Sitting of 29 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 62 AND 66 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders Nos. 62 and 66 have been complied with, viz.:—Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill: Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Sheppy Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 67 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 67 has not been complied with, viz.:—Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; Croydon Gas Bill; Midland Railway Bill; Watford and District Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Arlesey Gas Bill. Order [4th February], that the Arlesey Gas Bill be referred to

  1207
  the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, read, and discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Sheffield; Fenton; Egerton; Belfast; Southport (two); Garston; Uxbridge; Ardwick; Houghton; Hands-worth; St. Asaph; Flint; Newmarket; Uckfield; Bradford; East Ham; Bath; Lampeter; Birmingham; Halesowen; Ormskirk; Barking; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Tenbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.
  Petition from Liverpool, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Thatcham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum (King's Recommendation signified), for grant in aid; referred to the Committee of Supply.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  Paper [presented 26th February] to be printed. [No. 77.]
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158B]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The General Pier and Harbour
  1208
  Act, 1861, and The General Pier and Harbour Act (1861) Amendment Act, Session 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 78.]

  Copy presented, of Report of the War Office (Re-constitution) Committee, Part II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Charitable Endowments (London). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 79.]
  2. Bridlington Piers and Harbour. Copy of Abstract of the General Annual Account for the year ending 26th July, 1903 [by Act].

  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return ordered, "showing the quantity of wines at the various degrees of strength which were imported into the United Kingdom in 1903 from Spain, Portugal, Madeira, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Australasia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 100, of Session 1903)."—(Sir Thomas Dewar.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Vaccination Exemption Certificates— Case of Mr. Bickham.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. George Bickham, of Capstone Road, Bournemouth, has applied twice this year to the Bournemouth police magistrates for a certificate of exemption under Section 2 of The Vaccination Act, 1893, and that when he applied on 15th February, 1904, one of the magistrates declined to allow the certificate to be granted, although the applicant had satisfied two other justices, and announced that the whole of the Bench must be satisfied; and whether, under these and similar circumstances constantly occurring, he will circularise the magistrates, stating that certificates of

    1209
    exemption cannot be withheld where the applicant satisfies two justices as required by the Act.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This is not a matter in which I have any authority to take action. But I have made inquiry, and am informed that, as a fact, the Court in this case consisted of four magistrates, two of whom were in favour of, and two opposed to, the grant of the certificate.

    Incidence of Import Duties in Denmark and the Argentine.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the estimated average incidence of the import duties levied by Denmark and the Argentine Republic, respectively, on the principal articles of British export from the United Kingdom, and the relative position this would assign to each of them in the scale of incidence given in the Blue-book for various Continental and other countries.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The figures for Denmark and the Argentine

    Countries of Importation.

    Belgium.

    France.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    Quantity.

    Value.

    lbs.

    £

    lbs.

    £

    England

    27,321,884

    978,680

    1,230,946

    54,638

    Scotland

    28,983,354

    981,419

    17,371,327

    589,675

    Ireland

    40,512,378

    1,506,717

    —

    —

    Total

    96,817,616

    3,466,816

    18,602,273

    644,313

    Imports of Foreign Goods into Canada.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that British goods have been admitted into Canada since 1897 with a rebate of 25 per cent., which was increased in 1901 to 33⅓ per cent., he can state the total value of United States, German, and Belgian goods respectively imported into the North American Colonies in 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903.
    Republic, calculated on the same principle as those given for certain other countries; in Memorandum No. XVI. of CI. 1761 of 1903, would be about 18 and 16 per cent. respectively. These countries would consequently follow Germany in the list given on page 171 of the Blue-book, the percentage for the Argentine being about the same as for Canada.

    Imports of Linen Yarns from France and Belgium.
    MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the weight and value in sterling of flax line yarns and flax tow yarns imported into England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, during the last five years from France and Belgium.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No distinction is made in the import list between flax line yarns and flax tow yarns, both being classified as linen yarns. The following statement shows the imports of linen yarns from Belgium and France into England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, during the five years ended 31st December, 1903:—
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) As I informed the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division on Wednesday last,† the 25 per cent. rebate given by the Dominion of Canada began on the 1st August, 1898, and the 33⅓ per cent. rebate on 1st July, 1900. The values of the exports of domestic produce and manufacture from Germany, Belgium, and the United States to the British North American Colonies, as shown in the
    † See page, 840.

    1211
    official trade statistics of these countries, in each of the years from 1897 to 1902

    Year.

    From Germany.

    From Belgium.

    From United States (years ended 30th June).

    £

    £

    £

    1897

    838,000

    390,000

    12,580,000

    1898

    1,195,000

    452,000

    16,580,000

    1899

    1,187,000

    503,000

    17,426,000

    1900

    1,000,000

    631,000

    18,990,000

    1901

    1,325,000

    453,000

    21,033,000

    1902

    1,937,000

    366,000

    21,923,000

    Port of London Bill.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to proceed with the Port of London Bill.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Government hope to proceed with this Bill as soon as the state of public business permits.

    Afforestation in Scotland.
    SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the suggestion of the Scottish Arboriculture Society has been brought under his notice that the Government should acquire an estate for afforestation; and whether he will consider the practicability of combining with the proposal the acquisition of ground for a national park in a mountainous district within easy reach of the great centres of population in Scotland.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have received a resolution from the Royal Scottish Arboricultural Society to which I suppose the hon. Member refers. I am unable to entertain any such proposal as that made by the hon. Member in the latter part of his Question.

    Boots for Post Office Messengers—Irish Tenders.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General
    were as follow. Particulars for 1903 are not yet available.
    whether he is aware that advertisements have been inserted in the Irish newspapers asking for tenders for boots for messengers in the service of the General Post Offices, and that samples of such boots have to be sent to a receiving depot in London to be passed; and whether, seeing that, if an Irish manufacturer secures the contract, he has to pay carriage to London, he will arrange that boots for use in Ireland shall be passed at a depot in that country.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Tenders have been invited from a number of firms in Ireland for the supplies required during the forthcoming financial year If any of these firms should receive the contract, arrangements will be made for boots for use in Ireland to be delivered in Ireland.

    Postmastership of Chirk.
    MR. FENWICK: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the postmastership of Chirk has been given to a person not previously employed in the postal service, and without knowledge of the duties to be performed; and will he state whether the vacancy was advertised in the usual way.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) When the vacancy for a sub-postmaster at Chirk

    1213
    occurred, several applications were received, and after due consideration of the qualifications of the several candidates, an appointment was made in the usual manner. The vacancy was not advertised, nor is it usual to do this in respect of offices of this class.

    Compensation for Loss occasioned by In correctly Transmitted Telegrams.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a recent case of a telegram which was addressed to General McCalmont on the message itself but to Colonel McCalmont on the envelope; and whether, in view of the delay in the delivery of the telegram and consequent loss to the addressee, he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter; and also what punishment was awarded in a case some time ago in which a clerk altered or changed a figure in a telegram from 7½d. to 8½d., in which case all compensation was refused to the sender for the loss incurred.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The first case mentioned by the hon. Member has just been brought to my notice, and I am making inquiry. I fear that the second case cannot be identified without further particulars.

    Forestry in Scotland—State Aid.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture is in a position to offer State aid to the project for establishing an experimental area, or Forst-garten, in connection with the system of forestry instruction at Edinburgh.
    (Answered by Mr. Ailywn Fellowes.) We have been in communication with the Scottish Education Department on this subject and I am in a position to say that if any educational institution, such, for example, as the East of Scotland Agricultural College, were to lay itself out to provide education in forestry and
    1214
    to establish an experimental area or Forst-garten in connection therewith, the Department would take such an item of equipment into consideration in determining the amount of any grant that they might give. There would, in fact, be no more difficulty about supporting an institution with a Forst-garten attached than there would be in supporting an instituton with a chemical laboratory or a botanic garden.

    Naval Expenditure.
    SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total estimated Naval Expenditure of this country in each of the financial years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903. 1901–5, including Supplementary Votes and expenditure under Works Bills.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The actual total Naval Expenditure, including Supplementary Votes and Naval Works Acts, during the years 1900–1901,1901–2, and 1902–3, was as follows:—1900–1901: Navy Votes, £29,998,529 4s. 7d; Naval Works Acts, £9,132,533 2s. 8d.; Total £32,131,062 7s. 3d. 1901–2: Navy Votes, £30,981,315 2s. 8d. (a); Naval Works Acts, £2,745,176 8s. 3d.; Total £33,726,491 10s. 11. 1902–3: Navy Votes, £31,003,977 9s. 11d. (b); Naval Works Acts, £3,198,016 14s. 9d.; Total £34,201,994 4s. 8d. The estimated Naval Expenditure during 1903–4 and 1904–5, is as follows:—1903–4, Navy Votes, £35,727,500 (c); Naval Works Acts, £3,493,500; Total £39,221,000. 1904–5: Navy Votes, £36,889,500 (d); Naval Works Acts £5,111,900; Total £42,001,400. The undermentioned Annuties in repayment of Advances in connection with the Naval Works Acts, 1895– 1903, are included in the foregoing figures;—(a) £122,255; (b) £297,895; (c) £502,010; (d) £634,238.

    Naval Expenditure of Foreign Countries.
    SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total naval expenditure of France, Russia, Germany, and America in the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903.

    1215
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following table shows the total naval

    Year.

    France.

    Russia.

    Germany.

    America.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1900

    12,511,054

    8,662,801

    7,472,656

    13,385,574

    2,300,000†

    1901

    13,107,701

    9,359,766

    9,624,956

    16,012,438

    2,300,000†

    1902

    12,271,948

    10,667,983

    10,029,063

    16,203,916

    1903

    12,538,861

    12,349,567

    10,252,014

    16,824,058

    Revenue Derived from Export Duty on Patent Fuel.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of the revenue derived during the nine months ending the 31stDecember, 1903. from the levying of the coal duty on exports of patent fuel.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The net amount of duty received during the nine months ended 31st December, 1903, in respect of patent fuel exported, was £11,799.

    Shankhaiwan Fort.
    MR. LAWRENCE: To ash the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say whether the fort at Shankhaiwan, lately occupied by the Russians, was, on their vacation of it, occupied by the French and the tricolour hoisted; and whether he has any information as to what power at present occupies the position.
    (Answered by Earl Percy.) The portion of the fort at Shankhaiwan, previously occupied by the Russians was, on its evacuation by them, for a time occupied by a French officer with a corporal's guard, and the French flag was hoisted. The French troops have, however, now left, and a party of Russian soldiers from Tientsin are at present in occupation.
    † Represents one-fifth of a sum of £11,500,000 which was a special grant sanctioned in 1897 for new construction, to be spread over a period of five years. The details of this expenditure have not been published.
    expenditure of the countries referred to:—

    Medical Officers and the Milk Supply.
    MR. SHARPE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a clause in the Public Health (Prevention of Diseases) Bill, 1888, seeking to give the medical officer of health powers to demand a full list of a dairyman's customers whose milk supply might come under suspicion, was struck out of the Bill; and that an identical clause, introduced in the Infectious Diseases (Prevention) Bill, 1890, was eliminated from that Bill; and whether the Board will in the present session make their recommendation to the Police and Sanitary Committee that the clause in question be omitted from the various Bills dealing with the milk supply.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I was not aware that the clause referred to was struck out of the Public Health (Prevention of Diseases) Bill, 1888. That Bill did not, I think, proceed beyond First Reading. The clause was, no doubt, eliminated from the Bill of 1890, and it was the practice of the Local Government Board for some years afterwards to draw attention to this circumstance in their Reports on Bills for local Acts. It was found, however, that, notwithstanding this, the clause was, in a large number of cases, allowed by Committees. Moreover, a similar provision was made for Scotland in The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. In these circumstances the Board in 1899 discontinued the practice of drawing attention in their Reports to the action of Parliament in 1890, and I do not propose to resume that practice.

    Actions for Conspiracy in County Courts
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relating to actions for conspiracy in County Courts, England, appearing on the Notice Paper for to-day.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I do not think this Return can be granted. I am not aware of any materials from which it could be compiled.
    The Return referred to is as follows:—Address for Return for five years ended 31st day of December, 1903, showing the number of civil actions for conspiracy which have come before County Court Judges in England and the result in each case.

    Tenders for Coal Supplies at Enniscorthy.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the local papers in which tenders for the coal supplies for the model schools and other public buildings at Enniscorthy have been invited by advertisement.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Waterford News of 29th May, and the Waterford Chronicle of 30th May, 1903.

    Local Traffic in County Wexford.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps are about to be taken to develop the local traffic in county Wexford, and in particular in the Enniscorthy and Newtownbarry districts, under the proposed transit schemes.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is proposed, as I have already pointed out, to establish, experimentally, a motor-car service between Enniscorthy, Kilmuckridge, and Wexford.

    Roman Catholic and Protestant Police at Ballynahinch.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain on what grounds a Roman Catholic constable of
    1218
    the Royal Irish Constabulary was substituted for a Protestant constable in Ballynahinch in January last, who recommended the transfer, and was the county inspectorship temporarily vacant at the time.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The transfer was recommended and carried out by the acting county inspector in the interests of the public service. There are now three Protestants and two Roman Catholic constables at this station.

    Belfast Corporation Gas Accounts Audit.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the corporation gas accounts of the Belfast County Borough for the year ending 31st March, 1903, have not yet been audited, and why the Local Government Board for Ireland has demanded the sum of £50 from the corporation for audit fees for examining the corporation gas accounts, the work not having been performed.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The audit of the general accounts of the corporation for the year ended 31st March 1903 was completed last December. The gas accounts are not included in the general accounts, and are always audited independently of the latter. The audit of the gas accounts will be undertaken as soon as possible. No demand has been made for the sum mentioned in respect of the audit of the gas accounts. This sum represents the balance of the fees due for the audit of the general accounts of the borough council.

    Religion of Belfast Prison Officials.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many officials, male and female, are employed in Belfast Prison; their rank; and how many of them are Roman Catholics, and how many are Protestants.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The following is a statement of the religious denominations of officers employed in the Belfast Prison, so far as officially known and recorded: Male officers—Roman Catholics: 1 Chaplain, 1 chief warder, 1 store keeper, 2 clerks,

    1219
    1 trades warder, 1 hospital warder, 1 schoolmaster warder, 1 clerk warder, 19 ordinary warders. Female officers—Roman Catholics: 1 matron, 1 trade instructress, 1 store keeper, 6 assistant matrons, 1 servant. Male officers—Protestants: 2 Chaplains, 4 trades warders, 1 gardening instructor, 9 ordinary warders. Female officers—Protestants: I hospital nurse, 1 schoolmistress, 4 assistant matrons, 1 servant.

    Actions for Conspiracy in Irish County Courts.
    MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to actions for conspiracy in County Courts, Ireland, appearing on the Notice Paper for to-day.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The information will be procured and communicated to the hon. Member. It is not, however, considered to be of sufficient importance to lay on the Table in the form of a Parliamentary Paper.
    The Return referred to is as follows:—Return for five years ended 31st day of December, 1903, showing the number of civil actions for conspiracy which have come before County Court Judges in Ireland and the result in each case.

    Purchase of the Estate of the late Captain Annesley.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of the representatives of the late Captain Annesley, situated at and near Island, Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, has been offered to the Congested Districts Board for sale, and that an offer has been made by that Board; and whether, if there is any material difference between the demand and offer, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to make a further offer with a view to purchasing the estate for the purpose of enlarging holdings in that district.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Negotiations for the purchase of this estate were contemplated by the Congested Districts Board three years ago, but they were not
    1220
    proceeded with. The Board has no proposal before it at present in respect of the property. If a such proposal be made it will be considered.

    Alleged Perjury at Ballinrobe Petty Sessions.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by two policemen against a publican named Faby, at the Ballinrobe Petty Sessions, quite recently, who was charged with a breach of the Licensing Acts, when the magistrates, having a doubt about the case, left the bench and proceeded to the spot; that on their return they declared it was impossible for the police to have seen what they swore to, and unanimously dismissed the case; and, if so, whether, in view of these facts, he will order a prosecution for perjury to be instituted forthwith.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Papers in the case have been laid before the Attorney-General, who is considering the matter. A decision will be come to by the Government as soon as some further information, which has been called for, is forthcoming.

    Promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery.
    MR. HARE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that there are now two vacancies of lieutenant-colonels and six of majors commanding depot companies, R.G.A., he will say whether it is his intention to fill these vacancies by the promotion of junior officers of the service in the course of the next month or so.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) These two vacancies for lieutenant-colonels will be filled by the promotion of two majors in the Gazette of 1st March. There is only one depot company Royal Garrison Artillery short of a major, and not six. When the two majors mentioned have been promoted there will be five vacancies for majors in the Royal Garrison Artillery, and these will be kept open for the absorption of five majors of Royal Garrison Artillery

    1221
    whose terms of staff employment will expire early in April.

