-seven feet, whereas there were thirty-six feet at low water at Sheerness, leaving a considerable margin of nine feet. As regarded Wei-Hai-Wei, there was a temporary pier there already, and it would be impossible to land without having a pier.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid he wished to ask one question on behalf of his hon. friend, and that was why, if naval hospitals were to be erected at Wei-Hai-Wei, the Government had not asked for money for them in the Estimates
Mr. PRETYMANsaid it was because they proposed to provide the accommodation gradually and did not propose to erect all the buildings at once.
(10.23.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 66.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., St'oud

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Ambrose, Robert

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Hemphili, Rt.Hon. Charles H.

O'Shee, James John

Burke, E. Haviland

Holland, William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Russell

Channing, Francis Allston

Kennedy, Patrick James

Roche, John

Conan, Denis J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Runciman, Walter

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lundon, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel.

Crean, Eugene

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cremer, William Randal

McVeagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomson, E. W. (Vork, W. R.)

Delany, William

M'Kean, John

Tomkinson, James

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doogan, P. C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert.

Murphy. John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farrell, Jmaes Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (H'ddersf'd

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Young, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. O' Mara and Mr.Cald well.

Grant, Corrie

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

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O,Dowd, John

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finch, George H.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Fisher, William Hayes

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Chamberlain,. J. Austen (Wore'r

Fison, Frederick William

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Charrington, Spencer

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Coclirane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Flower, Ernest

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Austin, Sir John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Graham, Henry Robert

Baird, John George Alexander

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Green, Walford D. (W'dnesbury

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Groves, James Grimble

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Davenport, William Bromley-

Outline, Walter Murray

Banbury, Frederick George

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(C'atham

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Midd'x

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Denny, Colonel

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Diekson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf rd

Bignold, Arthur

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Boscawen, Arthur Grifhth-

Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Duke, Henry Edward

Heath, James (Stattbrds. N. W.

Bull, William James

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Helder, Augustus

Bullard, Sir Harry

Emmott, Alfred

Henderson, Alexander

Butcher, John George

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hobhouse, Hemy (Somerset,E.

Cavendish, V. C. AY. (D'rbyshire

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

Hogg, Lindsay

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nicholson, William Graham

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Knowles, Lees

Perks, Robert William

Stewart, Sir Mark, J. M 'Taggart

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pierpoint, Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stroyan, John

Lawson, John Grant

Plummer, Walter R.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh' m

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Priestley, Arthur

Thornton, Percy M.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

Purvis, Robert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lowe, Francis William

Pym, C. Guy

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Randles, John S.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Reid, James (Greenock)

Valentia, Viscount

Macdona, John Cumming

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalylbridge

Warde, Colonel C. E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Wason John Catheart (OrkneY)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (T'unton

Maxwel WJH (Dumfriesshire

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Rolleston, Sir.John F. L.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh N.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Moulton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wylie, Alexander

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Muntz, Philip A.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Resolution agreed to.

4. £2,661,500, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Personnel.
MR. KEARLEYasked whether, if the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in obtaining the first part of the Vote, the general discussion would remain open when the Vote was discussed at its further stages.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)said he understood that that was the usual practice.
MR. KEARLEYsaid there was no doubt that the enlarged Navy had come to stay — the constructive Vote had trebled in the course of the last ten years. Instead of being £5,000,000, as it was ten years ago, it was now £15,000,000. Everybody would agree that the construction of these mammoth ships was highly scientific, arid that the highest skill was necessary for the performance of naval architecture, and, therefore, it behoved the Government and the country to secure the very best talent possible, for this Department. He complained that
960
when the talent required was secured the Government were unable to keep it. The Naval Construction Department was not only underpaid but undermanned. The result of the underpay was that the best men were constantly being tempted away by private firms who paid higher salaries than the Government. The hon. Member instanced several cases of this kind in November, of which the Government were only able to get them back by largely increasing the pay. The Government, he contended, were constantly shedding their best men, and in order to retain their staff, they would have to face the question of emolument. When Sir William White and Mr Philip Watts returned to the Admiralty, from which they had been tempted away by private firms, they relinquished considerably higher salaries than they were now paid, which showed that there was something very attractive in Admiralty employment; but their salaries were the only adequate salaries paid. The ordinary salary of a Director of Naval Construction was £1500, rising to £1800, after five years service, but the Government did not offer that salary to Sir William White and Mr. Philip Watts. Sir William White came back at £5500

961
whilst Mr. Watts declined to return under £3,000 a year. It. was a great mistake on the part of the Government not to give men like these not only an adequate salary, but also an adequate staff. When the Navy Constructors was £5,000,000 they had two chief constructors at the Admiralty, now the Vote was £15,000,000 they had only three, and those men commenced at a salary of £700 and rose by annual increments of £25 to £850. It was almost an insult to offer such men an annual increment as low as £25.But when they rose to £850 there was no further prospect before them. Two of the biggest dockyards were Devonport and Chatham, yet the chief constructors there only received £600 a year rising to £750. He asked whether business men would give so paltry a salary to such men. He knew perfectly well they would do nothing of the kind, because if they did the inevitable result would be that they would be tempted away by other firms who offered greater inducements. But that was the position of the Admiralty today, all their best men were being enticed away with offers of better salaries. The question struck him as being a very important one. He could not help thinking that Sir William White had not had a sufficient staff to carry out the stupendous work which he did with such great success and credit. That official would probably go down to history as the greatest naval constructor of all time, at any rate up to the present. He seriously complained of the cheese-paring policy of the Admiralty in giving men holding positions of the greatest responsibility such inadequate salaries, and he asked whether there was any intention on the part of the Department to go into the question.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERentirely agreed with the hon. Member that there could be no more important question for the Admiralty to consider than that to which he had referred. But it was true, as had been stated, that both Sir William White and Mr. Watts received special allowances, and, after all, the proof of the pudding was in the eating. These two eminent men had rendered services which perhaps money could not adequately repay, but they had both quite willingly entered the service of the
962
country on the terms the country offered. He agreed it was important that the constructors' branch should provide men who would in every way second the efforts of their Chief, and, if they were competent to do so, he hoped they would be retained. He did not think, however, it was correct to say that service under private firms drew so largely from the staff of the Admiralty. He believed he was right, in saying that the number of constructors who had left the Admiralty during the period of their service had been remarkably small. But it was a, point to he remembered that the Admiralty had been able to get their services back again when they were particularly valuable to the country. Whether it might be possible at some period to obtain the co-operation of private firms, in designing as well as in shipbuilding, was a matter worthy of serious attention. The hon. Member had not stated the facts quite fully in connection with the emoluments of constructors, for there were allowances to be considered. Here, again, it was necessary to look at the facts. The Admiralty had always been able to get the services of exceedingly competent men for the salaries offered. While it was common experience that the salaries given were not so large as those sometimes given by private firms, yet attached to the Government service there were considerations, such as the certainty and the distinction of the employment, and the certainty of a pension after a fixed term of service, which made these posts attractive to men of great eminence and capabilities. With regard to the Constructive Department, the hon. Member was undoubtedly right in saying there had been too much pressure, and he would be glad to know that the work of re-constructing the Department, of which the Constructive Department was a branch, was engaging the active attention of the Admiralty; and he believed that as the result of arrangements to be made they would be able to give greater liberty to the new director of Naval Construction, to relieve him of work which should not properly be put upon him and to give him in the future a staff more adequate to relieve him of the

963
enormous pressure in the important work he had to undertake.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there were a few words in the First Lord's Memorandum which seemed almost to suggest that the pressure on the Controller's Department was so great as to stop any further increase of the Fleet. He was very glad, therefore, to hear the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty with regard to the re-organisation of the Department. It was impossible to justify the smallness of the new programme this year—a programme actually smaller than that of each of several other naval Powers—on the ground of the pressure of that particular Department.
Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.
Committee to sit again tomorrow.

