Sitting of 2 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
New Hunstanton Improvement Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. As amended, considered, to be read the third time To-morrow.
Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill. Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Plymouth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Renfrew, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Dunfermline, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 25th June, 1903, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, authorising the Corporation of Trinity House to appoint Sub-Commissioners for the

  1171
  Examination of Pilots for certain Ports in the County of Cumberland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council altering the Scale set out in the Second Schedule to the Act, for the purpose of the levying of Light Dues in pursuance of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 25th June, 1903, entitled The Swaziland Order in Council, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINT.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-third Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LIABILITY FOR INCREASE IN BRITISH SOLDIERS' PAY).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th May; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table.
  PREFERENTIAL TRADE.
  Return ordered, "showing, with regard to those countries where we do not enjoy, de jure or de facto, most-favoured-nation treatment the character and amount of the advantages granted to other countries; showing also the amount of British trade with such countries for the five years preceding and the five years succeeding the date when the differentiation came into force in each case."—(Sir Edgar Vincent.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Savings of Working Classes at Home and Abroad.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Postmaster-General, if the Returns furnished to him by the post offices of the United States, France, and Germany, enable him to give the House any means of comparing the savings of the working classes in those
  1172
  countries in savings banks with the savings of the working men of the United Kingdom in the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if not, if he can obtain this information through the Foreign Office or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There are no savings banks in connection with the post offices of the United States or Germany, and the conditions of the post office savings banks in France and the United Kingdom are so different that any comparison would be worthless. For example, no one may have an account of more than £60 in the French bank, whereas the limit in this country is £200. On the 31st December, 1901, there were 3,806,000 depositors in the French Post Office Savings Bank, and the amount to their credit was £43,215,600. On the same date there were 8,788,000 depositors in the British Post Office Savings Bank, and the amount to their credit was £140,393,000.

  Report of Indian Irrigation Commission.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state when the Report of the Irrigation Commission will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am informed by the Government of India that, owing to delay in printing, the Report of the Irrigation Commission will not be ready, in India, before the 4th of July. As soon as I receive the copies which I have asked the Government of India, to send they will be distributed to hon. Members, but at present I cannot say when this will be.

  Agricultural Banks in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of agricultural banks which have been established in India and where they are situated; and has he any Reports showing the results of this experiment.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am unable to state how many agricultural banks have been, established in India. The number is, however, inconsiderable, and they are on a purely experimental footing. I propose to lay upon the Table the Report of the

  1173
  Committee appointed to report on the subject of agricultural banks in India.

  Return of Plague Inoculation in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in order to judge of the value of the plague serum inoculation, he will arrange for a Return to be kept of all persons inoculated, and of those who subsequently succumb to plague.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) Returns of the kind referred to are already maintained in most provinces. I am in communication with the Viceroy with the object of securing, in future Returns, such increased completeness and accuracy as the circumstances permit.

  Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions in Indian Administration.
  MR EUGENE WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the memorial urging the separation of judicial and executive functions in Indian administration, presented in August 1899, can some statement be placed before Parliament showing what course has been followed since that memorial was forwarded to the Indian Government, and what is the general view taken of this subject by that authority or by the Viceroy or Council; and can any of the more recent correspondence on this question between the Government of India and the Secretary of State be presented to Parliament at an early date.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) No correspondence on the subject has passed between the Viceroy and myself since the memorial was referred for the consideration of the Government of India, and I am not aware of the view taken by that Government of the questions raised. The memorial was referred by the Government of India to local governments for their opinions, which I understand have been received and are under consideration.

  City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India
  1174
  whether, in view of the anxiety felt in respect of the working of the provisions of The City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, notably the clauses relating to the constitution of the board and acquisition of land, he will impress on the Government of Bombay the expediency of deferring to the representations embodied in the petition addressed to the Governor by the members of the Ratepayers' Association.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not seen the petition referred to, and I am not disposed to interfere in the manner suggested. I have no reason to doubt that the representations of the Association will receive due consideration from the Government of Bombay.

  Railway Development in India.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government will press forward railway development in India, in view of the Report of Mr. T. Robertson; do they propose to adopt his suggestions, and in particular to increase the inducements to the investing public by improving the conditions under which guarantees are given; and will he further consider how far surplus profits from guaranteed railways can be devoted to reduction of rates.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) Before taking action upon Mr. Robertson's Report it will be necessary to obtain the views of the Government of India, who will shortly address us on the subject. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, the matter of the reduction of rates on Indian railways, so far as it can be effected without undue loss of revenue, is one that is kept constantly in view.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for India if it is intended to lay upon the Table Mr. Robertson's Report on Indian Railways, and if the House will have an opportunity of discussing same.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) Copies of Mr. Robertson's Report will, I hope, be distributed in the

  1175
  course of a few days. I do not understand the hon. Member to ask for any special opportunity for its discussion under present circumstances, as explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Cockermouth.

  China Squadron—Gun Sights.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the sights of every ship in the China Squadron have been recently altered by the armourers or artificers of the respective vessels.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) No Report to this effect has been received, but the battleships have been prepared for the reception of the improved pattern sight, so as to avoid delay after delivery.

  Channel Fleet—Defective Gun Sights.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gun sights of H.M.S. "Majestic," flagship in the Channel Squadron, have been proved to be defective and have required alteration; and whether the gun sights in any other ships in the Channel Squadron are defective; and, if so, what steps are being taken to restore efficiency to the guns of the Channel Fleet.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Experience has shown that modifications in the system of turret sighting as originally fitted to the ships of the "Majestic" type are desirable. Improved gear has been prepared, and is being issued to all battleships of the Channel Fleet, and is nearly complete.

  Wheat Duty in France.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what is the duty per quarter upon wheat charged upon entry into France; and what is the present price of wheat in France compared with the price of the same quality in Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The French import duty on wheat is at the rate of seven francs per 100 kilogrammes, equal to 12s. 2½d. per quarter. The average of the prices of wheat at the
  1176
  eleven French markets for which particulars are given in the Journal Official for the 29th June was 40s. 8½d. per quarter. The Gazette average price of British wheat in England and Wales for the week ended 20th June was 27s. 6d. per quarter.

  Imports and Exports between Foreign Countries carried in British Ships.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: To ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish figures showing the aggregate tonnage of, and the value of the imports and exports by, British shipping entered and cleared between foreign countries, for the latest year in respect of which such statistics are available, and for each of the preceding nine years; or if such statistics are not at present available, whether he will endeavour to obtain them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) It is not possible to state the aggregate tonnage of British vessels entered and cleared between foreign countries, since the information available only relates to certain foreign countries, and, moreover, the figures of these countries if added together would involve a considerable amount of duplication. The following particulars for certain foreign countries may be of interest to the hon. Member, though for the reason stated they should not be added up. Estimated tonnage of British Vessels entered and cleared with cargoes and in ballast at ports in the undermentioned countries in trade with countries other than the United Kingdom—Russia, 1900, 3,674,000 tons; Sweden, 1901, 788,000 tons; Norway, 1900, 148,000 tons; Germany, 1901, 2,671,000 tons; France, 1901, 7,253,000 tons; Belgium, 1901, 4,504,000 tons; Holland, 1901, 2,730,000 tons; Austria Hungary, 1901, 185,000 tons; United States, 1901, 14,421,000 tons; Chile, 1901, 3,099,000 tons; Argentine, 1900, 2,195,000 tons. It is not possible to state the value of imports and exports carried by these vessels.

  Imports into the Self-Governing Colonies.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state the amount during the last five years of the imports into

  1177
  the self-governing colonies of foreign manufactures, distinguishing if possible between those articles in which we compete and those in which we do not compete.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I regret that the Colonial Statistical Returns do not classify imports from foreign countries into manufactured and un-manufactured articles.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of the imports of British produce into the self-governing colonies per head of their aggregate population.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) In 1902 the value of British produce exported to the self-governing colonies was about £5 10s. per head, if the coloured population of South Africa be omitted, or £4 8s. per head of their aggregate population.

  Greek Currant Monopoly.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communications have passed between the Foreign Office and the Greek Government respecting the proposed syndicate to monopolise the currant crop of that country.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the answer given by me, on the 24th ultimo, to the hon. Member for Hythe.†

  Compensation for Sparks Bill—Horses for the Army.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, will he state when he proposes to proceed with the Compensation for Sparks Bill, as promised by his predecessor; and whether he has yet issued the circulars giving particulars to farmers and horse breeders of the requirements of the War Office for Army horses, which were also promised by his predecessor.
  † See page 387.
  1178
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The question of the payment of compensation for damage done by sparks from railway engines is engaging the attention of my noble friend, but we are not aware of any promise given by our late colleague to introduce legislation on the subject. In any case, the condition of public business is such that it would not be possible for any legislation to be undertaken during the present session. With regard to the second part of the Question, the War Office have issued a leaflet giving particulars of the regulations with regard to the purchase of Army Remounts. This leaflet has been published in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture, and copies have been sent to applicants for information on the subject. I have given directions that a copy shall be sent to the hon. Member. We shall be glad to consider whether any further steps can with advantage be taken to give publicity to the War Office requirements, but I may say that the number of horses purchased annually in normal times of peace is stated by that office to be not more than 2,500.

  Arbitration under the Labourers Acts in Dundalk.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received the protest of the Dundalk District Council of 15th June against the action of the arbitrator under the Labourers Acts in awarding an average of £32 an acre to owners as compared with £18 to occupiers for land compulsorily acquired, which the Council offered £25 an acre for all round; can he say by whom the arbitrator was appointed; is he a land agent; and will care be taken that no person directly connected with a particular interest in Irish land shall in future act as arbitrator under the Labourers Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Representations to the effect stated were received. The arbitrator was appointed by the Local Government Board; the gentleman appointed is a land agent and surveyor. It would not, I am afraid, be practicable to act on the suggestion with which the Question concludes.

  1179
  The persons selected for employment as arbitrators in such matters are persons with an extensive experience of the value of land, and who, it is considered, will discharge their duties in a conscientious and impartial manner.

  Letterkenny Railway Station Proposed Bridge.
  MR. MCFADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Works in Ireland propose to accede to the request of the Letterkenny Urban Council to erect an overhead bridge for the convenience of passengers crossing at the Letterkenny Railway Station to the opposite platform to and from the trains on the Burtonport line.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No such application has been made by the District Council to the Commissioners of Works. It is understood, however, that the Council has communicated on the subject with the Board of Trade, to which Department the Question should properly be addressed.

  Letterkenny Railway.
  MR. MCFADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will direct the Board of Works in Ireland to supply the hon. Member for East Donegal, as the arbitrator appointed by the Donegal County Council, to sign the accounts of the amounts payable by the County Council in respect of the Letterkenny Railway guarantee, with a copy of the working agreement between the Board of Works and the Lough Swilly Railway Company as to the working of the Letterkenny Railway, in order that he may see that the terms of the agreement are carried out by the company, or what remedy the County Council and the public have in reference to the late repeated complaints made as to the working of this railway by the company.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The agreement made between the Board of Works and the Lough Swilly Railway Company will, of course, be accessible to the hon. Member in his capacity of arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings. It would be contrary to the invariable
  1180
  practice of the Board to communicate copies of such agreements, and it is undesirable on general grounds to create a precedent. I shall be prepared, however, if the hon. Member so desires, and without interfering with the liberty of action of the Board of Works in this respect, to lay a copy of the agreement on the Table of the House.

  Case of Thomas Wheatly.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Wheatly, at present an inmate of the Kilmacthomas Union, County Waterford, who left the County Water-ford about the year 1878, and has been employed principally with the same firm in Scotland since then until last October, when he got employment in Wales; whether, seeing that this man lost his leg when in the employment of a colliery company near Glasgow, can he state what compensation did he get from the company; and will he explain why, when Wheatly was compelled to enter a union near his place of employment in Wales, he was made a charge on Irish ratepayers rather than on the people among whom he worked.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In the circumstances stated, the removal of this man to the place of his birth would appear to have been in accordance with the law. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the several statements in the Question, and I have no information to enable me to say whether Wheatly received compensation from the colliery company.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would embody in the Irish Land Bill such modification of the 31st section of the Irish Land Act, 1881, as would enable small farmers in Ireland to-borrow money at 3½ per cent. for fifty years for the purpose of building suitable dwelling houses.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The section of the Act of 1881 to which the

  1181
  hon. Member refers, is part of the complicated Code of Statutes dealing with Improvement Loans in Ireland. It would be impossible to burden the Irish Land Bill with legislation on this difficult subject.

  County Infirmaries in Ireland.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return showing the charges and liabilities affecting each county infirmary in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I do not know whether it will be practicable to give the Return. I am making inquiry into the matter, however, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Porthcawl Rifle Range.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to complete the construction of the Porthcawl rifle range in Glamorganshire; and, if so, whether he can state approximately what the proposed expenditure will be.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The site is available for use as a field-firing range without any expense for construction. The estimated cost of constructing a sectional range is £2,500, but as such a range at Porthcawl would be used principally by the auxiliary forces its construction has been in abeyance and will not be further considered until the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers has reported.

  Regimental Canteens.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, under the new rules for the management of the refreshment branches of regimental institutes, every regimental commanding officer has the power to apply the co-operative principle to the management of his regimental canteen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply is in the affirmative, with the proviso that the approval of the General Officer Commanding the Army Corps or district is necessary in each case. The
  1182
  hon. Member is probably aware that a large number of canteens are conducted on the tenant system, and where this is profitably and satisfactorily carried out it is improbable that any change will take place.

  Trades Unions Commission.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, on the Royal Commission to consider the law affecting trades unions and the rights of combination, it is proposed to appoint any trades unionist representatives; and, if so, in what proportion to the whole.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The, hon. Member cannot, I think, be aware that the Royal Commission has been formally appointed. It is not possible now to reconstruct the Commission, and by a large addition to its members, whether of trades unionists or employers of labour, to change the whole basis of its constitution.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Arsenal—Lyddite Workers.
  MAJOR EVANS - GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men employed in the lyddite sheds at the Royal Arsenal are paid by piece work or by time, and whether he can give the number of men employed in the shed in which the recent accident took place and the rate of wages they received.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The men are paid by piece work on the fellowship plan, by which the earnings of the whole gang are pooled and shared. There were nine men in the compartment in which the explosion took place; the other men killed were in or about the other compartments of the building. Their average wages range from 36s to 38s. 8d. a week, according to their ratings.
  MAJOR EVANS - GORDON: Does my right hon. friend propose to put a stop to what seems to be the dangerous practice of paying men employed on this kind of work at piece and fellowship rates?
  MR. BRODRICK: I answered a Question as to that the other day.† I said the whole question was receiving careful consideration.

  Blank Ammunition.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any field or horse artillery other than those on the Indian establishment are still using black powder at manœuvres.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. It is very difficult to obtain a satisfactory smokeless blank cartridge, but it is hoped that the difficulty will be overcome.

  Lyddite Shells.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any suspicion that a considerable number of lyddite shells may contain picrate of soda; and, if there are any such suspected shells, what will he do with them.
  MR. BRODRICK: No lyddite shells are suspected of being in a dangerous condition. The causes of the explosion at Woolwich are under investigation by a Committee of experts, and such action will be taken as regards lyddite shells as their report may show to be necessary.
  COLONEL NOLAN: When will the Report be made?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be in a month or a couple of years? Are you going to indefinitely postpone the question?
  MR. BRODRICK: There is no desire to postpone the question. Obviously it is one to which experts must give careful consideration.
  MR. CROOKS: Is it not the fact that the Board of Inquiry have closed their deliberations at the Arsenal?
  MR BRODRICK: I cannot say, Sir.
  † See page 384.

  Naval Works Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it will be convenient to state now the amount of the expenditure for which provision will be made in the forthcoming Naval Works Bill.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The total sum to be provided for expenditure during the financial years 1903–04 and 1904–05 is £8,570,877. Of this sum £574,877 is available, being unspent balance on the sum provided by previous Acts, leaving a sum of £7,996,000 to be voted in the Bill of this year.

  South African Constabulary.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the reduction in the numbers of the South African Constabulary, men who enlisted in 1901 for three years have been dismissed with only the cost of their railway fare to Capetown; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing among these men at this alleged breach of agreement he can give them some further compensation.
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not aware that any breach of agreement has occurred. The conditions of enlistment in the South African Constabulary of the men in question, specified that a noncommissioned officer or man was liable to discharge at any time by order of the Officer Commanding a Division.

  South African Rebels.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any rebels in the Cape Colony or Natal are now retained in prison for rebellion.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No rebels are now detained, as far as I am aware, for the crime of rebellion.

  Estate of late James McGowan.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  1185
  the Colonies if he will request the administrator of the affairs of the late James McGowan, of the Lendy estate, in Rhodesia, to forward the amount received to the mother of the deceased, who lives at Longford.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is aware that according to a despatch dated 30th April instructions have been given locally that any sum shown to the credit of the estate should be remitted to the heirs, and I will enquire as to the cause of the delay.
  MR. FARRELL: I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's kindness in the matter. I hope there will be no unnecessary delay, as the woman is in a very delicate condition.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I will endeavour to hurry it up.

  Alaska Boundary Tribunal.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent negotiations between the Government and the Dominion of Canada and the United States for the renewal of a reciprocity treaty were suspended on account of the desire of the Dominion Government to await the decision of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal before proceeding further; and, if not, can he state why these negotiations were suspended.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on the subject since the proceedings were interrupted owing to the difficulty of arriving at an arrangement about the Alaska boundary, but I have seen it stated in the papers that the Canadian Government has recently informed the Government of the United States that they did not wish to resume negotiations at the present time.

  Delhi Manœuvres—Use of Black Powder.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, at the Delhi manœuvres in the last cold weather, black powder was used by the Artillery; and, if so, whether he can
  1186
  explain why the difficulties which long prevented the use of cordite in blank charges for guns in this country have not yet been overcome in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no information on this subject, but I will communicate with the Government of India, and will let the hon. Baronet know the result.

  Indian Import Duties on Band Instruments.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state what decision has been arrived at by the Government of India with regard to the import duties on instruments of military bands.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It has been decided that musical instruments which are the property of the regimental bands shall be exempt from Customs duty. A notification on the subject is being prepared and will be issued before the next trooping season.

  Great Indian Peninsular Annuities.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the House of Lords on the Great Indian Peninsular Annuities; and whether it is his intention to abide by the decision, or whether he proposes to attempt to alter it by legislation,
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not contemplate proposing any alteration of the law as now interpreted.

  Dog Licences.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has received a communication from the North Wales Federations of Meat Traders asking that the sheepdogs of meat traders shall be exempted from taxation, as allowed to farmers; and whether he will favourably consider their application.
  *MR RITCHIE: I cannot promise to introduce legislation in the direction suggested. There are weighty objections even to the present exemptions from Dog Licence duty, as the hon. member will see on reference to the Report of the Committee on Laws relating to Dogs (C. 8320 of 1896), and any proposal to extend the exemptions would, I am satisfied, meet with considerable opposition. Moreover, the produce of the duty goes to local authorities, and I am not sure that I should be justified in depriving them of a part of this revenue.

  Income Tax Appeals.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that rules in force regarding the returns and collections of income tax differ in Ireland and Great Britain; and that in Ireland the Commissioners will not consider an appeal case unless previously furnished with a return, while in Great Britain the Commissioners will consider an appeal case in the absence of such return; and, if so, whether he will take steps to assimilate the practice in both countries.
  *MR. RITCHIE: So far as I understand, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The Special Commissioners would not under the existing practice be deterred from hearing an income tax appeal in Ireland by the fact that no return had been made by the appellant.

  Sugar Factories under Bond.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many sugar factories, sugar refineries, or factories for the extraction of molasses, it is estimated it would be necessary to place under bond in the United Kingdom under Clause 2 of the Sugar Convention Bill.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The number of refineries or factories which, so far as I am at present able to state, will fall to be placed under bond under Clause 2 of the Sugar Convention Bill is sixteen.