    Sums voted for Somaliland Expedition.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the sums already voted for the Somaliland Expedition and at what dates were they respectively voted, and what sum, if any, will appear in the Estimates for 1904–5 for the purposes of this war.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). The sums are as follows:—Supplementary Army Estimates (1902–3), dated 27th February, 1903, £50,100. (It was anticipated that £250,000 would be spent in the year 1902–3, but that of this sum £200,000 could be found out of savings on other Votes, so that it was only necessary to take £50,100 on Supplementary Estimate.) Army Estimates (1903–4), dated 27th February, 1903, £250,000. Supplementary Army Estimates (1903–4), £1,600,000. Total, £1,900,100. As explained in the Memorandum for Army Estimates, 1904–5, issued to-day, no provision for Somaliland has been included in the original Army Estimates.

    Publication of Army Estimates.
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, when the Army Estimates will be in the hands of Members.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Army Estimates will be distributed to-morrow morning. I have to-day circulated a Memorandum which is already in the hands of Members.

    Huts and Cantonments sent to South Africa—Place of Origin.
    MR. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will state the place of origin of the huts and cantonments sent out to South Africa for the accommodation of the troops.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) The place of origin of these huts for South Africa and their fittings was the United Kingdom.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the nature of the provision for the religious observances of the Chinese imported into the Transvaal which will be secured to them; whether the inquiry that is to be made by a British Officer in China, before he certifies that the contract between the Chinese labourer and the importer has been made voluntarily and with full knowledge of its terms by the labourer, will include an inquiry into whether he has been induced to make it, either by the pressure of some secret society or by the local authorities who wish to get rid of him as an idle or criminal person; and whether the wives and children, who may come with the Chinese labourers to the Transvaal, will be subjected to the same restrictions as to their place of residence as the labourers, and as to the obligation not to engage in any manual labour except mining, and not to trade.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttlelton.) Lord Milner will, no doubt, avail himself of the advice of Mr. Evans, the Protector of Chinese of the Straits Settlements, whose services have been placed at his disposal, in dealing with the arrangements to be made for the religious observances of the Chinese, but I am not at present in a position to state what those arrangements will be. Special care will be taken to secure the contract being made voluntarily and to prevent the engagement of undesirable labourers. The Lieutenant-Governor will make suitable regulations; precisely the same restrictions cannot, of course, be applied to the women and children as to the labourers.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H. M.S. "Prince of Wales"—Defective Armour Plates.
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new battleship "Prince of Wales," which has just completed her gun trials at Chatham, and is to be ready for commission by the end of March, has armour plates around her foremost barbette which are developing fissures and

    1223
    cracks, and scaling off in patches of considerable size and thickness; and, if so, whether she will be allowed to go to sea with defective protection, or whether it will be necessary to unbuild, to remove the defective plates; and, in such case, whether the manufacturers of the armour plates will be called upon to bear the entire expense incurred.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): One of the armour plates of the forward barbette of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" has developed defects on its face since being worked into the ship, but these defects are not of such a serious character as the hon. Member's Question implies, and unless they should prove to be progressive, it will not be necessary to remove and replace the plate. It has been decided to keep the plate under observation for a time, but should an extension of the defects occur, it may be necessary to call upon the manufacturers to provide a new plate.

    New War Ships' Armaments.
    The MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it will be necessary to provide new guns for the two Chilian vessels recently purchased by the Government; and, if so, at what cost.
    MR. PRETYMAN: It will not be necessary to supply new guns for the "Triumph" and "Swiftsure." The guns already provided are suitable, and do not require to be replaced.

    Naval Works Act Expenditure.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the amount that will be spent by 31st March of the present year under the Naval Works Act.
    MR. PRETYMAN: The estimated expenditure up to 31st March next under the Naval Works Act of 1903 is £3,493,500.

    War Office Reconstitution Committee.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when a further Report from the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee will be presented; and whether it will
    1224
    deal with the sanitary administration of the Army, to which no reference is made in the Report recently issued.
    The hon. Member said that the first part Question had been practically answered already by the official publication of the second part of the Report of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was convenient to give any information as to the second part of the Question.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this Report appears in the morning papers to-day before it has been delivered to Members of the House?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTFR,): This Report was not made to me. I am exceedingly sorry it is not in the hands of hon. Members. I thought it was. It certainly ought to have been, and I will see that it is put into their hands at the earliest possible moment. I think the point of sanitary administration will be dealt with in the third part of the Report, which is not yet presented. It is stated in the earlier part of the Report that that is the intention of the Committee.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the third part of the Report be presented in time for its discussion upon the Army Estimates?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think not; but I hope this Report will not be debated upon the Army Estimates, but will be dealt with by itself. I think, in view of the importance of the questions raised, that would be more satisfactory to the House.

    Irish Military Tailors
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the list of firms recommended to young officers in Ireland from whom they should order their uniforms and other necessaries there are several firms who do not pay trade-union labour; and that there are several who do not manufacture

    1225
    the work in their own workshops but give it out to be done by outworkers; and whether, in view of the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire into the conditions of labour in the tailoring trade, he will see that such goods are manufactured in sanitary workshops and free from underpaid conditions.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As there is no War Department contract of any sort made with these firms the conditions of manufacture do not come within the scope of War Department inquiry.

    Assam Excise Administration.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the inquiry which was instituted into the allegations made against the Excise administration of Assam in a memorandum issued by Mr. James Buckingham, CLE., in 1902, on behalf of the Indian Tea Association, has been concluded; and when the Report will be published.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The inquiry has been concluded by the local authorities, and I hope shortly to receive their Report, together with the views of the Government of India upon it.

    Indian Army—Major General's Commands.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether the senior officers of the Indian Army are selected for Major-General's commands by a selection board in India, by the Secretary of State for India, or by the Commander-in-Chief in India or England.
    MR. BRODRICK: These officers are appointed by the Government of India, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief in India.

    India Coolies and Transvaal Mines.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence between the Government of India and the High Commissioner of South Africa relative to
    1226
    the importation of Indian coolies into the Transvaal.
    MR. BRODRICK: There has been no correspondence between the Government of India and the High Commissioner on this subject, and it is not proposed to lay any Papers on the Table.

    Canada and Preferential Tariffs.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if a request has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Canadian Government for preferential tariff treatment: and, if so, will he say what answer, if any, was sent.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTFLTON,): There is no record in my Department of any such request beyond the statement contained in the memorandum of the Canadian Ministers printed in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 1299 of October, 1902.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance Regulations.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will, without prejudice to the power of making further regulations from time to time, cause to be forthwith prepared such and so many regulations regarding the Chinese labour which it is proposed to import into the Transvaal as may be, in the first instance, necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the Ordinance and the pledges which he has himself given; and whether he will cause these regulations to be communicated to Parliament before authorising the embarkation of any Chinese for South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON: These regulations are being prepared. They will be laid upon the Table as soon as they are completed. I will not sanction the embarkation of any labourers till I am satisfied that the pledges which I have given to' the House are embodied in the regulations. Beyond this I cannot give any further undertaking.
    MR. BRYCE: Do I understand that labourers may be embarked before the House has seen the regulations?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir; that will probably not be the fact. My right hon. friend will see that there must be a very considerable proceeding by way of explanation of the contract, and so forth, in China before any embarkation can take place. The regulations which prescribe that procedure will be laid on the Table immediately they are passed.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations under the Chinese Labour Ordinance will be framed before Chinese labourers are recruited in China, if not, what steps will be taken to enable the superintendent of labourers in China to inform the labourers of the proposed terms of service.
    MR. LYTTLETON: Yes, Sir, the regulations which concern the terms of service as laid down in the contract must obviously be framed before definite contracts are made.

    Prices of Stores for Chinese Coolies.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the Chinese Labour Ordinance, any steps will be taken by the Government to regulate the prices of goods to be supplied to the coolies by the stores in the compounds; and, if not, how they propose to prevent the coolies being mulcted of their wages.
    MR. LYTTELTON: If the superintendent of labourers finds it necessary, it will be open to the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations on the subject, but, as I understand, the labourers will be able to go out to make their purchases. I am in communication with Lord Milner on the subject.

    Transvaal Mines—Sunday Regulations.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Secreretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Sunday Labour Law in the Transvaal prohibits labour in the mines on Sunday, he will use his influence to secure that the coolies shall be allowed to go outside of the compounds on Sundays.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The extent to which it will be convenient and desirable
    1228
    to grant permits under Clause 19 of the Ordinance must be left for settlement in the light of experience.

    British Columbia and Chinese and Japanese Immigrants.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that agitation existed in the Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada, against Chinese and Japanese immigration into that province; that for many years, at every session of the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia, Acts were enacted prohibiting the immigration of Japanese, and were disallowed by the Dominion Government at the request and on the advice of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, will he state whether an Act passed at the last session of the British Columbia Legislature against Japanese immigration has been allowed and is now law.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on the 15th instant to the Question put to me on this subject by the hon. Member for Dundee.†
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the Bill had now become law and was not to be disallowed.
    Mr. LYTTELTON'Sanswer was inaudible.

    Canada and Chinese Immigrants.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Canadian Government impose a tax of $500 per head in the matter of Chinese immigration into Canada, he can state if he has any official information showing the effect of this restriction upon Chinese immigration into Canada.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The capitation tax of $500 was only imposed last year, and I have no information as to its effect on immigration.

    Quebec and Irish Home Rule
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the
    † See (4) Debate, cxxix., 1320.

    1229
    House a copy of the resolution in favour of Home Rule for Ireland adopted by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, within the last two years and of the answer sent.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, Sir.

    South Africa—Free Grants of Land to Soldier Settlers
    Mr. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state if any grants of land in the new South African Colonies, and, if any, how many, have been made to Yeomanry or Reservists who took part in the late war.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member will see by reference to the Ordinances printed at pages 25 and 69 of Cd. 1463 that no provision is made for free grants of land in the new Colonies, though preference is to be given to those who served in the war. I will request the Governor to report how many Yeomen and Reservists have taken up land under those Ordinances.

    Crown Agents.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Crown Agents for the Colonies are appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; whether the staff of the Crown Agents is appointed by them; and whether the commission allowed to be levied by the Crown Agents on stores, railways, general business, etc., goes in relief of the general cost of the maintenance of the office or is part of the remuneration allowed to the Crown Agents individually; and, if so, how is it divided amongst them.
    MR. LYTTELTON: (1) The Crown Agents for the Colonies are appointed by the Secretary of State; (2) Their staff is appointed by themselves; (3) All the commissions levied by them, under the authority of the Secretary of State, go into the general fund, out of which the office is maintained and on which the salaries fixed for the Agents individually are charged; and (4) no part of such commissions is divided amongst
    1230
    them, and they receive no remuneration whatever beyond their fixed salaries.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there not now a very large balance of that general fund not applied?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Land Concessions in East Africa.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, pending survey and suitable reserves being made for natives, he will assure the House that no further concessions of land in East Africa will be granted to syndicates.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): Every application for land must be treated on its merits and every concession granted is subject to the provisions of the Crown Lands Ordinance, 1902, which protects the rights of natives. An extensive tract of country is being reserved as grazing ground for the Masai, and His Majesty's Commissioner has been instructed to make no further grants within this area.

    Belligerents in Neutral Ports.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any international undertaking that belligerent ships of war should restrict their stay in neutral ports to twenty-four hours, or whether such instructions are only applicable to British ports.
    EARL PERCY: There is no such international undertaking. The rule was adopted by this country in 1862, and, since that date, several foreign States have issued similar rules in connection with their observance of neutrality.

    Brussels Sugar Convention—Permanent Bureau.
    MR. LOUGH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it is the duty of the permanent bureau set up under the Brussels Sugar Convention to collect, translate, arrange, and publish

    1231
    information of all kinds respecting legislation on and statistics of sugar, not only in the contracting States but in other States as well, he will say if any such information has yet been published by the permanent bureau; and, if so, when it will be laid before Parliament.
    EARL PERCY: The proéh verbaux of the sittings of the Permanent Commission in June and July last, as well as fascicules 1–8 concerning the legislation of various countries, were sent to the Library of the House of Commons on the 26th of November. Fascicules 9 and 10 dealing with the legislation of Denmark and the Danish Antilles were sent to the Library on the 25th instant. Subsequent publications when received will be laid in due course.
    MR. LOUGH: Have any statistics been published by the Bureau?
    EARL PERCY: Yes.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would it be possible to have the procés verbaux laid on the Table, or are they too long?
    EARL PERCY: They are exceedingly bulky.

    Alleged Seizure of British Colliers by Russia.
    MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the seizure by Russian destroyers in the Red Sea of British steamers laden with coal to Japan; and whether, in view of the fact of coal not having been declared contraband of war by Russia, and that over 15 ships of a total value, including cargo, of over £700,000, have sailed from Cardiff under similar conditions and insured in London in the belief that coal was not declared contraband of war by Russia, he will state whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any action in the matter.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have no information respecting the alleged seizures. They have been informed that the Russian Government are at present considering regulations in regard to contraband visits on the high seas, Prize Courts, &c, and that these
    1232
    regulations will shortly be communicated to the Powers.

    Central African Natives and the Transvaal Mines.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers promised last session on the result of the experiment of importing Central African Natives into the Transvaal for labour in the mines will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    EARL PERCY: I propose to lay the Papers shortly.

    Continental Labour Farms.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state where copies of the Report furnished by His Majesty's Consuls on the Working of Labour Farms on the Continent can be had.
    EARL PERCY: The Returns asked for have only lately been completed and are now in course of revision for Parliament.

    Command of the Macedonian Gendarmerie.
    Mr. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government has insisted that General Giorgis, who has been selected for the command of the gendarmerie in Macedonia, shall be subject to the control of Mustapha Pasha, who has been placed as a Turkish officer over that corps or of such other Turkish officer as may be appointed by the Sultan to that post; whether the European Powers, with whom the scheme for the gendarmerie is being arranged, have refused to agree to this demand, and in particular what has been the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards it; and what is the present position of the gendarmerie scheme.
    EARL PERCY: We have received no information that any such demand has been made by the Turkish Government. General de Giorgis and the Committee of Staff Officers of the six Powers

    1233
    have, we understand, drawn up a statement of the conditions which they think necessary for the successful reorganisation of the gendarmerie. It is hoped that its immediate presentation to and acceptance by the Porte will enable the officers to proceed to their posts without further delay.
    MR. BRYCE: Do I understand that General de Giorgis will be in supreme command of the gendarmerie and that no Turkish officer will be placed over him?
    EARL PERCY: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Current Year's Revenue.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has reason to anticipate that the revenue of the current financial year will be sufficient to provide for the new burdens created by the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy, Army, and Civil Services.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, sir.

    Royal Commission on Our Coal Supplies.
    SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will lay at an early date upon the Table of the House the evidence before the Royal Commission on our Coal Supplies, so far as it relates to the coal tax.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Coal Commission has already published one volume of Evidence, and another volume, I understand, is in the hands of the printer for press. It will therefore appear shortly. I am informed that it is expected that the final volume of Evidence and the 'Report will be published this year; and that the evidence concerning the coal tax, together with the conclusions respecting it arrived at by the Commission, will appear in these final volumes.

    Produce of the Coal Tax.
    SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
    1234
    he will state the amount of the revenue which has accrued from the coal tax during the nine months ending 31st December, 1903.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The net amount of Revenue which accrued from the coal tax during the nine months ended 31st December, 1903, was £1,583,903.

    Adulteration of Whiskey in Bond.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the character of some blends of so-called Irish and Scotch malt whiskey; whether he is aware that a blend made up in a bonded warehouse in Scotland, the total amount of which was 2,500 gallons, was composed of about 2,000 gallons of English spirit and about 500 gallons of raw grain patent spirit less than one year old, and was sold to the public as genuine malt whiskey; and, if so, will he state what steps the Treasury intend to take to safeguard the public.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information to confirm the allegations made; but if whiskey which is not made of malt is sold as malt whiskey, it is an offence against the Merchandise Marks Act.
    MR. FLAVIN: If I send him a sample made from raw grain spirit, will the right hon. Gentleman take the responsibility of sampling it himself?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot pretend to be an authority on the subject.
    MR. FLAVIN: You might do your best by trying it.

    Street Traffic—Regulations as to Covered Vans.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will endeavour to arrauge for regulations to be issued in regard to covered vans, so that the extent of view to be provided for the driver under the London County Council bye-law, recently

    1235
    confirmed by the Secretary of State, may be made perfectly clear.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have no power to make any such regulations; and it seems to me that the terms of the bye-law which I indicated to my hon. friend the other day are sufficiently clear, viz., that the driver must have a full and uninterrupted view in front and abreast of him on each side. Whether in any given case this requirement is satisfied is a question which must be settled according to the facts of the case—by a Court of Law, if necessary.