SUPPLY [7TH MARCH], REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 420,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,940,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges, of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending On the 31st day of March, 1903."
Resolutions read a second time.
First Resolution:—
MR. DILLON: I beg to move the reduction of the number of men by 1,500, the number of the Chinese regiment. As I understand, the policy of enrolling these men for use against their
964
own countrymen was inaugurated in connection with the establishment of Wei-Hai-Wei as a fortress and naval base. I always thought that the policy of enrolling men of different races and nationalities in the British Army was a foolish and mischievous policy. To get those men, as was the case in the war with China, to fight against their own countrymen is a policy which is bound to result in many evil consequences. Although the whole policy of treating Wei-Hai-Wei as a naval base has now been abandoned, the proposal made in connection with that policy to enrol a Chinese regiment has not been abandoned, and it is proposed to maintain a Chinese regiment, not only at 1,000 men as originally suggested, but it is now proposed to increase that number to 1,500. I wish to know what is going to be done with this force. Is this Chinese regiment going to remain in Wei-Hai-Wei, or will it be removed elsewhere, and if so, where? I beg to move a reduction of this Vote by 1,500 men.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '420,000,' and insert '418,500.'" —(Mr.Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That 420,000' stand part of the Resolution."
SIR CHARLES DILKE: With regard to this Chinese regiment, the position of affairs is even more curious than that which has been mentioned by my hon. friend. My hon. friend has moved a reduction of this Vote by 1,500 men. It is perfectly true that last year a decision was arrived at to increase this regiment to 1,500 or 1,600 men, but the number on the Estimates is for just over 1,000. We have been informed by the Government in a recent debate in another place that the question of disbanding this regiment is under consideration. Therefore we are in the curious position that first the decision is arrived at to increase the regiment, and then we are told that it is under consideration whether or not it shall be disbanded. Now the House is asked to vote 1,000 or 1,100 men. Having said this much upon the Motion of my hon. friend, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be better for me to ask some questions on which I desire information from the Government upon this Amendment, or wait until the Amendment has either been withdrawn or disposed of.
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment had better be disposed of first.
LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member for East Mayo has brought forward a proposition that we should not employ the natives of a country as troops where they may be called upon to fight against their own countrymen. That is not the case in China.
MR. DILLON: What I pointed out was that these Chinamen remained technically subjects of the Emperor of China, although they were enrolled in a British regiment.
LORD STANLEY: Quite so, because we do not hope to have any aggression on the part of China. We look to this regiment to guard that part of China which at present remains under the dominion of our flag. Therefore we are trying in those countries which we are taking under our protection to instil into the natives such instruction in military matters as we give to the natives of India and other countries, as will enable them to take their part with us in the defence of that part of the Empire. This is all that is being done in China. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has referred to the fact that we asked for more men than we have been able to get. I am afraid that that is a thing which we have had experience of at home as well as abroad, and we hope to be able to get the number of men we asked for. It has not been decided to disband this regiment, as has been stated by the right hon. baronet.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not say that. What I said was that the question of disbanding this regiment had been stated in another place to be under consideration.
LORD STANLEY: We still hope to be able to keep this regiment in that state of efficiency in which we keep our Indian regiments. Regiments are kept up in this way in other parts of the globe under our rule in order to act as part of our Army, and that is the reason we are taking this sum of money in the present form.
SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth): I entirely agree with the general policy. We were told originally that Wei-Hai-Wei was to be a secondary naval base. This Chinese regiment was established as part of the arrangment. We have now been told quite casually by the Admiralty that Wei-Hai-Wei is not going to be a secondary naval base at all, and that it is not going to be fortified. You are now asking the Committee to vote the money for this regiment, although it has not yet been decided whether you are going to maintain it or not. I should like to know, if it is decided to keep up this regiment, whether it will be retained at Wei-Hai-Wei or not?
LORD STANLEY: Certainly.
MR. LOUGH: Really this is a matter which ought to be made a little more clear to us. The most important point put by the right hon. Baronet has not been answered at all from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Baronet told us that the Government have announced in another place that this regiment is to be disbanded.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: No; what I said was that they are considering the question of disbanding it.
MR. LOUGH: We want to hear something on that point. Why is it under consideration to disband the regiment, and why has not some decision been taken with regard to it? We ought to have some clear information from the Government with regard to this particular point, which has not been touched upon in the reply which has been given. The answer we have had puts us in a still greater difficulty. The noble Lord said that he had every hope that the arms of these Chinamen would not be turned against their fellow countrymen. That, however, was only a benevolent hope. I would like to ask who else could they be turned against? The noble Lord indicated that they were for defence against some great Power, but how ridiculous that was. The creation of this force is an example of many other forces that have been created in Africa

967
with very scanty information being given with regard to them, and without any direct knowledge on the part of the House as to the objects the Government have in view in bringing those forces into existence. It has now been stated that the Government are thinking of disbanding this Chinese regiment. I certainly hope that, if we do not get more
information upon this point, the reduction which has been moved by my hon. friend will be supported from all sides of the House.
(11.10.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 67.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fison, Frederick William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan, D. J. (Walthomstow)

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Flower, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, SW.

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gardner, Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Muntz, Philip A.

Bagot, Capt. Joseeline Fitz Roy

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bain, Col. James Robert

Graham, Henry Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Baird, John George Alexander

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Parker, Gilbert

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Groves, James Grimble

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Penn, John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Pierpoint, Robert

Beach, Rt Hon Sir Michael Hicks

Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

Plummer, Walter R.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bignold, Arthur

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Pretyman, Ernest George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Purvis, Robert

Bond, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pym, C. Guy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Randles, John S.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath,James (Staffords, N. W.)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bull, William James

Helder, Augustus

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Butcher, John George

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

Hogg, Lindsay

Ritchie, Rt Hn, Chas, Thompson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Holland, William Henry

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Chapman, Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Charrington, Spencer

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Knowles, Lees

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawson, John Grant

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cust, Henry John C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyn'side

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, Rt Hn. W G. Ellison

Stroyan, John

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Max well, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Finch, George H.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Valentia, Viscount

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Warde, Colonel. C. E.

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

Wylie, Alexander

Welby, Lt. -Col. A. CE (Taunton

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Sir William Walrond andMr. Anstruther.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E R. (Bath)

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Ambrose, Robert

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Malley, William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Mara, James

Blake, Edward.

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Kennedy, James, Patrick

O'Shee, James John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Lumbert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Levy, Maurice

Price, Robert John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Landon, W.

Priestley, Arthur

Carew, James Lawrence

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rea, Russell

Cawley, Frederick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John

Channing, Francis Allston

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Runciman, Walter

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Craig, Robert, Hunter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Cremer, William Randal

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tomkinson, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley,.J. H. (Halifax)

Farrell; James Patrick

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ffrench, Peter

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

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

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Young, Samuel

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor T. P. (Liverpool.)

Gilhooly, James

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Mr. Dillon and Mr. Lough.

Resolution agreed to.

SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there were two points not discussed in Committee which he should like to put to the Secretary of State for War with regard to his scheme. He wanted to know whether the Government had thought out the effect of the new figures upon the linked battalion system. Last year the right hon. Gentleman in his statement told the House what were the views of the Government with regard to the future of the linked battalion system, but there were certain points which had changed since then, and which must therefore affect that view. Apart from the question of whether the allowance of the Government for the number of men they would have permanently to keep in South Africa was sufficient, four additional battalions, two of Munsters and two of Liverpools, had been disbanded.
MR. BRODRICK: They could not be disbanded when they were not formed.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid "disbanded" was not his word. It was the Government word. He could quote the
970
answer in which the right hon. Gentleman used the word. Then there were coaling stations which the Admiralty was to have taken over and had refused. These items disturbed the scheme of the linked battalions which was put before the House last year. No statement was made on the subject this year, and they were left in ignorance of how the system would work out in future. Another point was the cost of the new arrangement to India. Five years ago the most powerful argument the right hon. Gentleman was able to bring to bear against the shorter period for home service, and such a scheme as was now adopted, was the cost to India. He attacked some Members of the House, and said their scheme would involve an additional cost to India of £640,000. The right hon. Gentleman had now produced a scheme which involved a larger cost to India. The Indian Government had repeatedly put before Parliament that if they were to have men of proper age and allowed to keep them until the completion of ten or twelve years service it would be an economy. But under the Government

971
scheme they were given six years service. That was sure to be a costly service for the Indian Government.
MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Vote was for Great Britain and Ireland, excluding India.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had finished what he had to say, although he should be prepared to argue that his remarks were in order, because this affected the number of men at home under the linked battalion system.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him about the linked battalions, and he had no difficulty in answering him. The Government had not disbanded the four battalions referred to. The Munsters had never been formed. They were originally contemplated, but the battalions of the Irish Guards were substituted. It became unnecessary to ask for two battalions from Liverpool. We had under the new system seventy-eight battalions abroad, and we should have seventy-eight battalions at home. He hoped the Admiralty would be induced to take over the garrisoning of the coaling stations. The right hon. Baronet had asked whether the term of service in India might not be extended to ten or twelve years; but he thought that a period of between six and seven years was as long a time as it was desirable to assign in the case of the majority of the men. Of course, there might be exceptional men who might serve for a longer time without injury to their constitutions.
Second Resolution:—
MR. WHITLEYsaid he would move the reduction of the Vote by the nominal sum of £100, in order to call attention to the delay in the payment of the money due to the Yeomanry returned from the war in South Africa. On the previous Friday he had given two illustrations which came within his own experience of such delay, and he dared say almost every Member of the House
972
could give similar instances. He had been greatly surprised when the right hon. Gentleman had in his reply dealt with the two instances he had quoted as if that were the whole extent of the deficiencies of his Department. But in the Report of the Auditor General it was stated that there was no less a sum than half a million due to our soldiers, which had been received at the War Office on 10th September, 1901, and which had not yet been paid out on 11th February, 1902. There must have been some culpable delay at the War Office if these figures were correct, and an explanation was due to the House.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£18,940,400' and insert '£18,940,300.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
Question proposed,"That '£18,940,400' stand part of the Resolution."
LORD STANLEYsaid that the hon. Member was labouring under a mistake. All the money due to the soldiers in South Africa had been paid, but the accounts had not in all cases been received at home owing to the inevitable difficulties of collecting the pay-sheets. The men had been trekking from day to day, and if any delay had occurred in the case of a few men it was because they had fallen out of the column either sick or wounded and had come home. The War Office had done their best in every way to meet the men. If these had the slightest documentary proof at all, although the pay-sheets had not been received from South Africa, the great proportion of the sum due was given on account. A special Committee had been formed to deal with such cases, and there was not now, so far as he knew, an outstanding account. But if the hon. Member could give him a specific case he would undertake himself to investigate it.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that in view of the satisfactory statement of the noble Lord he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. FLYNNsaid he found there was an increase of £30,000