  Irish Labourers Allotments.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total
  1188
  area of land provided in Ireland under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, up to the 31st March, 1902, for allotments for labourers living in villages and towns.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Approximately, 50 acres. It has not been found possible, in the brief interval since the Question was placed on the Paper, to obtain the information with accuracy from local authorities.

  Land Purchase in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether in any, and, if so, what number of estates in the county of Longford proceedings are at present pending for sale to the tenants; how many of such sales are under the Ashbourne Act, and how many under the Act of 1896.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Report was called for on this question, but so far I have not received it. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question to-morrow.

  Royal Commission on Trades Disputes.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to representations from trades unions as to the appointment and composition of, and the terms of reference to, the Royal Commission on Trades Disputes; and, if so, whether he will put down the Temporary Commissions Vote on an early day and at an hour which will enable the Question to be fully considered by this House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am aware that various opinions have been expressed in connection with the appointment of this Commission. I have more than once explained the nature of the choice open to the Government in determining whether the Commission should be large and representative or small and specially legally qualified and the advantages which appear to attach to the latter alternative. Although I should have no objection to the Temporary Commissions Vote being discussed if time allowed, I

  1189
  am afraid that in the present condition of Supply I can give no pledge on the subject.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Commercial Retaliation on the Continent.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to ascertain the results of commercial retaliation as applied in recent years between the larger foreign Powers, notably between France and Italy, France and Switzerland, Germany and Russia.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have considered my hon. friend's Question, and I do not think that the inquiry which he suggests is really a practicable one. After all, what he means, and what I mean, by commercial retaliation is the power either to give or to withhold something from a Power with whom you are bargaining. Now, I do not see how you are going to discuss the question whether Germany has gained, as against Austria and Russia, by having something to give or withhold in her commercial negotiations, nor whether Austria has had a similar advantage in her bargains with Germany and Russia, nor whether Russia has had it in her bargains with Germany and Austria. Nor do I see what kind of witnesses could with advantage be called before a Select Committee and cross-examined. The Government are, however, asking for reports as to the history of negotiations in these various countries, and I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend or any one else who desires it with all the information we may obtain on the subject.

  His Majesty's Theatre—Penal Clauses in Terminable Leases.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Beerbohm Tree, against whom an injunction has been granted in respect to exhibiting the name of the theatre in large letters upon the premises; whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing remedial legislation to modify penal clauses in
  1190
  terminable leases, upon which such prosecutions are founded, and imprisonment for contempt of Court is enforced in case of disobedience.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is a matter of course that has not come before me in any way officially, and so far as I am advised there seems no reason for suggesting the far-reaching alteration in our existing law which the hon. Gentleman desires. Of course if he propounds a scheme as a private Member, and embodies it in a Bill, it will receive the consideration of the Government.

  Reduction of Armaments.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government adheres to Lord Salisbury's despatch of 14th February, 1899, to Sir C. Scott, accepting the Russian proposal for a conference to discuss the best methods of bringing about the diminution of armaments by land and sea; whether the Government has taken into consideration the resolution of the First Commission of the Hague Conference, recording its opinion that a further examination of the question by the Powers would prove a great benefit to humanity; and whether, having regard to the increased expenditure on naval armaments since the date of Lord Salisbury's despatch, the Government will take the initiative of inviting the Powers to make another attempt to deal with this question by conference or otherwise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this Question for a few days.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what business it is proposed to take after the Land Bill is disposed of in Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As soon as the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill is disposed of I propose to proceed immediately with the Second Reading of the South African Loan Bill, and the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Will that cover the whole of next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do know how long the Irish Land Bill will take.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the Sugar Convention Bill be proceeded with next week?
  MR. LOUGH: And will the London Education Bill be taken before the Sugar Convention Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be advisable to take the London Education Bill before the Sugar Convention Bill, but I cannot absolutely pledge myself to that arrangement.

  SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,571,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONreminded the Committee that this was almost certainly the last occasion in the present session, and possibly in the present Parliament, on which there would be an opportunity of discussing the Navy Estimates, and naturally he had been anxious to obtain the full figures of the naval expenditure for the year. He had to thank the Civil Lord of the Admiralty for supplying him with information to enable him to arrive at the complete figures for the current financial year. The total amount of the Estimates, including appropriations in aid, was £35,836,000, to which must be added an expenditure under the Naval Works Bill estimated
  1192
  at something over £4,000,000. Deducting the annuity of £500,000 payable this year in respect of past expenditure, he found that the total naval expenditure comprised in the ordinary and extraordinary Budgets amounted to about £39,500,000. That was the sum which the people of the United Kingdom were this year called upon to pay for the maintenance of the Navy. The only part of that expenditure which was properly before the Committee was the third section of Vote 8. Attention had been called before to the gross amount of Vote 8 and to the large amount provided in that Vote for the purpose of new construction. New construction had gone up by more than £1,000,000, and curiously enough it happened that more than that excess fell upon the contract portion of the present Vote. The excess on new construction provided for in that portion of the Vote was £1,204,000. He did not, however, propose to discuss that now. In order to remove any misapprehension he would remind the Committee that hon. Members on his side had not challenged the naval expenditure of the Government. But they were entitled to ask for explanation and justification—more particularly for justification on the ground of policy. He had never blamed the Admiralty for these Estimates, which depended on the foreign policy of the country at large, for which the Government as a whole was responsible. There was, however, some danger lest the Government and the House should mistake the opinion of the country. What had happened in the case of the Army? A little while ago there was a tremendous wave of military enthusiasm. What had become of it? A reaction had set in, and great changes were being demanded in our military system. He had no desire to see a similar reaction in the case of the Navy, but he feared that an expenditure such as was now being incurred might be followed by a revulsion of public feeling on the subject of the Navy, and that, he thought, would be a misfortune. Was it wise, statesmanlike or patriotic, to acquiesce without explanation or justification in these increasing demands for naval purposes. There was a very pressing financial danger to be faced.

  1193
  They had to consider not merely the amount asked for in the Vote, but they had also to bear in mind the consequential expenditure. For instance, the increase in the Fleet was accompanied by a demand for an increased number of men, and that in its turn was followed by a call for additional housing accommodation. He reminded the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Budget expressed the wish that foreign countries would enter into a sort of league with us to keep down the enormous expenditure which was being incurred in naval matters.
  At this point MR. DILLON drew attention to the fact that fewer than forty Members were present. He considered that the naval affairs of this country were sufficiently important to require the attendance of forty Members. House counted and forty Members being found present—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, continuing, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking with great courage and candour, said—
  "Nothing would give us greater satisfaction than to reduce our naval expenditure if we could do so in company with other countries."
  Was that the policy of the Government of to-day—was it the policy of the Government as a whole or only of one part of it? He had hoped to get from the Prime Minister an answer to a Question as to the Hague Conference, which three years ago recommended that the question of the diminution of naval expenditure should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, however, the Question had had to be postponed. In the year 1898 the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Goschen, said his original Estimates were too small, as Russia, he understood, was laying down new ships. We had had no such information on this occasion. Mr. Goschen said that if he received an assurance from Russia that the report on which he had acted was not well-founded, he would not proceed with the Vote. The answer of Russia on that occasion was an invitation to a conference with a view to considering means for diminishing naval expenditure.
  1194
  The invitation was accepted by the Government of the day. The conference was held, but the proposal of the Russian delegates on the matter was deemed impracticable, and a Resolution only was carried declaring it to be the duty of the Powers to take the matter up. What was His Majesty's Government now prepared to do? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he would be glad to enter into a league to reduce naval expenditure. Would the Government invite a conference of the Powers with that object? There was reason to believe that Russia would not be unwilling to respond to such an invitation. He expressed a hope that the hesitation of the Prime Minister in answering the Question put to him earlier in the day meant that he, at all events, was turning over in his mind the possibility of doing this. Let them follow the example of Russia and invite the Powers to another conference. That was all he wished to say on questions of general policy. But there were one or two matters concerning Admiralty responsibility on which he wished to make a few remarks. He desired to direct attention to the statement of appropriations-in-aid. He noticed that credit was taken for £95,000 as contributions from the colonies. For the first time there appeared in the Estimates a table of colonial and Indian contributions. The contribution of the Australian Commonwealth was put down at £240,000, and there was a note attached to the effect that the amount was subject to the approval of the Legislatures concerned. He thought he was entitled to ask if any Colonial Legislature had ratified the contributions proposed, or what prospects there were of such ratification. Then, in reference to merchant cruisers, he believed that the attack on the system was to be led by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and he would wait and see what the hon. Member had to say. But he would like to ask what were the extra expenses for fittings and so on other than the subsidy provided for in the Vote? He noticed that the Vote had increased from £63,000 to £77,000, and the Committee should have an explanation of this increase in the subsidy. Some information also he desired in reference to the new contract with what was called the White Star Line. There was, too, the contract with

  1195
  the Cunard Company, but as to that he believed a special day was to be set apart for its discussion. Finally he would like to draw attention to the large increase in the Vote for reconstruction and repairs. It represented a jump of nearly 50 per cent. in that particular item, and certainly called for fuller explanation than had yet been given.
  MR. YERBURGHthought, on examination of the circumstances in which the country was placed, that the naval expenditure was not more but less than what was required to maintain our position. If this opinion provoked the question whence the money should come, he would suggest that economies should be effected in Army expenditure, a large proportion of which should be transferred from the Army to the Navy Votes. The Navy League was not responsible for what had been called the Russian scare. The details of the new Russian programme appeared in a Russian newspaper in December last, and the league had only repeated comments which had appeared in the Press since December. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, when the Estimates were produced, and when he told the House the real way to arrive at the expenditure necessary, he had taken into consideration the fact, announced in answer to a Question, that Russia was going to lay down two new battleships, and that the programme for 1904 included six battleships. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that the instructions to the Admiralty were to allow a good working balance over the naval strength of two Powers combined. Did he take the new Russian programme into consideration? When, in 1898, Lord Charles Beresford asked question after question of the then First Lord of the Admiralty as to why a larger rate of progress was not made, the answer always was that there was no information. But afterwards there was a discovery made that the Admiralty was quite wrong, and it was found that further money was needed. He wanted to know why, if in 1898 it was found necessary to ask the House for more money because Russia had put forward a new programme, it was not necessary now. He denied altogether that the plea put forward in 1898 that they could
  1196
  build faster than Russia held good; it was an argument which had no force when applied to the money to be asked for. He believed, in fact, that it was only put forward some years ago in order to reassure the public mind. He should like to ask whether the Admiralty had no information with regard to the new Russian programme at the time the Estimates were put forward, and, if not, why not? He knew that attention had been directed to the amount spent on the Intelligence Department, which was not, he believed, more than £10,000. The sum appeared to be ridiculous considering the enormous part which their Navy played in the National Defence. He thought he was right in saying that certainly up to a very recent time they had only one naval attaché in St. Petersburg and in Rome.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the first question he asked from a business point of view was why there was such a large amount for alterations and repairs in new ships. In the Estimates before them they had a sum of no less than £881,543 as an increase on that head this year. That was, approximately, nearly a million of money, especially it they took into account all the other items brought in under that head. They had a total of £3,156,000 for reconstruction and repairs on an expenditure of £10,500,000 for new construction. Now he put it to the House, was that business? Would any shipowning firm in Great Britain or anywhere else spend a third, of the value of their vessels in twelve months for repairs and reconstruction? There was no getting over the fact of terrible waste, terrible squandering of public money by the Admiralty Department. That had been proved up to the hilt. They were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds and did not know what it was spent on. The question to be asked was what was the reason for this large expenditure? Why were they driven to such enormous expenditure? When they looked at the figures he had given from the Estimates none need wonder at their increase. Could the repair bill be reduced? Were ships so constructed that they were always to be under repairs and refitting, and could they not be made to do their

  1197
  work for twelve months without incurring such grave expense to the taxpayers of this country? The reason for such expense was not far to seek. The ships were all wrong. He said that because he knew it. They would not do their work continuously without coming to grief. Out of the sum of £881,000, roughly speaking, half-a-million of money went to outside dockyards for repairing the vessels for twelve months. That was because the new ships would not do their work. If they would not do their work he unhesitatingly asserted that it was because they were badly designed, and that they were vessels which were not worth the money spent upon them by the country. He was going to use a much stronger phrase—he contended that it was almost criminal of them to waste public money on such ships. He was fully aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty knew the cause of all this, but the policy of the Admiralty was to miminise everything—to keep everything from the public Press.
  He would tell the House why the vessels had turned out so badly. At this moment vessels were being constructed which were badly engined and badly boilered and under-gunned. They were actually at the present time spending money on repairs of new ships that should never have been necessary. That policy had been continued, and was being continued, in the face of what had happened in the past. The very instruments which they were putting into the new ships were being taken out of others. There was the case of the American cruiser the "Raleigh," a brand new cruiser belonging to the United States, which was fitted with Babcock and Willcox boilers and sent to the Philippines. She broke down at Aden, and he did not believe she had yet been able to crawl to Bombay. Those were the instruments they were putting into valuable ships and to which they were entrusting the lives of men. The other day one of those boilers burst in Birmingham and killed some men, and yet these were the boilers they were putting into new ships. So long as they continued to use the Belleville and Babcock and Willcox boilers, so long would they continue to spend large sums in repairs, and the amounts would increase every
  1198
  year, with the result that nearly every engine factory in Great Britain would be called upon to repair their ships, because at the dockyards there would not be accommodation to execute all the repairs. Do not let them think that these large sums of money spent on the Navy were spent wisely. They were only evidence of the ineptitude of the Admiralty and the fact that they did not know their work. He was not exaggerating, but was looking at the cripples. Take the case of the "Good Hope," in which the other day four men were boiled. He did not know whether there was any hon. Member who had ever been in a boiler explosion. He had, and he knew what it was to be half steamed, and he could therefore understand the terrible sufferings the men must have endured in the stokehold of the much-lauded cruiser the "Good Hope." Look at the expense attending the repair of that vessel, and that would be required by the vessels which were now being fitted with boilers which had been condemned. Take the case of the "Buenos Ayrean," one of the Allan Line of steamers, where the Babcock and Willcox boilers were taken out. The Admiralty were putting in Niclausse boilers, while there was not one merchant ship with such boilers. At the Admiralty they had men, who were called engineers, who were adopting a boiler they had no experience of. These were the causes of the great expense of the Navy, and the cost of nearly a million more for repairs, if not more than that. It was difficult to take out the figures from such a complex volume as the Estimates, but by careful search he made out that the total increase for repairs alone was £1,065,663. But that was not all. No doubt many hon. Members were getting frightened at the growing expenditure, and he did not wonder at it. He would endeavour to show how these increases arose.
  It was part of the policy of the Admiralty to spend money ad lib. and then to get the worst job after all. There was an increase of £14,000 for inspection of contract work. How was that? But there was a greater increase—viz., in the cost of coal for the Fleet—£223,000. That ought to be added

  1199
  to all the collateral increases due to nothing else than the bad boilers which had been put into the vessels of the Navy. He insisted that had these men-of-war been rightly boilered, there never would have been these enormous sums for repairs, for coal, and inspection. He had listened with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman who represented Chester, who always had the good of the Navy at heart, only the hon. Gentleman took a different view of it from himself. The hon. Gentleman went in for quantity; he went in for quality.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid he went in for both.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Well, he had never heard the hon. Gentleman express himself in favour of quality, but only of quantity. He would like the hon. Member to tell the Committee the number of vessels that had come to grief since he was in the Navy; and the reason why so many of our first-class ships had come to grief, and how many were under-gunned. What was the use of coming to the House and crying out "Give us more ships!" if, when these ships were built they could not do their work. He said: Give me one good ship, that can safely steam out to sea with the least possible expense in coal and stores, with the least number of men, but these well trained, and well gunned, and I will sink any ship afloat. It was time that the House and the country were waking up to the fact of the absolute inefficiency of the Navy. A ship could not be sent away to sea for three months but she had to come back to a dockyard for repair. Why, during the whole time of the South African War merchant steamers ran backwards and forwards to the Cape and never a one was in the ship-builder's hands for repairs. Why should not that be the case with the ships of the Navy. There was an influence at the Admiralty which nobody could get hold of. It was an influence which continued fitting ships with boilers which caused a waste of money for repairs, for coal, for more men, and which endangered human life. This influence put into new ships steam generators which had
  1200
  already been condemned. If that influence continued, the cost of repairs was bound to increase, and the Estimates would rise year by year. His honest conviction was that in the ships which were boilered with one-fifth circular boilers, and four-fifths water-tube boilers the circular boilers would be running while the water-tube boilers would be rotting. It was time that a Department which was squandering millions of money and giving the nation such vessels should be inquired into; that a Royal Commission should be appointed to see how money could be saved and the Empire provided with efficient war vessels.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee was desirous that this country should initiate some sort of an arrangement or inquiry with the foreign nations into the possibility of the disarmament of the naval forces. The hon. Gentleman took Russia as the basis of his argument because Russia was instrumental in organising the Hague Conference. He thought that was a false analogy, because the hon. Gentleman assumed that we could bargain with one country in order to come to an arrangement with all other countries. As an illustration of this he found in a German paper that German naval reformers expressed dissatisfaction that on the Eastern station they were at a disadvantage as compared with Russia, France, or America, putting aside altogether Great Britain. If they came to terms with Russia or France, or Russia were to come to terms with France, even then there was so much suspicion and want of confidence that he did not see any hope of arriving at a satisfactory solution of the question. The hon. Member for Chester had touched on a point to which reference had frequently been made—viz., the increase in the ordinary naval attachés. As a general principle he urged that they should have as much reliable information as possible, whether by naval attachés or by some other method. That must be done. It was very difficult for anyone who studied the Papers which

  1201
  were issued to arrive at a correct conclusion. He had examined the document published by the German Emperor comparing the British with the German fleet; the Reports issued at the instance of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the Brassey Annual but in many respects all those documents were contradictory. In these circumstances it was impossible to make any comparisons. Whether or not the Navy League were right in trying to raise a scare, he thought the Admiralty should have as much correct information as was required. He desired to ask a question on one point, and that was why they had left off building torpedo-boats. It was quite true that we had more torpedo-boat-destroyers than other naval Powers. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Gateshead had not told them more about boilers; but it might be because they had some reassurance in the Paper recently issued as to the reliability of the water-tube boilers in regard to the recent trials between the "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva." The Report of the Controller of the Navy stated that—
  "The 'Hyacinth' left the anchorage at 9.26 a.m., or twenty-six minutes after the signal, and the 'Minerva' at 10.4 a.m., or sixty-four minutes after the signal, the 'Hyacinth' having obtained a lead of thirty-eight minutes."
  He would only quote further the last paragraph in the Report of the Chief Inspector of Machinery—
  "All other working parts reported upon for the 136 hours trial acted similarly and satisfactorily for the twenty-two hours trial, and there is no reason to doubt that the boilers would have worked efficiently for the passage to England, and developed a mean I.H.P. of quite 9,500."
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANasked if the hon. Member was aware that the "Hyacinth" was specially doctored for that trial.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that that was an allegation for the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer; all he knew was that the "Hyacinth" went through her trials and came out very well; and inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman was always attacking these boilers, whenever other hon. Members found that the boilers did well he thought they were entitled to point to that without pre-
  1202
  summing to dictate to the hon. Gentleman on a matter on which he was an expert. They were encouraged by the trials of the "Hyacinth" in spite of the hon. Gentleman's energy and denunciation. He was curious to know what the expense of a trip of that kind would cost, and it would be interesting also to know to what extent the cost of repairs could be obviated. He was anxious to avoid bringing in the question of the dockyards, because, although naturally interested in it, he believed, when methods of policy were being discussed, personal matters which concerned their own constituents should not be obtruded. He should like to know, however, what the Admiralty's policy was as regarded dockyards. What ships were to be laid down in them? It was of the utmost importance to his constituents to have some assurance that there should be no great change in regard to Portsmouth dockyard; that it was still to be maintained as a great building yard; and was not to be relegated to the position of a repairing yard He should be grateful if he could have some information as to what the intentions of the Government were in that respect.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Committee had had an interesting debate on the general policy which underlay the whole cost of the Navy. There had been far less difference of opinion expressed that afternoon than on previous occasions, owing to the moderation with which hon. Members had spoken on both sides. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee and his hon. friend the Member for Chester spoke on what were virtually the same lines; and his hon. friend the Member for Chester expressed the warmest commendation of the proposals of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee. There was no doubt that the matter had advanced since the last discussion. As for the principle which many of them thought ought to guide the Government with reference to an understanding with certain Powers, that was shown to have distinctly advanced to-day by the manner in which the Prime Minister answered the Question of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee. He was certain that the Prime Minister would not ask for a