    Prison Treatment of Passive Resisters.
    MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Alderman O'Connor, of Fulham, recently imprisoned in Chelmsford Gaol for default in payment of rates; and, if so, will he say whether it is customary for such an offence to compel prisoners to pick oakum, to search them every day, and to supply them with ritualistic tracts.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The prisoner in question was treated in the same way as other prisoners who come within the rules for debtors. Such prisoners must be given some employment, and when the term of detention is so short as fourteen days it is sometimes impossible to find any better employment than oakum-picking. Alderman O'Connor was searched on reception, but only once after that. He was supplied with a Bible, Prayer-book, Hymn-book, and a book called "The Narrow Way" (which I am assured cannot be called a ritualistic tract), and a library book. He made no complaints.

    Sale of Poisons—Southwark Inquest.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a coroner's inquest, held at Southwark on the 23rd inst., when the jury, in returning a verdict of death by misadventure, added a rider that the sellers of acids and all poisons should be compelled to label the vessel with the
    1236
    name of the substance it contained and the word poison, and that no poison should be sold to young children except in sealed bottles; and, if so, will the question of legislation on the subject receive his consideration.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have been asked by my right hon. friend to answer this Question. I am not aware of the facts of this particular case, but as to further legislation with regard to the sale of poisons I would refer my hon. friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the 4th March last,† indicating that the matter only awaited a favourable opportunity.

    Sugar Surtax.
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the nature of the matter to be brought before the Permanent Commission, established under the Brussels Sugar Convention, in March next, with reference to the limitation of the surtax laid down in Article III. of the Convention, the Government propose to take the advice of experts in the trades interested.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have taken steps to learn the views of those interested in the trades referred to, and I shall be glad to consult further with any expert who may be suggested by the Association representing these trades.

    British Merchant Crews—Desertions at San Francisco.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been directed to the percentage of British merchant crews who desert their ships at San Francisco, forfeiting their wages and effects, in contrast with those of French ships, whose owners have a pecuniary interest in retaining them; and whether he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to amending the Merchant Shipping Act, Section 232, so as to assimilate the procedure in regard to unpaid
    † See (4) Debates, exviii., 1344.

    1237
    wages of deserters to that provided in the case of seamen deceased, or will otherwise deal with the matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the percentage of British merchant seamen who desert at San Francisco, forfeiting their wages and effects, as compared with the percentage of deserters from French vessels at the same port, and the matter has been referred to in official documents which I have received from the United States. The question of amending Section 232 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, is under my consideration, and the Board of Trade are in communication with various bodies representing British shipowners on the subject.

    The Irish Land Act.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £50,000 a year for four years, reserved out of the Irish Development Grant Fund for expenses connected with the loan for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, of last year, will be available to meet the discount at which the stock may have to be floated; and, if not, will he explain exactly to what expenses that sum is to be devoted.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The four sums of £50,000 to which the hon. Member refers will not be available for meeting the charges occasioned by the issue of stock at a discount. It is provided by the Act that these charges are to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund. The sums in question are intended to form a working balance of the Land Purchase Fund to meet temporarily the charges upon that fund which may arise before moneys applicable to them are received. For instance, dividends on the Stock will accrue for payment before annuities are in hand for paying them; and cash will be needed out of which immediate advances can be made in anticipation of issues of Stock.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the discounts will have to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: This £50,000 is part of the Guarantee Fund. Does it mean that no part of the £50,000 is to be set aside year by year for four years to meet the expenses of the flotation, and that the discounts at which the stock may be issued will have to be paid out of the Development Grant?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do I understand that the £50,000 set aside will not be sufficient to meet the expenses?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No Sir. I had better repeat the first sentence of my answer—
    "The four sums of £50,000 to which the hon. Member refers will not be available for meeting the charges occasioned by the issue of stock at a discount. It is provided by the Act that those charges are to be paid out of the Guarantee Fund."
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: This is a matter of vital importance. It was clearly understood by all of us that the £50,000 were to be set aside for the cost of flotation, including the discounts. Are we to understand now that the cost of discounts is to be paid out of the Development Grant in addition to the sum taken from that fund for the cost of flotation?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite agree that the matter is an important one. Possibly if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the subject he will be good enough to put a further Question on the Paper, because I ought not to speak without having time for consideration. But the four sums of £50,000 were not intended on either side of the House to pay the cost of flotation.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: It was so understood by us.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We may possibly be using language in a different sense. I should like any further Question put down.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman is right every one of us

    1239
    who supported the Bill were under an entire misapprehension. I will certainly put down a further Question.

    Unexpended Balances of Irish Votes.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what Votes the unexpended balance of £718,136 7s. 11d. arose on Irish Votes during the last ten years; whether this sum is placed to the credit of any Irish account so that it may be available for Irish purposes, and if not, what has become of this money; and whether, beyond the above amount during the last ten years, there have been any savings from the Votes for the Post Office, Revenue Departments, or other Votes of a general character on the amounts stated in the annual Returns as having been expended in Ireland; and, if so, what is the additional amount of these savings and to what purposes have they been applied.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The aggregate surrender includes surpluses on all the Irish Votes. The unexpended balances on Irish Votes are treated in the same way as similar balances on English and Scotch Votes—that is to say, they go in reduction of the total charge against revenue, and if, as the result, the revenue exceeds the expenditure for the year, the surplus is by statute applied to the Old Sinking Fund in reduction of debt. The amounts shown in the Financial Relations Returns as expended on Irish Account are not based on the voted grants, but on the issues made from the Exchequer to meet actual expenditure, so far as it can be ascertained.
    MR. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor said that any savings effected in these Irish Votes would be applied solely to Irish purposes?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of anything in that direction at all. Which predecessor does my hon. friend mean?
    MR. LOUGH: The last but one.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think he could have made a statement in such wide general terms. Ireland is treated in this matter exactly as England and Scotland are.
    MR. MOONEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a Return showing how the amount of £718,136 7s. 11d. returned by him as the amount of unexpended balances surrendered to the Imperial Exchequer by the Irish Government in the last ten years is made up, giving the various heads and the amount under each head.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: These figures are published every year. They appear in the column headed "Surpluses" in the "Abstract Statement showing the Appropriation of Grants" which is appended to the annual Reports of the Public Accounts Committee.

    Irish Local Government Board Officials.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the names of the persons who have been appointed inspectors, auditors, and arbitrators of the Local Government Board for Ireland since the Local Government Act of 1898 was passed, giving in each case the tenure of the appointment, the date on which the appointment was made, the qualifications of the persons appointed, and stating what test, if any, such qualifications were subjected to.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): A Return containing the information desired in the Question is being prepared and will be forwarded to the hon. Member when complete.

    Irish Resident Magistrate Major Gosselin.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what data Major Nicholas Gosselin was appointed a resident magistrate for Ireland; the various places in which he has been stationed since the date of his appointment; where he is stationed at the

    1241
    present time; whether he has discharged any duties except those of resident magistrate since the date of his appointment; and, if so, what is the nature of those duties.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Major Gosselin was appointed resident magistrate on the 2nd August, 1882. He was stationed for a short time at Killeshandra, County Cavan, and at Sligo. He was subsequently seconded for employment on special duty and ceased to act under the Irish Executive. He retired on pension on the 12th instant.

    Irish Labourers Bill.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will immediately introduce the promised measure dealing with labourers in Ireland, so as to afford ample time for the consideration of its provisions by those specially interested in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Prime Minister will answer this Question to-morrow.

    Cooscroum (Kerry) Improvement Works.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board intend to carry out the promised improvements at Cooscroum, county Kerry, without any further delay.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The delay is unavoidable. Work will be commenced on the landing place next month.

    Dublin Natural History Museum.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Board of Visitors of the Dublin Natural History Museum, in which it it stated, page 414, that the staff has not been increased during the past twenty-five years; whether he is aware that attention has been repeatedly called to this want of additional assistance in previous years; and whether, in view of the fact that catalogues and guides cannot be prepared and that the work of sorting and classifying the specimens is largely at a standstill for want of more skilled help,
    1242
    he will provide permanent Additional assistance as has been done in the case of the British Museum.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the sufficiency of the staff of the Natural History Museum is at present engaging the consideration of the new Department.

    Land Purchase in King's County— Doolan's Case
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the position under the Land Purchase Act of Amos Palmer Doolan, of Shinrone, King's county, who was evicted in December.1888, by his landlord, John Lloyd, esquire, Gloster; is he aware that Doolan has made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement; that his rent was £143 per annum; that the holding is now let at £90 per eleven months, which expires on the 25th February; and that Llewellyn W. M. Lloyd, the present landlord, proposes to sell this property or is in communication with the Estates Commissioners on the subject; and whether, before the sale is sanctioned, Doolan's case will receive due consideration.
    MR. WYNDHAM: An application for reinstatement has been received on behalf of this evicted tenant. It will be duly considered.

    Constable Walsh of Rostrevor.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if the young lady who complained of being molested by a police constable in Rostrevor, who stopped her in the street and insisted on giving her readings from the Bible, has been afforded an opportunity of identifying him; whether constable Walsh has denied that he is the constable concerned; and what steps have been taken by the authorities to ascertain the identity of the constable concerned.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The lady in question was interviewed by the district inspector. She stated she was unable to identify

    1243
    the constable who read to her a passage from a book, which she believed was a Bible. Constable Walsh denies that he ever gave, or offered to give, a Bible to any Roman Catholic lady. I am inquiring whether he ever read a portion of the Bible to a young lady. But short of this, however, it is not proposed to take further action in the matter, of which sufficient notice has already been taken.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has intimated to constable Walsh of Rostrevor his disapproval of the constable's conduct in attending in uniform certain open-air sectarian meetings in that town; whether the Inspector-General has expressed his disapproval of the constable's conduct in entering into religious controversies; and whether the Inspector-General has conveyed his disapproval of the constable's conduct in distributing sectarian newspapers to workmen in the town.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The constable attended in uniform an open-air meeting of the Church Army. The Inspector General informed him that it would be more prudent to attend outdoor religious services in plain clothes. He was also informed that he should avoid entering into religious controversy or distributing copies of the British Workman newspaper.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House on whose authority he informed the House last week that this constable had not been censured at all?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The intimation did not amount to censure, and in any case I think the hon. Member attributes undue importance to the matter.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I think I am entitled to ask the Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order, on the answer to one Question, to revert to the answer to a previous Question.
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I point out that if I hand in notice of a Question
    1244
    dealing with a reply to a previous Question the Clerk at the Table at once says I am not entitled to put it?
    MR. SPEAKER: And quite rightly.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Can I ask this——
    MR. SPEAKER: I cannot advise the hon. Member what sort of Question will be in order. He must present it at the Table in the ordinary way, and objection will be taken if it is objectionable, and can, if necessary, be dealt with by me.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I do not want to argue the question, but——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member had better proceed to his next Question.

    Head Constable Moore, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. MACVEAGH; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how long Head Constable Moore has been engaged on temporary duty at Greencastle, county Antrim, and when the temporary duty is likely to come to an end.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Since the 10th August last. There is no intention at present to withdraw this Head Constable from Greencastle.
    MR. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state in what temporary character this constable is employed and how many years he will be so employed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered the Question on the Paper, and have stated there is no intention of with drawing him.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is it a fact that this man has been engaged for twelve months on temporary duty, and will the right hon. Gentleman state how much longer he will be so engaged?
    MR. WYNDHAM: As long as it is considered advisable.

    Land Purchase in Galway.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any sales or transfers of estates have under the provisions of the Land Act of last session been effected in the agricultural districts situate within the limits of the Parliamentary Borough of Galway; whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to the uneconomic holdings at Castlegar and other agricultural districts within the limits of the borough; and whether, in view of the fact that tracts of available land now used as grazing farms are in the vicinity of these holdings he will, in order to decrease emigration from this district, direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board to this part of the nest of Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No overtures have been made to the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of lands within the area mentioned in the Question. Any representations made to the Commissioners or to the Congested Districts Board in this respect will be duly considered.

    Railway Bates from Galway to Dublin.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any representations have been made by the Department of Agriculture to the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland with respect to the rates charged for the carriage of goods and agricultural products from Galway to Dublin; and, if so, what answer was received.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has not received any complaints from traders in respect to this matter. If such are made they will receive the careful consideration of the Department.

    Ballinrobe Petty Sessions—Licensing Prosecution.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Allen Bell, R.M., in presiding at the Ballinrobe Petty Sessions a few days ago, declared that the evidence
    1246
    of two policemen who had preferred a charge against a publican, named Faby, under the Licensing Acts was untrue, and after personally investigating the case dismissed it on the merits; and will he state whether the resident magistrate reported this case to the Attorney-General with a view to a prosecution for perjury; and, if not, will he state what steps he proposes to take in view of his conduct.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The papers in the case have been laid before the Attorney-General, who is considering the matter. A decision will be come to by Government as soon as some further information, which has been called for, is forthcoming.

    Insurance of Fishing Boats.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board has had under consideration for more than a year an insurance scheme for fishing boats; is he now in a position to say what decision has been arrived at; and, if so, in view of the approach of the spring fishing season, what steps should be taken by the fishermen to avail themselves of the scheme.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The preparation of a scheme has necessitated careful consideration and inquiries. A draft of a proposed scheme will come before the Board at its next meeting, when it is expected that any unsettled questions will be disposed of.

    Evicted Tenants in County Cork.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many applications for reinstatement have been received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants in Cork county since November last; and, if any independent action will be taken by the Estates Commissioners by means of which some of these evicted tenants may be reinstated during the approaching spring.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Four hundred and twenty-nine such applications have been received. Upon the sale of estates in

    1247
    the county the inspectors have instructions to report on these applications with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

    Street Preaching in Cork.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 14th and 21st instant attacks were made on street preachers in Cork; that on the latter date a man named Henry Morris, of Jewish per-suasion, was beaten and robbed; and that on mounting a side car the carman refused to drive him; can he state how many arrests were made; and what action, if any, he intends to take to prevent such attacks.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No attack was made on the preachers on either of the dates mentioned. A large hostile crowd had assembled on each occasion, but the preachers were effectually protected by the police from assault or injury. The painful and deplorable assault committed on Mr. Morris, who is not a preacher, was not witnessed by the police, and he is unable to identify his assailants. No arrests have yet been made in connection with the assault, though vigilant inquiries have been, and are still being, made by the police. The police will continue to afford every possible protection to the preachers.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unanimous feelings of all religious denominations in the south of Ireland is that street preaching should not be tolerated.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot reply to that.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Protestants of Cork have strongly protested against this intolerable street preaching nuisance.
    MR. CREAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the man Morris was attacked in consequence of his being a Jew? or it was for a political reason?
    MR. SLOAN: Is it not a fact that the citizens of Cork who attempted to rescue this man were themselves molested?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of the fact. The subject of street preaching has often been discussed in this House and the opinions of the Government are well known.
    Several HON. MEMBERSrose to put further Questions, but the SPEAKER declined to allow the matter to proceed further.

    Fair Rent Cases in County Roscommon.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some 500 tenants on the Murphy and De Freyne estates, in the county Roscommon, have recently served notices to have a fair rent fixed; and, if so, whether he will urge the Land Commission to take steps to expedite the hearing of cases in distressed districts; and whether he will recommend the Land Commission to immediately detach special Sub-Commissioners to deal with the De Freyne and Murphy estates.
    MR. WYNDHAM: All fair rent applications from these districts, lodged before the 1st January, were heard on the 2nd and 3rd instant. Some 200 applications have been received since the 1st January, and a Sub-Commission will be sent down to hear them as soon as arrangements can be made.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: In view of the peculiar circumstances connected with this district, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the Land Commissioners his desire to have these cases tried as soon as possible?
    MR. WYNDHAM: They will be tried as soon as arrangements can be made.

    Railway Facilities in County Limerick
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution, unanimously adopted by the traders and others in Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, complaining of the action of the Great

    1249
    Southern and Western Railway Company in withdrawing the Sunday trains between Limerick and Tralee; whether he is aware that the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company ran these trains continually for years, and that by the amalgamation of this company with the former the public were guaranteed equal facilities to those heretofore enjoyed by them; and, if so, whether, in view of the loss and inconvenience caused by the discontinuance of these trains, he will take steps to have them continued.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has not been received. I understand, however, that the trains referred to were postal service trains and were discontinued because the receipts from the Post Office authorities, together with receipts from ordinary traffic, did not cover working expenses. This being so, the Department is not in a position usefully to make any representations to the company as suggested.

    Roxboro' Road School, Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the money which has accumulated in the hands of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland on account of the Roxboro' Road School, Limerick, has been yet applied, as he last year, in answer to a Question†, stated that it might, to the purposes of technical education in the city of Limerick; and, if not, will he explain how the case now stands.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This matter cannot conveniently be discussed in the form of an answer to a Question. It has formed the subject of correspondence with the Borough Council of Limerick, which the hon. Member has probably seen, and, if not, I shall be happy to supply him with a copy.