973
on the Estimates in respect of the pay of the Colonial contingents. Now, he contended that these Colonial contingents were not entitled to higher pay than the men from England and Ireland. Loyalty he could understand, but it should be loyalty on equal terms, and not 1s. a day to one class and 5s. a day to another. It was one of the most striking injustices in connection with the whole campaign to give increased pay to the Colonial contingents. He had seen it stated in Colonial newspapers that the explanation of such a large number of Colonials at the war was that there was lack of employment in the Colonies, and that the men eagerly grasped at the pay offered them. He asked any sensible man whether a unit in the imperial Yeomanry was worth five times as much as the average soldier of the line. He thought they ought to divide the House as a protest against the unfair manner in which the ordinary soldier was treated.
MR. DILLONsaid he wished to ask a question with reference to the pay of the local forces in South Africa. He wished to know whether the sum of £1,600.000 included pay for the forces which had been transferred from Lord Kitchener to the Cape Government. He really thought it too bad if the House were to be called upon to pay for those troops.
MR. O'MARAsaid he entirely endorsed what had fallen from his hon. friend the Member for North Cork. The Imperial Yeomanry had only distinguished themselves by their appearance in the casualty lists as missing. The surrenders of the regular troops were not half as frequent as the surrenders of the Yeomanry, and yet they were paid 5s. a day. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for War for an explanation of the enormous reduction in Sub-Head H, for gratuities to the troops on active service. It was only £350,000, while last year it was £2,340,000. He had listened very carefully to the debate, but had not heard any explanation of that reduction. He also observed that the recruiting expenses were estimated at about a fifth of what they were last year, namely, £37,000 as against £219,000. He presumed that the Secretary of State imagined that the inducement he held out of 6d. a day
974
extra would be sufficient to attract recruits, without advertising the other advantages of the Army. He himself last year recommended an increase in the pay of the troops and a decrease in the pay of the general staff. He viewed with concern an increase in the pay of the troops while the pay of the generals was not decreased, as his constituency would have to pay for it just as well as the most prosperous constituency in England. He also noticed that there was an enormous increase in the wages paid to ex-soldiers. Last year the Estimate was £254,000, whereas now it was estimated as £680,000. Then there was a sum of money for the lieutenant and major of the Tower of London, and he should be glad to learn what useful occupations those gentlemen pursued. He also wished to have an explanation of the amount taken for table money of general officers. He thought the pay given to general officers ought to be sufficient to provide them with all the delicacies they required, without giving them an allowance as table money. He hoped an explanation would be given on the point he had mentioned.
MR. PIRIEsaid he trusted the noble Lord would be able to answer the two questions to which he had already drawn attention. One was the difference there was in the authority on which extra pay was given to the Imperial Yeomanry and to the irregular corps. The pay was given to the Imperial Yeomanry by special Royal Warrant, but according to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General no such authority was given with reference to the pay of irregular corps locally raised, especially town guards. He should be glad to know on what authority that pay was given. He also wished to direct attention to the age of enlistment of troops.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is only the Money Vote.
MR. PIRIEsaid he was referring to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the House, and which contained an entirely novel condition of enlistment.
MR SPEAKER: It does not follow that that would be in order on this Vote.
MR. PIRIEsaid the matter was closely connected with the pay of the troops. He had already drawn attention to it in Committee, and now merely wished to ask for a definite reply to the remarks he had already made. It was a most striking fact that a recruit was not threatened with any punishment at all for giving a false answer as to age.
MR. SPEAKER: That clearly has nothing to do with this Vote.
MR. PIRIEsaid he would in that case merely say that the scheme fell short in several particulars of what the country had a right to expect. There were at the
present moment something like 4,000 infantry Volunteers in South Africa waiting to be relieved, and the reason they were not relieved was that the Volunteers naturally preferred to go out at 5s. a day instead of at 1s. To his mind that was a short-sighted policy.
It being Midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
Whereupon MR. BRODRICK rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
(12.0.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 68.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Keswick, William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Knowles, Lees

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Disracli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dorington,Sir John Edward

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Baird John George Alexander

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Finch, George H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

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

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Fison, Frederick William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Banbury, Frederick George

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Flower, Ernest

Maedona, John Cumming

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Foster, PhilipS (Warwick,S. W.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bignold, Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Manners, Lord Cecil

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bond, Edward

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

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

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

Bull, William James

Graham, Henry Robert

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bullard Sir Harry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Morgan, David J. (W'lth'mstow

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Groves, James Grimble

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Muntz, Philip A.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute

Chapman, Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Charrington, Spencer

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Nicholson, William Graham

Clive, Captain Percy

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Parker, Gilbert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Penn, John

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Henderson, Alexander

Plummer, Walter R.

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hohbouse, Henry (Somereset, E.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cust, Henry John C.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Purvis, Robert

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Houston, Robert Paterson

Randles, John S.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Johnson, William (Belfast)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Renwick, George

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Stroyan, John

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wylie, Alexander

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Toliemache, Henry James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Valentia, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Allen, Charles P (Gloue., Stroud

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Blake, Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Boland, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Shee, James John

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Price, Robert John

Channing, Francis Allston

Levy, Maurice

Priestley, Arthur

Cogan, Denis J.

Lough, Thomas

Rea, Russell

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Roche, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Walter

Crean Eugene

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cremer, William Randall

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cullinan, J.

M'Kean, John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Dillon, John

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sullivan, Donal

Donelan, Captain A.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Doogan, P. C.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Farrell, James Patrick

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Mr. Pirie and Mr.Warner.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

(12.10.) Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 50 (Division List No. 69.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Banbury, Frederick George

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Baird, John George Alexander

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Bignold, Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Bond, Edward

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Price, Robert John

Bull, William James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Priestley, Arthur

Bullard, Sir Harry

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Purvis, Robert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Randles, John S.

Caldwell, James

Helder, Augustus

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cavendish,V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Henderson, Alexander

Reid, James (Greenock)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Renwick, George

Chapman, Edward

Hope J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Charrington, Spencer

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Clive, Capt. Percy A.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Keswick, William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Knowles, Lees

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lambert, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lawson John Grant

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cust, Henry John C.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh'm

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Levy, Maurice

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Stroyan, John

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Mac Iver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Finch, George H.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Thornton, Percy M.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tollemache, Henry James

Fisher, William Hayes

Markham, Arthur Basil

Tomkinson, James

Fison, Frederick William

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Maxwell, W. J. H (D'mfriesshire

Valentia, Viscount

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Muntz, Philip A.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Green, Walford D. (W'dnesbury

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsfi'd

Groves, James Grimble

Parker, Gilbert

Wylie, Alexander

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Hall, Edward Marshall

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Penn, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

Pierpoint, Robert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Pirie, Duncan V.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Plummer, Walter R.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E,)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Cullinan, J.

Ambrose, Robert

Cogan, Denis J.

Delany, William

Blake, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Dillon, John

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Doogan, P. C.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cremer, William Randal

Farrell, James Patrick

980

981

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

O'Mara, James

Flynn, James Christopher

Murphy, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Gilhooly, James

Nannetti, Joseph P.

O'Shee, James John

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Roche, John

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, J miles(Wicklow, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

London, W.