  1203
  postponement of the Question unless he had a real intention of consulting his colleagues on the subject. His hon. friend the Member for Chester had put certain Questions to the Government with regard to the programme on which the whole naval system was based. As to the expenditure on repairs, few hon. Members were in a position to discuss that question but they were able to form an opinion of the naval programme and as to the basis of that programme. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee used only one word in the course of his speech with which he had to express dissent. He spoke of Russia as having returned to the position of the naval bogey. The word "bogey" was the word with which he had to express dissent, and for this reason. His hon. friend was a party to, and constantly explained and defended the principle in this House on which naval programmes had been based for many years. It was the principle upon which the Spencer programme was based; and his hon. friend then defended the necessity of taking into consideration the building programmes of other Powers. They could not justly use the word "bogey" with reference to a new programme of such a Power as Russia. One of the Questions which his hon. friend the Member for Chester put to the Government was what was the nature and extent of the new Russian programme, how far it was commenced, and how far it was likely to go; and no matter deserved the attention of the Committee more than the answer to that Question. The hon. Member for Portsmouth cast some doubt on the figures on this subject. The reason for that doubt was obvious. It was a well-known fact that the French in making a list of the ships of the British Navy—although they did not want to diminish the naval strength of this country—constantly attributed to it fewer ships than the Admiralty themselves calculated, because the French struck out several ships as valueless before they were officially struck off by the Admiralty. A comparison could only be instituted by taking the new ships which were being laid down or launched. That was the only real solid test.
  1204
  They were told in the summer of last year by a Russian dockyard newspaper, which usually received information of that kind first, that there was a new Russian programme of eight ships. The hon. Member for Chester naturally asked when that programme came to the knowledge of the Government; and how far it could be called a real programme. Of course, that affected some of the speeches in former debates, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted as saying that he saw no reason for an increase in the Shipbuilding Vote. That speech was, however, made long before the new foreign programme with which they were now acquainted came into existence; and when the present Estimates were prepared in the autumn of last year this Russian programme was not known to the Government. His hon. friend the Member for Chester threw some little doubt on the fulness of the Government information on this point. He believed that in the last few days a naval attaché had been appointed at St. Petersburg who would have only naval duties to perform; and although his salary was not on this Vote no doubt the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to say whether such an appointment had been made or not. With reference to the great Russian programme of 1898—regarding which he agreed that it was unfortunate that they did not give more serious consideration to the proposals of the Russian Government at the time of the Hague Conference—that programme had come to an end, all the ships having been launched. But many of the ships had been built to the order of the Russian Government in Germany, France, and the United States, although they had not yet heard of any ships being laid down by Russia in foreign dockyards in connection with the new programme. Mr. Goschen was quite right when he said that this country had an advantage over Russia as regarded shipbuilding; but in France and Germany ships had been built to the order of Russia with extraordinary speed, and they had all done exceedingly well in their trial trips. At present they had not heard of any new ships being laid down by Russia in foreign countries; but they had heard of two or three battleships being laid down on the slips vacated by the ships of the 1898 programme. Therefore, if he might enforce the argument of his hon. friend the

  1205
  Member for Chester and slightly vary his Questions, he should like to ask the Admiralty if they had any knowledge of the new Russian programme; when they became acquainted with it; whether they knew of any ships being laid down by Russia abroad, or was Russia merely filling up slips at home which had been vacated by the launch of the ships of the 1898 programme? With regard to the knowledge possessed by the Admiralty, the only foundation he had been able to find for the statement that the Admiralty were misleading the House had reference to what was called projected ships.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid he did not state that the Admiralty had misled the House of Commons.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, of course he did not mean wilfully misleading for a moment. Undoubtedly they were in the habit of counting projected ships, even when they were merely drawings. However, the appointment of a naval attaché in St. Petersburg would probably meet that difficulty. With regard to the general question, on the facts before them, and the defence of the programme made by Lord Selborne in another place, and in the face of what was known with regard to the shipbuilding programme of Russia, no Government of any Party in this House would take the responsibility of proposing a smaller shipbuilding programme this year. He fully concurred with the hon. Member for Dundee and with the sense of the Question addressed to the Prime Minister to-day in spite of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and by the remarks of the hon. Member for Yarmouth the other day. They could obtain the assent of certain of the Powers to a policy of reduction. They need not obtain the assent of the whole; if they obtained the assent of some it would be sufficient justification for the Government to commence reducing the programme of this country, but it was unsafe to do so in the face of the figures known to us, and doubly unsafe in the face of the figures of the Russian programme which they had just heard.
  *MR. JAMES HOPEcalled attention to the fact that one part of the shipbuilding programme of the year 1901–2 was not put in hand for sixteen
  1206
  months after the beginning of the year, and he asked whether it was not possible for the designs to keep pace with the Estimates. The Estimates were prepared in the autumn, and submitted to the House in the following February, and he ventured to think it would be an immense advantage if the designs could be got forward with the Estimates, so that the work should be put in hand immediately and not towards the end of the financial year. It would prevent attempts being made to rush the work, and would be also of the greatest advantage to the men who lived by our naval programme, to whom any dislocation and irregularity of employment was of serious consequence. He trusted his hon. friend would see if this could not be done before the next programme was issued.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to enter a protest against the way they were proceeding. Most Members had been surprised by a scrap of newspaper cutting which had been circulated to Members this morning. Directly he received it he knew the line the debate would take. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had intimated that they should do something to meet the new Russian programme, and had said that if three weeks ago there had been a crisis on another question, and another Government had been formed, this great swollen Estimate would have been just as large. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned two or three names in that connection. He said the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would have brought in as great and as swollen an Estimate as that which they were now considering. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, last October, went down to his constituency and said that with all the information he possessed he would not countenance an increase in the Naval Estimates this year, and if any increase did take place it ought to be questioned in this House in a way in which these Estimates had not been questioned before. Yet the right hon. Baronet now put this opinion in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Bristol. He protested against the whole proceeding. He thought hon. Members who had addressed the House had overplayed their part; if they were so cautious of our naval strength they

  1207
  ought to be more cautious in their remarks. They had never alluded to the figures. The Committee had not been able to worm out the figures of this Vote, and it was not until they were given by the right hon. Member for Dundee a short time previously that they knew they had reached the enormous total of £40,000,000; yet hon. Members would lead, if they could, the Government into further extravagance. The principle of our Navy was that it should be maintained at what was called the two-Power standard; but it had been pointed out that as regards battleships we were considerably above the two-Power standard, and in regard to other vessels we were above the three-Power standard. It was absolutely settled in a recent debate that we had attained proportionately a much greater strength, and worked on a much higher standard than ever had been worked upon before. He had merely intervened to ask why hon. Members could not be satisfied with an expenditure larger than that of any two or three Powers. He supported the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that they should take some wise step to enable them to reduce this enormous expenditure. The hon. Member for Dundee had pointed out that Russia responded in the most courteous manner in 1898, and practically suggested that the matter should be reasoned out to see whether a satisfactory conclusion could not be arrived at. He hoped the Prime Minister would shortly have something to say with regard to those negotiations. But if such negotiations were pending, surely the Committee might have been spared the speeches urging still greater expenditure. The expenditure had exceeded all reasonable bounds, and those Members who desired to see the strength of the country maintained ought to caution the Government against this present rate rather than urge them to still greater extravagance.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that while he shared the desire that something should, if possible, be done in the way of coming to an agreement with other Powers, he was afraid nothing would be achieved in that direction for many generations yet, and, in the meantime, he believed the Government had done the very least it was right for them to do in the programme of this year. As to
  1208
  whether they ought to have done more, he did not share the doubts which had been expressed. Ships were very difficult to compare, whether by size, tonnage, or number of guns. The only person competent to compare ships and programmes was such a person as would probably be in the Admiralty, who was cognisant of the different kinds of ships, their qualities, and their arrangements for ammunition supply. The last-named point was extremely important. But the matter to which he particularly desired to call attention was the item of £77,813, under Sub-head I., allocated to subventions for right of pre-emption or hire as armed cruisers or transports of a number of vessels. According to a return granted in 1902, the total amount of the subventions then was £103,750, and as all the ships therein named were under agreements which would be in force this year, they would presumably still be entitled to subsidies. Possibly, however, the hon. Gentleman could explain the discrepancy between the two amounts. The first three ships named in the Estimates were the "Oceanic," the "Majestic," and the "Teutonic," belonging to the White Star Line; and the second three were the "Campania," the "Lucania," and the "Umbria," belonging to the Cunard Co. The amount of the Estimates in respect of each of those groups was £28,000; in other words, it was proposed to vote, as subventions, £28,000 for three ships belonging to the Morgan Combine, and £28,000 for three ships belonging to the Cunard Co. He would not trouble the Committee with regard to the rest of the ships, although some of them belonged to these two companies also. First of all, with regard to the £28,000 to be paid professedly to the "White Star Line, but really to the Morgan Combine. Those three ships were absolutely owned, and all dominion over them was exercised by an American corporation, and, therefore, were in a somewhat different position from those belonging to an English company. He would say at once that he intended to move a reduction of £28,000, representing the subvention proposed to be paid to Mr. Morgan. While he strongly objected to the whole of this item of £77,000, he particularly objected to the £28,000 for the first three ships.
  In his belief, all these subsidies to merchant vessels were a profound mistake.

  1209
  The purposes for which they were professedly given were the right of preemption, the right of hire, the right of using the ships as transports, and the right of using them as armed cruisers. Not one of those was really a sound reason. The Government already had the most complete right of pre-emption without paying anybody a farthing for it. In time of war they had an absolute right not merely to buy, but to take ships, and not only ships of their own subjects, but ships of the subjects of other Powers. In 1871, the Germans seized six British ships that were lying in the Seine, and, being at war with France, sunk them under this right. They then offered money for them which was accepted by the then Foreign Minister, and the incident was at an end, it being recognised that the Germans were completely within their right. The right of pre-emption was therefore worth nothing. As to the right of hiring, the Government could hire any ship at any time they liked, even if they had not the right of taking them. In connection with the South African war they hired practically the whole of the mercantile marine. There were always a number of ships that could be hired; it was only a question of price, and there was no necessity to pay anything in advance for the right. The question of using the ships as transports was the same as the right of hiring. The most important point, however, was the right, in time of war, to use the ships as armed cruisers. Were they likely to be of the slightest use as armed cruisers? They were built for mercantile purposes, the carriage of passengers, and the development of a high rate of speed. They had not one of the qualities required in a fighting ship, except that of speed. The vessels were built with extremely thin plate; all their engines were above the water-line; and they were at the mercy of any small craft that could bring a three-pounder gun to bear upon them. Consequently, they were completely unfitted for the protection of trade, or for any other purpose except where speed was the only requisite. For the Government to pay large sums in order to create rights which they already possessed over such vessels as these was really to waste public money. To
  1210
  pay those unnecessary subventions was really the most crazy plan that ever entered into the mind of man. Under those circumstances was it desirable that this £77,000 should continue to be voted. Upon this point he had fortified himself with a very short extract from the Report of that excellent Committee presided over by his hon. friend sitting below the gangway. Upon pages 10 and 11 of that Report the Committee would see that there was very considerable authority to cite in support of his view. The subsidy was paid simply as a retaining fee in time of war, but the Committee presided over by his hon. friend below the gangway had declared that they did not think such a subsidy was of any use for that purpose. That was the sole ground upon which this subsidy was paid. The whole of this contemplated war and nothing else. The Government had the right to lay hands on its own ships in time of war, and in an emergency he believed that vessels would be offered without any retaining fee. If a retaining fee were to be paid at all, it should be paid at the time, and they should not go on paying thousands of pounds year after year to create rights which they had got already, and which he thought it would not be proper to exercise except in time of war. In addition he wished to remind the Committee that in the case of the White Star Line, which was an American line lock, stock and barrel under the dominion of an American corporation, they were asked to subsidise vessels which had passed completely under foreign control. They were absolutely owned in America, and nevertheless, in consequence of the most regrettable weakness and negligence of duty, in consequence of misfeasance on the part of the Government, they were allowed to fly the British flag. They were giving those vessels the right to carry the British flag, which meant a 20 per cent. advantage to them in competition with British ships, and in addition to that they proposed to give them a subsidy so that they might use them in time of war. This was an absurd proposition. For the use of those vessels they were asked to pay £28,000.
  He had another very strong argument. The agreement that had been made with the International Mercantile Marine Association of Mr. Morgan, of which

  1211
  these first three vessels formed apart, had been made since September, and the Prime Minister had said that the matter was not open to reconsideration. If that were so, the Committee ought not to be asked for the subsidy, and, if asked, they ought to refuse it. How should we be able to exercise such rights as we thought we were buying either in time of peace or in time of war? In time of peace they were giving those ships a subsidy to compete with British ships, but in time of war could they use any one of those rights which they were supposed to be purchasing by this subsidy? If we were at war with the United States we could not take one of those vessels because the United States would keep them for their own purposes. If we were at war with another country, he doubted whether the United States would allow this country to use those vessels against a country with which they were at peace, because he thought that would be a breach of international law. In no kind of war could those lights as provided by the subsidies the Government proposed to give possibly be of any use. He thought he had shown first of all that all these subsidies were wrong in principle, and secondly, that they were unnecessary. For those reasons he felt it his duty to move a reduction of this Vote by £28,000, which represented the proposed subsidy to the vessels mentioned which would be allowed to fly the British flag and compete with British ships.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item 1 (Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers) be reduced by £28,000."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)did not think his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn would find it necessary to carry his Motion for a reduction to a division. His hon. friend had stated the case against the principle of subsidies as at present carried out with so much knowledge that it was not necessary to deal with that subject at length. It was perfectly true, as his hon. friend had pointed out, that the Committee presided over by the hon.
  1212
  Member for Aston Manor made recommendations of an important character with regard to this principle of subsidising merchant cruisers in time of war, and the Admiralty had long been considering very carefully the wisdom of that policy. Their deliberations had been made easier by the strong and clear recommendations of the Committee to which he had referred. In the exercise of their own judgment, and fortified by the recommendations of the Committee, the Admiralty did not propose, when the time came for renewing these agreements, that they should be renewed. He did not, however, ask the Committee to take it as admitted that there were no circumstances under which subsidies ought to be paid, and no circumstances in which public interests could not be conveniently served by such a plan as that which had hitherto been adopted.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYmade an inquiry regarding the subsidies to which the (Secretary to the Admiralty had referred. Did he mean the Morgan subsidies? What kind of subsidies were not renewable?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was speaking of those contained in Section 3 of Vote 8—namely, subsidies for merchant cruisers.
  MR. RENWICK: How long have those subsidies to run?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A year's notice has to be given.
  MR. RENWICK: Has it been given?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. The time has not arrived when notice can be given. The final decision resulting from the deliberations of the Board of Admiralty and the recommendations of the Committee has only recently been arrived at.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is it now admitted that all this money we have been paying year after year has been altogether useless expenditure?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No; I do not think that would be a fair assumption. The circumstances of naval warfare have been changing almost every year, and it is quite possible that what our predecessors at the Admiralty thought it advisable to do may have been very proper at the time when it was done.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: How much longer shall we go on paying these sums of money?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Notice will be given on the first occasion when notice can be given.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: When?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think 1st April next year.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: We shall go on paying for eighteen months longer; is that it?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was the case. There were other purposes which might be served by a system of subsidies. What the Admiralty felt was that the principle which ought to govern the application of a subsidy was that by that payment they should obtain something which they would not get in any other way. He would add a word to show that they had not been unmindful of the recommendations of the Committee to which he had referred. They felt as strongly as that Committee that it would be a great advantage in the administration of any sum voted by Parliament for the purpose of subsidising shipping that it should be administered under some central authority. He did not know whether the Committee realised how large those sums were. They amounted to many hundred thousand pounds. He was not prepared now to discuss whether the principle was right or wrong, but he was quite sure that the Committee would agree with him that if these subsidies were to be paid it was much better that they should be paid in pursuance of a national and uniform policy rather than expended by various Departments without consultation.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty had made a
  1214
  most important and unexpected announcement. Speaking for himself, and for hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, they would concur in the new policy which had been announced. The hon. Member for Oldham had talked of these subsidies as a waste of money. Both parties had been responsible for this expenditure in the past. He himself had said in public on a former occasion that he believed this merchant cruiser policy had not been cordially accepted by any Board of Admiralty for many years past. It had been acquiesced in rather than accepted and approved by successive Boards of Admiralty. He was extremely pleased as well as surprised at the announcement the hon. Gentleman had made. He took it that this item for merchant cruisers was to disappear from the Estimates in future.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: On the present basis of payment. It may be necessary to pay subsidies for high speed or special qualifications.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: At all events this particular Vote was coming to an end. The last White Star agreement was made some time in the end of last year; and, as he understood, it was an agreement for three years. He took it that that would be terminated at the end of the three years.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Almost all these agreements come to an end in April, 1905.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his information was that it was an agreement for three years. He was not aware of any clause in the agreement that would bring it to an end earlier than the close of these three years. The Admiralty now told the Committee that the principle, at all events, of this Subsidies Vote was abandoned, and that if there were to be subsidies at all in regard to merchant cruisers in future Estimates they would be based on another kind of policy from the present.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To make it clear I will read the Clause:—
  "This agreement shall be deemed to have come into force except as regards the 'Oceanic' as and from the 1st day of April, 1900, and for the 'Oceanic' from the 1st day of October,