    Irish Tourist Services.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the dates on which the tourists' services were established between Listowel and Tarbert by car, between Tarbert and Kilrush by
    † See (4) Debates, cxix., 358.
    1250
    steamer, and between Ennistimon and Ballyvaughan by car; and whether he will say if the service was a daily one; and, if not, what portion of the year was covered by the service between Listowel and Tarbert, Tarbert and Kilrush, and Ennistimon and Ballyvaughan.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have called for but not yet received this information, and must ask the Hon. Member to repeat the Question to-morrow.

    Knockavilla Catholics and the Police.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for some time past policemen are in the habit of watching the Roman Catholic church and the congregation at Knockavilla, county Tipperary, during the hours of worship on Sundays; is he aware of the views of the congregation upon the action of the police, and will he state for what purpose they are there.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. The police attend service in this church and afterwards remain in the village for the purpose of enforcing the Licensing Laws.

    Tulla Labourers' Cottages Scheme.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Local Government Board has not sanctioned certain schemes for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Tulla, county Clare, union district, which have been presented by the local council.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The schemes were inquired into so long ago as 1895. They were not then sanctioned for reasons which were communicated in detail to the local authority. If fresh representations are now submitted to the Board by the district council they will be considered.

    Arklow Harbour.
    MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of

    1251
    the fact that Arklow Harbour was constructed in opposition to the protest of the local authorities, by whom the Board of Works' plans were condemned; and whether, in view of the present condition of the harbour, and of the fact that the industries of the town are threatened with extinction, he will see that the necessary repairs are carried out by the Board of Works who are responsible for the construction of the harbour.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A committee of persons locally interested raised objections to the plans. Other persons in the locality supported the plans, which. I have already stated, were approved by two eminent harbour engineers whom the Government deputed to report upon the Board's scheme. The silting up of the harbour does not prove that the scheme was faulty. In reply to the concluding inquiry I have nothing to add to my former statements on the subject.

    Galway Bates.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney - General for Ireland whether he is aware that an area within the town limits of Galway is covered with ruins and waste buildings which are exempt from the payment of rates, and which the owners will not put in repair; and, if so, whether, in view of the representations of the urban council of Galway in this matter, it is his intention to introduce legislation this session which will enable the council to deal effectively with the matter and to levy rates on this area.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): There is no intention to introduce legislation dealing specially with this particular case. If the hon. Member wishes to ascertain what are the intentions of Government with regard to any measure dealing with local taxation generally he should address his Question to the Prime Minister.

    Dublin Post Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why officers promoted in Dublin recently have not been called on to perform the duties proper to their class, namely,
    1252
    supervising duties in the sorting office; and state whether he is a ware that an officer on the clerk's class who was promoted a few years ago has never done a supervising duty in the sorting office,
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am making enquiry on the subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Question Withdrawn.
    The following Question appeared on the Paper, but Mr. NANNETTI declined to put it as it had been so altered at the Table as to destroy its meaning:
    Mr. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Post Office Vote in which the Committee stated with reference to the Corcoran defalcations that the Committee were not satisfied from the evidence before them that the fine of £10 was adequate to the occasion; and, if so, whether, considering the punishment meted out to subordinate officers, he intends to take any steps in view of this Report."

    Cork Telegraph Staff.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the case of the male telegraph learners in the Cork Office who have recently qualified, and who are still on half pay; and, if so, will he explain why these qualified officers are compelled to perform two hours work per day in the sorting office without remuneration on the ground of learning their duties.
    LORD STANLEY: I have made inquiry, as I promised the hon. Member, and I find that two male learners, who qualified recently for appointment, but for whom there are at present no full time duties on which they can be employed, have given two hours additional attendance in the sorting office for the purpose of enabling them to maintain their efficiency in postal work. They continue to rank as learners, but if an opportunity occurs for giving them full-time employment,

    1253
    their oases will not be lost sight of. A revision of the staff is now under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the Secretary of State for War when the Army Estimates will be in the hands of hon. Members? I see that they, like the Report of the Re-constitution Committee, have been handed to the Press first.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a matter, I think, for which I am responsible. I understood that hon. Members were most desirous to see the figures of the Army Estimates before the discussion took place on the Navy Estimates. I therefore took care that the Memorandum should be circulated, and I believe it is at this moment in the Vote Office. The Army Estimates themselves will not be circulated until to-morrow. For the convenience of hon. Members I did endeavour on Saturday night to have the Memorandum circulated, and if it was not in the hands of hon. Members this morning that matter I regret. If the exigencies of printing did not allow hon. Members to receive it before midday to-day I regret it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The point is that if it is not possible to place these documents in the hands of Members they ought not to be given to the Press.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I admit that as a general procedure; but this is a particular case, because I understood that it was thought desirable that this document should be in the hands of on. Members to-day before they discussed the Navy Estimates. I have done my very best to secure its circulation to-day. If Government printing goes a little less rapidly than other printing that is a matter for which I am not responsible. I did my best to secure the circulation of the Papers to-day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: How did it get to the Press?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This occurred on Saturday, and the Press have
1254
facilities for printing on Saturday and Sunday which the Government do not possess. There has been no unusual course taken. The course taken has been, I believe, for the convenience of Members.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Press could not bring it out until they got it.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If I may use a printing phrase, the copy went to both printers at the same time. There is no doubt about that.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Now I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the order of business will be this week.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: We propose to take the Navy Estimates to-day, tomorrow, and Wednesday, and the Army Estimates on Thursday moving the Speaker out of the Chair.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Seeing that the Army Estimates will not be in the hands of hon. Members till to-morrow, is it not scanty time to allow till only Thursday for hon. Members to consider them?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the Question to-morrow the matter shall be considered meantime.
MR. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of supplying Blue-books and other State Papers to hon. Members and to the Press simultaneously.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Member had better put that Question down. It is now three o'clock, and the matter is not one of an urgent character.

EDITING QUESTIONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked permission to call Mr. Speaker's attention to a matter regarding the practice of the House which affected every Member on either side. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that that

1255
very day a Question down in the name of his hon. friend the Member for the College Green Division of Dublin was not put because his hon. friend complained that crucial words had been eliminated without any reason having been given to his hon. friend by the clerks at the Table. His hon. friend had told him that he received no communication whatever from the clerks at the Table about the elimination, of which he certainly ought to have had notice. He did not wish to show any personal disrespect to the learned gentlemen at the Table, but he desired it to be perfectly understood that Questions were not to be edited by the clerks except with the permission of Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech. He is not asking my ruling; he is giving his own ruling.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was endeavouring to give Mr. Speaker's ruling in his own words. Perhaps he was putting it too enthusiastically. But he would put himself in order by asking a Question. He wished to know whether the clerks at the Table had any light to alter a Question without Mr. Speaker's permission, and whether if they did alter a Question, it was not their duty to ask the hon. Member putting the Question whether he approved of the alteration. In this particular case the fact that the words omitted were crucial words was proved by their insertion in the typewritten answer which had been supplied.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that when any substantial alteration was thought necessary it was the duty of the clerks to communicate with the hon. Member putting the Question, and they always endeavoured to do so. It was often very difficult to communicate with an hon. Member about his Question, but he was told that this Question had been in print for some days in the form in which it now stood on the Paper, and if the words left out were so crucial he should have thought the hon. Member for College Green would have called attention to it before. He assured the hon. Member that there was no attempt on the part of the clerks at the Table to assume any undue-authority.
MR. NANNETTI,as a matter of personal explanation, said another Question of his received similar treatment the week before, and was rendered ridiculous by having the very kernel taken out of it. In declining to put the Question under discussion he did not intend to be either rude or discourteous to the House, but as a protest against the way in which his Questions had been frequently treated at the clerks' Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Married Women's Property Act, 1882,"presented by Mr. Kimber; supported by Sir George Bartley, Mr. Eugene Was on, and Mr. Lowe; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
  PHARMACY BILL.
  "To provide for the further regulation of the sale of poisons, and the compounding of medical prescriptions, and to amend the Pharmacy Acts, 1852, and 1868,"presented by Mr. Lough; to be read a second time upon Monday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS AND ELECTIONS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the qualification and registration of Parliamentary Voters and to Parliamentary Elections; and for other purposes in relation thereto," presented by Mr. John Sinclair; supported by Mr. Ashton, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Kearley, and Mr. Ure; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th July, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
Order for Committee read.
MR. LOUGHsaid that, on a point of order, he wished to ask whether they could have the business taken in the order in which it was printed on the Paper, and whether hon. Members who had obtained a place in the ballot might not go on with their Motions before

1257
the Secretary to the Admiralty made his statement?
MR. SPEAKERsaid there was no point of order. The hon. Member in charge of the Order of the Day was about to move that he leave the Chair, and if the hon. Member wished to preface that with certain observations it was not in his power to prevent him. That practice had of late years been frequently followed both with the Navy and Army Estimates.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that in moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair it would be for the convenience of the House if he made a general statement on the Navy Estimates. He felt that in continuing this practice, which had been followed for years, he was under considerable disability. His qualifications were very greatly less than those of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him in this task, and therefore he asked the indulgence of the House in laying before them those matters which it was now his duty to do. Before entering on his statement, however, he believed he was only expressing what was the general feeling of all Members on both sides of the House in saying how very much they should miss from these debates the late Sir William Allan, who always took a prominent part in discussions on the Navy. Though they might not always agree with all the opinions he expressed, they were assured both at the Admiralty and in the House that he was a true friend of the Navy, had its welfare at heart, and never approached naval subjects in any Party spirit. The feature of the Estimates on which the House would concentrate attention most closely was their magnitude. It was his duty, firstly, to explain, as far as he could, where these large increases arose, and secondly to justify them. Those who had studied the figures must have noticed that more than half the total increase arose on Votes 8 and 9—especially Vote 8, which was the Construction Vote. In previous discussions on these Estimates the hon. Member for Dundee more than once expressed the opinion, with which he fully concurred, that Vote 8 was the key to all; that if that Vote was
1258
large, there would be a corresponding increase in all the other Votes. The hon. Member, however, had also applied a standard which he wished to correct. The hon. Member said that Vote 8 would approximately amount to one-third of the total; but that standard was not applicable to-day, for Vote 8 was more nearly one-half than one-third of the total and it would not be a true deduction that because Vote 8 amounted to £18,000,000 this year, the Navy would cost three times that amount at some future date. All gun mountings which were not transferable were charged to Vote 8 and not to Vote 9, and as advances took place in scientific construction, they would be constantly adding to the mountings which were part of the ship and decreasing those which formed part of the gun. Then stores, coal and the increased cost of the ships themselves were charged to Vote 8. That meant that the increase in the cost of matériel was out of proportion to the other Votes. A proportion of the increase in the Vote was due to the purchase of the two Chilian battleships and to providing the ammunition for them. The remaining Votes he would shortly summarise to the House to show that there were increases common to them all, automatic increases due to the increase in the size of the fleet. On Vote 1, there was an addition of 4,000 men, but beyond that there was an increase of pay to the Royal Marines, which was necessary in consequence of the increase of pay which the Army were to receive from the 1st April next. On Vote 2, there was an increase in the total cost of victualling, due to the increase in the number of men and to the decision to grant to the Royal Marines from 1st April free rations when they were ashore, which they had not received before. The increase on Vote 3, medical establishments and services, was partly automatic, as it was calculated in direct proportion to the number of men in the fleet, but there was also an increase due to the opening of the new Naval Hospital at Chatham. A considerable increase on the Education Vote was due to the opening of the new Cadet Establishment at Osborne, and the Vote for the Royal Naval Reserves was largely increased in order to provide for additional numbers

1259
for the Reserves. The increase of Vote 9, apart from the charge which fell upon it for the Chilian ships, was due chiefly to the cost of the new cordite, which cost 1s. 10d. per lb. on an average as compared with 1s. 5d., the price of the old cordite, while a larger quantity of the new cordite was required for each individual charge than was the case with the cordite now in use. Vote 10 would be dealt with by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but it would be noticed that the increase there was due to the larger annuity under the Loan Act. The Admiralty Vote showed an increase of £21,000, but he did not think that the total of that Vote could be considered unduly large, as it was less than 1 per cent. of the whole sum which the Admiralty had to administer.
He would now like to say something as to the justification for these enormous Estimates. The country had decided to adopt what was known as the "two-Power standard" in its naval policy; and this, in the view of the Admiralty, meant that this country should be able to engage in a naval war with reasonable probability of emerging victorious from a contest with any other two naval Powers. This principle must be broadly applied, not solely to particular units or particular ships. So far as it was applicable to ships, he would quote the words used by the First Lord of the Admiralty, at Glasgow, in April last—
"The standard applies only to battleships, because in the matter of cruisers there can lie no question of equality."
The standard could only apply to battleships; and though the desired preponderance could not be distinctly expressed in units, so far as it could be it was expressed in the number of battleships that could be put in line of battle against the fleets of any two other Powers. It might be said that the standard was too high, or too low, and criticisms had been offered from both points of view. It had been freely stated that the Admiralty had ignored the battleship programme of other Powers; that in making their calculations the Admiralty had not taken account of the ships laid down by Russia. The Admiralty were fully aware of what Russia was doing and well informed as to the Russian
1260
battleships programme, and the naval strength of this and other friendly Powers had entered into the calculation. There were three friendly Powers in Europe who were the principal maritime and naval Powers—Franc?, Russia, and Germany. Taking the first two combined, the total number of battleships, first and second class, built and building, was sixty-four. The total of French and German battleships, built and building, first and second class, was sixty- one. The total of battleships in the Navy of Great Britain, first and second class, built and building, was sixty-three, so that we were very close to the mark. This country was well up to the standard and not unduly beyond it.
MR. RITCHIEasked if the hon. Gentleman would state the tonnage.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he had not the figures at hand; he could give them, but did not think this was a matter of supreme importance. In considering the question of cruisers, the Admiralty were not governed solely by the two-Power standard. The duty of a cruiser was not to fight in line of battle, but to protect our trade, our commerce, and our mercantile marine; and therefore it would be seen that the standard of strength to which they had to build was not a comparative one; it was a question of proportion to be considered in relation to the magnitude of the interests to be protected. The sea-borne trade of the Empire represented £1,200,000,000. and that was a figure that spoke for itself. The Navy was not the Navy of this country but the Navy of the Empire. The importation into this country of food and raw material in 1902, was represented by £379,000,000; the tonnage for that year he had not got, but it was larger than in 1901, when it was 34,000,000 tons. Daily there were 93,000 tons of food and raw material brought into this country under the protection of our Navy. The total tonnage of the mercantile marine of the Empire was 16,000,000; the total mercantile tonnage of the test of the world was 17,500,000, and as 1,500,000 of that was on the great lakes of America, the total seagoing tonnage of the Empire was as great

1261
as that of the rest of the world. It was clear, therefore, that having these immense, these vital interests to protect, the Admiralty could not estimate the necessity for cruisers by the standard applicable to any other two Powers. Lord Rosebery, speaking not long ago in Scotland, said, "The world is our granary." Yes, and if the world was our granary the British Navy held the key of that granary, and long it would be before any responsible Government would propose, or Parliament sanction, the surrender of that key. Much had been heard of late of the enormous value; of the invisible exports of the country. In that expression was included the earnings of our mercantile marine, and these were absolutely dependent on the maintenance of the open sea by our cruisers. In the published statement of the First Lord there was a reference to the Intelligence Department, and it was one of the duties of this Department to consider the complications of these trade matters and advise the Admiralty, after scientific research, as to the cruiser strength necessary. It was no haphazard estimate; it was arrived at by scientific and expert examination. He could not lay before the House the steps by which the calculation was made, but the House would accept it from him that the Estimates laid before the House, the heavy demands made upon the country, were the result of careful and scientific consideration.
MR. LOUGHasked what was the standard by which this was arrived at.
MR. PRETYMANsaid the basis—using that as a better word than standard—was to be found in the figures he had given, and he was sure the House would appreciate his meaning. Smaller vessels followed in proportion, and increase in other Votes was automatic. On these broad grounds, and with a full sense of their responsibility, the Admiralty presented Estimates containing these enormous figures. Repeating what had been said by his predecessor, he could assure the House the Admiralty in no way gloried in the size of the Estimates. The Admiralty much regretted to have to ask the country to make these great sacrifices, but if we were in the position of having to import this immense mass of raw material and food, on which the very
1262
existence of our people depended, this expenditure must be considered as an insurance and a set-off against the cheapness of the commodities we obtain.
Upon other matters he was absolved from entering at great length, because the statements in the Estimates and the statement of the First Lord were exhaustive and practically gave all the information necessary. One or two points, however, he would refer to, and first to the personnel. It would be satisfactory to the House to know that steps had been taken to increase the Reserves, because this bore very much on the question of economy. It was clear that, a certain number of men being required to man the Fleet when it was mobilised for war, it must be more economical that a certain proportion should be Reserve men, and not that all should be active service men, with the consequent heavy expenditure. That subject was carefully examined by a very able Committee, presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, and the whole of the steps which had been taken to increase the Reserves had been taken on the recommendation of that Committee whose Report had been laid before the House. No important criticisms had been made of that Report on the platform or in the Press, and therefore it. might be taken to have been accepted by the country. One of the most important recommendations was the extension of the non-continuous service system, and he might state that the total of 1,000 non-continuous seamen and stokers, which was the number to be taken in any one year, would be reached by the end of this year. The entries wore very satisfactory and were well reported on, and there was every reason to believe that the anticipations of the Admiralty on that point would be justified. Then there was the Royal Fleet Reserve which consisted of active service ratings who were pensioners or had retired from the service and joined the Royal Fleet Reserve. That was a most important Reserve, and the numbers upon the whole were extremely satisfactory. The total number of the Fleet Reserve was 8,548 men, a considerable increase on the total of last year. The Royal] Naval Reserve was also a very important