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

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

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

O'Dowd, John

Mac Veagh,.Jeremiah

O'Kelly, Collor (Mayo, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.>

M'Kean, John

O'Malley, William

Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 3rd day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.
"That 122,500 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, including 19,805 Royal Marines."
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, and Lord Stanley do prepare and bring it in.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
"To provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

COUNTY COUNCILS (BYE-LAWS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)said the Bill was a
982
very small one to remove an inconvenience under which County Councils now laboured. At present the quorum required was two-thirds. The Bill proposed to remove that, but the right of the minority would be carefully preserved, as if five members objected the present quorum would be required.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was very anxious that a Bill like this should pass, but in this House if one Member objected after midnight no Bill could be taken. He had been endeavouring to pass a Bill to prevent new licences being granted in Ireland, but whenever he put it down it was always objected to by the noble Lord opposite or by the Attorney General for Ireland.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Objection is taken.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I have never said a word on the subject.
Second reading deferred till Wednesday.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL
  INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—LORD METHUEN'S REVERSE.
On the Motion for the adjournment,
MR. BRODRICK: I have received another telegram from Lord Kitchener, which does not add much to our information, but as it is the only way of communicating it to the Press I will read it to the House. It is dated Pretoria, today, 11.50 a.m.—
"The following is a summary of the latest reports. Lord Methuen's ox convoy, escorted by half his force, started one hour in advance of the mule convoy at dawn. The enemy made a sudden enveloping attack on the rear. The first confusion was occasioned by native boys, who galloped through the mule convoy with led horses, as the latter was endeavouring, by Lord Methuen's directions, to close on the ox convoy. This disorder to the mule convoy communicated itself to the mounted troops. The Boers, dressed in khaki, riding among the wagons, frustrated all attempts of the officers to rally. Great confusion ensued among this portion of the mounted troops, and they and the mule wagons galloped three miles beyond the ox wagons, and were cut off Sections 4th and 38th Batteries fought with great gallantry, and the 300 infantry of the Northumberland Fusiliers and the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment showed conspicuous courage in protecting the wagons, and refusing to surrender until resistance was useless. Delarey's force was almost all dressed in our uniform, which made it impossible for
984
our infantry to distinguish between our own men and the enemy when the mounted troops. were driven in upon them. The enemy numbered 1,500, with one 15-pounder and a pom-pom. Delarey, Celliers, Kemp, Vermass, and other leaders were present. Lord Methuen was seen by an Intelligence Department agent being well cared for in his own wagon." By a private telegram just received I find that Lord Methuen had a fractured thigh, but was reported to be doing well. A further message received says:—"Wounded will be brought in to the railway to-day. I hope reinforcements now arriving will rectify situation in this area without disturbing operations elsewhere. —(Signed) LORD KITCHENER."
MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, W.)asked the right hon. Gentleman,. with reference to the telegram he had read earlier in the day, which contained a request from Lord Kitchener that its publication should be delayed, whether, in fact, he did delay publication, and whether, in fact, that was done on any previous occasion, and if any such request were made.
MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say whether there was any such request on a previous occasion. But on this particular occasion, where the losses were likely to be large. where great anxiety would be caused, and where the actual events were still in doubt, Lord Kitchener requested me not to publish the telegram without some little delay, in order that needless anxiety might not be caused to many people. I think he was fully justified in making that request.
Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways.
Hastings Tramways.
Newcastle - upon - Tyne Corporation Tramways Extension.
Birmingham and Midland Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.

NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

L. Elgin (E. Elgin) (chairman),

E. Bradford,

E. Stamford,

L. Carew,

L. Shute (V. Barrington).

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 13th and 27th of February last discharged; and Bill committed forthwith.
DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 13th and 27th of February last discharged; and Bill committed.
LIVERPOOL GRAIN STORAGE AND TRANSIT COMPANY BILL [H.L.],
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.],
  Reported, with amendments.
RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [H.L.],
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],

    TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS BILL [H.L.],
    NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [H.L.],
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
    Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NOBEL'S EXPLOSIVES COMPANY, LIMITED (ARDBER WORKS WATER SUPPLY), BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not I intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MISCELLANEOUS: No. 4 (1902).
  Sugar Conference at Brussels; Des-patch from the British Delegates inclosing copy of the Convention signed on 5th March, 1902.

TRADES REPORTS.
Annual Series: No. 2747—Columbia (excepting Panama district).
Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
1. Order in Council of 6 th March, 1902, entitled the "China (Whangpo River Conservancy) Order in Council, 1902."
2. Orders in Council of 6th March, 1902, applying the provisions of "The Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1884," to the Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria.

EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
Order in Council of 6th March, 1902, giving effect to the Anglo-Belgian Extradition Treaty, signed 29th October, 1901, and ratified 6th December, 1901.
BRITISH SETTLEMENT ACT, 1887.
Order in Council of 6th March, 1902, relating to the transfer of British New Guinea to the authority of the Common-wealth of Australia.
LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
Order in Council of 6th March, 1902, further postponing until the 1st July, 1902, the operation of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, in the City of London.
ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1879.
Orders in Council of 6th March, 1902, constituting Spring Assize Counties Nos. 2 and 3.

BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
Returns of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the local courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1901.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON WATER BILL [H.L.]
A Bill I for establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and certain adjoining districts, for transferring to the Water Board the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Companies, and for other purposes connected therewith—was presented by the Lord James of Hereford; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thurday next. [No. 27.]

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — LORD METHUEN'S REVERSE.
EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask whether His Majesty's Government have any news to communicate to the House from South Africa.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, the following telegrams have been received at the War Office from Lord Kitchener—
Pretoria, 10.30 a.m., March 8th.
"I greatly regret to have to send you bad news about Methuen. He was moving with 900 mounted troops under Major Paris and 300 infantry, four guns, and one Pom-Pom from Wynburg to Lichtenburg, and was to meet Grenfell with 1,300 mounted troops at Rovirainesfontein on the 8th.
"Yesterday morning early he was attacked by De la Rey's force between Tweeboseh and Palmietkin11. The Boers charged on three sides.
"Five hundred and fifty mounted troops have come into line at Maribogo and Kraaipan. They were pursued by Boers for four miles from scene of action.
"They report Lord Methuen, Major Paris, guns, baggage, etc., were captured by Boers. Lord Methuen when last seen wag a prisoner.
"I have no details of casualties or any further information at present. Will keep you informed, and would suggest your delaying publication till I can send you definite news.
"I had already arranged to send troops to this district.
"I think this sudden revival of activity on the part of De la Rey is in order to draw off troops pressing De Wet."
Pretoria, March 9th.
"Major Paris has come in with remainder of men to Kraaipan. His report is that the column was moving in two parties, some with ox wagons left Tweebosch at 3 a.m.; mule wagons an hour later.
"Just after dawn Boers attacked. Before reinforcements could reach them the rear screen broke; meantime a large number of Boers galloping up on both flanks. These were at first checked by flank parties, but a panic and stampede of mules had begun and all the mule wagons with a terrible mixture of mounted men rushed past the ox wagons. All efforts to check them were unavailing.
"Major Paris collected some forty men and occupied position a mile in front of ox wagons, which were then halted. After gallant but useless defence the enemy rushed into ox wagons, and Lord Methuen was wounded in thigh.
"Major Paris, being surrounded, surrendered at 10 a. m.
"Lord Methuen is still in Boer camp.
"Casualties as follows—
KILLED.
"Lieutenants G. R. Venning and T. P. W. Nesham, both Royal Field Artillery; Lieutenant G. Hartley, Steinacker's Horse, and thirty-eight other ranks.
WOUNDED.
"Colonel J. G. Wilson, 3rd Battalion York and Lancaster Regiment, dangerous; Captain J. D. Outram, 3rd Battalion Highland Light Infantry, severe; Lieutenant M. Dennis, Yeomanry, severe; Lieutenant Nash, Cape Police, severe; and Lieutenant R. H. Logan, Yeomanry, severe; and seventy-two other ranks wounded, not yet received.
MISSING.
"Captain Tilney, 17th Lancers, and 200 others; but many of them are probably amongst those who have come into line.
"Lieutenants Nesham and Venning were killed whilst gallantly serving their guns with case."
EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and one