  1215
  1900, and shall continue until the expiration of twelve calendar months notice in writing expiring on the 1st day of April in any year given by either party provided that no such notice shall be given so as to expire at any earlier date than the 1st of April, 1905."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he understood that the White Star contract would have to run for three years, but that was immaterial. The real point was that the Merchant Cruiser Vote was to be abandoned at the earliest possible time, and what was to take its place need not now be discussed. He did not know how this would bear upon another most important question, to which he could not do more than allude, and the most extraordinary arrangement ever made outside an Irish Land Bill, involving enormous payments to one or two shipping companies.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he had listened with very great regret to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, and with still greater regret to the announcement made by his hon. friend he Secretary to the Admiralty. If the policy of the Admiralty in future was to be to dissociate our naval preparations from questions of construction in connection with the mercantile marine, then it was a most regrettable announcement from the point of view of naval preparations. But if his hon. friend merely meant by the announcement that the Naval Votes in future should not bear the subsidies, and that their place would be taken by some harmonious arrangement for the construction of merchant ships that would be useful in an emergency for war purposes, then, perhaps, the announcement had not the importance that had been attached to it. Upon this point the answer of the Secretary to the Admiralty had not been quite clear. The advantage that would accrue to our naval preparations by having available in time of need merchant ships fitted with arrangements for guns and warlike purposes would be enormous. He hoped the change was rather in the form of Estimates than a change of policy, and that vessels of high speed, and with special attention to details, would continue to be built, so that while their utility for merchant service would
  1216
  not be impaired they would at short notice be ready for Admiralty purposes.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he had heard with considerable satisfaction the announcement made on behalf of the Admiralty with regard to the subsidies for cruisers. He brought this matter up before in connection with the mail contract. For instance, there was the case of the Canadian Pacific service which received a subsidy for three cruisers. These vessels were absolutely worthless for cruisers, because they did not steam above fourteen knots an hour, and would not be of any value to the country in time of war. Obviously that was a contract that should be terminated at the first opportunity. The present arrangement was mixed up with the mail contract, which he thought was to run for five years from April 1901. The amount received was, he thought £7,000 a year, and that was absolutely wasted money, so far as the Canadian Pacific was concerned. With regard to the P. & O. Company, there were separate contracts with the Admiralty, and, therefore, the Secretary to the Admiralty would know the terms on which they were made, and when they would expire. There again he thought the Admiralty should take the first opportunity of terminating the contracts. The P. & O. boats practically did not steam more than fourteen or fifteen knots an hour, and could not compete in speed with foreign boats. They could not catch another boat or run out of the road themselves. He had always heard that the policy of mixing up the mail contracts with the giving of subsidies for cruisers was a wrong policy, and that the question of cruisers should stand entirely by itself. The Government should do what they could to induce the owners of merchant vessels to provide speed qualities, and it was all-important that any contracts entered into should be for a short period, so that they could at any time take advantage of the quickest steamer belonging to the British merchant service. In that way they would encourage the owners of British merchant vessels to build ships which would be able to compete in crossing the Atlantic with German vessels. He was glad that this matter had now got some prominence.
  *MR. EVELYN CECILcongratulated the Admiralty on the decision arrived at in reference to this particular matter. It was a source of great satisfaction to himself, as chairman of the Committee that gave this matter a great deal of attention, that the recommendations of the Committee had not been set aside, but that it had been taken seriously into consideration. The more they enquired into the matter, the more it appeared that the subsidies paid as retaining fees for the use of vessels in time of war were absolutely money thrown away. It was very desirable, in view of the retrenchment which the country demanded in many quarters, that these subsidies as now given should no longer be paid. The subsidies, however, could only be terminated on the expiry of the existing contracts. The hon. Member for the Shipley Division should realise that the Admiralty, in coming to this decision in regard to subsidies, did not discard paragraph 21 of the Committee's Report, in which they recommended the Admiralty to give subsidies for a limited number of vessels of the highest speed.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid if the Secretary to the Admiralty would make it clear that they were not departing altogether from the policy of subsidies he would be perfectly satisfied, but the hon. Gentleman had not made that clear.
  *MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he had wanted to point out that paragraph 22, which recommended the discontinuance of subsidies which were merely retaining fees in time of war, was not antagonistic to paragraph 21, which stated that the Admiralty should subsidise a limited number of merchant ships of the highest speed for national defence. He warmly congratulated the Board of Admiralty on their good work and the admirable administration of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he wished to make this matter quite clear. His hon. friend the Member for Shipley and the hon. Member for Aston Manor had correctly interpreted the intention of the Admiralty, but in subsidising merchant vessels for military purposes they put the standard of speed higher—22 knots instead of 20. He was not to
  1218
  be taken as stating that no subsidy would be paid by any other Department for reasons other than military. He spoke only for the Admiralty.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was heartily glad to hear the announcement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty that afternoon. He was the more glad because he trusted it would be a warning to the Admiralty to pay more attention to the observations and facts given in this House. When the Vote for subsidising merchant steamers was first suggested he objected to it and had opposed it every year since. The Admiralty had, however, gone on paying these subsidies year after year, although it had been shown that the money might as well have been thrown into the sea. And now they had had it from a late Secretary to the Admiralty that in his time the facts were well known, and the Admiralty hardly believed in the policy, but acquiesced in it.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is my impression.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: That is the hon. Gentleman's impression—that the Admiralty brought down a Vote for money year after year for a policy in which they never believed but in which they acquiesced! He was glad that the policy had received its quietus from the painstaking report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Aston Manor He congratulated the hon. Member on his good work. He was glad that they had now an Admiralty that had been able to do something more than acquiesce in expenditure, but had the courage to stop a particular policy which they believed to be bad.
  *SIR CHARLES CAYZERsaid that as a Member of the Subsidies Committee he could say that there was abundant evidence that the payment of this £77,000 a year had been entirely wasted money. With one or two exceptions the vessels were not of the highest speed. The majority did not exceed 15 or 16 knots, and therefore they could not be used as effective scouts. Then except one or two, they had no gun platforms, and none of them had guns, although the Committee were told that the guns were in

  1219
  store. He was very glad that these payments were to be discontinued. The hon. Member for Shipley said he would like to see merchant vessels of the highest speed subsidised by the Admiralty for service in time of war. He had his doubts about the utility of that. It was well known that few steamship lines could employ vessels of 22 or 25 knots; and he believed that those lines which had steamers of a less high speed would offer their services in time of war for the high payment they would then get for them. For his own part he would rather prefer to see the Navy complete in itself, and not dependent on the merchant service either for ships or men.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth that when Lord Spencer went to the Admiralty he found the policy which had been introduced shortly before by Mr. Forwood in the previous Conservative Administration.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he could assure the hon. Member that he applied his observations equally to both Conservative and Liberal Governments.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what really was the particular policy of the Admiralty? In the First Lord's statement, issued with the Navy Estimates, it was said that—
  "Before the current agreement in respect of subsidised merchant cruisers with the various steamship companies expires two years hence, the Board will have to reconsider their policy in respect to ships of no special speed in the light of the Reports of the two Committees already mentioned—"
  viz., the inter-departmental Committee presided over by Lord Camperdown and the Committee of the House of Commons of which the hon. Member for Aston Manor was chairman. But since that statement was made the Admiralty had entered into what was known as the Cunard agreement. They knew that under that agreement the Government were to make large advances to the Cunard Company to build large ships of great speed, and that when the ships were completed the Admiralty were to pay large subsidies for their use in time of war. It was of extreme importance
  1220
  that the hon. Gentleman should tell the Committee what they were to look forward to as the new policy of the Admiralty. Was it to be on the lines of the Cunard agreement?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he wished to emphasise the financial aspect of the case revealed to the House. Here was a naval policy which a good many years ago was decided upon on the advice of experts of very high authority. In pursuance of that policy, year after year, under various Administrations, they had expended large sums of money. Over and over again protests had been made by private Members of the House against that policy. Nevertheless, year after year Ministers of both Parties, supported by experts, who were never wrong, defended that policy; and now in the end they were told that that policy had been altogether mistaken, that all the money had been absolutely thrown away, and that the policy was to be discontinued in the future. How was it that this decision had been arrived at? It had been arrived at by the criticisms of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth, and by the work of private Members sitting on the Shipping Committee; and the final death-blow had been given to it by the Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote. These facts ought not to be lost sight of, because they showed that the criticism of private Members sometimes provoked a useful economy in the public service.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the hon. Member had called this a naval policy; he called it a policy of naval waste. He had protested not only against these subsidies, but against every item in the Naval Estimates. For twelve long years he had protested against one Government and another paying these large sums of money as subsidies to merchant steamers; and he congratulated the hon. Gentleman that he had at last opened his eyes to the naval waste. In these twelve years they had squandered in subsidies about £500,000. [An HON. MEMBER: More.] He always liked to be moderate and put things low, but say £600,000. He did

  1221
  hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty and the First Lord of the Admiralty would no longer so absolutely believe in their naval experts, and that they would look into every item of the Naval Estimates and take off about £10,000,000 per annum, while leaving the Navy quite as efficient.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not concerned to defend the Admiralty of the Government with which he was connected ten years ago, but when they came into office they found the system in existence, and of recent creation. He had given his own impression of what his colleagues thought of it. Allusion had been made by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway and the hon. Member for Northampton to the delusions of naval experts, but he only rose for the purpose of emphasising the question put by the hon. Member for Devonport as to what was the nature of the new policy. They were entitled to know what was the nature of the new policy adumbrated in the First Lord's statement, and also whether the Cunard agreement was to be taken as a type of the new cruiser contract to replace the contract which had been abolished. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give an answer before the Motion was withdrawn.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the Cunard agreement was not now under discussion; but every agreement made with shipowners with regard to subsidies in the future would be on the condition that they would be paid for something in addition to that which the Admiralty could obtain in the ordinary course by a mercantile arrangement. He was not prepared to make any statement as to the terms of future agreements with shipowners.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESaid that before withdrawing his Amendment he might be allowed to express his gratificacation, and also his surprise, that the step which he took with the expectation that he should be called a mutineer had been followed with such satisfactory results. The Admiralty, however, having come to the conclusion to abolish those agreements, found they could not do it for two or three years.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was the same in his time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that all who were connected with the Admiralty were tarred with the same brush; but if the hon. Gentleman opposite when he was at the Admiralty had given notice to terminate those agreements, he himself should not have been obliged to force the Government to accept dictation as to their policy from King's Lynn. Repentance had now followed the evil doing; but he was still afraid. If the Admiralty had made up their minds to give up this policy, they should give up the Cunard and Morgan agreements. He would be compelled to move a reduction later if any new agreement were entered into with the Cunard Company or the Morgan Syndicate on account of speed, as that was now more attainable by the Admiralty themselves. He therefore urged that instead of a day being given to discuss the Cunard and Morgan agreements, the agreements should be abandoned. If not, he could promise the Government would have serious trouble in the future. He was much obliged to his hon. friend for the way in which he had reconsidered his proposal, and he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would now endeavour to make some reply to the many hon. Members who had spoken in regard to this section of Vote 8. He did not propose to reply on the question of general policy which had been raised in almost identical terms on four occasions. He could add nothing to what he had said on those former occasions. His views on the question of an international arrangement were perfectly well known, and as far as his voice was concerned, his hon. friend the Member for Dundee knew the sense in which his opinion would be given. He would confine himself to matters which were strictly germane to that section of the Vote. With regard to the insertion in the

  1223
  Estimates for this year of the contribution in aid by the Colonial Governments, his hon. friend seemed to imply that the Admiralty should be censured.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: At any rate his hon. friend criticised the matter. But he thought the Committee would see that when the representatives of these great colonies had given undertakings in the names of their Governments, so far as they were able to do so, it would have been a grave discourtesy, to say the least of it, on the part of the Board of Admiralty, if they had taken no notice of those undertakings and had made no reference to them in the Estimates for the year. The Admiralty therefore inserted these figures and also a statement, which could leave no doubt as to the conditions on which they appeared, pointing out that in certain cases the contribution was dependent upon the constitutional confirmation of the undertaking of the Prime Minister by the Parliament of the colony concerned. His hon. friend the Member for Gateshead referred to the increase in the amount for repairs; but he thought his hon. friend had indulged, to say the least of it, in a slight exaggeration. His hon. friend said that nearly £1,000,000 of the additional amount required for repairs was due to the policy of putting water-tube boilers into ships. He was not going into the question of water-tube boilers now; but he should like to point out that whereas the whole number of ships with water-tube boilers to be repaired, including three or four small sloops, was only eighteen, the number of ships which had cylindrical boilers was fifty-three. Therefore, it was an exaggeration of a very extreme kind to suggest that the addition to the Repairs Vote was due in any large proportion to repairs to water-tube boilered ships. He thought the Committee ought to be informed of the proportion. He frankly admitted that the amount for repairs was very high indeed, but he was prepared to justify it. The Board of Admiralty had adopted a policy which had already commended itself to the House and the country, of
  1224
  striking a large number of ineffective ships off the Navy List every year. Pari passu with that procedure they had adopted the policy of making every ship which they retained on the List effective for war. He believed they would all agree that it was no use keeping ships on the List if they were not effective for war. Whether certain ships should have been more frequently repaired or not he did not say; but the policy of the present Board of Admiralty was that no ship should be retained on the List which was not prepared to go to war. They had adopted this system of large repairs with a definite object and aim, and they believed that they were within measurable distance of accomplishing it, and that by the end of twelve months from the present date they would have a larger proportion of ships in perfect repair than they had ever possessed before. They would then be in a position to make unhindered progress with the new building programme. Therefore, he did not apologise for the magnitude of the Repairs Vote. The hon. Member for Chester had made a sharp attack on the Admiralty under an entire misapprehension. The hon. Member represented that the Admiralty were lamentably uninformed in regard to what was going on in other countries, and that they required to be told by the newspapers what was taking place in foreign dockyards. There was no foundation for that statement. The hon. Member had called attention to the omission from the Return, which had been presented to the House on the Motion of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, of any of the projected Russian ships. The explanation was perfectly simple. They had followed the precedent which had been followed on previous occasions. Ships were inserted in the List which were actually announced as projected in the way in which such announcements are usually made in constitutional countries, or for which money had been voted, or with which progress had been made. None of those conditions applied to these Russian ships, and for those reasons they were not included. But the Committee must not suppose that the Admiralty were not as well informed as the hon. Member's informant

  1225
  as to what was contemplated in regard to Russian shipbuilding. All the facts and all the rumours to which the hon. Member had referred were perfectly well known to the Board of Admiralty. With regard to the large programme which the hon. Member attributed to Russia, these ships had not been laid down, and he might be certain that when any progress was made the Admiralty would be informed.
  The whole of the ships which were contemplated had been taken into account by the Admiralty in framing the programme which they had submitted to the House. It was conceivable that the programme which they were led to believe was contemplated by Russia might be accelerated in a way they did not anticipate. There might be some great development in the rapidity of Russian shipbuilding, there might be some expansion of the Russian yards—of which at present they saw no signs—which would upset their calculations; but he could assure the hon. Member that the House of Commons would not be left long in ignorance of the fact if such a fact did arise. He could assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth, who had discussed a matter of great importance to his constituents, that the policy of entrusting a large amount of Admiralty work to contractors outside the dockyards was one followed with a full appreciation of the desirability, he might say the necessity, of keeping the royal dockyards full of work. If his hon. friend desired to prove the sincerity of that intention, and the ability of the Admiralty to give effect to that intention, he had only to look at the wages bill in the great dockyards, and especially in that which he represented, to see that there had been no falling off in the activity of the Admiralty in respect of dockyard work. He did not think he need discuss now the question of subsidies raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. If at some future time the hon. Member found it necessary to move further in the matter, he had no doubt there would be some one in his place who would be competent to deal with the subject. He should like to say, in passing, that he did not make the admission which had been attributed to him, that the prede-
  1226
  cessors of the present Board were in error in what they did in this matter. It was, he thought, the inevitable law of naval progress that the time must come for a change of policy. At the time these merchant cruisers were first adopted as part of the Royal Navy they were the fastest ships afloat. Our own cruisers could not have beaten them, nor even have touched them, either in endurance or in speed. There were then no armoured cruisers, or practically none, in existence; but with the improvements in armaments and projectiles, especially in the quick-firing gun, and the use of high explosives, which had been introduced since this policy came into effect, there had been a radical change from the conditions which then existed. It was not, however, his business to deal with that aspect of the case. He only stated the fact to explain the view taken by the present Board of Admiralty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield that it was desirable that everything should be done to meet the convenience of the private trade with regard to armour, and the Admiralty were doing, and in the past two years had done, what they could to meet that convenience. But his hon. friend knew very well that there were conditions which over-rode any desire of that kind, that the course of ship-building was the prevailing factor in the situation, and that they must order the armour with some relation to the building progress. He thought his hon. friend had no reason to complain, because he believed he was correct in saying that the practice of deferring ships in a particular programme for twelve and eighteen months after the date at which they were mentioned in that House had been departed from during the present year, and he thought the Board of Admiralty would make a still further departure from that practice in the coming year. His hon. friend had referred to the delay which had taken place, but he thought he ought to have confined his statement to the armoured cruisers of the "Devonshire" class.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he only referred to what happened last year; he did not make

  1227
  a general statement. He merely said some of the work of the previous year was sixteen months in arrear.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid though there was an initial delay in laying down those ships, he had reason to believe that the rate of progress was now very rapid, and that, barring that initial delay, amounting to two-and-a-half months in some cases, the anticipations which had been formed with regard to the completion of those ships would be realised. Before he concluded his remarks he would like to mention that there was a slight alteration in the Naval Programme as announced to the House. A small sum, £17,000, was taken in the original programme for building three third-class cruisers. The Board of Admiralty, in view of the experiments—and they were experiments—which were being made with the new scouts, preferred to postpone the commencement of these three ships and to and to devote that small sum of money to accelerating other work, reserving to themselves the decision of whether this particular design should be completed in the light of the experience they hoped to gain.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that he (Sir William) had exaggerated. If that were so he could not help it as the Estimates appeared to be quite plain. He would, however, clear up the matter from the Estimates. The increase in the repairs, if the amount for the armour was deducted in the two items for 1902–3, and for this year, would be found to be £1,000,663. Therefore it could not be said that his statement was an exaggeration.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had not, so far as he had seen, replied to the question of whether it would be advisable in place of one naval attaché for Rome and St. Petersburg to have one in each country, having regard to the announcements that had been made in the House that Russia was building ships in excess of her published programme. He thought
  1228
  such a change would be of great benefit to this country. Another omission of his hon. friend was that he had dealt in only a single sentence with the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gateshead, who had for the last two years steadfastly retrained from repeating the allegations which he had made for the last eight years as to the policy of the Admiralty of boilering the fleet. The reason he had refrained from referring, to that well-worn subject was that he desired the Admiralty to have the experience of all the experiments of the Boiler Committee. What had been the conduct of the Admiralty in regard to the recommendations of their own Boiler Committee? Those recommendations might be summed up in a single sentence. They were that the Admiralty should seek to find an efficient water-tube boiler by investigations and experiments. What had they done? Every new ship, first-class battleship, cruiser and vessel of smaller size, had been fitted as a matter of course with water-tube boilers of one kind or another, and to-day there was not a ship under design at the Admiralty or under construction in the dockyards or in private yards that was not for the most part fitted with this type of boiler. Having regard to the history of the boiler question, and having regard to the fact that Lord Goschen appointed the Boiler Committee, he thought more respect should have been paid to the recommendations of the Committee.
  The matter could not be dismissed by a mere allusion to the reiterated statements of the hon. Member for Gateshead, while the Admiralty continued to fit His Majesty's ships, as a matter of course, with this type of boiler. The hon. Member had attempted to defend the policy of the Admiralty in connection with the "Hyacinth." The matter of thirty-eight minutes referred to might be important in strategy, but, in his opinion, endurance, reliability, and increased range were much more important. At one having responsibility in similar matters, he was convinced that the Admiralty were pursuing a foolish and dangerous policy in boilering new ships with a type of boiler of which the experience had been very unfavourable. The reasons urged in favour of such

  1229
  boilers were mainly considerations of weight, and the increase of offensive and defensive power made possible upon a given displacement by reason of the saving in weight. But the fact that these boilers were less economical with coal completely disposed of those reasons, because the extra coal required was at least equivalent to the saving of weight in the boilers. The Admiralty, when they determined a year or so ago to fit new vessels with one-fifth of the old and well-known type of boiler, and four-fifths of these new, and comparatively experimental, boilers, took a step in the right direction, but they had not gone far enough. He pleaded with the Government to consider whether they had really given effect, in letter and in spirit, to the recommendations of the Boiler Committee, those recommendations being substantially to the effect that the Admiralty should hold their hands before irrevocably committing His Majesty's ships to propulsion by boilers which had hitherto not proved themselves capable of the necessary endurance.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the policy laid down by the Secretary to the Admiralty, of at once clearing off the 1st all obsolete ships, and bringing the remainder up to an efficient condition for war, was one with which they all cordially agreed. A single glance at the Estimates, however, revealed the fact that there had been an enormous increase in the expenditure for repairs, most only in the Government yards, but also in the yards of outside contractors. Under Section E last year the amount voted for repairs in contractors' yards was £175,000, this year it had increased to £722,000. As he had before stated, the Admiralty had pursued a very wise policy in regard to ships built by contract in insisting that they should be finished at the contractor's yard, instead of being brought round to the dockyards, as was the old practice—a course which occasioned a great waste both of time and money. With regard to the repairs, he desired to direct attention to the principle on which the Admiralty were working. The working basis was that, when these ships were sent to the
  1230
  contractor's yard for repairs, no contract price was asked for, but the Admiralty guaranteed a profit of 20 per cent. for wear-and-tear expenses, and, in addition, a clear profit of 10 per cent. to the contractor. He did not now intend to argue whether the 10 per cent. or the 20 per cent. was excessive or not, but he wished to emphasise the fact that in this new departure of sending ships in such numbers to contractors for repairs the Government should adhere to the policy that they had exercised in their own dockyards for so many years—viz., that, prior to any repair being undertaken an estimate was asked for and was expected to be adhered to, and in the majority of cases the estimate was not exceeded. He was informed that the policy in the contract yards was altogether different, and he thought they ought to have an assurance from the Government that they would insist on contractors giving estimates in the same way as their own yards. There had been rather a newspaper agitation on behalf of contractors with a view to inducing a great proportion of work to go their way instead of to the dockyards. Aspersions had been cast upon the quality and quantity of work turned out in the Royal yards, and suggesting that the Admiralty sent work to contractors' yards because they could get better results and at better prices. He denied that, but he would like to have the opinion of the Secretary to the Admiralty on the point. Was it a fact that the quality, quantity, and price of the work was inferior in any shape or form to that produced by contract work?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not concerned to reply to anonymous criticisms of which he had not before heard. The Admiralty were satisfied with the work of the Royal Dockyards, and every effort was being made to keep it up to the high standard of the past. The system of sending ships for repairs to contractors' yards had become necessary, because it was not possible, with advantage to the service, to repair all the ships in the dockyards. The practice of proceeding on a schedule of prices greatly commended itself to the Admiralty. He