1263
item, and by the Naval Forces Act of last session the limit of 30,000 men, which used to be the limit of that Reserve, was removed. In the coming year it was proposed to increase it by fifty executive officers, 180 warrant engineers, and 3,600 men; and also twenty-five officers for the Australian Reserve. The condition of that Reserve was satisfactory, the numbers showing an increase. An important feature of the Royal Naval Reserve was the institution of a corps of Royal Naval Reserve in Newfoundland. Under the Act of last year the force in Newfoundland was authorised and arrangements had been made by which the Newfoundland Government made an annual payment of £3,000 for the 600 men who were to be enrolled. On 31st December last there were 398 enrolled, whose progress under training was reported to be very satisfactory and whose standard of physique was very high. There was one other important section of the Reserve forces—the Naval Volunteers. They were raised under the Act of last session, organised under local divisions, and sub-divided into companies. Each division was now commanded by a commander, instead of a lieutenant. Up to the present, 2,000 men had been enrolled and two divisions had been formed—one in London, and one on the Clyde—and negotiations were in progress for the formation of divisions in other places on the south and east coasts, and at Liverpool. A drill ship was now being fitted in Sheerness for the London division.
He would like to say a word before departing from the subject of personnel about the most important question of training of men and officers. The first thing he would refer to was the new establishment at Osborne. Last September the building was occupied by eighty naval cadets, within nine months of the original decision of the Board to establish the new system of training. That decision was not come to by the Admiralty without being criticised from one or two points of view, by the hon. Member for Dundee and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The method of selection undoubtedly presented considerable difficulties. Hitherto the method of
1264
selection of the cadets for the Britannia had been taken at an intermediate age. There were two periods in the career of the average English boy, one when he passed from the preparatory into the secondary school, and one when he passed from the secondary school to the University. It was thought that by taking boys at the age of fifteen, the Admiralty would have the advantage of the boys having received a public school education; but it was found that they did not derive that advantage, and that the real alternative lay between taking the boys at twelve to thirteen, or at seventeen to eighteen, and it was decided, after careful consideration, that the younger age was the better, because the Admiralty would be able to combine a good secondary school education together with that particular training in a naval atmosphere which had been so advantageous in the past. Then the question arose as to competitive examination, and it was held to be cruel to subject these young lads to such an examination. The alternative decided upon was nomination, but nomination surrounded by the greatest safeguards. The system that had been adopted had already been explained to the House, and in the last few days a statement had been circulated showing exactly the way in which the selection for these nominations had been carried out. He thought that the reports of the Interview Committee threw a favourable light on the system, and that hon. Members would agree that it was working out extremely satisfactorily. One boy showed great judgment in an answer given before the Interview Committee. He was asked, "Who were the three greatest admirals?" and he answered, "Nelson, Blake, and Lord Selborne." That the parents of the boys were well satisfied might be gathered from the remark that had been made to him by a lady who had a boy at Osborne. She said, "Our boy is so happy there. He tells us he has cream with his porridge." That showed they did not starve the boys. The establishment at Osborne was provided with a sea-going vessel, in which boys were taken to sea and given instruction, and everything was provided in order to combine the best secondary education, as given in a public school,

1265
with that practical instruction so necessary for the education of a naval cadet. He wished strongly to emphasise the desire of the Admiralty that in the selection of these boys no advantage should be given to any boys who had been crammed for any form of examination. The Board of Admiralty desired that the examination should be assimilated as nearly as possible in every particular to the ordinary examination which a boy of twelve or thirteen would have to pass in order to enter a public school. He thought the House would agree that it was in no way necessary to specialise the examination of a boy before that age. It was not intended or desired that any form of specialisation should begin until after the boy had gone to Osborne, and the course of the examination would constantly be directed rather to placing at a disadvantage boys who had been specially crammed for it.
As to the general training of the men, there had been recently a very great change, which the House had fully approved, in the method of training the men of the Fleet. Up to a year ago the whole of the men of the Fleet were trained as seamen in masts and yards, and gunnery and the work in the engine-room and stokehold were treated as specialities. As the necessity for increased knowledge of gunnery, care of machinery, and stokehold duties among all the men of the Fleet was forced upon the Admiralty, it became clear that the gunnery school, the torpedo school, and the various schools in which instruction was given would have to provide accommodation for the whole of the men of the Fleet. Under the new system, instead of these schools being overcrowded, it had been realised that the necessary training for every man of the Fleet was training in gunnery, in stokehold duties, and in care of machinery, from the earliest age at which a boy entered the service on board the training ships. That had become the normal training of every man of the Fleet instead of the training in masts and yards. In addition to that, in order that they might not lose the activity and nerve which were necessary for every seaman, a course of physical instruction and gymnastics was included. The result
1266
had been that the schools of special instruction had again become, as they were originally intended to be, schools for the insturction of those who showed special aptitude for the particular work which the schools were intended to teach; overcrowdng was avoided, and the only ratings who were avoided, and the only ratings who were sent to these schools were those who were able to derive considerable profit to themselves and to the service from the instruction which they obtained.
The House had frequently expressed its interest in the question of the shooting of the Fleet, and the Admiralty had been pressed to issue a Return giving the exact particulars of the shooting of each gun in each ship. The Admiralty desired to place at the disposal of the House all the information that it was possible to give on this subject, but he thought the House would see that they could not place hat the disposal of other countries information which was extremely important to them, and which we were not able to obtain from them. But a Return would be issued which would show, not the exact shooting of every gun of every ship, but the relative value of the shooting of every ship and of every series of guns in a ship. The Return would also give the names of the men who had specially distinguished themselves. He thought the House would accept the principle that the prize-firing was by no means everything. What the Admiralty desired was that the men should learn to shoot in peace time at ranges and in conditions probable in war. They wished to avoid an artificial system of practice at ranges not likely to occur in war. He was able, from Returns which had reached the Admiralty, to report that the firing practice during the past year had been a great improvement upon past years. There had been some exceptional shooting. The "Leviathan," he thought, had a record which could hardly be beaten. Steaming at twelve knots and firing ten rounds from a 9·2 gun in three minutes, she obtained ten hits upon a target fifteen feet by twenty feet, at a range of from 1,400 to 2,000 yards. The firing of the twelve-inch guns in the Channel Fleet was also exceptionally good. By the provision of the necessary appliances the Admiralty had done their best to enable the gunners to exercise their skill. They had recently

1267
provided every important ship of the Fleet with new six-power telescopes, which was double the power of the telescopes formerly in use. These new telescopes for the China Fleet were now on their way.
There had been a good deal of discussion lately on the question of sights, and he thought it would be proper for him to say that it was a misapprehension to suppose that if they had the range accurately, if they had the cross wires of the sight upon the object, and if the sight of the gun was properly laid, the shot was bound to hit the mark. That was not the case. There were many factors which upset these calculations, such as the temperature, the exact character of the cordite, and the number of shots which had been fired from the gun. A gun had a life of so many shots, and the firing of each shot involved a certain loss in the velocity of the next shot that was fired. It was out of the power of any gunner or mechanician to deal with these factors, and if, at a range of 4,000 yards, these factors worked in the same direction they were capable of making a difference of 300 yards in the fall of the shot. That was an important point, because it showed that the actual adjustment of the sight to the situation of the moment was a matter of the greatest importance, and that what was required in the sight was that it should be accurately adjusted to the gun, and that it should be quickly and easily adjustable by those who were using the gun.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked, on the question of training, whether the "Northampton" class of boys, who were taken at the age of eighteen or nineteen, was being continued.
MR. PKETYMANsaid that class was being continued and he believed it was satisfactory. The next question was that of the victualling of the Fleet. The new rations which had been sanctioned had been in force in the training ships for twelve months. They had been found extremely satisfactory and had been much appreciated. The new rations consisted of coffee, condensed milk, jam, preserved vegetables, and a larger amount of
1268
preserved meat. The new rations had been in force in the Fleet for five months, and though there was no doubt that they were considerably appreciated, he could not say that they had been taken up to the extent that had been hoped and expected. Apparently many of the men regarded the new rations as an admirable means of increasing their savings, because they allowed a considerable quantity of the rations to lapse, took up the money, and purchased what they required from the canteen. The coffee, however, had been well taken up and was very much appreciated. The question was likely to be asked whether something might not be done to provide the men of the Fleet with soft bread instead of biscuits. The Admiralty had taken up that matter and a start was being made. They had ordered two sets of plant for making and baking bread and installed them in the "King Edward VII." and the "Suffolk." In the Estimates for 1904–5 money was taken for the purchase of ten additional sets of plant, which would be installed in four battleships of the "King Edward VII." class and six cruisers of the "Devonshire" class. If the experiment was successful no doubt the system would be extended. There certainly had been some complaints in the Fleet of the quality of the cooking on board the ships. That was a difficult question. The Admiralty did not wish to increase the number of non-combatants on board ship, but they were desirous of doing everything they could to give instruction in cookery. There were now three schools of cookery, one at each of the three home ports; up to recently there was only one at Portsmouth. Then there was the point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport last year, namely, the question of manufacture at the victualling yards which had been carefully considered, and it had been decided to cease the manufacture of oatmeal, flour and suet. The manufacture of biscuits and chocolate would be continued.
He now came to the progress of construction voted. The policy and the progress of construction and reconstruction were so very fully stated and the names of the ships affected were given in such detail in the statement of the

1269
First Lord, that he would only be wearying the House if he repeated the facts set forth there; but he might recall the fact that the total of new construction for the year 1904–5 amounted to the unprecedented sum of £11,500,000, but out of that £948,000 was for the "Triumph" and "Swiftsure," the two ships purchased from the Chilian Government. The point to which attention was directed by the Supplementary Estimate presented to the House a few days ago was the large expenditure on contract repairs and reconstruction. He then stated that those repairs were not progressive, but, on the contrary, that they were special, and that he hoped to be able to announce a considerable reduction in the amount devoted to them in this year's Estimates. He was glad that he could make that good, because, whereas £1,200,000 was devoted to reconstruction and repair in the Estimates of the present year, the Estimates now presented only contained a sum of £600,000, a reduction of 50 per cent. The fact was that they had got rather behindhand in their work of reconstruction and repairs owing to the congestion in the dockyards, and the object of sending these ships to the contract yards was to make up leeway. The effect had been that recently the Comptroller of the Navy had stated to the Board of Admiralty that the whole of the ships which would be mobilized in case of necessity either were actually ready for commission at this moment, or, if they were being reconstructed or repaired, could be ready in a few weeks. That, he thought, was a very satisfactory statement.
Then came the subject of the three new battleships laid down in the dockyards during the past six weeks, which were of the "King Edward VII." type. In the statement made by his right hon. friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty last year, he held out the expectation that these ships would be of a new type. It had been intended that these ships should be put out to contract at a somewhat later date; but it happened that the work in the dockyards had been so advanced that it was necessary either to discharge some of the particular men who were employed on new construction work in the yards, or law down the new ships
1270
there. It was therefore decided to lay these vessels down in the dockyards. Certainly it had been hoped at the time his right hon. friend made his statement that the new design would be ready by that period; but the new design had worked out to a considerably larger displacement than the Board had anticipate I, and it was necessary, therefore, entirely to rearrange the design and obtain a smaller displacement at a smaller cost. That would have involved such a delay that it was thought better to lay down these three ships of the "King Edward VII." type, which, after all, was as goad a type of battleship as existed at the present moment. He thought the House would realise that it was not very much out of date when ho said that the two new battleships ordered by the Japanese Government to be laid down in the last few days were practically of the "King Edward VII." type. It was therefore not an out-of-date type; but at the same time the Board of Admiralty would have been glad if they could have fulfilled the expectation held out last year and laid them down after a newer type. The two new battleships, however, which would be laid down in the autumn of this year would be of the new type known as the "Lord Nelson" type.
Criticism might perhaps be directed against the Admiralty to the effect that they were not building sufficient submarines; but he would remind the House that the submarine was still largely in the experimental stage, and he remembered well that in the debate on the Estimates two years ago the hon. Member for Dundee criticised the Admiralty very severely for building submarines too quickly. He would remind the House that these vessels could be built very quickly, and therefore it was not desirable to build too many at once of the same type, as improvements were daily being evolved, and they could hardly tell from week to week whether the existing type might not be to some extent superseded.
Arising out of the question of construction, he might say a few words on the dockyard;. In these Estimates there was a new sub-head to Vote 8 which would provide, for two years only, a sum of £200,000—£100,000 in the coming year, and another £100,000 in 1905–6—

1271
for the replacement of obsolete machinery for the dockyards. It was hoped that when that sum had been spent it would suffice to equip the yards with the most modern machinery and enable them to obtain better value from their output and the labour bestowed upon them. Good progress was being made with the installation of the system of electricity in the yards, for which the House voted large sums last year under the Naval Works Act. In the matter of labour in the dockyards questions of pay and salary had recently been raised in the House. Several improvements had been made in the pay and allowances given to dockyard labourers, and the establishment had been increased from a little over 6,000 to 7,000 men. An experiment on a small scale was just about to be tried which it was hoped might have far-reaching effects. The system was going to be inaugurated in the engineering shops of what was known as the premium system, by which a particular time would be allowed—that time having been carefully calculated beforehand by practical observation—within which any particular work could be carried out by the man engaged upon it, If he completed that work satisfactorily, and it passed inspection, within less than the allotted average time, he would then receive a premium calculated proportionately to the amount of time he had saved. That system had already been adopted in one or two large private yards. It was found to work very satisfactorily, and it was hoped that it would work equally satisfactorily in the dockyards. If so, it would certainly be extended.
He had, in conclusion, again to assure the House how deeply the Admiralty felt the responsibility which lay upon them in presenting these immense Estimates. It was suggested by a Motion which was upon the Paper that they were unnecessary, because it would be within the power of the Government and the country to make an arrangement with foreign Powers by whom our standard was set, in order to reduce the amount of naval expenditure in this and other countries. It was not, perhaps, for him to discuss that question at any length, but he might remind the House that
1272
the naval policy of this country was purely defensive. The strategy of the British Navy was purely offensive, but the naval policy of the country was purely defensive. That policy being defensive it followed that it was not we who took the lead, but that we followed other Powers and did not initiate expenditure. It had also been stated in that House on several occasions that the only overture of this character which had been made was made at that Table by Lord Goschen when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and what he said and what arose out of it would be within the recollection of hon. Members. One more source of heavy expenditure to which he would like to refer, was the fact of the very large number of ships we were obliged to put in commission. If there was one lesson which we might learn from recent events in the Far East, it was the rapidity with which a naval blow might be struck at the commencement of a war, and it was evident, if we learnt that lesson, that the Navy which was most prepared for war would be the Navy which would get the enormous advantage of the initiative. It would be clear to the House that even if we had sufficient active service ratings in naval barracks, in the training establishments and in the coastguard, wherever they might be, fully instructed and competent in their duties, and if we had the ships in reserve ready for those men, those ships would be by no means so efficient as if they had entered on the war with their crews ready on board and thoroughly accustomed to the ships. The proof of that was to be found in what happened at manœuvres. The troubles which arose—the breaks down of machinery and mechanism—occurred almost invariably in ships specially commissioned with active service ratings to take part in the manœuvres. Comparatively few breaksdown and difficulties occurred with ships which had been in commission, and which took part in manœuvres with crews that were accustomed to everything on board. The advantages of the immediate stroke, in the case of a navy differed enormously from that in the case of an army. An army could not strike as a navy could strike immediately, and many preparations were necessary before an army