837
who in South Africa had full opportunities of estimating Lord Methuen's military qualifications as a commander, I feel that it would be unfair to him, and discouraging to the other commanders in the field, were I not to make, on the occasion of this unfortunate occurrence of which we have just heard, some expression of my appreciation of Lord Methuen's services during the war. When I arrived in South Africa in January, 1900, Lord Methuen was being subjected to very adverse criticism on account of his failure to force the Boer position at Magersfontein. One of the questions I had to decide was whether I should recommend that Lord Methuen should he recalled to England, or whether I should continue to employ him as one of my divisional commanders. I resolved to wait until I could see Lord Methuen myself and the troops under his command, and perhaps have an opportunity of personally inspecting the Boer position. The Boer position occupied a front of some eight miles across the railway. It was very difficult country, and completely blocked the road towards Kimberley. Lord Methuen found himself there with about 12,000 men, thirty-five guns, and only 1,000 mounted troops. His orders were to relieve Kimberley; and, influenced by the belief that the garrison and the inhabitants of Kimberley were in far greater straits than eventually turned out to be the case, Lord Methuen decided that he must make an effort to get to them. He saw that to attack by day would involve very heavy loss, and he decided to try a night attack. Night attacks are proverbially risky. But on this occasion the enemy were most certainly surprised, and there seems some reason to believe that, if the Highland alignment had not been broken by the thick bush and the deployment of the men thereby prevented, it is possible he might have succeeded. But I confess that when I had made a careful survey of the Boer position I came to the conclusion that Lord Methuen had been given an almost impossible task. When I arrived at Modder River on February 11th with a view of operating for the relief of Kimberley, I had at my disposal 45,000
838
men and 136 guns, and of these men 6,000 were mounted. This enabled me to make a wide turning movement, which with Lord Methuen's smaller force was impossible, and the success which was attained on that occasion was due to the greater mobility and strength of the forces which I had under my control. I came to the conclusion, therefore, that Lord Methuen could not be blamed for the failure to relieve Kimberley, and I decided, therefore, to keep him in his command. From that time until the present, which is more than two years, Lord Methuen has carried on his work with zeal, intelligence, and great perseverance. He has not had a check; he is beloved by his men; no work is too hard for him or for them. I feel sure that the House will be deeply grieved with me at what has occurred. I ask you to agree with me in my sympathy for this gallant officer in his present unfortunate position, and to reserve any adverse criticism on what has taken place until we have definite information as to whom the responsibility rests on and who is to blame for what has occurred. Of one thing I have no doubt—Lord Methuen has on more than one occasion assisted, helped, and looked after General Delarey's wife and family; and I am sure, from the desire to act in a humane and civilised manner, which General Dalarey has shown throughout the war, that Lord Methuen will be taken every care of by him.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I hardly like to allow the interesting speech which has just been made to be heard by your Lordships without adding a few words. I am quite sure your Lordships have no necessity to assure the gallant Field-Marshal that no one at this moment would criticise, in the slightest degree, any action of Lord Methuen's during the war, or the continuance of him in his high command. We all appreciate very much the feeling which the noble and gallant Earl the Field-Marshal has shown in what he has said. We have the deepest possible sympathy for one whom we always knew as one of the most zealous soldiers in this country, and we have followed with the deepest possible interest his career in South Africa.

839
It is not for me or any one of your Lordships to offer or hint at any criticism on the action which took place in the earlier period to which the noble and gallant Earl referred. We are sure that the noble and gallant Earl was justified in the confidence which he afterwards placed in Lord Methuen. Everybody in this country will deeply regret the misfortune that has happened to him, and feel the deepest possible sympathy for Lord Methuen. I thought I should say these few words after what the noble and gallant Earl has said, because it would, I am sure, be very distasteful to your Lordships if anyone in this House failed to feel the fullest sympathy for Lord Methuen.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sure that the feeling in this House will be one of sincere sympathy with the generous and graceful language which has been used by the Commander-in-Chief, and which has been reciprocated by the noble Earl opposite. This would not be the time, even if the time ever occurred, to enter into any examination of Lord Methuen's actions. We are quite certain that he has displayed on this occasion, as he always has, the greatest gallantry, and that he deserves the highest sympathy of His Majesty's subjects. I have only risen to enforce the suggestion of the noble Earl the Commander-in-Chief that we should defer any criticism of the very sad intelligence which has reached us until all the details are more fully before us and we can speak with greater confidence of matters which are far from clear at the present moment. We are convinced that Lord Methuen has done his best, and has been the victim of a most melancholy coincidence; and I am sure he will feel that in his misfortune he has the sympathy and also the admiration of his fellow-subjects with whom he has lived and for whom he has worked.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE— COLLECTION OF FEES.
Ordered, That on and after the first day of April next the fees charged at this House be collected by means of stamps.
That the Clerk of the Parliaments do communicate with the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury as to, the provision of stamps, and any other steps necessary for carrying this Order into effect.
Then it was moved to resolve that the following new Standing Order be made, viz.:—
Ordered, That in lieu of the fees heretofore charged, the fees contained in the Schedule hereto be taken in this House by stamps on the documents specified in the said Schedule, except in the case of parties petitioning for leave to sue in formâ pauperis, and that, except in such cases, none of the said documents be issued from or received at the Parliament Office, unless it shall have been duly stamped.

SCHEDULE OF FEES.

£

s.

d

On Order of Service

1

0

0

On Recognizance

1

10

0

On Petition not referred to Appeal Committee

1

10

0

On Joint Petition, from each party thereto

0

15

0

On On Petition referred to Appeal Committee (including report thereon)

3

0

0

On Cases lodged, including laying case on the Table, Bar fee, and Counsel attending

*12

0

0

On Motion Paper to set down for hearing, including entering Appeal on Cause List

2

0

0

On Judgment

3

0

0

(NOTE.—The stamps are on sale at the, Fees Office, House of Lords.)
*£8 10s. of this amount, representing the, Bar fee and the fee for Counsel attending at the hearing, will be repaid to the parties or their agents in cases in which the appeal, after being set down for hearing, is withdrawn before being heard at the Bar. A similar course will, be adopted with regard to any other overcharge.
—(The Lord Chancellor); agreed to; the said Order to lie added to those now applicable to appeals in this House, to be numbered. XI., and to be printed. [No. 28.]

CORONATION HOLIDAYS.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have considered the advisability of proclaiming general holidays on the occasion of the Coronation and the day of the procession; and

841
if so, whether he will state, for the convenience of the commercial community, the course which it is proposed to adopt. I believe it is the general wish of the mercantile community that day of the Coronation should be observed as a general holiday. As regards the following day, that of the procession, the streets will no doubt be very crowded, and the London banks are unanimously of opinion that it would be impossible for them to carry on their regular business. I believe that those engaged in commerce consider that, under all the circumstances, it would be desirable that both days should be proclaimed as holidays. At any rate, it would be a convenience to all concerned to know done the intentions of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I must ask for a little delay. The measures which are proposed are taken under a, Statute which has the honour of popularly bearing the noble Lord's name, but it does not stand alone. There is another Statute which has to be interpreted at the same time, and that process, as the nobel Lord knows, does not always result in a lucid of the exposition of the law. I can only inform the noble Lord that we are quite conscious of the circumstances to which he has referred, and the considerations which have influenced so many important persons in the commercial community of London. There are certain legal questions which are under the consideration of the law officers at the present moment, and as soon as it is possible, it is, I believe, the intention that an Order in Council shall be issued dealing with the matter. No unnecessary time will be lost. I cannot, however at the present moment, give a more definite answer, without danger of misleading those whom I address.
LORD AVEBURY: I will repeat the Question at any time convenient to the noble Marquess.

PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

REMOUNT DEPARTMENT—REGISTRATION OF HORSES FOR WAR.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the report of Lieut.-Col. Birkbeck, Assistant Inspector of Remounts in South Africa, and to ask if His Majesty's Government contemplate of extending the system of registration of horses for war purposes. It may be convenient that I shall explain, for the information of the House, the system of horse registration. Your Lordships maybe surprised to hear that not more than fifteen years ago there was no such thing as a Remount Department, and no such person as an Inspector - General of Remounts. What we should have done in those days if there had been a sudden and large demand for horses, such as we have had in this war, I cannot conceive. At that time there was an officer who was responsible for the purchase of horses for the Royal Artillery, but each Cavalry Colonel bought for his own regiment. There was no central organisation whatever. Soon after I went to the War Office in 1886, a Report came before me with regard to the purchase of Hungarian horses for one of the Egyptian campaigns, and I remember that the experience then gained showed how almost useless such animals were when brought in large quantities out of a grass country with no corn in them, and how much more useful and efficient for making war were horses fed on corn and trained on hard work. General (then Colonel) Ravenhill, who was the officer charged with the purchasing of horses for the Royal Artillery, proposed that a Remount Department should be established at headquarters, together with a system of registration of horses, the idea being that upon payment by the War Office of a certain sum per annum as a retaining fee, owners might be induced to register their horses for purchase by the Department, at a fixed price, on mobilisation. I was able to convince the War Office that the scheme was a sound one. The establishment of a Remount Department and of a system of registration of horses was then approved, but it took some time to persuade owners that it was worth their while to register their horses. General Ravenhill, however, had a very intimate knowledge