  1231
  believed that nothing would be gained, but that a great deal would be lost, by insisting on prices being given in every case where a ship was sent to a contractor's yard for repairs. It was true that provisional estimates were given in the dock yards, but it was also true that if those estimates were exceeded or not attained nothing happened. The ships had to be repaired, and there was no question of profit or loss, although it was desirable, of course, to keep the work as close to the estimate as possible. A contractor was not in a position to make an accurate estimate as to the amount of repairs a ship required. Looking at the outside of the ship, he could not tell the nature of the work that would have to be undertaken. So self-evident was this proposition that it had commended itself to a large proportion of the mercantile firms of the country, and the Admiralty were working on precisely the same terms as were agreed to by the mercantile firms who entered into business arrangements with the same yards. In face of that fact, the hon. Member could hardly sustain the proposition that by adopting this course, which had the approval of expert authorities, and presented the great advantage that it eased the pressure on the dockyards, the Admiralty were losing money and being cheated in a manner which private firms were not. On the contrary, the Admiralty believed they were getting value for their money, and greatly helping the service of the country.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he did not say there was any question of cheating; he merely contended that it was not business to spend money in that way.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would withdraw the word "cheating". But if it were not a business-like course to pursue, firms which had to strike a profit or loss on the year's trading certainly would not adopt it. In this case the Admiralty were simply doing what had so often been urged upon them—viz., that they should follow the lines adopted by persons working for commercial profit.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £3,206,100, Naval Armaments.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASreminded the Secretary to the Admiralty of the point to which he drew his attention sometime ago, and that was the desirability of putting a number of hired men in the gun wharf on the establishment. The matter was not a large one, as there were only a few whom the concession would affect, but the principle involved was an important one.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that the Admiralty were at the present moment engaged in a very careful inquiry into the question, but he was not at present able to let him know the result of it.
  3. £69,400, Scientific Services.
  4. £116,400, for Educational Services.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid there was another case to which he had frequently drawn the attention of his hon. friend—viz., the case of the schoolmasters. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would take the opportunity of stating when he was likely to be able to give the House any information on the decision the Admiralty had come to.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERfeared that he could not give his hon. friend any information about the schoolmasters.
  5. £297,500, Royal Naval Reserves.
  6. £409,500, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASasked what happened in the case of a naval disaster like the "Condor" and "Cobia," and what compensation was paid to men for loss of kit and private property.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that if the losses of officers and men were sustained while on duty all the equipment necessary to enable the losers to re-equip themselves for the service was replaced, but in cases where the articles were not necessary they were expected to make their own insurance in regard to them.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he noticed the usual element of extravagance extended to this Vote also. What was the necessity for an increase of £41,000 in this Vote, which was an increase of 10 per cent?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member's suspicions were not well founded, because the increase was due to a transfer of items from other Votes. The item for travelling expenses of civil and military officers had been transferred to this Vote, where it did not appear last year.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there was in this Vote an appropriation in aid from the Australian Commonwealth. He wished to know if since this subject was last before the Committee any decision had been come to in regard to this matter by the Australian Commonwealth. Upon a previous occasion he called attention to the fact that the insertion in the Naval Estimates of these colonial appropriations in aid of Naval expenditure were purely fictitious. No definite binding agreement had been come to with Australia, and yet they found in the various Votes these appropriations in aid definitely credited to the benefit of the British Admiralty. So far as he was aware the Australian Commonwealth had never entered into any agreement upon this point.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was sorry the hon. Member was not present when he dealt with this question. The statement which the hon. Member thought ought to be inserted appeared on the Estimates. In answer to the hon. Member for Dundee he had explained the reasons which induced the Board of Admiralty to insert these sums in the Estimates for the current year. The reason was that it might have been thought discourteous to the Colonial Premiers who had given these undertakings if they made no reference to the matter in the Naval Estimates.
  7. £306,400, Admiralty Office.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he should like an explanation of the increase in this Vote. He should like an explanation of the item of £116,000 for travelling expenses.
  1234
  There was also an increase of £23,000 in the department of the Controller of the Navy, or altogether a net increase of about £30,000. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would explain why the travelling expenses dropped out this year, and why the expenditure in the department of the Controller had been increased by £23,000. That was a substantial increase, amounting to nearly 10 per cent.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he should have thought that an explanation in regard to the travelling expenses was quite unnecessary, because he had already pointed out that those expenses had been transferred to Vote 11, and therefore they could not appear on both Votes. He admitted that the increase in the Controller's department was substantial. The increase of the work undertaken by the Controller to the Navy had been gigantic, and the hon. Member himself, who was constantly complaining of the increase, was the best witness to that fact. The manipulation of these large sums of money and their proper allocation could not be satisfactorily supervised except by a competent staff. Considering the vast amount of work which had been put upon the Controller of the Admiralty he thought his staff was still inadequate for the work.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if this great increase in the work was due to the new policy of doing so much work by contract. He was inclined to think that this new policy had entailed the creation of a new and very expensive sub-department of the Admiralty.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not think that was quite a justifiable statement, for this was not a new department, but simply an extension of the Controller's office. A large amount of additional work had to be done, and the Admiralty had to decide whether that work could be done at the Government dockyards. It was found necessary to transfer the work to the contractors. He believed that every officer in the Admiralty would bear him out when he said that they had effected considerable economy by taking this course by relieving the congestion of the dockyards, and, besides this, the work would be done in a shorter time.

  1235
  He would remind the hon. Member that there was nothing peculiar about this matter. There had always been a staff in connexion with the contract yards to supervise the building of ships. With the extension of that system to contract yards for repairing ships, it had become necessary to increase the staff of the Department. This was not the sole reason for the increase, because there had been an increase of the work all round.
  MR. LOUGHsaid they were glad to receive that explanation. These Committees never recommended economy in any shape or form. Their inquiries always led to some additional expenditure. It had been shown in the discussion that the Admiralty were giving out a great deal more on contract than before, and that was the reason why this additional expense was being incurred.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A portion of it.
  MR. LOUGH: Well, a portion of it. Probably within the next year or two more work would be done in the dockyards and less given out on contract. He asked whether this was to be a permanent increase of expenditure, or whether there was any elasticity about it. At a time when it was necessary to give out £3,000,000 more work on contract than formerly it was quite reasonable that there should be £20,000 more spent on the supervision of the work, but supposing this policy should be changed, and that it should become unnecessary to give out so much, had any arrangement been made by which a saving could be effected? He thought the expenses of public Departments formed an element in the general extravagance of the country which they should look after very closely.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that if a great change of policy took place in the future there would be no difficulty in reducing the staff employed in connection with the contract yards.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to make a suggestion. He thought it would be advisable not to
  1236
  press on the Report Stage of these Votes at once, because he understood that something was to be said by the First Lord which they ought to have an opportunity of discussing.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that neither the hon. Member nor himself had any right to anticipate what the First Lord would say. He did not quite recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's reason for the suggestion he had made, but, if it was desired, the Report Stage might be allowed to remain over for a little.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    8. £13,869, to complete the sum for Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, etc., Office.
    9. £15,312, to complete the sum for Charity Commission.

    CLASS III.
    10. £116,635, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    11. £21,521, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

    CLASS VII.
    12. £27,000, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
    13. £14,261, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.
    14. £19,359, Repayments to the Local Loans Fund.
    15. £30,000, St. Louis Exhibition, 1904.

    CLASS II.
    16. £9, to complete the sum for Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
    17. £10,061, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, England.
    18. £16, to complete the sum for The Mint, including Coinage.
    19. £7,493, to complete the sum for National Debt Office.
    20. £14,158, to complete the sum for Public Record Office.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY [22ND APRIL] REPORT.
  Order read, for further consideration of Resolution [22nd April], "That a sum, not exceeding £139,395, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant-in-Aid."
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he wished to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, in order to draw attention to the attitude taken by the President of the Board of Trade towards complaints made of railway rates by traders. He understood that the Board of Trade were perfectly willing to give assistance to individual traders when they came with complaints of rates being unfair or prejudicial in relation to the rates of carriage of foreign produce imported from abroad, or that the rates in particular districts were too high as compared with the rates in other districts; but it was not possible for small traders, and he spoke especially in the interests of farmers, men who lived in isolated districts, to undertake the investigation, and to show how they were prejudiced by the inequality of rates, or the preference given to foreign importers. Take the case of the Great Western Railway, with which he was best acquainted. The rate for certain goods from Paddington to Bristol was as high as the rate from Paddington to Exeter, which was nearly double the distance. The higher rate was charged to Bristol because there was no competition, and until a new railway was made the Bristol traders were bound to suffer. Farmers living only six or seven miles
  1238
  from Bristol were charged 3s. 4d. per ton for carriage of oil cake, while grain was charged only 2s. 6d. per ton, and if two tons of cake and two tons of wheat or oats were sent in one consignment the higher rate of 3s. 4d. was charged for the whole four tons. When complaint was made to the railway company the answer was—
  "If you don't like it you can cart the cake from Bristol."
  Again, the Great Western Railway charged 1s. 5d. for a cwt. of agricultural produce carried thirty miles, and under similar conditions the Great Eastern Company only charged 9d. The late Mr. Hanbury, as representing the Board of Agriculture, expressed the sympathy of that Department with the complaints of agriculturists in this matter, and he was glad to learn from a speech made by Lord Onslow that he was prepared to follow in Mr. Hanbury's footsteps. But the Board of Trade was particularly concerned, and he asked that that Department should collect information as to rates and codify the rates to show where and how they pressed most unfairly upon small traders and producers, so that a redress of their grievances might be arrived at. To put it in a nutshell, what he asked the President of the Board of Trade was to do this. To collect and compare the railway rates for agricultural produce over the entire railways of Great Britain. This would enable the producer to see where he was unfairly treated. It was impossible for traders such as farmers to do this for themselves. They were unable from their isolated and scattered condition to unite and protect themselves as other traders did. He was only asking the President of the Board of Trade to do what Mr. Hanbury was pressing upon him at the time of his death to do for agriculturists.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£139,395,' and insert '£139,295.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That '£139,395' stand part of the said Resolution."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said he thoroughly understood the interest which the hon. Member took in this question, an interest which was felt by many Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the Board of Trade were not willing to help him on this question, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade were not only quite willing, but anxious in every way to give assistance to put an end to such anomalies as the hon. Member had mentioned. The Board would investigate any complaint, whether made by an individual or a representative body, and, as a matter of fact, such complaints had been investigated, and redress obtained by means of the conciliation powers conferred by the Act. It was, of course, common talk that unfair rates were charged upon foreign produce coming by sea as against inland produce, but in no case, since he had been connected with the Board of Trade, had this been substantiated entirely. A large consignment to one station cost less in the handling and carriage than small quantities delivered at different stations. He could not promise that the Board of Trade would undertake the general inquiry asked for by the hon. Member, and examine all the rate books of the different railway companies to see where there were unfair rates. He was bound to say that he did not see how that could be possibly done. Years might be spent in investigation of rate books,
  1240
  and still no definite result would be arrived at. Redress could only be secured by the individual trader bringing his own particular grievance to the Board of Trade, and asking them to go into the matter, when he was sure they would do their best to have it remedied.
  He did not believe that the means suggested by the hon. Member would be effective; and all he thought the House should ask the Board of Trade to do was that where means were available, they should use them in order to remove grievances of the character stated by the hon. Gentleman. That was what the Board of Trade were now doing, and what the Board of Trade were most anxious to do. The Board did not ask that the injustice should be proved. All they asked was that where a person thought a rate was unfair, he should send them a statement of what he thought the unfairness consisted of. The Board would go into the matter, and if they found an injustice existed, they would do their best to remedy it. Anything more, in existing circumstances, could not be done by the Department; and he could assure the House that, within their powers, the Board of Trade were only too anxious to assist the traders of the country.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the subject which had been raised by his hon. friend was one in which he had taken a profound interest. He was very dissatisfied with what had been said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman seemed to disclaim any right or duty on the part of the Board of Trade to enter into a general survey of the unfairness of railway rates. He understood from his late friend Mr. Hanbury

  1241
  that he had laid a large number of complaints before the Board of Trade. What he himself wished to urge on the Board of Trade was that individual agriculturists were placed in a position of very great difficulty; and were unable to obtain the comparative rates which would enable them to establish their case except at great expense. They had a right to complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman handled that particular difficulty.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he distinctly stated that all the Board required was that where a trader considered a rate to be unfair, he should communicate with the Board, and the Board themselves would make the necessary inquiries.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid that the hon. Gentleman had disclaimed any duty or responsibility to enter into the comparative justice of various rates.
  MR. BONAR LAWdissented.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he was glad the hon. Gentleman dissented; but that was the view conveyed by his speech. He shared the hon. Gentleman's admiration of the late Mr. Hanbury's idea of
  starting associations which would formulate complaints of a more general character; but that was now rather a matter of hope than of reality. At present, when complaints were made to the Board of Trade nothing came of them; and that was due to a great extent to the costliness of the procedure.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that there was absolutely no cost on the trader, except that involved in sending a letter to the Board.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he had had to deal with many Presidents of the Board of Trade, and he knew what he was talking about. Traders generally had not received that support from the Board of Trade which they might reasonably have expected. He was glad his hon. friend had entered his protest against the inactivity of the Board, which he knew was somewhat warmly resented by the late President of the Board of Agriculture; and he hoped his hon. friend would proceed to a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 137).

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doughty, George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Austin, Sir John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Bignold, Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

  Flower, Ernest

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Forster, Henry William

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Garfit, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr. H'ml'ts

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

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

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hain, Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  M'Arthur, Charles, (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Spear, John Ward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., Bt'side.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Ed. M.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Randles John S.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks, N. R.)

  Renwick, George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  O'Doherty, William

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sir Edward Strachey and

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Mr. Channing.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Motion made, and question, "That this House do not adjourn"—(Sir A. Acland-Hood)—put, and agreed to.

  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes before Seven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Pentillie Estate Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Blackheath and Greenwich District Electric Light Bill. Reported without Amendment.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill; Grindleford, Baslow, and Bakewell Railway Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
East Ham Improvement Bill. 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:
1126
The orders made on the 16th of June and Monday last discharged, and Bill committed.
Nelson Corporation Bill; Hampton Court Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1; and referred to the Examiners.
King's College, London, Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Seunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ipswich Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway Bill; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill; North Eastern Railway Bill; Wolverhampton and Cannock, Chase Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Wood Green Urban District Council Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Abinger be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Berwick; read, and agreed to.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
City and South London Railway Bill; The consent of the Prince of Wales signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; House in Committee (according to Order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14.) Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Lanarkshire Tramways was presented by the Lord Balfour (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 153.)

PETITIONS.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against: of Society of Advocates in Aberdeen. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of Roman Catholics in St. John's Institution, Boston Spa, Yorkshire; Coventry; Princethorpe; Southam; Solihull; Eccleshall; Convent of Poor Clares, Levenshulme, Manchester; Greenwich. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of 25th June, 1903, entitled "The Swaziland Order in Council, 1903."
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  Accounts presented of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1902, and of the sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUE.
  Eighty-first Report of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, for the year 1902–1903.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Order in Council altering the scale set out in the Second Schedule to the above Act, for the purpose of the levying of light dues, in pursuance of such Act.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1902–1903 (with appendices.)
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TREATY SERIES No. 9 (1903).
  Convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands regulating the allowances to witnesses in fishery cases; signed at the Hague, 26th April, 1902 (ratifications exchanged at the Hague, 22nd May, 1903).
  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
  Report of the Director to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1902.

  MINT.
  Thirty-third Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1902.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 25th June, 1903, authorising the Corporation of Trinity House to appoint sub-commissioners for the examination of pilots for certain ports in the County of Cumberland.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *LORD MUSKERRY: Your Lordships will be fully aware from the Memorandum appended to this Bill that its object is to restrict the commanding and officering of British ships to British subjects, and also to put an end to the practice of granting certificates for British pilotage waters to aliens. Since I last introduced this measure, or a somewhat similar Bill, under the title of the "Certificates Bill," important developments have arisen which have more than ever convinced me—and which, I trust, will convince your Lordships—that the important principles which it embodies should now be accepted by the Legislature. It is, of course, not unusual for me to find that in my efforts to promote the interests of our merchant service as a whole—not only in regard to our mariners, but in regard to our shipowners—I meet with the stubborn opposition of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, and I do not presume that anything to the contrary will be the case this afternoon. I should like, however, with your Lordships' permission, to touch briefly on the arguments which were used by the then representative of the Board of Trade, my noble friend Lord Dudley, as against my previous efforts in connection with this measure.
  Your Lordships were informed that this was the thin end of the wedge, and that the Bill meant protection pure and simple. But I do not for one moment consider that either protection or free trade can be considered in connection with what, after all, is the defence of our country, and the source of our supplies in case of future conflicts with other nations. If my noble friend Lord Dudley meant that the Bill was a protection for British captains and officers and to British ships carrying foodstuffs in time of war, I cordially agree with him. Your Lordships were told that it was a return to the old navigation laws which were repealed fifty years ago. We have gained a good deal of experience in that time, sufficient to know that some of those laws contained wise provisions. Shipowners, so far as I can gather, are unanimous as to the present Merchant Shipping Act being obsolete, even though
  1130
  I was informed by my noble friend that he did not think it could be legitimately argued or urged that clauses which Parliament had inserted in a Bill in 1894 had already become antiquated and out of date. As a matter of fact, however, the Merchant Shipping Acts were introduced about the year 1854, and the Act of 1894 is simply a consolidation of the Acts for the convenience of all concerned.
  We were also informed that the Bill would be a source of inconvenience to British shipowners possessing vessels trading between foreign ports. My noble friend went on to point as an example to a British vessel trading between, say, Genoa and Brindisi, calling at the intermediate ports, showing how much more easy it would be for the shipowner to employ Italians, who would know the language and customs of the country. But, my Lords, it is a matter of common knowledge that no such trade could be carried on with a British vessel owing to the simple fact that, as with practically all other Maritime Powers, Italy reserves her coasting trade to her own vessels. We were also informed that the captains and officers of merchant vessels could not be drawn upon for Naval purposes in time of war; but it must not be forgotten that even our Navy was an offspring of our merchant service, and, as our men of the merchant service rendered yeoman service to their country in time of old, they are equally capable and ready now. Their magnificent work in the transport service is a perfectly sufficient illustration of this.
  It may be argued that, as times have changed in the Navy, so also have they changed in our merchant service, which even yet is second to none for its magnificence and its efficiency. But I would ask what would be the effect on our merchant service were it denuded in time of war—as it most certainly would be—of the 25,000 men and 1,900 officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who serve in our merchant ships? I emphasise, what would be the effect, when already we have such an alarming percentage of foreigners in the service? I would also point to the 100 gentlemen of the Royal Navy who are on the supplementary list, and who, on the authority of a distinguished Member of this House, have proved an unqualified success. They have shown of what quality for naval purposes are our