1273
could be brought into operation. Therefore, if we were to have the full advantage of the initiative in the case of the Navy it was necessary not only to have the Fleet calculated on the standard he had ventured to suggest and elaborate to the House; but that Fleet, and especially the best ships—because it was the best ships which should be sent into action first—must be kept mainly in commission and ready to strike a blow immediately the necessity arose. He would venture to say before sitting down that although the British Navy was the greatest, and, perhaps, the most powerful engine of war in the world, at the same time it certainly was the opinion of the Admiralty, this House, and the country, and, he believed, of the world, that there was no greater power for the maintenance of peace throughout the whole universe than the British Navy. To that end it should be directed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not propose at that moment to follow the hon. Gentleman into the long and interesting statement just made to the House, but he thought they should be wanting in courtesy, if they did not at once acknowledge the care which the hon. Gentleman had taken in making his statement and the perfect clearness with which he had laid the proposals of the Government before the House. The proper time for discussing the proposals would be when the House got into Committee, and he had a further reason for postponing what he had to say in the fact that his hon. friend the Member for West Denbighshire had a proposition to make to the House which was of the greatest possible importance. He should not stand in the way of the House discussing it at once. He would content himself now with the almost formal duty he had performed. He saw the acting Leader of the House in his place, and perhaps he might be permitted to say that the true answer to his hon. friend's proposition was one that must come not from the Admiralty but from the representative of the Government.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he joined his hon. friend in congratulating the Secretary to the Admiralty on the statement he had made. He thought it would be for the general convenience of the House if they immediately proceeded to discuss the definite issue which was raised in the Motion he desired to submit. At a later stage the House would have full opportunity of discussing the many interesting and important points in the Votes seriatim, but, undoubtedly, the first point they had to consider was the magnitude of the Estimates, and that was the kernel of his Resolution. The object of his Motion in the first place was to call attention to the constant increase that was going on in the Naval Estimates in the second place, to call attention to what was patent to all, that those large increases must, if they were persisted in, have a retarding effect on the industrial system of the country; and, in the third place, to suggest that the time had arrived when they should urge the Government of this country to make every effort possible in order to come to some arrangement with other great naval Powers, which would lead to a diminution in the future shipbuilding programmes of the various countries concerned. He thought the House knew sufficient of his views in regard to the Navy to know that he was one of those who believed that an adequate and efficient Navy was absolutely necessary under existing conditions for the safety of our Empire. It was our principal arm of defence, it was the main protector of our vast commerce, and he submitted that the necessity of maintaining a thoroughly efficient Navy for our purposes was not in any way inconsistent with an earnest desire to urge the Government to make every possible effort by which a diminution might take place in those huge sums which were a burden on our national resources. If they were able happily to achieve any such result, as the outcome of his Motion, it would be a great benefit for all concerned. It would strengthen the better elements in the national life. It would transfer capital from the engines of war to remunerative work, it would vivify commerce, and

1275
it would make for international peace. It was quite evident from the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and it was equally evident from the Statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with the Estimates this year, that the Board of Admiralty were fully conscious of the gigantic dimensions of the Estimates. The statement of the First Lord contained the following passage—
"The Board of Admiralty are well aware that the charge they are asking Parliament to sanction is a heavy one, but Parliament must remember how heavy is the responsibility cast by it on the Board, of providing the country with a Navy strong enough to sustain a struggle with the Navies of any two Powers, and also strong enough to ensure reasonable security to its vast sea-borne trade and to the food supply of the people. The Board ask for nothing which they do not believe to be necessary for this purpose. They have avoided, and will avoid, giving any stimulus to the expansion of armaments by the formulation of large programmes of construction, but when such programmes are adopted by other Powers, they have no choice but to take them into account in framing their own shipbuilding policy."
From a practical standpoint it seemed to him that that passage was in itself a justification of the Motion he made. It was an admission on the part of the Board of Admiralty that, so long as things remained as they were now, the Board had no choice in the matter but to go on increasing the programme year by year in order to keep pace with the shipbuilding programmes of other naval Powers. He as one of those who did not challenge the necessity of the two-Power standard. He thought that under existing circumstances it was necessary, but he would point out that it was rather an elastic phrase, capable of a considerable amount of variation. One prejudicial result which had followed the adoption of that standard as the guiding principle of our policy in regard to the programme of shipbuilding, was that it had been the means of discontinuing, to a large extent, the legitimate criticism by the House of Commons of the Navy Estimates. In regard to the past history of this proposal there had been a great deal too much fatalism on the one hand in the mind of the Board of Admiralty, and on the other hand a good deal too much vague enthusiasm on the part of those who were genuinely anxious to reduce armaments. He did not think the present moment was
1276
an opportune time for peace Conferences, but he did think it was a favourable time, at all events, for a practical interchange of views between our Government and the Governments of other great naval Powers. That interchange of views should take place and be carried on by the business men of the Cabinet. As we held a predominant position among the Navies of the world he thought it was our plain duty to take the initiative in the matter.
It was admitted on all hands that the two-Power standard had been proved to be sufficient. In the interesting speech which he made on Friday last Lord Brassey emphasised the correctness of that view when he stated that in relation to battleships our strength had been brought fully up to the two-Power standard, with a large margin; while in regard to cruisers we had a still more marked superiority. The hon. Gentleman opposite laid down the proposition that that standard could not be made to apply to cruisers. In regard to the general principle the hon. Gentleman laid before the House he was inclined to believe it, but he thought a distinction might be drawn between first-class cruisers and other cruisers. Lord Brassey in the same speech stated that if the expenditure on shipbuilding had been justified the expenditure on manning had certainly been increased beyond the necessity of the case. He further said that he had done his best to promote the efficiency of the Navy, but he had striven, and would continue to strive, to combine economy and efficiency. It seemed to him in regard to that point made by Lord Brassey, that, under existing conditions, with the two-Power standard in full force, it was almost impossible for us today to combine full efficiency and full economy in our Navy. He did not wish to press the point too far. It seemed to him that, so long as the Board of Admiralty acted in accordance with the view that they should keep pace with all the developments that suddenly took place in the shipbuilding programmes of other countries, there must be a certain amount of waste of public money in carrying out such a policy. He thought it was admitted on all hands that we were in a position in which we could fairly, without our action being

1277
misconstrued, approach the other naval Powers concerned. It might be said that although that might be so now, it might not be so three or four years hence. He had been interested to see an estimate in the German Naval Annual of what the relative strength of the Great Naval Power's of Europe would be in 1907. Dealing only with battleships, in that year Great Britain would have a tonnage of 749,000 tons, France 340,000 tons, Russia 300,000 tons; the United States 260,000 tons, and Germany 213,000 tons. In other words we should be within 100,000 tons, three years hence, of the combined aggregate tonnage of France, Russia, and Germany. The same superiority, and more, would be maintained in regard to cruisers and torpedo boats. He mentioned these figures to show that even looking three or four years ahead we would be fully justified in approaching the other great naval Powers on the two-Power standard.
But turning to the other side of the question, what did these huge annual charges for our Navy mean to the people of this country who paid the taxes? He would only take a few figures relative to the last thirty years. In 1870 we spent on our Navy £9,420,000; in 1880 £10,000,000; in 1890 £15,000,000; in 1900 £26,000,000, and in 1904–5 we were going to spend £37,000,000. These, figures were alarming; but a still more serious question was raised if these figures were examined in relation to the taxable capacity of the country. They meant that in 1870 the expenditure on the Navy was at the rate of 5s. 10d. per head of the population; in 1880, 5s. 9d.; in 1890, 8s.; in 1900, 12s. 5d.; and to-day it was 17s. 8d. per head—man, woman and child. Put in another way the expenditure on the Navy was four times as much to-day as it was thirty years ago, and three times as much calculated at per head of the population. An hon. friend on the other side of the House might remind him that the wealth of the country had increased by 30 per cent. during the last thirty years; but his reply to that argument was that the weight of the burden of taxation on account of the Navy had increased by no less than 300 per cent. These were facts and figures which ought to receive the immediate attention of the House. Of course the Admiralty had a defence for this huge expenditure. The First
1278
Lord of the Admiralty on Friday night last said—
"The Navy Estimates are very heavy. What does that mean? What is their jus; ideation? It is by the Navy, with the assistance of the Army, that you hold these markets I have mentioned; that you hold the whole British Empire, and the rights of trade in China and countries like that. Why have you no anxiety about the continuance of your trade—cotton, woollen, iron, and all the many other manufactures? It is because their path on the great waters is rendered sure and certain by the work of the Navy."
He thought there would be some difficulty in harmonising these views and those of his hon. friend opposite. He himself did not deny these facts, but maintained that a point must be reached some time, if we proceeded much further with this increased expenditure, when the drain on our national resources would seriously affect our industrial system. If his Motion were carried it would not: in any way affect the paramount position of Great Britain as the great naval Power of the world. Who could doubt, in this matter of the defence of the Empire, that the stability of the nation and the Empire did not altogether depend on our strength of armaments, but that a good deal of the vitalising power behind our industrial enterprise and progress sprang from a buoyant Exchequer and an industrious people? If our resources were buoyant in time of peace the better would we be able to bear the strain of a time of war if that time unhappily arrived.
He wished to say one word as to the possibility and advisability of taking some such step as was suggested by his Resolution. He knew there were immense difficulties in the way; he admitted that we had not yet reached the millenium. But were those difficulties insurmountable? He did not believe that; and even if they were insurmountable that would not absolve us from the duty of attempting to carry this programme out. There were one or two favourable elements in the present situation. First of all, there was what was going on in the great struggle between two great Powers in the Far East. Lord Selborne referred in his speech on Friday last to the lessons we were to obtain from that struggle. Was it not possible that when that struggle was over—and they all hoped it would be

1279
early—a favourable opportunity might arise of bringing some such suggestion as he had made before the other great naval Powers? Again, another favourable element was that all the great naval Powers of Europe were now in the greatest possible state of efficiency. Very striking figures had appeared the other day in a great London journal to show the very great increase which had taken place in the last thirty years in the naval armaments of other countries. There was another element distinctly favourable to the consideration of his Motion in a practical spirit. It was the great part which His Majesty the King had played in promoting friendly relations between this country and other Powers in Europe. His Majesty had not only brought the Courts but the peoples of the three great Powers nearer to each other. Summing up the policy which would lead to a reduction in our armaments and pave the way to the realisation of the Motion now before the House, there were certain necessary conditions. First of all, everybody would concur with him as to the necessity for tightening the bonds between this country and the United States, and the necessity for cultivating friendly relations with all the great Powers of Europe. Some hon. friends on both sides of the House seemed to think that a reduction of the burden of the Navy on the people of this country might come about through an increased contribution from the Colonies. He was somewhat sceptical of ever realising that. Lastly, there was the necessity of consolidating, instead of expanding, our territorial Empire. If all these points were looked to, he thought the time was not very far distant when a very advantageous and practical result was to be obtained in the realisation of the Motion now being discussed. Before he concluded he must refer to a very important statement upon this subject made, in this House, by Mr., now Lord, Goschen, then First Lord of the Admiralty, in the year 1899. In introducing the Naval Estimates in March of that year Mr. Goschen made use of these words—
"I have now to state on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that if the other great naval Powers should he prepared to diminish their programme of shipbuilding we should be prepared on our side to meet such a procedure by modifying ours."
1280
These were explicit words, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman when he came to reply on behalf of the Admiralty would; make it clear how the Government now stood in regard to that explicit declaration, and how it was to be carried out. It was evident if those Estimates continued to expand at the present rate that they would increase far beyond the taxable capacity of the country. It was clear that they could not go on indefinitely in this manner and that the time would arrive when it would be necessary to settle the question in the direction of retrenchment.
That was the practical side of the Motion. It also had another side. The chief aim of Empire was to influence the higher qualities by all things which were honest and just and true. He believed that if that ideal could be realised it would bring inevitably in its train strength of dominion and permanence of power. While he was prepared to admit to the full the necessity for an efficient and adequate Navy, yet some kind of arrangement which would lead to the diminution of annually increasing expenditure would be a permanent blessing not only to this country but to all other countries concerned. It would make for international peace and for the progress of humanity. Ha was reading the other day a speech delivered by the late Mr. Gladstone in. 1862, and he thought it would be well if the House of Commons cherished, more than it did, something of the horror which the late Mr. Gladstone and his contemporaries entertained in regard to extravagance in public expenditure. He said that all excels in public expenditure beyond the legitimate wants of the community, was not only waste but a great political and a great moral evil. The House and the country would do well to ponder on that sentiment, and it was on those general grounds and in that spirit that he desired to commend to the favourable attention of the House the Resolution which he now moved.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to second the Motion of his hon. friend, and in doing so would not detain the House very long because his hon. friend had gone over the ground with great ability, and because he himself trespassed on the time of the House last

1281
session on the same subject. He approached the question almost exclusively from the financial point of view. He would not venture to put forward his opinion on a purely naval subject, though he hoped he would be allowed to make one observation on the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, who appeared to him to give a wider interpretation as to what was known as the two-Power standard than had hitherto been given to it. The hon. Gentleman limited his comparisons to battleships, and expressly excluded cruisers, which were, he said, to be reserved for the purpose of protecting commerce.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that perhaps he gave the House a false impression. He did not mean to convey that cruisers were not to be considered at all in arriving at a comparison between the naval strength of this country and of foreign countries. What he intended to say was that the comparison could not be confined to cruisers.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he excluded cruisers altogether. In his opinion that was hardly fair, particularly as far as first-class cruisers were concerned. First-class cruisers were ships which would certainly be in the fighting fine and which ought to be taken into consideration in any fair comparison between the fighting strength of this country and of other countries. Their tonnage amounted to 12,000, 13,000 or 14,000 tons, and they were powerfully armoured and ought to be taken into consideration. At present, as regarded first-class cruisers, this country was equal to the whole world. Its power in this department of naval strength was overwhelming. The hon. Gentleman said that as regarded battleships alone this country was equal to the two-Power standard. He wished to know if the hon. Gentleman included ships in course of construction in that comparison. He himself was under the impression that in 1906 this country would in battleships be equal not only to the two-Power standard but to the three-Power standard. There was no doubt that the country was not only well up to the two-Power standard but that it was considerably
1282
beyond it; and judged by that standard their position was amply secured at the present moment. The Secretary to the. Admiralty began his speech, as all spokesmen of the Admiralty in recent years began their speeches, by a statement. about the magnitude of the Estimates and the great burden they were imposing on the people, at which he expressed regret which no doubt he felt. He thought, however, hon. Members were getting somewhat weary of the introductory melancholy observations which fell from the representatives of the Admiralty. They reminded him of the annual observations of the hon. Member for West Islington on economy, which never led to anything. During the past ten years every representative of the Admiralty who had to submit increased Estimates for naval purposes always began his speech by a reference to their magnitude and how keenly the Admiralty felt the burden which they were imposing on the people. In 1898 Mr. Goschen, as he then was, in submitting Estimates for £23,500,000. described them as colossal. They would thank Heaven most sincerely if they could now get back to those Estimates. The present Secretary for War, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, described the Estimates he introduced as quite unparalleled in peace or war. Still the Naval Estimates continued to increase from year to year, and the object of the Motion was to endeavour to get the House of Commons to consider how that increase could be arrested.
The First Lord's Statement gave most fully the expenditure under the various Naval Votes. He only wished the War Office were in the habit of issuing a similar statement for, if any hon. Member desired to see an illustration of the difference, he had only got to compare the information given in Lord Selborne's Statement with a very skimpy document which had been put into the Vote Office that afternoon by the War Office. This table in the Navy Estimates was a very valuable one, and conveyed information which the House had a perfect right to be informed of. That statement began just at the period when the present Government came into office. In the year 1895–6 the total amount of naval expenditure was £19,637,000, but that sum had gone up by leaps of £1,000,000,