843
of horses and horse dealing, and also a very persuasive tongue, and in a comparatively short time he was successful in inducing several large omnibus, tramcar and other companies to register a very large number of their horses. I believe I am within the mark when I say that one company alone registered as many as 2,000 horses. The registration fee was fixed at 10s. a year, and the system was started under very favourable circumstances, Masters of Hounds and gentlemen in that position also coming forward, and registering animals of the hunter class. At the beginning of the hostilities in South Africa there were something like 15,000 horses on the register, and it would be very interesting if the noble and gallant Lord who represents the War Office could tell us how many of those horses were taken up for the purposes of the war. In his Report Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck speaks of the value of these trained, corn-fed horses as compared with untrained grass-fed horses. He adds—
"It may well be stated here that it has been absolutely impossible latterly to attempt to train remounts; they have passed through the Remount Department's hands far too rapidly to enable us to do more than keep back any which appeared more than ordinarily wild, and the remainder have gone to the Cavalry depôt or to the ranks, just capable of being ridden and no more."
In comparing the different horses Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck says—
"Nothing has really come up to the English horse for Cavalry and draught. Notwithstanding change of diet and climate, he has worked and stood hardship better than any."
He goes on to state that much of the wastage of horseflesh is due to the fact that animals are bought, probably off grass (except English horses), kept in kraals till shipped, and, after having spent a month on board, are landed and kept generally a week or ten days at the coast, where they can get only enough exercise to keep them in health and not enough to harden them, and make them really fit, after which there is the long journey up country to a high altitude, followed often by immediate issue to units and hard work. Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck continues—
"It is this combination of circumstances against which the English horse, whose muscles are developed by continuous work to a much greater degree than stock or prairie horses, has,
844
more than others, been able to stand up. And, this, I think, points to the necessity of a much larger supply of trained Cavalry and Artillery horses being always kept up in a time of peace. A regiment of Cavalry should be able to go on service with its ranks full of trained horses, with, further, a sufficient percentage to cover loss by sea, and yet leave behind with the reserve squadron a considerable surplus of horses, either temporarily incapacitated or in training, which can be drawn upon to remount them during the campaign. So long as we have the great omnibus companies to fall back upon, we need never want for a supply of Artillery horses."
On page 41 your Lordships will find a telegram from the General Officer commanding the lines of communication at the Cape to the Secretary of State for War, in which he states that—
"The English omnibus horse is also very good."
The Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Birk-beck provesincontestably that the corn-fed English horse is of infinitely more value-than anything we can buy abroad fed on, grass. This is the first official Report we have had on the results of the system of registration introduced some ten years ago, and I submit that we are bound to conclude from it that the system has beers a success. The whole secret of the business is corn and work. I think it would have been extremely useful if, when the war broke out, instead of 15,000 horses, we had had 100,000 horses on the Register. As to the expense, if we had had that number of horses registered it would have meant £50,000 a year, or, to put it in a different way, it would, if the horses had been registered for ten years, have added £5 to the price of each horse. That may sound expensive, but it would have been very cheap for us if we had had 100,000 horses so registered at the beginning of the war. I submit that it would not have been a waste of money, for we should have had fit material and should have been able to make war effectively. It, is bad policy to put unfit horses into the field when, with the expenditure of a few pounds more, you could make certain of getting horses in good condition. I do not know what answer the noble and gallant Lord is going to give, but I sincerely trust that he will inform the House that the Secretary of State has decided to extend the system of registration. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend has given your Lordships an account of the original formation of the Remount Department at the time when he occupied the position at the War Office which I have now the honour to hold, and he has expressed the hope that the system of registering horses for the use of the Army in the event of an emergency will be greatly extended. It is impossible in a question of this kind to exaggerate the importance of condition; horses in good condition bear a sea voyage tar better, and, of course, condition is a sine quâ non in the field. The greater part of our difficulty in South Africa has been due to the fact that, owing to pressure of circumstances, the Commander-in-chief there has been obliged to make use of a very large number of horses which were not in a fit condition. The registered horses are divided into two classes—namely, riding and draft horses. In the case of riding horses the registration system has not been altogether very satisfactory, and the class of horses obtained has not been quite what we should like to have seen. There is, however, no dispute as to the excellence of the draft horses obtained in this way. The omnibus horse, in addition to providing a good deal of amusement at home and of interest to the soldier, has shown himself to be one of the very best animals for artillery purposes. These horses are very strong, are hard worked, and are fed liberally by the companies, and they ale as hard as possible. We have in this year's Estimates taken a sum of money for extending the system of registration. There are strong doubts, however, whether this system can be extended very largely and the same class of horse be got without increasing the registration fee. Moreover, the object of registration is to get a sufficient number of horses to meet the first demands on mobilisation. The noble Lord talked about 100,000 horses, but I think that number would be out of the question. To meet the first demands on mobilisation we require to lay our hands on 14,000 or 15,000 horses, but subsequent purchases would naturally have to be made in the open market. Bearing these two points in mind, we will proceed, in all probability, in the direction the noble Lord wishes.
846
The noble Lord spoke of £50,000 a year. This, after all, is a very considerable sum, and it must be remembered that the peculiarity of the British Army is that it never knows what sort of war it will next be called upon to wage. For instance, you may have a war in the West of Africa, where you require nothing but camels, and another up the Nile, in which your means of transport would be whale-boats. The noble Lord may rest assured that we have the matter under our serious consideration.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harris, in calling attention to this Report, did so for the purpose only of speaking on one matter in which he has taken particular interest, namely, the system of registration of horses. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is an excellent plan to push the registration system as far as is possible. It is especially suitable for the obtaining of heavy draft horses for artillery and transport purposes, but I do not think His Majesty's Government have taken full advantage of their opportunity in this respect, for in the case of the London County Council not more than one third, or a quarter, of the horses that were placed at the disposal of the Government by that body were taken by them, though they were of the very class which have proved so serviceable in South Africa. I do not think, however, that this system will provide us with all the horses we are likely to want in any war. The number likely to be obtained by registration is, after all, comparatively small. If we had relied upon it in the present war, in which such an enormous number of horses are required, we should have been deluding ourselves into a position of false security. This Report is a most serious document, and one which must bring home to all who read it the terrible position we were in at the beginning of the war, and the want of foresight and judgment displayed in the preparations for the war. Indeed, I look upon this Report as a monument to warn people of the way not to do things.
This White Paper contains two sets of documents. There is, first, the Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck. I do not think that Report takes us very far, because it is dated as far back as July, 1900. In the second place, there are the telegrams which have passed between the

847
Generals in the field and the authorities at home. The Report opens by stating the position of affairs in Cape Colony at the commencement of the war, and Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck states that on the declaration of war the strength of the remount animals in Cape Colony was two horses, 402 cobs, and 866 mules. That was the total reserve of horses provided in Cape Colony in October, 1899, at a time when His Majesty's Government had been carrying on negotiations with the Dutch in South Africa, which they knew ran the risk of terminating in war. It has been said that it was impossible for the Government to accumulate any great body of men in Cape Colony and Natal, because it would have given offence to the Boers, and because it would have met with criticism from the Opposition. I do not think that argument can be used against the accumulation of more than two horses. It seems to me that the Government might have secured the option of a great number of horses in South Africa. Throughout these Reports you find that among the very best class of horse for service in South Africa has been the native African horse, which is accustomed to all the surroundings. As far as I can gather, no steps whatever had been taken, in spite of the fact that His Majesty's Government has been on the verge of war, at any rate for four or five months, to secure for the future use of the troops in South Africa any considerable body of horses, either by purchase or by option, supposing war were to break out. Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck states in his Report—
"This capacity for efficient expansion in time of war is lacking in the Remount Department. Its only representatives who could be spared from the regular home establishments for service in Cape Colony have been Staff Captain Mackenzie, R.A. (since dead) and Staff Captain H.S.H. Prince Francis of the remainder of the war establishment, not a single one has had any technical training or previous experience in the Department, and many of them, fifteen out of thirty-five officers, now employed have not even had experience with the mounted branches of the Service."
Is not that a terrible revelation as to the condition of the Remount Department in South Africa during the first five or six months of the war? Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck goes on to state what are the particular duties required of the remount officers. He says—
"The special work required at the seat of war is (1) landing and classification of animals;
848
(2) purchase; (3) forwarding by rail to the advanced depôts; (4) issuing to units, in all of which a knowledge of horses and stable management, on a large scale, is necessary."
It is perfectly clear that hardly any of the men under Lieutenant - Colonel Birkbeck's authority were endowed with either the knowledge or the experience to enable them to fulfil their important duties, I will not say well, but even decently. I submit again that it would have been very easy to have got together, at the beginning of the war, a body of non-combatants well experienced in the landing, classification, and purchase of horses, who could have undertaken these duties efficiently, and have obviated the necessity of weakening the forces in the field by delegating officers to this work.
The next point to which I would draw attention is contained in the telegrams which follow at the end of the Report, and some of them are very remarkable. Lord Roberts, telegraphing from Paardeberg on February 24th, 1900, said—
"Please arrange for early and steady supply remounts for batteries of Horse Artillery, Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Mounted Infantry. Without mobile force I can do nothing in this country."
Again, telegraphing from Poplar Grove, on March 9th, 1900, Lord Roberts said—
"Am anxious to bring your notice urgent necessity for constant supply horses being sent to South Africa. Owing to want of forage and hard work a great many have been lost during the last mouth. Success campaign so materially depends on mounted troops being efficient, that trust there will be no want of good, serviceable horses."
The point I want to insist upon with regard to these demands is, that at that time there were, in South Africa, any number of horses. I have been informed by a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Denman, who has served in South Africa, that at one time —during the months of August and September, 1900—an area of fifty miles round about Harrismith was overrun with thousands and thousands of horses of excellent quality. But he and the troops in the Harrismith district, as, indeed, throughout the whole of South Africa at that time, had the strictest orders not to take the horses, and not even to purchase them. We heard at the time of the last election that every vote given to a Liberal was a vote given to the Boers. I maintain that every