  1131
  captains and officers of the mercantile marine. The Report of the Naval Reserves Committee states that—
  "The Committee do not overlook the importance, both as regards naval and other considerations, of securing that as large a proportion as possible of the crews of merchant ships shall be of British nationality."
  and that—
  "The mercantile marine is, and should continue to be, a valuable source from which to draw a portion of the Naval Reserve."
  and—
  "The present mode of supplying a reserve of executive officers is satisfactory, except that a weeding of the list of Royal Naval Reserve Officers and an extension of numbers are required."
  Then, my Lords, there was advanced the argument of retaliation by other Powers. I think that is a most cowardly argument, and had it been used and acted upon in olden days England would never have been the Power she is. I would point out that the other Powers cannot retaliate, for they have long adopted the principles of the Bill now before your Lordships, and will have none to command and officer their ships but their own subjects. There they show their wisdom, but they have no Boards of Trade and no Marine Department of that body. It is not for other Powers to retaliate, but for the British Government to support and encourage our mercantile marine and to see that our seamen are not robbed of their birthright by foreigners. My noble friend, Lord Dudley, said that what your Lordships all desired to see would be the employment of as many British subjects as possible in British ships. I cordially agree, and this would be a step—an important step—in the right direction.
  I hope to make my remarks in the briefest possible form, not desiring to unduly detain your Lordships. Therefore, with your permission, I will simply touch upon the principal important developments which have arisen since this Bill was last introduced into this House. I believe, from the latest official Returns, that there are 592 alien captains and officers in our merchant service. I will be told by my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade that the number has diminished since the issue of the previous Returns.
  1132
  I do not deny the fact, but with the great number of foreign seamen in our ships there may at any time be a large number obtaining certificates as masters or mates of British ships. Also there are certain signs of the times which undoubtedly point to the fact that, unless measures are now taken to prevent it, many aliens will eventually become certificated to act in British ships. I understand, on very excellent authority, that there are certain English ships, particularly those which have been in Continental ports, which now carry foreign apprentices, paying a premium for their training, and as some proof of this I might draw your attention to the Board of Trade Inquiry into the stranding of the "Foxglove," where it came out in evidence that she was carrying two foreign boys as apprentices. I have a letter here addressed by the manager of the Sailors' Home at one of our largest shipping ports to a British shipmaster, stating that the Danish Consul had asked him (the manager) to assist in getting three of his training-ship boys on board a British sailing vessel. I do not know whether it is the duty of a manager, such as I have mentioned, to co-operate in this way but I am not inclined to think that it is to the benefit of our own seamen.
  There has been much talk about the Shipping Combine, and although the Government have, as they say, entered into an agreement requiring the ships of this American concern to carry British officers, it is just as well that we should not live in a fool's paradise. Therefore, I should like to call your attention to what Mr. Griscom, President of the American line, says about this International Mercantile Marine Company, as it is called. He says—
  "If the President and Congress will meet the indisputable economic facts by legislation, it is not too late to hope that a fair portion of the steamers hereafter required by the new company will be built in the United States, manned and officered by Americans, and become part of the National Naval Reserve."
  Therefore, I say that, whilst it is a serious thing that no less than 592 aliens command and officer British ships to the exclusion of our own subjects, everything points at the present moment to a considerable increase of aliens obtaining British certificates. We have

  1133
  at present a Royal Commission deliberating upon the immigration of aliens into this country, and the serious consequence thereof. It is not for me to foretell what will be the result of their deliberations, although I do not think that there is much difference of opinion as to how this country suffers by reason of its being invaded by the scum of other nations.
  From the Report of the Naval Reserves Committee it appears that in the year 1857 there were 96,914 petty officers and sailors British subjects; whilst in 1901 there were only 44,290, or a reduction of over 50 per cent. I find also that the percentage of foreigners in the foreign trade has increased from 20 per cent. in 1891 to 26 per cent. in 1901; whilst in foreign-going sailing vessels the percentage of foreign seamen went up from 39 per cent. in 1891 to 45 per cent. in 1896, and to no less than over 52 per cent. in 1901. These are alarming figures. With what I have paid in regard to a promised invasion of, for instance, Americans, as certificated captains and officers of British ships, it is somewhat significant that on the American Combine being initiated particulars are to hand as to the establishment of a nautical preparatory school conducted under the principles of the navigation laws of the United States She is to be a 3,000-ton vessel of the most advanced type of steel construction, with twenty-five officers. The number of pupils is to be limited to 250, and the object is distinctly to train up officers for service in vessels owned by Americans, in which, of course, may be included the American Combine. It is not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that these officers may supplant our own subjects in these ships in time to come, unless your Lordships take steps to prevent it now. All other maritime Powers, with the exception of Japan, stipulate that the executive of their ships shall consist solely of their own subjects, and I may say that even Japan would follow suit were it not that she has not an adequate supply to meet the demand of her ships; although I understand that in the largest merchant fleet belonging to Japan they have in each of their ships at least one Japanese officer.
  1134
  Let me illustrate to your Lordships how the attitude of this country in the matter affects some of our most deserving subjects. It is not very long ago that the Scottish Oriental Steamship Company, Limited, with a fleet of fifteen steamers, was sold to the Germans. Within fourteen months, all the Britishers who had served for some considerable time in the fleet had notice to leave, and very shortly after they were wholly replaced by German subjects. Questioned before the Subsidies Committee as to the immediate effects of the transfer of a British Line, Mr. Norman Hill, Secretary to the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, referred to two lines carrying exclusively English captains and officers. He said—
  "When the lines were taken over the Englishmen on board consisted of twenty-four captains, forty-eight officers, and seventy-two engineers. Of these, sixteen captains, forty-three officers, and fifty-eight engineers have been displaced by foreigners, and the owners of the vessels stated in their report that they hoped shortly that all the other Englishmen would be displaced."
  The percentage of aliens in our merchant service is no less than 26 per cent., and, therefore, there is no wonder that the President of the Board of Trade describes it as—
  "A blot on the record of our merchant service, and a state of things which none of us could view with satisfaction."
  A percentage of 26 per cent. is sufficiently alarming in itself, but the condition of affairs is still worse when we know that it is principally in what are termed "tramp" steamers and sailing ships—which form by far the largest proportion of the service — that these foreigners exist. In most of our leading lines you will find the British seaman wholly and solely; but go to the "tramps" and sailing ships, and you will find that the percentage of foreigners amongst their crews would approximate, I am safe in saying, to considerably over 50 per cent. Many of our large steamers' crews are composed of Greeks, Arabs—in fact, of any but British seamen. A gentleman writes that he has been in conversation with one of the crew of a certain vessel, and was informed that the only Englishmen in the ship were the engineers and donkey men, the master, both officers,

  1135
  and all other members of the crew being aliens. I would also quote the following paragraph from a paper by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Glasgow, addressed to the Chairman of the Subsidies Committee—
  "The directors take this opportunity of adverting to the fact that at present there is no security that ships flying the British flag are really British ships, as they may be owned and manned by foreigners, and they suggest that vessels flying the British flag should at least be officered by British subjects and have a preponderating British ownership."
  It is only a year or two back, when the proportion of foreigners was even less than it is now, that the then President of the Board of Trade ventilated his opinions in another place as follows:—
  "Take, for instance, the question of war—the question of a war where the Naval Reserves were called out—that would be to deplete the British ships of British seamen, and instead of being partially manned by foreigners they would, under existing circumstances, be altogether manned by foreigners. That, I think, is a matter for very great regret, and if any suggestion can be made to remedy that state of things, or to endeavour to remedy that state of things, which the whole House regrets, then the House would do wrong not to consider any suggestion that might be made."
  I have read an important letter addressed to The Times by Admiral Sir John Hay, who, in speaking of the Navy, says—
  "We have no doubt seamen and mariners of the finest quality in sufficient numbers to man our present ships, but we have absolutely no reserve, and the mercantile marine trains no men for the Navy beyond the Naval Reserve which would be wanted for the Navy on the opening of a naval campaign. The 50,000 foreigners whom our mercantile marine train would have to leave it on the outbreak of war, as subjects of belligerents or neutrals, and there are no British seamen to take their place."
  I feel, therefore, that I have sufficiently indicated to your Lordships, not merely by my own opinions, but by the statements of great authorities, the weight of which we cannot deny, the strength of my case. I say that the vessels upon which the food supplies of this country mainly depend—I refer to what are known as "tramp" vessels and sailing ships—are manned chiefly by aliens, and if we are to protect these food supplies it seems utter folly for us to allow the ships conveying them to be commanded and officered by aliens, who, whilst sailing under the
  1136
  protection of the British flag, could transfer to our enemies immense cargoes of, perhaps, grain, of which this country might be in dire need.
  I have always had to contend with the strongest opposition on the part of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to my efforts in connection with this Bill, and therefore I feel some degree of satisfaction when I know that His Majesty's Government have now practically adopted the principle of the Bill. After the flutter in the dove-cote which was caused by the transfer holus-bolus of great lines of British ships to American ownership, the Board of Trade were forced to realise—as usual, too late—what our shipping trade was likely to come to. We find the Government actually lending money for the construction of two new vessels for the Cunard Line, at an interest of 2¾ per cent. per annum, and from the time the new vessels commence to run the Government are to pay the Cunard Line at the rate of £150,000 per annum, instead of the present Admiralty subvention. Though there was really not very much cause for it in connection with the Cunard Line, which employs none but British subjects, His Majesty's Government, in their agreement, stipulate that the Company shall remain in every respect a British Company, managed by British directors, and—I emphasise this particularly at the moment—to be officered by British officers. We then turn to the agreement with the Atlantic Shipping Combine—it is called the "Atlantic Shipping Combine," although I may state, for your Lordships' information, that somewhere about 40 per cent. of the tonnage of this concern is employed in purely British trade between this country and her colonies. The agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Combine is to the effect that for thirty years every ship now flying the British flag, and that half the ships hereafter to be built for the Combination, shall continue to be British ships, and shall continue to fly the British flag; that they shall be officered by British officers, and manned in reasonable proportion by British crews.
  Turning away for a moment from His Majesty's Government, I come to the

  1137
  Report of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies, wherein the following important recommendation is made—
  "That on subsidised vessels the captain, officers, and a proportion of the crew ought to be British subjects."
  In my Bill I go a step farther than this in ensuring that, for instance, vessels carrying large quantities of food supplies for the country—such as "tramp" steamers and sailing ships—should also be officered by British subjects. Mr. W. R. Lawson, in a powerful article contributed to the Contemporary Review, says that—
  "Apparently we have missed our chance of nationalising the railways of the country, but the merchant marine is still available; with better reason the nationalising idea may one day seize on it. We have at a single step—as shown in the Cunard agreement—advanced from our old Free Trade standpoint to the acceptance of special relations between the State and shipping companies. It is a pregnant idea and may be destined to influence strongly the commercial history of our generation."
  Admiral Sir E. R. Fremantle in an article contributed to the "National Review" refers to the White Star Line, one of the constituent parts of the Combine, being the great supporter of the Naval Reserve—and they deserve every commendation for it. Admiral Fremantle, however, shows that—
  "Notwithstanding the pledges given by the White Star Line specially to the nation in making a point of manning their ships by the Naval Reserve, there does not appear to be any arrangement made as to their future. Yet it will be very hard on these men to be obliged to choose between their nationality and Naval Reserve retainer and become American citizens, or be thrown out of employment and probably ruined, if they remain British subjects. How little of patriotism—'of the public good, the good of others'—lies in this neglect."
  With your Lordships' permission I will now turn to an additional important provision which I have inserted in the Bill, to limit the granting of pilotage certificates for British waters to British subjects. That granting these certificates to aliens is a pernicious practice is so palpable that it should hardly require me to advance arguments. So far as I can gather, it is not only a general but emphatic opinion—with the exception of the Board of Trade—that this granting of pilotage certificates to foreigners is a very serious matter. The following resolution was
  1138
  passed at the last Annual Conference of the United Kingdom Pilots' Association—
  "Resolved—that this Conference views with considerable alarm the steadily increasing number of pilotage certificates granted to aliens, which impoverishes the native pilot and gives to foreign ships an advantage over our own. We would respectfully urge Parliament to take immediate steps to abolish a system which must be fraught with danger to the nation."
  It is regrettable that the authorities should give facilities to aliens to study and become familiar with the intricate navigation of our home waters. I understand that in the year 1888 there were about thirty-five aliens holding these pilotage certificates; the number of aliens with such certificates now approaches 100, and they are acting at ports pretty well all round our coasts. A month or two ago the President of the Board of Trade received a deputation from the pilots of the United Kingdom on this matter. This deputation was headed by Sir John Puleston, Lord Claude Hamilton, Sir R. Penrose Fitzgerald, M.P., Major Seely, M.P., Alderman Joyce, M.P., and Lieut-Colonel Evan Llewellyn, M.P. Sir John Puleston informed the President that over 100 Members of Parliament would have attended had it been necessary to trouble him with so large a deputation. The President of the Board of Trade, in replying to the deputation, proposed to communicate with the Admiralty asking their views with respect to the alleged national danger from the granting of pilotage certificates to aliens. I shall be interested to learn from my noble friend, the representative of the Board of Trade, as to what the opinions of the Admiralty are. The President of the Board of Trade also stated that he felt it to be a strong argument that no reciprocal advantages were given in this direction of pilotage certificates by other countries. Before the Parliamentary Select Committee which sat in 1888, the view of the national danger of aliens being granted pilotage certificates was supported with unanimity by the Trinity Houses of London and Hull and by other witnesses, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will coincide with the opinion of the country by supporting the clause in my Bill.
  I have also introduced a clause with a view to avoid injustice being done to

  1139
  foreigners who have already been granted certificates of competency and to those shipowners employing them, but I make it a stipulation that these foreigners shall take the necessary steps to naturalise themselves at the earliest possible time. The Bill will, therefore, inflict no injury upon shipowners, of whom I would like to see more like Sir A. L. Jones, head of the great shipping firm of Elder, Dempster and Co., who, in expressing himself as to the confidence he had in his captains, also said that—
  "He was exceedingly proud to be a British shipowner with British staffs of officers and engineers."
  I would also quote the following remarks made by Admiral Sir E. R. Fremantle in distributing prizes on the training-ship "Worcester"—
  "He asserted that more encouragement ought to be given to the mercantile marine than had been accorded hitherto. On that subject he quite agreed with Lord Brassey and others who had expressed themselves to that effect. He did not believe in the Navy which was unsupported by a proper mercantile marine. That mercantile marine ought to be manned by British sailors and commanded by British officers"
  In regard to this Bill, a very well-known shipowner in the North of England writes to me as follows—
  "I take notice that you are going to bring forward a Motion to amend the Shipping Act, and I am pleased to read that you are taking an interest to stop these aliens from entirely manning our British ships, and also to prevent them from holding pilotage certificates unless they become naturalised British subjects. I have been for twenty years a Managing Owner, and for many years was on the Pilotage Board of the Tyne Dock Commissioners, and I was always strongly opposed to the granting of pilots' certificates to foreigners, no matter of what nationality, for the very reason you are going to extend in your Bill, that we are cultivating foreigners to navigate any foreign foe right into the heart of our country."
  I am extremely sorry that I have detained your Lordships for so long in drawing your attention to the case for my Bill. You will, I trust, observe that it is by no means my own individual opinions which I advance, but those of other authorities which I hope your Lordships will not ignore. It is unfortunately the case that though the national character of our mercantile marine is at odd times recognised by those in power, still when attempts are made to make this national
  1140
  character much more of a reality than it is at present, they are frustrated in every possible way. In all the enthusiasm of a post-prandial speech, the President of the Board of Trade said a very little time ago—
  "If we were to lose our mercantile marine it would mean nothing less than the destruction of the British Empire. That empire is essentially the empire of the seas. It rests upon two great supports—upon the Navy in the first instance, and upon our mercantile marine in the second instance, and each of these supports is necessary to the other. If we were to lose our supremacy of the seas, the ocean, which at present unites the different parts of the British Empire and welds them into a single whole, would no longer unite them, but would divide them. And then there would come necessarily the falling asunder of the parts and the eventual dissolution of the Empire."
  I fully endorse the words of the right hon. Gentleman and after this expression of his views I do not see how one of the Departments under his rule can consistently oppose the Bill.
  Is it too much to ask your Lordships to give effect to this Bill, which can only serve to strengthen our mercantile marine, to encourage our worthy and loyal fellow-subjects who serve in it, and, by eliminating aliens from the quarter-decks of our British ships, render greater security to our property when the paramount position of the British Empire may be at stake?
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muskerry.)
  LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I trust that the Bill now before your Lordships may meet with the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government. It seems to me that in these days, when the foreigner is holding more than his own, it is our duty to guard ourselves against alien incursion. I recognise that it is impossible, on account of the numbers at present available, to ask the Government to restrict the manning of our mercantile marine to British subjects. The figures at the present moment are as follow. Of 43,791 men in the mercantile marine only 28,698 are British. During the ten years ended 1901 there has been a decrease of 11,096 British sailors, and an increase of 8,730 foreigners in the British mercantile marine. There is a danger that aliens, knowing the intricacies of our coast as they do, may in war be able to

  1141
  transfer British ships and cargoes to the lines of the enemies. The fundamental principle of this Bill has been accepted by the Government in the negotiations concerning the Shipping Combination and the Cunard Company, and are also recognised by the Shipping Subsidies Committee, who recommend that none but British officers shall command or officer subsidised vessels. I trust that this measure, which has for so many months engaged the attention of my noble friend, will receive consideration at the hands of the Government.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I desire at the outset to correct some of the statements of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord said that we had accepted the principle of the Bill. My Lords, I am here to-day to ask your Lordships not to grant a Second Reading to the measure now before the House. This is not a new Bill, it is an old friend. We had it before us in 1899, and again in 1901, when my noble friend Lord Dudley was representing the Board of Trade in this House. In asking your Lordships not to read this Bill a second time I do not propose to follow my noble friend through the highways and byways of free trade and protection. That is a question which will no doubt be raised later on in this House. What I think would be the courteous thing for me to do would be for a few minutes to follow the lines of the Bill, for my noble friend rather strayed a way at times from the subject matter of his measure, and dealt with subjects for which I am not answerable, and which would more closely come under the purview of my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Memorandum to the Bill contains several inaccuracies. The declared object of the Bill—to prevent aliens from obtaining the sole control of British ships and property—will not be attained by the methods of the Bill. I admit, certainly, that the law at the present moment allows such control, but this would not be altered by compelling all masters and mates to be British. The real object of the Bill is to restrict competition, and to form a sort of close corporation in the interests of British certificated officers. Among the serious inaccuracies which
  1142
  the Memorandum contains is a statement that—
  "All the other leading maritime Powers restrict the commanding and officering of their merchant ships to their own subjects."
  I find on inquiry that neither Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Chili, nor Ecuador adopt this principle; and Spain, Italy, and Denmark only adopt the principle with regard to the master of the ship. Your Lordships are asked by the noble Lord to—
  "Check what promises to be a large influx of foreigners intending eventually to obtain certificates entitling them to command British ships."
  On that statement I will trouble the House with a few figures. It appears that out of a total number of 24,037 persons who, in the five years from 1897 to 1901, obtained certificates as masters, mates, or engineers, only 483 were foreigners. My noble friend quoted the figure as being 582, but I am sure he will take the correction from me. Besides that, I ask special attention to the fact that the numbers are showing a great tendency to decrease. In the year 1897 they were 130; in 1898 they were 91; in 1899, 93; in 1900, 91; in 1901, 78; and in 1902, 76. I look upon that as a satisfactory decrease. The noble Lord stated that the percentage of aliens in our merchant ships is increasing to an alarming extent. I think this is an exaggeration. Noble Lords who have travelled a great deal, as I have, will have noticed that one-third of the number of aliens are Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes, and I am sure that, after British seamen, there are no finer seamen in the world than these.
  My noble friend also touched on the very important matter of the holding of pilotage certificates by foreign masters and mates. The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Admiralty on the subject, and they have received the following figures. Out of a total of 4,000 masters and mates who hold pilotage certificates, only eighty-seven are foreigners. That is a comparatively small figure, and in the further correspondence with the Admiralty on this subject, it was pointed out that any sharp and intelligent sailor would soon pick up a knowledge of a port by often

  1143
  entering it, and that with the present day charts he could practically go into any port without a pilot. My noble friend stated that Clause 3 of his Bill would avoid any injustice being done to foreigners who have already been granted certificates of competency and to those shipowners who are employing them. That is rather a technical matter, and the view of the Board of Trade is that it would be most unfair to those to whom certificates had been granted less than six months before the Bill became law. My noble friend has rather implied that he has the shipowners on his side, but I hold in my hand a letter addressed to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee. I will read it to the House, and I am afraid my noble friend will derive very little satisfaction from it. The letter is as follows—
  "Sir,—I am directed by this Committee to respectfully call your attention to a Bill entitled 'A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,' which Lord Muskerry has introduced into the House of Lords and the Second Reading of which he proposes to move on Thursday, 2nd July. The objects of the Bill are to preclude any person who is not a British subject from obtaining a certificate as master or mate in the British Merchant Service, or from obtaining a licence to act as a pilot in British waters. When similar Bills to the present were introduced by Lord Muskerry into the House of Lords in the years 1899 and 1901, both of them were opposed by the Earl of Dudley on behalf of the Board of Trade, and the Second Reading stage was upon both occasions negatived without a division. I am directed by this Committee, which represents nine-tenths of the merchant shipping tonnage of the United Kingdom, to respectfully express their hope that the representative of the Board of Trade in the Upper House will oppose Lord Muskerry's Bill for the following, among other, reasons:

  "1. That although the Bill only proposes to prevent foreigners from obtaining Board of Trade certificates of competency as masters or mates in the merchant service, or as pilots, the acceptance of the principle of the Bill by Parliament would nevertheless involve a reversal of the policy which has been deliberately adopted by Parliament and the country since the repeal of the Navigation Act in the year 1849.