1283
£2,000,000 and £3,000,000, to £36,890,000, and in the course of ten years there had been an increase of £20,000,000. That was an enormous increase at the rate of no less than £10,000,000 every five years. In the year 1895–6 they voted 85,000 men. They were now asking for 131,000 men, or an increase of more than 50 per cent. in ten years. In 1895–6 Vote A stood at £9,000,000 and now it was £18,000,000, showing an increase of 100 per cent. But this was not all the naval expenditure for the year. As the House was well aware there was a considerable amount of naval expenditure not included in the Navy Estimates, and the expenditure on that score had also been steadily increasing year after year. He alluded more especially to the expenditure under the Naval Works Act. In 1895–6 the annual expenditure upon naval works was comparatively small, but it had been going up year after year, and on the 31st of March this year it would have reached no less than £3,490,000,ornearly£3,500,000. Therefore the total figure which they were going to spend during the currency of the present year, assuming that the expenditure upon naval works would not increase next year, was £40,718,000. That was an enormous expenditure for the House to be asked to vote for naval purposes, compared with what was considered adequate and satisfactory only five years ago. But the story did not end there, because within the limits of these Estimates there was an enormous amount of consequential, or what had been called automatic, expenditure involved. The sums of money they were asked to vote and the increase in the number of men if passed must inevitably lead to a very large increase in the Navy Estimates. He was not capable of judging the amount, but it would certainly be several millions of money, and therefore, he wished to call attention to one or two facts upon this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite, dealing last year with the naval works, said it was hardly sufficiently realised by those who initiated the wholesale expansion of the Navy what that would amount to. Every year they became more and more aware of the truth of that statement which had been reiterated from time to
1284
time in the House of Commons, and by no one with greater vigour and conviction than Mr. Goschen. In introducing the Navy Estimates in 1896 Mr. Goschen reminded the House—
"Thay any increase in the Fleet meant not ! only an increase in the number of ships but must be followed all along the line by expenditure in other directions. More ships, meant more men to man them, more officers, more engineers, more stokers and more ratings of every kind, more centres of training, more accommodation, both on shore and sea, more schools, more hospital accommodation, and more barrack accommodation."
They were becoming now more and more alive to the overwhelming burden being imposed upon them by this continual expansion of the Navy. He should like to know what was involved in this increase in the number of men by 4,000 or 5,000. He wished to know what addition these extra men would make to the annual expenditure of the country some five or ten years from now. One Vote had hardly been affected at all by this increase and that Vote was one for pensions, which still stood at the figure which was adequate to meet 6,000 or 7,000 pensions. That was a Vote which was likely to largely increase in the future. Last year the House would remember that sanction was given to two practically new dockyards. The extensions to the Chatham Dockyard practically made it a new one, and then there was the establishment of a large dockyard in the Firth of Forth. They had not been able to get a statement from the Admiralty with regard to expenditure under the Naval Works Act upon those two dockyards, and still less were they able to ascertain the amount that would fall upon the Estimates for those purposes. He asked by means of. a Question what had been the cost of the dockyards, and he was told that it was impossible for the Admiralty to give the figure. If they were going to add two extra dockyards with a full complement of men capable of building ships of a heavy character, they would be adding several millions to their annual expenditure. He did not wish to weary the House with figures, but he wished to ask was there no possibility of finality in this matter, and was it not possible, with all the expert knowledge which the Admiralty possessed, to give the House some idea

1285
when they considered that the Navy would be in accordance with the condition of naval strength rendered necessary by the shipbuilding programmes of foreign Powers, and when they would consider they had made sufficient provision for that purpose. They had occasionally had hopes held out that such a time might arrive. Mr. Goschen, in the year 1897, in one of his naval statements held out, if not the expectation, at any rate the aspiration, that such a point might be arrived at. If he might quote that somewhat unreliable prophet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, he stated in 1902 that, after his experience of seven years at the Exchequer of the expenditure upon the Navy, in which they had increased their naval force relatively to the other great naval Powers, he saw no further reason for any increase in the naval expenditure of succeeding years. His anticipations had not been fulfilled and the expenditure went on increasing. They ought to get some promise that those Estimates would not continue to increase. Surely their naval expenditure ought not to increase out of all proportion to the growth of their revenue. He would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the words of Sir Robert Peel, who, when pressed for large expenditure, both on the Army and the Navy, stated, in reply to the Duke of Wellington, that there was to be considered, not only the urgency of the demand, but also the capacity of the taxpayers to bear the expenditure. It was of overwhelming importance in case of war that there should be a full Exchequer, a lightly-taxed people, and the ability to raise money on short notice at a low rate of interest. The object of this Amendment was to repeat the suggestion which had been made before, not only by the Opposition but also by the Government side of the House. In fact, the words of the Amendment were largely those used by Mr. Goschen in 1898. But Mr. Goschen was not the first to urge the importance of such a course being taken. It was Pitt's remedy at the end of the Great War; it was Peel's remedy in the forties, and was urged upon the House with overwhelming force at that time; it was also the remedy urged in 1859, 1860, and 1861 by Mr. Disraeli, who, when it
1286
was contended that this country could not take the initiative, asked what was the use of Government diplomacy, and cordial understandings, if this sort of thing could not be done. The House had a right to expect the Government to make the attempt. As to the contention that we must follow in the wake of action taken by other naval Powers, we were confessedly the first naval Power in the world, and if the Government sincerely believed that their naval programme was for the purpose of defence, and not of offence, they could with a clear conscience and clean hands go to other Powers and see whether some arrangement could not be made, at any rate, as regarded future expansion of naval programmes.
Reference had been made to the commerce on the lakes between Canada and the United States. Thanks to an international arrangement of forty years standing, neither this country nor the United States were put to the expense of maintaining any armed force on those vast inland waters, although they would be of great strategic importance in the event of any dispute between the two nations. That was a small illustration, but from it he argued that something might be attempted, and certainly the Government could do no harm to themselves or to the country by making the attempt. Possibly the outbreak of war in the Ear East did not make the moment a favourable one for taking such steps, but the war would not last for ever, and possibly with its conclusion a better opportunity would present itself. In any case it was incumbent upon this House, as the guardians of the public exchequer, and as being anxious that every step consistent with the safety of the country should be taken to diminish the burden upon the taxpayers, to urge this year, as in previous years, the overwhelming responsibility which rested upon the Government of ascertaining whether by friendly negotiations with foreign Powers they could not come at any rate to a preliminary arrangement by which this enormous and increasing burden might be diminished.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in view of the heavy burdens placed

1287
upon the people of the country by this increasing expenditure, and in the interests of international peace, this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should enter into communication with the great naval Powers in order to ascertain whether they will he prepared to diminish their programmes of shipbuilding, and to adjust upon some permanent basis their relative naval strength.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLR-FORSTER,)said that as a member of the Defence Committee, and one who had been responsible to a certain extent for both services, perhaps it would not be out of place if he were to say a few words on the Amendment. The hon. Member who had just spoken, and the mover, need not anticipate from him any disagreement with the motives which he knew prompted the Amendment, and he should certainly be the last to treat their arguments with disrespect or discourtesy. He thought he had given evidence in the past that he was as sensible as they could be of the magnitude of the evils of which they complained. He supposed the experience of all who had to do with the administration of these great spending Departments was alike: he of ten felt that the horror of administering these enormous sums for unproductive purposes was something almost too saddening to one's political life. But he would try to recall the House to the operative part of the hon. Member's Amendment, which was the last part. Ho had listened to both speeches with interest, but he confessed a portion of them seemed to him to be rather in the nature of the tail of a comet, very easily compressible to a small amount of substance. The proposal now made was that the Government ought to do something more than it had already done in order to induce other nations to diminish their naval armaments in concurrence with our own; and in order to enforce that lesson a certain number of circumstances connected with the Naval Estimates and with the Army Estimates had been cited. The conclusion in itself was a very good one, no doubt, but he did not think the arguments supported it,
1288
or that by themselves they bore examination. He should like to ask what was the real value of recommendations of this kind unless hon. Members themselves would be prepared, if they were in a position of responsibility, to give effect to them. He ventured very respectfully to doubt whether the hon. Member, if he were, as he had no doubt he would be some day, in a position of responsibility, would be the first to give effect to the principles he now elaborated and the proposal he had put before the House. In the presence of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty it would be out of place for him to dwell on the questions of standards and naval forces which were brought in to reinforce the arguments. He did not accept all that was said with regard to those standards, still less did he accept the authority which hon. Members seemed to arrogate to themselves to pronounce on these matters. He undoubtedly agreed with what the Secretary to the Admiralty had said—for instance, that the question of the cruiser standard was purely a technical question, which could not usefully be judged merely by comparing the numbers on one list with the numbers on another. And much as he respected the financial knowledge of the hon. Member for Perth, he did not think the hon. Member was a good expositor of the relative values of the armoured and unarmoured cruisers, and he confessed he preferred to take the considered judgment of the Admiralty on this point. But he did not argue that matter, because he did not think it really touched the question at issue very closely. He did rather protest against the argument used by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member before him, that they could at all judge of the character of our naval expenditure by merely comparing tonnage. Of course the tonnage test was so absolutely illusory that he need not dwell on it. If he were to enumerate a number of ships in our own Navy, which, owing to circumstances which had very little to do with their fighting capacity, had a larger tonnage than what he might call their opposite numbers in the navies of other Powers, he should be able to run up thousands of tons on the account without convincing himself, at any rate, that he had shown

1289
that there was any actual battle superiority on the one side as against the other. That was no argument against our constructors; because owing to the circumstances of our Empire we were compelled to make our ships of a character which was not imposed on other constructors. But he did not want to enter at all into these questions of constructive detail. He did want to dwell on the lesson which the hon. Member desired they should learn.
The hon. Member said we ought to go to foreign nations and tell them we desired the discontinuance of their naval energies, to be accompanied by the discontinuance of our own. Now, had we not done that in the most public way in which the thing could be done? The hon. Member himself had quoted the words of Mr. Goschen in that House. He himself, though in a much less important position than Mr. Goschen then occupied, had repeated, with the sanction of the Government of which he then formed a part, the pledge which was then given. He now in the most formal manner repeated it once more. He said that this country was prepared to consider any proposition of any foreign country with a view to reducing naval armaments which might be made. It might be said that foreign countries were not aware of what was said in the House of Commons. They were not such an obscure body as that. These proposals had been discussed, canvassed, and commented upon both in the Press and in the Parliaments of other countries. That being so, he thought we had done enough. The reason he thought we had done enough was that in this matter we were passive, that we were simply defending our own. The last European annexation we made was, he thought, the annexation of the island of Corsica, and from that time we had had no part in the alteration of the map of Europe except by relinquishing the portions of European territory that we held. It was fair, therefore, that we should ask other Powers to commence, for, in this connection we were dealing with a subject-matter which no other Power was dealing with. We were dealing with the absolute life of our nation. Who could say of any single European nation that the maintenance or the increase of its fleet stood in the same
1290
proportion of importance as it did to us? What would happen if a foreign country were to diminish its fleet? Could we invade it? If it had no fleet at all we could not invade it? Our Army Establishments were not on that, scale. Foreign countries knew perfectly well that they had nothing to fear from us in that way. There was not a single country in Europe that could not practically abolish its fleet to-morrow so far as any danger from us was concerned. Our Fleet, on the other hand, was our one guarantee against invasion by those colossal armies of the Continent which would be at liberty to invade this country mmediately our maritime protection was gone. That argument might not carry conviction to hon. Members opposite, but with him it had very great weight. This Government had gone certainly as far any Government which preceded it had gone, and he thought as far as any Government of this country was entitled to go, in putting our views before the Chancellories of Europe. The hon. Member opposite cited Mr. Gladstone as a preacher in this matter, and quoted him in support of the almost immoral obliquity of increasing the Estimates. There were ways direct and indirect of increasing the Estimates. He remembered very well, not when the Navy Estimates stood at £9,000,000, bur when they stood at £13,000,000, and, at that time, when there was a threatened war with France, it was with difficulty that we could add two battleships to the British Fleet. What was the consequence? Directly Mr. Gladstone went out of office £21,000,000 had to be voted for the service of the Navy, with the consent of every sensible man in this country, in order to repair the inadequacy of the Navy. He did not consider that a great economy. If hon. Members could go, as he had gone, all over the Continent to the great naval and military establishments; if they could gee the activity with which naval and military preparations were carried on; if they could see the enormous expenditure and the enormous intellectual effort which were devoted to the increase of the naval and military forces of foreign Powers, then they would realise that this instinct of self-protection on our part was not altogether unjustified.

1291
But he did not measure this question merely by the Navy Estimates or the Military Estimates of a single year. The hon. Member opposite said that nothing was a greater protection than a buoyant Exchequer and a prosperous people. He remembered another country which had a buoyant Exchequer and a prosperous people. He remembered also when Lord Granville informed the House of Lords that there was not a cloud on the European horizon and when twelve months after that declaration, a country with a buoyant Exchequer and a prosperous people had to pay five milliards for the liberty to exist. He remembered, too. that these little miscalculations did not end with that five milliards, and that France had had to pay ever since the most terrific toll for recuperating after that calamity, and for restoring to itself that position of confidence which every great country aspired to possess, and which, he hoped, this country would never abandon Those were the costs which they had to pay for neglect in these matters; and this he was always willing, and should be always willing, to take any step which he believed to be reasonable to induce the Powers of Europe to cooperate with us in the reduction of armaments, he would never accept the argument, unless it were backed up by much better reasons than he had heard that afternoon, that we should reduce the expenditure on our Navy, in deference to what was, after all, somewhat amateur criticism of the calculations the Admiralty had made.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he did not ask the Government to reduce our armaments unless the other Powers were prepared to do the same. What he suggested was—and this was the whole crux of the matter—that, having regard to our special position in this matter, it would be well for us to take the initiative and make a representation to the other Powers.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the mind or the Government as expressed last year was the mind of the Government now. They were prepared now, as they were prepared then, to accept any proposal from countries less interested
1292
than this country in a reduction of naval expenditure which should be carried on, pari passu, by the nations of the world. There would be no Government which would hail with greater satisfaction than that which now sat on those Benches the successful realisation of any proposal which would allow them to reduce this lamentable expenditure of money upon the means of war, whether it was for the Army or the Navy.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that, while the right hon. Gentleman had made an important concession to the sentiments of his own friends, the language he used in the earlier portion of his speech did not prepare him for the conclusion at which he ultimately arrived. The right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the arguments of his hon. friends. But they did not find fault, as he understood them, with the standard set up by the Admiralty nor with the application made by the Admiralty of that standard. The figures they used were designed to prepare the way for the operative part of the Resolution by showing that the burden of the Navy Estimates was growing year by year and was now, he did not say excessive, but oppressive on the resources of the country. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his colleagues would deny that for the last nine years the Estimates had been growing steadily at the rate of about £2,000,000 a year. The net Navy Estimates did not show the whole extent of our burden. Including the Appropriations-in-Aid, the money to be raised under the Naval Works Loan, and the sums borne upon Civil Service Estimates for naval purposes, the naval expenditure for the coming year would be not the sum mentioned in the Estimates, but a sum of £42,300,000. To that had to be added the amount of money under the Naval Works Loans Act, which he took to be no loss than £4,000,000. There was also a not inconsiderable sum borne on the Civil Service Estimates for naval purposes which was never mentioned. That amounted to £335,000. After knocking off £634,000 required to pay interest and to establish the sinking fund under the Naval Works Loans Act the gross result was that the naval expenditure of the coming year,.

1293
according to the proposals now before the House, would be not the sum mentioned, but a sum of £42,300,000. [An HON. MEMBER: And the Supplementary Estimates as well.] He was assuming that there would be no Supplementary Estimates. These figures proved the first part of his hon. friend's case that naval expenditure was growing, and the second that it was oppressive. There was no sign of any limit or of any relief, for the colonial contribution was infinitesimal. Therefore a case had been made out for the consideration of his hon. friend's proposal.
What was the answer of the Secretary of State for War? From his answer it appeared that the sole point left at issue between the Government and his hon. friend was as to who should take the initiative. The right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his speech was unfair to the Government, and he was unfair even to himself, because on many occasions in former days when he occupied a position of less responsibility he came nearer to his hon. friend's position than when he said to-day that no person had ever gone so far as Mr. Goschen in 1898. The right hon. Gentleman forgot the most important of all the steps taken. When Mr. Goschen declared that if Russia was going to build a certain number of ships we would build against them, and that if Russia did not go on we would not, then Russia issued the invitation to the Hague Conference. Lord Salisbury, who was then Prime Minister, accepted the invitation to The Hague Conference. At that Conference the representatives of the various Governments of Europe passed a Resolution accepting the principle that there should he a concurrent and reciprocal reduction of naval armaments, and they recommended their respective Governments to fake the very step which the Amendment now called upon them to take. In July 1ast in this House, in answer to a Question whether he would do what his hon. friend now asked to be done, the Prime Minister said the Government had not altered their views, and that if any Government would take the initiative we should be glad to join them, but it must be remembered that the expenditure on
1294
the British Fleet alone among the fleets of the world, or almost alone, was mainly of a defensive character, and that the other fleets of the world could not claim to have that character. But was there any nation in the world that would not claim that its fleet was defensive? The initiative ought to come from us if for no other reason that after that statement any other Power taking the initiative would be fitting the cap offered by the Prime Minister on to its head and admitting that its fleet had the offensive character he attributed to it. We had one character which no other nation would dispute. Our Fleet at present held absolute supremacy on the seas. It was our object to maintain that supremacy, but as we were in the supreme position we could afford to take the step Russia took in 1898 better than any other nation.
MR. HARRISsaid it was a matter of regret that circumstances had forced on the country such heavy expenditure on our Army and Navy. In view of all the circumstances of the case he thought that it lay rather with other Powers than with us to make a commencement in the direction of curtailment. In the desire for increased armaments which was so evident among all the great Powers of Europe we could not afford to be left behind. We had a responsibility to bear and obligations to meet which they had not. We owned practically half of the mercantile tonnage of the world. We had to look to the protection of a fourth of the earth's area, and a fourth of its population. So long as other nations continued to increase the amount they spent on their Navies we perforce were obliged to do the same. In listening to the figures given by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment he was reminded of a speech by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington last year in which he stated that in the twenty years between 1863 and 1883 our trade had increased from £13 to £21 per head, while in the twenty succeeding years it had only increased by £1 per head. Those things must give the hon. Gentleman, with his pronounced views of free trade, some anxiety in regard to the future trade of the country. He believed