849
horse left to the Boers at the beginning of the war was a fighting man given to the Boers. As far as I can make out, it never occurred to the people at home that it would be desirable to seize these horses until towards the end of December, 1900. On that date, the Secretary of State for War telegraphed to Lord Kitchener—
"It is felt here that you should not hesitate to commandeer all available horses in Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. Consult Sir A. Milner, and report whether any similar steps are desirable in districts of Cape Colony, which may be placed under martial law to check the enemy's advance."
But, in the meantime, General De Wet had paid a visit to the district and had swept up the best of these horses. The Boer General had no scruples about seizing them, and he took them without paying for them, and used them as mounts for his own men and for those of his compatriots. When the British policy changed, and the military authorities began to commandeer horses, they found that all the best horses had been appropriated by De Wet, I think that two points on which we have a right to demand explanation are, first, why, at the beginning of the war, steps were not taken to secure horses in South Africa, and, secondly, why so long a time was allowed to elapse when the war did begin before the opportunity of taking a full number of the horses that were running about the country was used. The information conveyed in the White Paper is sufficient to fill us with wonder and regret that, through want of better care and management, so much should have been done to prolong the war and to cause loss and suffering to our troops in South Africa.
LORD HARRIS: I desire to express my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord who represents the War Office for his reply, and to say that I am very glad to hear that the system of registration is going to be extended, if only with regard to draft horses. With regard to the number of 100,000, that was simply a round figure which I used. I must not be held too tightly to it. At the same time, I am still of opinion that if it were possible to get 100,000 corn-fed horses on these terms, it would be much more advantageous than obtaining from foreign countries horses which are not in condition.

THE BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
LORD PIRBRIGHT, in rising to "call attention to the Brussels Sugar Convention, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether by Article VI. of that Convention, Spain, Italy, Roumania, and Sweden are freed from the obligation imposed by Article I., as far as production bounties are concerned, as well as from the undertakings embodied in Articles III. and IV., as long as they do not export sugar; whether this Article VI. not only exempts them from the obligation entered into by the other signatory Powers, to abolish direct and indirect bounties on production as well as exportation, and, in contravention of Article III. enables them to impose any surtax in excess of the maximum of six francs fixed by that Article, but further exempts them from the action of the Penal Article IV., and whether the effect of Article IV. will not enable Spain, Italy, Roumania, and Sweden to exclude, by their bounties on production, sugar coming from the other countries parties to the Convention who have agreed to abolish all bounties direct or indirect," said: My Lords, the question of sugar bounties is so important that I feel I need not apologise for bringing the matter before your Lordships. A few days since we were informed that the Convention of Brussels was about to be signed owing to the decided action of the British Delegates, but after seeing the document I have come to the conclusion that for "decision" the word "concessions" would be an appropriate substitution. Reading the Treaty carefully, it must be admitted to be a most self-contradictory document. Forty years have elapsed since it was decided that sugar bounties ought to be abolished. Since 1862 no less than nine conferences have taken place, and four Conventions have been signed, with the gross result that sugar bounties now are more obnoxious in form and more dangerous to our West India Colonies and British refiners than they were in 1862. It is evident that each one of the Conventions was directed to the abolition of bounties, direct and indirect bounties on exports, imports and production. In the last Convention of 1888, which, in conjunction with the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, I had the honour of signing on behalf of Great Britain, the first clause distinctly stated that all

851
bounties, direct and indirect, should be abolished. Turning to the present convention —I have not the translation here, but only the French copy—I find that Article 1. says—
"Les Hautes Partie Contractantes s'engagent à supprimer à dater de la mise en vigueur de la prèsente Convention, les primes directes indireetes dont bènèticieraient la production ou l'exportation des sucres, et à pasetabhr de primes de 1'esPece pendant toute la durèe de la dite Convention."
That is simply a repetition in somewhat longer words of the Article in the Convention of 1888; but what 1 want to call your special attention to are the words "la production," because it will be found that the declaration against bounties on production is distinctly violated in the succeeding Articles of the present. Convention. The reason "la production" was introduced was that, as a matter of fact, bounties on production were the origin of the bounty system. Sugar bounties owe their origin to Napoleon I. In 1806 Napoleon 1, anxious to promote French industry, and still more anxious to injure British industry, established bounties on production in France. Though at first attended with little success the French bounty system has made gigantic strides, and at the present moment the sum given by France in bounties amounts to £4,000,000 sterling a year. I only cite this fact to show the great importance attached to bounties on production. Article VI. of the present Convention exempts Spain, Italy and Sweden from the engagements under Article I., II., and III., so long as they do not export sugar. What does that mean? It means that these three Powers are able to give bounties on production. That is to say, they can, by these bounties on production, prevent the importation of any other sugar. There can be no other interpretation placed upon these words. A climax of absurdity is reached when they say, "so long as they do not give bounties on export." If they gave bounties on export they would come under the Penal Article IV., which says—
"Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent à frapper d'un droit spècial,à 1'importation sur leur territoire, les sucres originaires de pays qui accorderaient des primes à la produetion ou à 1'exportation."
Although it is distinctly stated that all countries giving bounties on production
852
or exportation of sugar shall be visited with the penalties of Article IV., yet these three Powers are specially exempted from the action of that Article, with the result that their markets are closed against our Colonial sugar.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANDSOWNE): Exempted only so long as they do not export. The moment they export they come under the Penal Clause.
LORD PIRBRIGHT: If they do export they are punished, but if they do not they are rewarded by being allowed to give bounties on production. It is impossible to conceive a more ridiculous state of things. Such action can only be directed against this country, for it is not, likely that Spain, Italy, or Sweden would import beet sugar, for they produce beet sugar; the only sugar they would import would be cane sugar, and the country that produces cane sugar is Great Britain. Then it has been stated that a success had been secured by our delegates by the reduction of the surtax from fifteen francs to six francs. So far from that being a success, I consider it one of the most unfortunate features in the whole Convention. It has always been understood in every Conference, notably in the last one, over which I had the honour to preside, that the surtax was the worst form of bounty, and it amounted to a prohibitive duty, whether it was fifteen francs or six francs. Why should the delegates of Great Britain have urged incessantly, not the abolition, but the diminution of the surtax, thereby admitting the principle? We occupy in this connection a position similar to that of the cat with the chestnuts in the fable, and our delegates have acted, not in the interests of Great Britain, but in the interest of France against the cartel system of Germany-Germany was not likely to give way to. France at her mere request, and therefore France most ingeniously employed the British delegates to plead for a reduction of the surtax and to make that a sine quâ non in the signing of the Convention. It is impossible to explain the action of the British delegates in any other way. This country has agreed to afford no preference to Colonial sugar

853
as against sugar coming from the contracting States. I protest against such an instance of a self-denying ordinance as our agreement to a surtax against cane sugar, while binding ourselves not to give any preference to the advantage of our own cane sugar. If bounties are prejudicial to the interests of this country, if it is impossible for sugar to be grown in the West Indies or refined in England because it is exposed to all the dangers of foreign subsidies, it surely follows that we should not enter into a Convention which while purporting to do away with these subsidies, prevents our doing anything for the benefit of our Crown Colonies and for those who are dependent on the sugar industry.
It is very interesting to note the attitude of Germany with regard to the surtax, which fully justifies me in saying that the surtax is solely directed against the cane sugar industry. Speaking in the Reichstag on Saturday, March 1st, when the Report of the Budget Committee on the revenue from the sugar tax was under consideration, the Secretary of State for the Imperial Treasury, Baron von Thielmann, said—
"A surtax of six francs would lie entirely adequate to protect the production of German sugar front the inroads or foreign sugar."
It would he impossible to he more frank and candid than the German Minister was in this statement. The surtax was originally fifteen francs. In consenting to its reduction to six francs, Germany says it is quite adequate to exclude English sugar from German markets. I do not think any further comment is necessary to show the absurdity of our action.
Now, my Lords, I pass to Article XII., which enables the ratification of the Convention without Italy, Spain, and Sweden. I have shown that these Powers have been allowed, so to speak, to contract out of the Convention, but supposing that they choose at the time of the ratification not to ratify it, the Convention will be equally valid with or without their signatures. The Treaty is unique as to the conditions of ratification and the power given to certain Powers who have already signed it to withdraw their names. Let me recall for a moment the Powers who signed the two last Conventions. The Convention of 1888 was signed by Great Britain, Germany,
854
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Holland, and Russia. Egypt notified her intention to adhere; and France added the following declaration in the Protocol—
The Government of the French Republic adheres in principle to the Convention of August 30th, 1888, respecting the suppression of bounties."
France accepted the principal condition in the Convention. Therefore it was signed by all the great Powers, and it contained no such clause as I have called attention to, giving special freedom to Italy, Spain, and Sweden. The Convention of 1902 is signed by Great Britain, Germany, Austria - Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Holland, and Sweden. Spain, Italy, and Sweden are to be entitled to withdraw from the. Treaty whenever they like, and that is not to affect the Treaty in any way whatever. Russia is not a party to the Convention, and was not represented at the Conference. I am afraid he would be a very sanguine man, indeed, who entertained the hope that this Convention would prove a success.
The other Question I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is whether, in view of Article IV. of the Brussels Convention, His Majesty's Government is prepared at once to introduce the same Bill as in February 1889, which enacted that—
"Where in pursuance of Article VII. of the said Convention, the fact of the existence in any country out of the United Kingdom of a system involving open or disguised bounties on sugar is established by the decision of a majority of the signatory Powers of the said Convention, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, by Order in Council, to direct that all sugar coming front the said country shall lie prohibited to he imported or brought into the United Kingdom exe-pt in transit, and to make such regulations as appear to Her Majesty necessary for giving effect to the said prohibition."
And whether the Secretary of State will lay all the Papers relating to the recent negotiations at Brussels, together with the Convention, on the Table of the House. I take a lively interest in the answer to this Question, because I have a distinct recollection that, after all the negotiations had been successful in 1888, and the Convention signed, I had the honour of introducing the enabling Bill into the House of Commons in February, 1889, which was read a first time, but for some