  "2. That British shipowners believe that if the Bill were to be passed it would be followed in a very short time by a demand that every certificated officer of a British ship

  (whether employed in the navigation of the vessel or in the engine-room) should be a British subject, and, also, that all seamen and firemen who are employed on board of British vessels should be British subjects.
  "3. That the proportion of foreigners holding master's certificates in the British mercantile marine is exceedingly small. Lord Dudley, on behalf of the Board of Trade, indeed, stated in the House of Lords on 24th February, 1899, that on 25th March, 1896, only 180 foreigners out of a total of 10,389 masters, held certificates of competency as masters.
  "4. That a large number of British subjects are at present employed (especially as engineers) in vessels which belong to foreign nations. If, therefore, Lord Muskerry's Bill were passed it might easily lead to these nations adopting a retaliatory policy in this matter, to the loss and injury of many of His Majesty's subjects.
  "5. That no valid reason has been shown why British shipowners should—alone of all employers of labour in this country—be forbidden by Parliament to employ foreigners in their service.
  "6. That if such a measure be required it should be introduced by yourself as President of the Board of Trade into Parliament with the authority and upon the responsibility of His Majesty's Government and not be left to the initiative of a private Member of the House of Lords."
  That is the view taken of the Bill by the shipowners, whom this question most intimately concerns, and I hope your Lordships will not give it a Second Reading.
  *LORD MUSKERRY: I quite agree with the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee that this is a Bill which ought to be introduced by His Majesty's Government, but if the Government will not do their duty, and as this is a much needed measure, some private Member must do so. My noble friend referred to the shipowners, but apparently he does not know that they are the most disunited body of people in the whole of the United Kingdom. Just before I came into your Lordships' House I received a telegram from the Greenock Chamber of Commerce, warmly approving of the Bill and wishing it success. This is a matter of national defence, and I am compelled to press the Bill to a division.
  On Question, their Lordship divided: Contents, 8; Not-contents, 74.

  CONTENTS.

  Newcastle, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

  Rutland, D.

  Kelvin, L.

  Norton, L.

  Abinger, L. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Manvers, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Morley, E.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Harris, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Portland, D.

  Selborne, E.

  James, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Killanin, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  Bath, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Manners, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Cross, V.

  Monkswell, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Portman, V.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Muncaster, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Grey, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.

  Wimborne, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  THE INQUIRY INTO OUR FISCAL SYSTEM.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in rising "to make further inquiry as to the investigation by His Majesty's Government into our fiscal system," said—My Lords, the object of the notice which I have placed upon the Paper is simply and solely what it purports to be. I do not in any way wish to engage in any disquisition as to the general question of policy. I only wish to obtain information on a subject on which His Majesty's Government have been singularly reticent, and I wish to add to my notice these words, "and to move for any Papers relating to the subject."
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Is that in order?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Everything is in order. I am encouraged to do this by the fact that in the other House, as I understand, the Government have to-day acceded to the request of private Members for Reports from foreign countries, and they have also promised to Mr. Bowles extensive and accurate tables which will assist the nation in some degree to arrive at a judgment on the important issue which is being in so strange and unusual a manner submitted to us. After our discussion the other night I do not think
  1146
  that I should so soon have returned to the subject if it had not been for the singular and inexplicable levity with which the Government treated this important subject. They have promised an inquiry on a subject which I venture to say is the most vital that has ever been submitted to the judgment of the nation for the last half-century—an inquiry which, if it would do justice to the subject, should be the most deliberate, the most well-reasoned, and—if I may use a word by which I set more stress than His Majesty's Government—the most efficient they could set on foot.
  I will say at once in a word why I think so much of the question of inquiry. It is because I believe it is not too much to say of the issue that you are submitting to the country that it is setting the Empire itself at stake. I say deliberately that, somewhat hastily as I think, and certainly without sufficient reflection and inquiry, His Majesty's Government have in the last month done nothing less than put the very Empire itself at stake. Now, when I say that I do not mean that, going one way or the other, the result of their operations may be to put an end to the Empire. No, that is perhaps beyond even the power of His Majesty's Government. But I do say that even already the relations between this country and the outer Empire have been altered by what has taken place;

  1147
  and how far they may eventually be modified by the operation of the policy of His Majesty's Government—if His Majesty's Government have a policy, and if it ever come into operation—I cannot pretend to predict. But one thing I am quite certain of—that if your hypothetical policy, or the policy of some of you, does come into effect, you may increase the wealth of the country as you promise to do, you may improve the fiscal condition of the Empire as you promise to do, you may increase the price of the food of your people as you promise to do, you may raise the wages of your population as you promise to do; but of one thing I am quite certain, that the Empire which you will produce by these means will be very different from the Empire we have known. We have been anxious to prove to the world that our Empire meant peace. You propose, by your system as far as we understand it—and I limit myself in discussing it entirely to what has been said, and not to hypothetical systems which do not exist—you propose by your policy to make this an Empire bristling with tariffs at every point, brimful of retaliation on the slightest pretext, and no longer affording a peaceful mart to the nations at large, but rather a point of resistance and attack wherever our Empire exists in the world.
  I say that the Government treat this matter with levity. I do not for a moment charge them with treating it in their hearts with levity; but I do charge it in their proceedings and in their speeches. I will, however, acquit the Colonial Secretary of any want of earnestness in his speeches. But the rest of the Government in their proceedings and speeches do treat this matter with a levity which is as reprehensible as it is incomprehensible. The other night we ventured to ask in humble accents of the Government some little information as to this inquiry, upon which the future, and to some extent the fate, or at any rate the shape, of this Empire depends. We had two statements in answer—because the Foreign Secretary did not devote himself to that branch of the subject, but addressed himself to the point raised by Lord Portsmouth. We had the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which I think I may say,
  1148
  without rushing to any hasty conclusion, had been prepared for some other occasion. But how did the First Lord of the Admiralty treat this matter? He treated it in a long preface of jokes; and here I wish to guard myself from bringing any charge of levity against the jokes of the noble Earl. But what he said in a more serious vein was that he was prepared to answer the inquiry as to the nature of the investigations in which the Government is involved. He said—although he is not so reported in The Times, which I consulted this morning, but I heard him with my own ears—he said that it is to be "a grand inquest of the nation." What is a "grand inquest?" I have looked at all the ordinary sources of information, and I find that in the strictest sense it means a grand jury. I am sure that the noble Earl did not mean that we were to investigate this question by means of grand juries. I am sure that he meant to use the phrase in the ordinary and metaphorical sense in which it is used—in the sense of the House of Commons. But it is quite certain that the Government have no intention of investigating this subject through the medium of the House of Commons, because they have denied any possibility of discussing the matter to the House of Commons, unless the responsible Leaders of the Opposition bring forward a Vote of Censure.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Exactly; that is the way in which the noble Duke proposes to deal with a matter which ought to be removed from Party conflict as far as possible. Members of the House of Commons are only to treat it as a Vote of Censure if they wish to discuss this matter of an inquiry. It is quite certain that the Government do not wish to investigate this matter in the High Court of Parliament, and even the occasional and fitful discussions in the House of Lords are not wholly welcome. What is this grand inquest? It is to be conducted, says the noble Earl, by the Press and by all Parties. The Press? Well, the Press was extremely reticent about the matter for a long time after the first pronouncement of the

  1149
  Colonial Secretary. They carried the banner of protection high, but also they carried it closely furled; and although they are now beginning to open out on the subject, it is not such an investigation—the mere canvassing of this matter by the Press—which is needed on a matter of such Imperial importance. I do not know what the noble Earl means. There is a very popular journal which, in the beginning of August, usually opens a grand inquest on such questions as "Is Marriage a Failure?" and "What shall We do with our Sons?" I do not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty suggests that at the beginning of August the various newspapers should set up as a subject for correspondence, "The Future Fiscal Relations of the Empire." I confess that I regard the answer of the noble Earl as a rhetorical flourish, which leads us no further and gives us no information on a subject on which we have a right to information. Then there came the noble Duke. The noble Duke told us that there was no need for the Government to require further information. They had already the information; what they wanted was arrangement. The information was at their disposal; they only wanted to arrange it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said the materials were at our disposal.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not know exactly what distinction the noble Duke draws between information and the materials at their disposal. I suppose he means the Returns of the Board of Trade. We know from an answer of the Colonial Secretary that no information has reached the colonies on this point since the Colonial Conference of last year. Therefore, I can only suppose that the noble Duke looks forward to the preparation of statistics that are now before the Board of Trade, and, to some extent, the country, as the sole investigation which the Government propose to set up. I am led from these answers, and the other answers given in the other House, to the irresistible conclusion that there is no inquiry at all. If there were an inquiry the noble Duke would be able to explain it. There is no one who can make a better statement when
  1150
  he chooses than the noble Duke, and there is no one who can make his meaning more clear and more succinct; and I confess that I am led to the conclusion, not hastily—and I strongly suspect the great mass of the nation have arrived at it—that there is no inquiry at all, but that the allegation of inquiry amounts simply to this, that some via media has to be found for arranging the irreconcilable differences of the Cabinet; and, therefore, permission has been given which was not, I suppose, in the least degree needed, to each Member of the Cabinet to investigate the matter for himself.
  There is one peculiar feature in this inquiry—always taking the hypothesis that it exists—there is a unique condition in this inquiry. Ministers have said that Cabinet inquiries are constantly held, and that the result of them is not necessarily, or even generally, communicated to the public. That is perfectly true. It is a platitude. But who in the world, or in the history of England, ever heard before of an inquiry conducted by a Cabinet into a policy which is already announced? The Prime Minister takes great pride in his plan. He says—
  "Compare my plan with the methods adopted by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone."
  Well, I have the greatest respect and friendship for the Prime Minister, but I confess that in matters of precedent, of Cabinet precedent, political precedent, I would rather follow Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone than I would the Prime Minister, with all his virtues and abilities. But he says—
  "Look at my plan and compare it with the plans of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone; they broke up their Parties; I am keeping mine together. How otherwise would you have proposed to announce a policy of this kind?"
  I will tell the Prime Minister at once. There is an ordinary and recognised method of communicating any departure in the fiscal policy of the country which is furnished by the annual Budget. But I am not aware that there was any indication, except the repeal of the corn tax, in this year's Budget which could lead us to imagine that any great fiscal change was meditated. The Prime Minister says that by his method he is keeping his Party together. I wonder if that is so. I must say that I admired

  1151
  the courage of the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night. If I had nothing else in his speech to admire, I admired his courage; because it seemed to me that the whole of that inestimable quality for which the Navy is so justly distinguished was embodied in the First Lord of the Admiralty when he taunted the Opposition with their political divisions. Does the First Lord of the Admiralty think that there are no divisions in his own Party? I do not deny that the Liberal Party have had their distractions, but they have only two recognised leaders—Lord Spencer, whom we are all so sorry not to see here, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman; and I am not aware of any differences in the expression of the public views of these politicians which are notable, certainly not reprehensible. I do not think that the First Lord of the Admiralty can say this of the present Cabinet. I say it is the first time in history in which we have had an inquiry by the Cabinet into a policy which they have already announced, and I say frankly that the explanation furnished by the Government will not do.
  Consider what is the history of this matter. The Colonial Secretary goes down to Birmingham and announces his programme quite plainly and clearly. At the moment the Prime Minister is vindicating the repeal of a tax on food to a body of enraged members of his Party—this united Party—in London. The Colonial Secretary stated quite succinctly what his procedure is going to be; I cannot pay that compliment to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I suppose it is supported by the mass of His Majesty's Government. There is, first of all, to be an interminable discussion, or rather a discussion terminable at such a moment as the Government may think it expedient to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country. The Government are, at a given moment, when they think it most convenient for this purpose, to appeal to the country. If they receive a mandate, which in this case will be a blank cheque, because the plan is not to be previously disclosed—then what are they to do? Are they to produce their plan? No; they are then to consult the Colonies. To everybody outside a pantomime one would have
  1152
  thought that the preliminary to these discussions, to the disclosure of policy, and to the General Election would have been consultation with the Colonies. Then, after a consultation with the Colonies, I suppose, at last, we shall be made acquainted with the real policy of the Government. I say this will not do; it will not wash. It is not even a representable programme for the Government; and it does not explain the position of the inquiry into which it is the special object of my Motion to investigate.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty told us the other night that I was employed in discussing schemes which have no existence, and in rejecting them. I defy the noble Lord to produce any instances to prove the allegation. I will read two capital sentences, on which every intelligent mind of the country is fixed, which represent the clear and intelligible policy arrived at, I suspect after much private inquiry, and which has been laid before the country by the Government. The Colonial Secretary has said in one speech—
  "If you are to give a preference to the Colonies you must put a tax on food."
  This is an intelligible proceeding. But the second declaration is by far the most important declaration ever made by a responsible Minister in my lifetime, and I want to ask the serious attention of the noble Duke to this sentence. The noble Duke said last Monday that he agreed with the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary on Friday. He remembered, or did not remember, seven subjects of investigation which they had proposed with which he entirely concurred. I do not, therefore, presume to ask him with reference to these seven subjects of investigation, but I do ask his most earnest attention to this sentence—
  "A system of preferential tariffs is the only system by which this Empire can be kept together."
  That condemnation of our past and present Empire, that sentence so full of omen to the future of our Empire—because, after all, it means this, that if the country cannot be persuaded to adopt preferential tariffs our Empire is gone—that sentence, I say, is the gravest utterance I have heard by any

  1153
  Minister in my lifetime. What I have to ask the noble Duke is this: Does he include that sentence in his agreement with the Colonial Secretary's speech? [The Duke of DEVONSHIRE dissented.] Then I think he used words rather wider than he intended last Monday, and I rejoice to hear his explanation and his repudiation; but in view of these declarations on questions of policy which have been put before the country, neither of which have been repudiated by any Member of the Government before this moment, we have a right to know what is this grand inquest on which the Government is engaged. Nothing more important has ever engaged the attention of the nation. It cannot be conducted behind a closed door or a drawn curtain, and it is useless for the Government to try and fence with the question. I do not think that it is possible for Parliament or the country to retain any vestige of that spirit which formerly it was believed they possessed if the Government can keep this secret up their sleeve. At any rate I am sure of this, that they are unworthy of public confidence if they do so.
  I will quote the Prime Minister against the Government, and against the position of the Government. Very frequently this year—I am afraid almost ad nauseam—I have urged a plan in which I conscientiously believe that Lord Kitchener for the moment is the best person to hold the Seals of the Secretary of State for War. When I brought forward that proposition I was read a crushing lecture by the Prime Minister. He says that I was digging at the very root of Ministerial responsibility. What is Cabinet responsibility? he asked. It is a body of men united by a common bond and a common policy which they are prepared to defend in public on all occasions. How could Lord Kitchener, it was asked, with no politics, fit into such a system as that? From what I can see of the Government, I conceive that Lord Kitchener could fit in very well if he had no politics, and I am not sure whether he would not be one of the most valuable Members of the present Cabinet. At any rate, I cannot understand how it is that the Prime Minister, when he seeks his pillow at
  1154
  night, can reconcile the present position of his Government with the doctrine he has laid down so strongly of Cabinet responsibility. I think, then, that I have shown ground for pressing for further information as to the nature and constitution of this inquiry. I think we see a distracted Cabinet. We hear of a programme of proceedings which is by no means in accordance with the best political traditions of this country. We see a studied reticence as to the inquiry in which our future and our fortunes are so largely engaged.
  I appeal, then, to His Majesty's Government to give us some further information. I would ask them if the inquiry is definite and organised. I would ask if it is collective or individual, because I am bound to say that from some indications I am inclined to think it is much more individual than collective. I will ask them if there are any defined subjects of inquiry, or whether anyone can inquire about what he thinks fit. I ask them, further, if the results will be made public, or whether the nation is to be left entirely without guidance as to the proceedings and objects of this grand inquest. I will hand the noble Duke my Questions if he wants to look at them more carefully. [The noble Earl handed a paper over to the Duke of Devonshire.] I think I have the right to make a personal appeal to him in this matter, because he has laid down the doctrine which I did not think was peculiarly applicable when he laid it down, but which, at any rate, has peculiar pertinence at the present moment. He will recognise his words which I turn into the plural—
  "I think the country will be disposed to take, at their true value, the declarations and criticisms of statesmen who, for reasons which are not very easy to understand, declined to give their guidance to the country or Parliament at a moment when that advice and guidance might have been useful to influence the decision of Parliament, and, I will add, the opinion of the nation."
  These were words addressed to me by the noble Duke, because I declined to join in a Vote of Censure on the Government. I think the noble Duke might take them to heart at this moment, and might respond more fully and largely than hitherto to the

  1155
  just demand of the nation for further information as to this inquiry.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl for his kindness and courtesy in presenting me with a list of Questions, to obtain answers to which has been his sole object in addressing the House to-night. I only regret that it did not occur to the noble Earl, if he required information in answer to these Questions, to have taken what I should have thought would have been a very obvious step—namely, that of giving me notice a little earlier. But the noble Earl avails himself, I think somewhat fully, of the rather lax rules which govern the proceedings of this House. Under cover of a notice to make further inquiries respecting the investigations that are being conducted by the Government—a notice absolutely vague and indefinite in its character—the noble Earl takes occasion to make a speech in which, so far as I can recollect, only in the last sentence has he asked for any information whatever respecting the investigation which is going on. The noble Earl has taken advantage of this somewhat vague notice which he has given to reply to speeches which were made in this House two nights ago, and to some speeches which have been made in the other House and in the country. My Lords, I have no doubt that all of us sometimes feel, when we go home after taking part in these discussions, a deep regret that we had forgotten to say something, or that we had not thought of something which we very much wish had occurred to us in the course of the debate. But it is not given to all of us to make for himself an opportunity, by putting down a perfectly colourless and meaningless notice, of saying all the things which he wished he had said on a previous occasion.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: May I ask my noble friend how I could have answered the speeches on a previous occasion when I spoke before those speeches were made?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Earl has made a good many
  1156
  references to speeches which have been made not only here, but in the other House of Parliament and the country, and the noble Earl might, if he had thought fit, have taken advantage of the debate which we have already had in this House on this subject to reply to those speeches without raising a fresh debate on his own account. If all of us, even in this House, took that course, I think it would be somewhat inconvenient, and obviously one which it is quite impossible could be permitted in the other House of Parliament. I do not suppose that either the notice itself which the noble Earl has given or the speech which he has made upon it would have been allowed for one instant to be in order in the other House of Parliament. And I doubt very much whether it is to the advantage of our debates that such extreme laxity as the noble Lord chooses to assume for himself should be permitted in our House. The noble Earl charges us with treating this question with extreme levity. He says we have put the Empire at stake—I do not know exactly how he formulated it—but I understood him to say that we have put the Empire at stake, and that our explanations and our statements in respect of the grave issues which have been raised are wholly inadequate and insufficient. The noble Earl was very indignant when I suggested that it was possible that a Vote of Censure should be brought forward. If the noble Earl holds the opinion he has expressed to-night, and as I gather from his speech that he does hold, that His Majesty's Government are trifling with a great subject, why does he not put that opinion in the form of a Resolution? Why does he not invite the House to express its opinion upon that culpable negligence on the part of the Government? And if the noble Earl replies, as he probably will, the day after to-morrow, to my speech—
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I promise the noble Duke I will reply to it this evening.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If he replies with his usual complaint that he is in a helpless minority in this House, I ask the noble Earl whether there are not in the House of Commons members of his Party who sufficiently agree with him to challenge the conduct

  1157
  of the Government in that House on what he considers to be the culpable negligence of the Government. The noble Earl at last concluded his speech by asking some Questions about the nature of the inquiry. I have not been able to give sufficient time to the extremely condensed Questions which he has addressed to me; but I will endeavour in the course of what I hope will be the not very long observations which I shall address to the House, to try—I am afraid I can do little more than repeat—to try to explain to the noble Earl what, in my judgment, is the nature of the inquiry which the Government are instituting. My Lords, the noble Earl has, I think, on two occasions gone back on the history of this question, and I may say one or two words about it, as, in order to explain myself, I think I ought to do. The Colonial Minister made a speech, as he stated, entirely on his own responsibility, and not committing the Government to any expression of policy which was contained in it, in which he said that his attention, as Colonial Minister, had been directed to certain questions affecting the fiscal policy of this country, especially as regarded their bearing on, and connection with, the colonies and closer colonial union. He referred in that speech to the present fiscal relations between ourselves and our colonies, between ourselves and foreign countries, and also between foreign countries and our colonies; and he expressed his desire that these questions should be fully considered and examined by the country before the country is called upon to proceed to another election. The Colonial Secretary stated on that occasion, with perfect clearness, as the noble Earl has admitted, what he hoped the result would be. He hoped the result of such an inquiry would be that the Government of which he is a member would ask for a mandate, and that the country would give to the Government a mandate, which would enable him to enter into negotiation with the colonies with the object of ascertaining whether it would be possible to establish any closer fiscal relations between ourselves and them. Well, I believe that was and is the position of Mr. Chamberlain. The
  1158
  noble Earl and the House will see that that position is a very long way from the point of making definite proposals to Parliament, as to which it will be, of course, constitutionally necessary that the Government, when it makes such proposals shall be united in opinion as to the action which we may propose to Parliament. The noble Earl says that the proposed process is a wrong one. He says that we ought to have consulted the colonies first. I am not going into that matter now, but this is a subject which has been fully dealt with by the Colonial Secretary himself. He has said—whether he is right or wrong—that he holds the opinion that it would be most impolitic to ask the responsible colonial statesmen to come and discuss with him the question of preferential tariffs when he had no authority from Parliament, or when Parliament had no authority from the country, to justify him in entering into such negotiations. What would be the position of the Colonial Minister if he was to ask the Colonial Premiers—
  THF EARL OF ROSEBERY: Did not he discuss it with them last year?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: He discussed the subject generally, but he had no authority. He expressly told them on that occasion that he had no authority to make proposals to them. In the Colonial Secretary's view, and I am bound to say also in my view, I do not see what would be the advantage of asking the Premiers to come here and discuss definite detailed proposals for preferential treatment of our colonies if, after they had returned to their colonies, they should find that the Colonial Secretary had no authority either from Parliament or from the country to make such proposals. That, I understand, is the position of the Colonial Secretary. When I come to the position of the Government, I admit it is a different one; but I do not admit that it is a position which in any degree conflicts with that of the Colonial Secretary. We are agreed with the Colonial Secretary that the time is ripe for a review of the results of our fiscal policy of the last fifty years—that the time is ripe for a review of the results of

  1159
  a policy which alone amongst all the great nations of the world we have adopted—of the results of that policy upon our home trade, our trade with foreign nations, our trade with the colonies—of the results of that policy upon our manufacturing industries, and on the condition of our people—of the results of that policy on our relations with our colonies. We entirely agree with the Colonial Secretary that the time is ripe for such a review. But, whether the result of such an inquiry will be to join us in asking the country to give to the Colonial Secretary the mandate which he hopes to receive—that is a question which can only be decided after the inquiry is concluded. My Lords, it will depend on the result of that inquiry whether we shall be in a position to ask the country for a mandate at all on the subject, and, if so, what mandate—whether it be a mandate extending to the large policy which has been indicated in the Colonial Secretary's speeches, or whether it be a mandate far more restricted in its scope. But until the time comes when we are called upon to ask the country whether we are to receive a new mandate on this subject or not, I fail to see that any case has been made out why it is necessary that we should all be in perfect harmony and agreement in our views upon these questions.
  The noble Earl wants to know what is the nature of the inquiry. I do not think it is possible, at this stage at all events, fully to answer the question. I have always said, and I desire still to say, that it is not inquiry alone, but discussion, that is necessary, in my opinion. I do not think it is possible at this stage of the inquiry and discussion strictly to define or to limit the subjects which are to be inquired into and discussed. I referred the other night to the speeches delivered two days before by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary. I did not say, or at all events did not intend to say, as the noble Earl seems to have understood, that I agreed with everything that was contained in those two speeches. I referred to them as indicating the nature and scope of the inquiry. The Prime Minister indicated four points which he considered were subjects for inquiry. The first was whether the necessary provision of
  1160
  capital applied to our industries was imperilled by the importation of foreign goods below cost price. He instanced in connection with that question the Sugar Convention, which has already been entered into; and quoted, I think, some words of Mr. Gladstone in elucidation of his point of view. The second subject for inquiry was whether tariff negotiations with other countries were not rendered increasingly difficult and almost impossible by our present fiscal system. The third was whether the colonies were unable to give us, even if they desired it, preferential treatment without running the risk of foreign intervention. The fourth point was whether union with the colonies by closer fiscal relations could not be made possible. And the Prime Minister further indicated, although he did not name it as one of the subjects of the inquiry, that in his judgment there was no logical or substantial reason why such a policy as was indicated by the Colonial Secretary should not be carried out without any increase in the cost of living to the working classes.
  On the same occasion the Colonial Secretary indicated one or two subjects which he desired to see inquired into. He asked whether it was a fact that the exports of our manufactures to the colonies exceed our exports to all the protected States and the United States of America combined. He asked next whether it was a fact that our exports to the protected States are diminishing in quantity and in value. He asked a further question, the form of which, I believe, was not perfectly accurately stated, whether it was not better to cultivate trade with 10,000,000 of our kinsmen—I believe he stated the figure too high—he said £10 per head—but that does not invalidate the argument—at a large amount per head than to conciliate 300,000,000 of foreigners who only trade with us to the extent of a very few shillings per head. I am not in the least saying that this is an exhaustive or definite list of the subjects to be inquired into. There may be, and undoubtedly are, other subjects which will occur at once to the mind of every man who has paid any attention to the problem;

  1161
  there are others which undoubtedly will develop in the course of the inquiry. But I ask, taking that list only, whether the noble Earl or noble Lords opposite are prepared to say that these are questions which they have considered so fully and completely as to be satisfied that no inquiry is necessary, or whether, on the other hand, they are prepared to say that those subjects are absolutely immaterial and have no relation to the question whether our fiscal policy does or does not require some revision to meet the altered circumstances of the country and of the Empire.
  This being the nature of the inquiry, I say that it is absolutely impossible to limit its dimensions, to confine it within strictly defined limits. It is impossible to say beforehand, at the very commencement of this inquiry and discussion what subjects lie within it and what subjects are outside it. Neither can we, in my opinion, limit the number or the character of those who may be called upon, or whose duty it will be to take part in the inquiry. We have already said that, as a Government, we have considered it our duty to enter upon this inquiry; and we shall avail ourselves of all the means at our disposal to make it a thorough and, we trust, a satisfactory inquiry. We are quite convinced that we cannot—nor do we desire to—exclude any other body of our fellow subjects from taking their part in this inquiry also. In my view, every Member of Parliament, every candidate for a Parliamentary seat, and, so far as he is able to make himself acquainted with the question at issue, every elector is bound to take his share in this inquiry; and I believe that even those who most deprecate the raising of this question, those who are apparently convinced that we live under the most perfect fiscal institutions that can be conceived, will be compelled — indeed, they have already found themselves compelled—to take their share in the inquiry. The noble Earl himself, in his first speech on this subject, delivered, I think, at the City of London Liberal Club, took a very useful and a very prominent part in this inquiry, and produced a great variety of arguments which led him to doubt—as many of us doubt, and as I myself gravely doubt—the expediency of
  1162
  imposing a tax on the food of the people. Those who have taken up a still more pronounced position than the noble Earl, those who deprecate any investigation whatever, are also bound by the very necessity of their position to join us in this inquiry. Their view is that we occupy the best possible position under the best possible fiscal system; and it is for them, after the lapse of fifty years, and especially after the experience which has been gained during the last twenty years, to establish that view. I think I said on the first occasion that I addressed the House upon this subject that upon those who advocate this change in our fiscal system rests the burden of proof; and I adhere to that opinion. But I also hold that upon those who assert—if there are any who do assert it—that the advantages of the present system are so firmly, conclusively, and absolutely established as to be beyond inquiry also rests the burden of proof of the accuracy and justice of their assertion. I can only say in conclusion that I deeply regret the noble Earl should have postponed to the very end of his able and eloquent speech the Questions of which he might, have given me notice a day or two ago. At all events, I am not prepared to enter into a detailed definition of the scope and course of this inquiry without further notice than that which the noble Earl has thought fit to give me.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not intend to enter into the general discussion of this important subject, and so far as I have any remarks to make they will be entirely directed to the speech we have just heard from the noble Duke. The noble Duke took exception to the speech of my noble friend Lord Rosebery, because, he said, until the last sentences there was no attempt on his part to press the Question which formed his notice on the Paper.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There was no Question.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I maintain that my noble friend's speech throughout was one continuous demand for further information with regard to the nature and the scope of the inquiry

  1163
  which has been instituted by the Government. The noble Duke has given no information whatever in his speech beyond that which has already been vouchsafed either in this House or in the other. He has not extended by one iota that information, and he has not attempted to answer any one of the four points specially pressed on his notice by my noble friend Lord Rosebery. The noble Duke cited seven propositions.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not propositions.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Well, seven subjects for inquiry, put forward in the other House by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, and asked whether they were not fit subjects for inquiry. Of course they are fitting subjects for inquiry, and I hope that especially the points raised by the Colonial Secretary will be taken up in this inquiry and thoroughly searched. We have no fear of the result of such a search. The noble Duke took exception to the weighty words of my noble friend when he described the situation as one which involved the position of the Empire being at stake. Well, my Lords, I think sufficient proof of that may be found from the lips of the noble Duke's colleagues and ex-colleagues. One ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer has described the situation as—
  "A gamble with the food of the people."
  Another Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this policy as—
  "Deeply injurious to the country, and one which would do more to dis-unite than unite the Empire."
  Whilst the present Chancellor of the Exchequer says—
  "I cannot be a party to a policy which, in my opinion, would be detrimental both to this country and to the colonies."
  The noble Duke then says, "If those opinions are shared by the Opposition, if they think that so grave a state of affairs has been arrived at, why do not they challenge the Government by a Vote of Censure? I will answer the noble Duke by another question. Will the Government give us a straight issue on the simple point, Is it good policy that preferential tariffs shall be placed on the food of the people?
  1164
  I will tell the noble Duke why such a Motion has not been put forward; indeed, he gave the answer to his own question in the very next section of his speech. He said that, after all, there was no policy adopted by the Government; that the Colonial Secretary on his own motion had put forward certain proposals; that those proposals were not adopted by the Government, and that they were merely subjects for discussion. The noble Duke knows perfectly well that if a Motion were brought forward in the other House challenging the point it would be met by the Government with the statement that they had merely offered certain proposals of the Colonial Secretary for examination and discussion by the country, and they would taunt us with the charge that we were afraid of inquiry, and that our cause was so bad that it could not stand investigatian. My Lords, we are not afraid of inquiry, and we find no fault with the proposal for an inquiry, but what we do find fault with are the methods and the manner, and the condition under which this inquiry is going to be held, or, rather, I should say the method and the manner, and the conditions under which this so-called inquiry is not going to be held. This is a matter of the highest interest. It is a matter of extreme intricacy, and one would have imagined that this inquiry would have been held by statesmen, by experts, by professors of economics quietly. One would have thought that even the Colonial Secretary himself might have sat as a learner from the results of such an inquiry. Again and again has it been said that this is not merely an inquiry, but, still more, a discussion. Well, I contend that the words discussion, debate, and inquiry are almost contradictory of one another, and to suppose that a matter of this sort can be fairly, squarely, and impartially decided upon by discussion on the platform and in the Press seems to me to be a curious view of the situation. Then the noble Duke said that this question of preferential tariffs had not been before the colonies. That is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard made. This subject was brought before the Colonial Premiers at the Colonial Conference, and was, moreover, made

  1165
  the subject of a paragraph in their Report, which I will venture to read in order to remind the noble Duke of what the views of the colonies were as expressed by their Premiers at that Conference. On page thirty-nine of the Report will be found these words:—
  "In connection with the discussion of preferential trade the Conference also considered the point raised by the Commonwealth Government as to the possibility of the colony having most-favoured-nation treatment in foreign countries in the event of their giving a tariff preference to British goods. As, however, the exports from the colonies to foreign countries are almost exclusively acticles of food or raw materials for various industries, the possibility of discrimination against them in foreign markets was not regarded as serious, and as the exports of foreign countries to the colonies are mainly manufactured articles, it was recognised that if such discrimination did take place the colonies had an effective remedy in their hands."
  Therefore the Colonial Premiers absolutely put it on record that, in this matter of preferential discrimination, they themselves had the power in their own hands to do whatever was necessary in the way of retaliation against foreign countries. The noble Duke says that the position of the Government does not conflict with that of the Colonial Secretary. Well, my Lords, that seems to me to be a strange statement. At any rate the position of the Government so far conflicts with the opinion of the Colonial Secretary that they are not ready to make themselves responsible for this policy which he puts forward as the only one which can bind the various parts of the Empire together. Surely there can hardly be a greater conflict between responsible Ministers of the Crown than when the Minister who is responsible for the Government of the colonies says to his colleagues such and such a policy is absolutely essential to keep the colonies together, and then his colleagues say: "This is a matter of secondary importance. It is one only for inquiry, and we must postpone this policy till some future occasion when further discussion has taken place upon it." If these are conditions under which responsible Cabinet Government can be carried on in this country they are entirely novel ones, and I think the precedent of the present Government will not be held up by future ones in preference to those of earlier Governments and Ministers who
  1166
  were more careful and particular as to agreement amongst themselves.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I have no intention of entering into the discussion raised by the noble Earl on the cross benches, but I think the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down may be regarded as the best justification for the noble Duke's challenging those who take such strong views on this subject to produce their Vote of Censure. The noble Lord said they did not know what they had to censure, and then he proceeded to formulate a Vote of Censure. He went on to show that the Vote of Censure which they were prepared to move was to the effect that any imposition of a tax on the food of the people was objectionable. If that is the Motion they are prepared to move—well, why don't they move it?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not think the noble Duke has much reason to complain of the laxity which, he says, I allowed myself in enlarging in my speech the subject of which I had given notice, because I observe that the noble Duke had made no inconsiderable preparations to deal with all those subjects, which seems to me to prove, either that we were both out of order, or that he anticipated with some confidence the discussion that has taken place.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I knew you.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I trust the noble Duke also knew the House of Lords, although I observe that he indicated a wish to reform its procedure, from which I would advise him to desist, having had some experience of that matter. I would only call attention to one or two points raised by the noble Duke. The Government always tell us what they are going to inquire into. They never tell us who is going to inquire. It is not enough to tell me that I may inquire. I can do that without the permission of the Government. It is not enough to tell candidates for Parliament that they may inquire. They can do that without the permission of the Government.

  1167
  The noble Duke always says: "We think that the inquiry should do this; we think that after the inquiry has taken place we should do that;" but my question is what the inquiry is, and who is conducting it, and by what methods? The noble Duke must tell us that. Is the Cabinet sitting like the Council of National Defence, to inquire? Is it a committee?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Prime Minister, answering a Question in the other House, said the inquiry would be conducted by His Majesty's Government, and not by a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House, or by any Departmental Committee. The inquiry would be conducted by the Cabinet itself, and would not necessarily lead to a Report.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then may I ask the noble Duke for a distinct answer to this question? Is the Cabinet, or is it not, conducting any inquiry into these matters?
  THE DUKE OE DEVONSHIRE: The Cabinet is conducting an inquiry.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then at last we have a definite understanding. The twenty members of the Cabinet are conducting an investigation into the fiscal system of the country. I am very glad to hear it. I do not deprecate it. I do not think it the non-partisan committee which ought to investigate this matter, but, at any rate, we have at last, after a month of questioning, elicited the information that the Cabinet has begun to inquire. That is really the gist of the whole matter. We now may hope that when the Cabinet hold their meetings they are not conducting the ordinary administration of the country, but that they are investigating the fiscal system. That is all we know. The noble Duke called attention to the fact that I did not challenge the opinion of the House by a Vote of Censure on the proceedings of His Majesty's Government. The noble Duke supplied one answer, and I had already supplied the other. He supplied the answer that it would be preposterous for any one without a considerable
  1168
  following in this House to challenge a Government which owns the almost unanimous support of the House, and that it would give a very false notion abroad as to the division of public opinion on this matter. I supplied by anticipation the other answer, and it was this—that I do not think that the future or the fate of this Empire as defined by the Colonial Secretary should be made a question of Party recrimination and partisan discussion. For my part, however much the Government may wish to throw it into the arena of Party politics, I, at any rate, shall endeavour to keep it, as far as can be, out of it. The noble Duke in his speech has indicated a perfectly new theory of the functions of Cabinet Government in this country. He says—
  "We are to discuss and we are to investigate, but there is no reason why we should be a united Cabinet on this policy until we have disclosed it."
  Surely that is one of the most remarkable theories of Cabinet Government that has ever been disclosed in this country or in the world. On the most important fiscal question, and, as it affects the Empire, the most important of all questions which touch the honour of the country, the Cabinet is allowed to be a disunited body, to make speeches in any direction they please until they have arrived at a conclusion, at a policy on which they can unite. I venture to say that the whole theory of Cabinet Government has never been reduced to such a nullity or to such ridicule.
  The Motion was not pressed.

  REGIMENTAL CANTEENS.
  EARL GREYasked His Majesty's Government if it was quite clear that under the new rules for the management of refreshment branches of regimental institutes, 1903, every regimental commanding officer had the power to apply the co-operative principle to the management of his regimental canteen.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): I can assure the noble Lord

  1169
  that when the regulations were framed the intention of the Secretary of State and of the Commander-in-Chief was that the attention of general officers commanding should be called to the subject; but it was never contemplated that officers in command of regiments would be refused permission to manage their regimental canteens in the way they thought most suitable. Until the noble Earl suggested the doubt, none of the military authorities were aware that it was possible to entertain such a doubt. The tendency of the regulations is to give large authority to the general officers commanding, but also to allow officers commanding regiments to conduct their canteens in the way they consider best.
  EARL GREYsaid that the answer was quite satisfactory, as removing the doubts which had existed.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  COUNTY COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
    EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
      CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
      Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.