855
occult reason, which, perhaps, will never be disclosed, the Second Reading never took place. The Bill was afterwards dropped, and with it the Treaty died. I hope this will not be the fate of any measure to give effect to the Treaty of 1902. Its infancy is, I am afraid, sickly, but I trust there will be no infanticide at the hands of the, parents of the measure. The same question which I am now putting to the noble Marquess was put in the French Chamber the other day by M. Ribot to M. Caillaux, Minister of Finance, and he replied that this Convention, which suppressed all bounties on sugar, was a question he could not now discuss, but front the point of view of the general interests of the country it was long since any measure so salutary had been adopted. The Foreign Office would, he said, shortly publish all the documents of the Conference, but the Bill to give effect to it would certainly not be introduced till after September, 1903. Those who are in any way acquainted with French politics will not be astonished at the delay in dealing with this measure, as they are on the eve of a general election, in the result of which the sugar-producing districts are a very important factor. France does not intend to introduce legislation till September, 1903. I hope we shall not follow the example of France. There is no doubt that we are suffering from the bounties; there is no possible objection to their removal; and if after nine attempts to arrive at an international agreement there is still a failure to be recorded, there is only one policy for us to adopt. It is a policy of "splendid isolation." We must show the world that England is strong enough alone to defend her own commercial interests.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOINNE: The noble Lord who has brought this subject before the House has, for many years past, made it a subject of study; and I can well understand the close, and I might almost say jealous, interest with which he has watched the course of the recent negotiations. But I must say that the intensity of his interest has led him to adopt a course which has not been altogether convenient to your Lordships House. The Brussels Convention was signed last
856
Wednesday. The text of the Convention —the original, as he says, is in French—is not as yet in your Lordships' hands, although it will be distributed this evening.
LORD PIRBRIGHT: It has been published in the Press and circulated extensively three days ago.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely in a matter of such great importance the noble Lord does not expect us to rely on the casual translation of this document as published in the newspapers. It is in French, and the noble Lord has read extracts from the Convention in that language. It would have been more convenient if he had waited till the authorised English version was laid on the Table of the House. The noble Lord suggests that we should present Papers. We are at this moment considering what Papers can be communicated to Parliament. For these reasons I somewhat deprecate a general discussion of the policy of this Convention at this moment; but I am quite ready to notice one or two points upon which the noble Lord laid most stress during the course of his statement. In the first place, he asked me why it was that, instead of securing the complete abolition of the surtax, we had been content with a reduction of it to six francs per 100 kilogrammes. The surtax as the noble Lord knew it when he was concerned with the Convention of 1888 was a very different thing from the surtax of today. Two things have happened since that time. The surtax has been enormously increased, and, in the next place, there has grown up in close connection with it a gigantic system of trade combinations known as cartels, under which huge profits have been made by the members of the sugar rings. When we had to consider the instructions to be given to our representatives at Brussels, we came to the conclusion that it was useless to deal merely with the question of bounties unless the surtax—by which I mean, of course, the difference between the Customs and Excise duties—was brought within moderate limits. We took the best advice which we could obtain, arid we came to the conclusion that with six francs per 100 kilogrammes there would be no room left for these trade combinations, these cartels, to which

857
I have referred. We, therefore, made it a sine quâ non that the surtax should be brought down to that figure, but we did not think it necessary to insist ore its complete abolition. Our impression was that the Conference, like its predecessors, would have resulted in failure if we had insisted on that.
Then the noble Lord has spoken for some time as to the effect on the British Colonies of the Convention. Let me state in a few words the effect of the Convention on the Colonies. The Crown Colonies, under the Convention, will not be permitted to give any bounties, direct or indirect, on sugar either in their own markets or any other markets. As to the self-governing Colonies, as the noble Lord is aware, under Article XI. they are excluded from the Convention; but it is open to them to give their adhesion to it if they desire to de so, and if they give their adhesion they will assume a position to all intents and purposes identical with that of the high contracting parties.
LORD PIRBRIGHT: I cannot find in Article XI. this exemption.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The exemption is clear in the copy of the Convention I have, but this is another illustration of the inconvenience of discussing these subjects without having the documents before us. The general enactment with regard to the Colonies binds us not to give any preference to Colonial sugar over sugar originating from the countries of the high contracting parties; and it is obvious that we could scarcely have asked the other Powers to accept an arrangement under which they would be absolutely precluded from giving bounties while we retained our complete freedom to give bounties to sugar originating in our own Colonies.
Then the noble Lord pointed out that it was open to the Powers mentioned in Article VI. to withhold their ratification at the last moment. I am bound to say, supposing that were to happen, although I should sincerely regret it, it does not seem to me that it would be in any way fatal to the Convention or deprive it of its good effects. None of the Powers mentioned in the Article are exporters of sugar, and therefore there would
858
be no question of their flooding the markets in other countries with bounty-fed sugar under conditions which would render the competition of that sugar with other sugar unfair.
I pass to the Question which the noble Lord has placed on the notice Paper. The noble Lord desires, to know whether the three Powers, not four, as has been said, mentioned in Article VI. will remain free to give bounties on their own sugar in their Own markets, and whether, if they retain that liberty, the result will not be to preclude the competition of any other sugar in those markets. It is quite true that under the Convention, Spain, Italy, and Sweden will be at liberty so long as they are not exporters of sugar to give bounties on, their own sugar in their own markets. It is quite conceivable that they might do this to such an extent as to render it difficult for other sugars to compete in those markets; but, while I make that admission, I do not in the least admit that such a result would frustrate the operation of the Convention. The general scheme of the Convention is to prevent any Power by bounty or surtax from stimulating the manufacture of sugar within its own limits to such a point as to enable it to export sugar under conditions which would enable it to compete unfairly with other sugars in the markets of the world. That is why I insist so much on the words "so long as they do not export sugar." It is laid down by the Convention, however, that the moment any of these Powers becomes an exporter of sugar it shall be liable to all the obligations of the Convention in the same way as the other Powers. The noble Lord is under the impression that the three Powers are to enjoy exemption from Articles I., III., and IV., but the Articles they are to enjoy exemption from are I., II., and III. The noble Lord has asked me a further question about the legislation which will be necessary to give effect to the Convention. Well, the Convention was only signed four days ago, and it is a little previous to ask the Government to exhibit now the exact text of the Bill, which at the proper time will be laid before Parliament. The delay which the noble Lord anticipates as likely to take place on the part of the French Government, who,

859
he said, would not bring in their Bill until the autumn of 1903, is not likely to take place, inasmuch as the ratification of the Convention is to be made before February 1st, 1903. We shall inform Parliament of the legislative measures which may seem to us to be necessary for this purpose. I hope that at an early date I shall be able to lay Papers on the Table of the House. When those Papers are before the noble Lord, I hope he will he convinced that the Convention, far from beng a capitulation on our part, or a series of mischievous concessions made by our delegates, is, on the contrary, the most hopeful attempt that has yet been made to bring to a satisfactory conclusion this much vexed question, which has occupied the public for over forty years, which all of us have desired to solve, and which up to the present, for various reasons, we have not been able to deal with satisfactorily.
EARL SPENCER: I do not propose to enter into this subject tonight, for I fully share the views the noble Marquess that the discussion is introduced at an unhappy and premature moment. I understand that there will be some Papers explaining the conduct of our delegates and the history of the Convention. There may be very important points involved in this matter which will require discussion, and to some of which, perhaps, exception may be taken—for instance, the clauses with regard to retaliation. I will postpone any remarks, however, that it may be thought proper to make from this side of the House, until we have further information.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock till tomorrow at quarter past Four o'clock.