1295
those figures were absolutely accurate; while we were obliged to spend those huge sums on our Navy and Army, we had at the same time to face this enormous decrease in the percentage of the prosperity of the country. But there were other circumstances which should carry more weight. He asserted that if we looked to our over-sea trade, to the great commercial interests involved in all quarters of the world, our existence as an Empire depended upon our mercantile marine. Looking to these considerations, if the Estimates erred at all, they erred on the side of being too small instead of being too large. We had fixed for our Navy a two-Power standard; but there had been two definitions of what that standard was. The Secretary to the Admiralty said that our Navy should be such that this country should be able to engage in a naval war with reasonable probability of emerging victorious from a contest with two naval Powers. He observed that the First Lord of the Admiralty had gone rather beyond that definition, for his Lordship said, we must have—
"A Navy strong enough to sustain a struggle with the navies of any two Powers, and also strong enough to ensure reasonable security to its vast sea-borne trade, and to the food supply of the people."
It was in connection with the sea-borne trade that he wished to make a few remarks; but, before doing so, he desired to put before the House a further consideration in regard to the two-Power standard. To his mind a two-Power standard should not only be sufficient to enable us to hold and defeat the navies of two other nations, but should suffice to ensure the due arrival of stores and ammunition of war in every quarter of the world, to protect our transports to India and the Colonies, to safeguard our coaling stations and the great service these would be able to render to our fleet and our mercantile marine, and to leave a sufficient margin over to keep open the great trade routes and protect our mercantile marine. At the commencement of last year Admiral Freemantle wrote a very interesting magazine article in which he expressed the opinion that we required 160 additional cruisers to fulfil the conditions of a two-Power standard, and at the same
1296
time maintain our mercantile supremacy at sea. He was inclined to agree with that opinion, and, as a shipowner, and representing a shipping constituency, he must say he felt the greatest anxiety and apprehension as to what our position would be in the next great naval war. He need not remind the House that this country had to depend on its sea-borne trade for, not only the food we consume, but also the raw material we worked up in our factories and workshops. Unless, therefore, we could ensure the due arrival of this food and raw material, and the due export of our manufactured articles, we should be at the mercy of any foreign Power that chose to starve our population, or close our factories and workshops. He remembered reading a speech by an eminent statesman in which he said, speaking of this country, that "stomachs count for more than arms." There was an element of truth in that remark, and he believed that we had as much to fear in the future from starving people at home, as from the arms of any nation or combinations of nations against us. And it was because he was convinced that we should pay more attention to absolutely ensuring the due arrival of food and raw materials, that he urged the Government not be led away by criticisms which might be passed on the amount of the Estimates. No one knew what would happen in the next war, but he would read a quotation from the Press of the day which showed what an enormous amount of damage could be done to the shipping of any country even by a small number of armed cruisers. It referred to the war of 1812—
"The public will learn with sentiments which we shall not presume to anticipate, that a third British frigate has struck to an American. This is an occurrence which calls for serious reflection, this and the facts stated in one paper of yesterday that Lloyd's list contains notice of upwards of 500 vessels captured in seven months by the Americans."
It was to be remembered that at that time the United States had no more than sixteen or eighteen ships of war, whilst we had eighty-five on the American station. Privateering was forbidden under the Declaration of Paris. But in 1870 the Prussian Government obtained the services of a certain number of merchant vessels, manned them with their own officers, furnished them with papers, and sailed them

1297
under the Prussian flag. Thus in the space of a few hours they converted what would have been privateers in other circumstances into recognised belligerents. That could be done again in another war, and showed that privateering had only been abolished in name and not in fact. It was said that under the Declaration of Paris this country would benefit by being able to obtain supplies of food and raw material in neutral vessels. Although that might appear so at first sight, as a matter of fact it constituted a greater danger to this country than if that provision had never existed at all. Mr. Cobden, in the course of a speech delivered in 1856, shortly after the Declaration of Paris was signed, said—
"Have you ever thought of the effects that would be produced in English shipping property in case of war with America or other maritime Power, owing to the principle now being formally admitted that free ships make free goods? All our carrying trade would, of course, be in the hands of neutrals, who would carry goods in English bottoms, and pay 20 per cent. against capture, when ships under other flags would sail without any such burden."
To his mind the danger of our trade being forced into the hands of neutral owners by reason of this provision in the Declaration of Paris was one we should guard against as greater than the danger of capture itself. The cost of insurance was regulated by the protection that our Navy would be able to give to our mercantile marine, and consequently the less protection it was able to afford, the more our British shipowners and shipping would be handicapped as against neutral owners and neutral vessels. We had only to look at the experience of America during the Civil War. In 1860 the United States was paramount amongst nations as a great shipping Power; it was only second to Great Britain in the amount of its tonnage. In that year forty-one American ships were transferred from the American to the British flag, and in 1863 346 American ships of a tonnage of 252,000 tons were transferred to our flag, because American shipowners found that they were unable to affect insurances on their vessels, and rather than lay them up they sold them to foreigners. At the end of the Civil War the American mercantile fleet had practically ceased to exist—it had either
1298
been sold, or captured by a few Confederate cruisers. He might be told that if we looked to the experience of the past, to the war with France, we should find that British shipping prospered, and even at the end of the war was in a more flourishing condition than before. But he would point out that the conditions then were very different from what they were to-day. At that time any vessel carrying a British cargo was liable to capture, and therefore the cost of insurance on foreign ships was higher than on even British ships, which were able to enjoy the protection afforded by our convoy system. But to-day the convoy system was impossible. Under modern conditions it could not be expected that steamships would collect in large numbers and wait until a convoy had been prepared. They must look to other means for the protection of the mercantile marine. There was one system, and one system only, by which the mercantile marine could be properly protected, and that was the proper patrolling of the great trade routes It was estimated that if the 8uez Canal were closed, our vessels would pass any given spot between the Cape and Plymouth at the rate of one per hour, and it was evident there fore that a foreign commerce destroyer might in a few hours inflict a great amount of damage on the mercantile marine and produce a panic in this country which would increase the price of all commodities. He looked with great apprehension to what the next naval war might bring forth; and he hoped the Government would reject the dicta of those who considered only the pockets of the taxpayers, and that they would look at the interests of the Empire generally and the welfare of our mercantile marine.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken delivered a speech in favour of a strong Navy, and discussed a variety of topics of great general interest, but he failed to see what bearing the hon. Member's speech had on the Motion. He thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman ought to be excused for the course be had taken, because the greater part of the speech of the Minister for War was in the

1299
same direction. It ignored the Motion and devoted itself to fighting against what had not been set up by any hon. Gentleman. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were sitting on the Opposition Benches men who were just as keen about the Navy and as anxious to have it strong and efficient as any hon. Members in any quarter of the House. But that was not what they were now discussing. He was aware of the gravity of such matters, and if a responsible Minister said that it was necessary to spend a certain amount in order to make the Navy efficient, he himself might grieve over the amount but he would hesitate long before he would oppose the expenditure. That was not the question, however, they were discussing at present. The Motion made a specific proposition, which was that it was the duty of the Ministry to enter into negotiations with other countries with a view to reducing the expenditure not of this country alone but of all the great naval Powers, and to establish some sort of balance of expenditure. The Secretary of State for War said that he was in sympathy with the spirit of the Motion and in accordance with the proposition which underlay it. One would expect that something other than what the right hon. Gentleman said would follow from that. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Navy was only for defence, and that this country had not annexed anything in Europe since Corsica many years ago, and he contended that it was not for this country to take the first step, that it was stated by Mr. Goschen on behalf of the Government that this country would be prepared to enter into negotiations, and that, therefore, there was no obligation upon it to take the first step. He himself ventured to think that if this was a serious topic, and he thought it was, it would have to be handled in a very different fashion if any progress were to be made in regard to it. Their chief complaint was that the question seemed to be treated as if it were a Departmental question. It was not a Departmental question, but a diplomatic question of the very first magnitude and importance. It was a matter to be handled by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, and if the Prime Minister, for reasons which they all regretted, was unable to give the House
1300
his views on the subject then they should expect from some Minister who represented the policy of the Government generally, and especially its diplomatic policy, some statement as to what the attitude of the Government on the subject was. It was not enough to say that the Navy was for the purposes of defence. He doubted very much if this country appeared to other Powers in the light in which, no doubt justly, it appeared to the right hon. Gentleman. There were other parts of the world besides Europe. There was Burma, the northeast corner of Africa, and the whole of South Africa. He wondered what other Powers would think of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman when they bore in mind, no matter for what sufficient reasons, that the position of this country was enormously greater in point of control and possession of territory than it was even a few years ago. He trusted that the Navy would continue to exist for defensive purposes only; but every Power regarded its armaments for the purposes of defence. Therefore he thought that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman altogether ignored the point of the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman having expressed sympathy with the Motion, they were entitled to be told that the Ministry had taken every step they could to make progress and give effect to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and also that action would be taken by the Foreign Office with a view of following up such a declaration. Nothing having been said on that point, it was not too much to assume that very little had been done. He did not anticipate that any progress would be made in this matter until this country had taken the initiative. After all, it was a question of noblesse oblige. This country had immense naval strength relatively to foreign fleets. It was in a very formidable position, and unless it took the initiative he did not see how they could put pressure on other nations. He was quite aware that it was a very difficult matter, but there was one thing that gave him hope that such negotiations might not be altogether without fruit. It should be borne in mind that other countries were also being pressed

1301
with naval expenditure, just as this country was. The French Minister of Marine recently pointed that out; and within the last week observations were made by a responsible person on behalf of the French Government in that sense. He thought there was nothing to fear as regarded France. He would not discuss the position of Russia, for Russia might hereafter be very willing to come to any arrangement it could upon the subject of limiting naval expenditure. He would not discuss the United States, because he had always maintained that the two-Power standard had nothing whatever to do with the United States. He refused to contemplate war with the United States as being within the range of practical politics; and he did not anticipate that any good would come from any attempt to arrange a standard on the basis of war with the United States. The country had developed enormously, and it should be a paramount part of the diplomacy of this country to be on friendly terms with the United States. Germany was more difficult than the other Powers. She was rapidly developing her Navy, but it was a small Navy as compared with the Navy of this country. It was quite true that the German shipbuilding programme would bring up the Germany navy to a substantial level in a few years; but Germany was being pressed with naval expenditure at the present moment, and it was not altogether a source of strength to her Government. He believed that the present moment was probably more ripe than it had been for some time past to enter into those negotiations; but this country should take the initiative, and they should not have such speeches as that which had been delivered by the Secretary for War. This was a question which demanded the intervention in the debate of some one who would speak not for a Department but for the Government as a whole, and would be able to give an assurance that he represented the policy of the Foreign Office in the matter. It was not a question of the strength of the Navy, it was a question as to the relations between different navies at the present time. He was one of those who thought that the strength of the Navy was included in the policy of the country. He could conceive a case being made for less expenditure on the Navy, if they pursued
1302
a policy which would get rid of the dependence of this country on imports, and make the Empire self-trading within its own limits. But as long as they maintained the country as a great free-trade country they needed the most powerful Navy in the world. That Navy he desired to have, and he did not desire to imperil it. He did not believe the country would grudge any expenditure in making the Navy as efficient as possible; but while maintaining that position the Government should be able to satisfy the taxpayers that they had done everything in their power to keep down the relative proportions of the navies of the great Powers to the Navy of this country. Otherwise they would run the risk of the naval policy of the country losing its present popularity, and from that point of view he regretted the speech which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid it was too much taken for granted that all foreign navies were intended to operate against us. He did not think that could be proved. In the course of the debate on the Navy last year, he took occasion to point out that a debate took place in the German Parliament in which great exception was taken to the strength of the German Navy, because it was not in a satisfactory condition compared with the Italian or the Russian. Nothing was said as regarded the English Navy. It did not follow that if we were prepared to diminish our Navy that other countries would be in a satisfactory naval position as regarded each other. It was quite conceivable that the upshot of a proposal to decrease our Navy would result very much like the admirable proposal of Russia in regard to the Hague Convention. They ought not to adopt hastily any proposal which would tie their hands in the future. It was not for him to say whether this particular moment was an auspicious one for such a proposal, but they ought to bear in mind that we were not the only naval Power in the world. and that it was not only against us that other countries built their ships. Foreign countries had issues of their own to consider, and therefore it was not

1303
desirable that we should do anything which would be ineffective now and restrict our freedom in the future.
MR. O'MARAsaid this Resolution asked His Majesty's Government to enter into communications with the other great Powers. Suppose the Government did this, what practical result could they possibly get from such a proceeding? He had very little confidence in such a proposal, even if the Government accepted it, for communication with the great naval Powers would not really lead to economy in finance. They did not find much encouragement from the result of such conferences, as those which met at the Hague, or from the Geneva Conference, for twenty years after the Geneva Conference we had a war in South Africa. If hon. Members really had any desire for economy they would not get it through conferences with naval Powers, but the best course was to denounce both in this House and in the country the enormous Estimates which the Government were asking for to keep up the Navy. Where was it all going to end? Not many years ago the Navy Estimates amounted to £23,000,000, and now they amounted to £36,000,000. He could see no finality in these figures, and they might ultimately grow to £60,000,000. There might come a time when they would amount to as much as £70,000,000 or £80,000,000, because what had been pointed out on this side of the House up to the present was only a part of the annual expenditure on the Navy. He had read carefully the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and there was no mention in it of these other items of expenditure, although it pointed to the fact that the Estimates now asked for amounted to £36,899,000 as against £34,000,000 for the current year. This £36,000,000 concealed from the country the amount which had been spent on the naval dockyards and all the money voted under the Naval Works Act of last year. These immense sums, amounting perhaps to £4,000,000, £5,000,000, or perhaps £6,000,000, did not Come before the House in the ordinary way for criticism. He thought they were matters which ought to excite more indignation among his hon. friends above the Gangway than they seemed to do.
1304
He listened last year to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol asking the various Government Departments to practise economy. Now hon. Members on the Opposition side were asking for a reduction on these Estimates by suggesting some agreements between naval Powers. He did not think that was the proper way to secure economy. The first thing to do was to reduce your own Naval Estimates and then other countries would do the same. What was the cause of other naval Powers increasing their Navy Estimates? England was the greatest sinner in this respect. What country had shown the biggest increase? I his country had spent the most in this direction, for their naval expenditure was going up by leaps and bounds. That was the way in which it seemed to him economy ought to be brought about in this House instead of doing it in an indirect way by a Resolution of this kind. He did not desire to keep a strong Navy, for what was the good of a strong Navy to Ireland. They were going to build big battleships, submarine boats, and torpedo destroyers, and they could not even get a gunboat to defend the fisheries in Ireland, although they had had many complaints about the way fishing was carried out by foreigners. He had moved reductions upon every single Navy Vote on the ground that as an Irish Member Ireland got no benefit whatever from this huge expenditure on the Navy. He could quite understand, for instance, why the Colonies were proud of the Navy, and he could understand why the Navy was of great use to the Colonies, because, by an agreement entered into this year, he found in the case of Australia——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! An agreement between the Colonies and this country in regard to the Navy cannot be discussed under this Motion.
MR. O'MARAexplained that his objection to the growing expenditure was that Ireland had to bear a heavy proportion while the Colonies escaped.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that that was rather wide of the subject under discussion.
MR. O'MARAasked whether he was i not at liberty to explain the grounds of his objection to the growing expenditure on the Navy.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if they are relevant to the Motion before the House. But I think the hon. Member is going too far if he attempts to discuss the contribution made by the Colonies or the use of gunboats to protect the fisheries of Ireland. Those matters may be brought up on other occasions, but not on the Motion now before the House.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it was not permissible to urge, as a reason for objecting to the continually growing expenditure on the Navy, the fact that the Colonies did not in any adequate way contribute thereto.
MR. SPEAKER: I think it is objectionable on this Amendment. When the hon. Member proceeds to discuss the relations between the Colonies and this country, and the agreement with Australia, he is going beyond the Motion before the House.
MR. O'MARAsaid that all he desired to point out was that by the new agreement six warships were devoted to the protection of the Colonies which subscribed only £400,000, while Ireland, who had to pay £2,000,000, received no benefit whatever from the Navy. The fact that two new dockyards had been constructed in England intensified the grievance felt by Ireland that no fully equipped dockyards existed in that country. Although some good might come of the Resolution, he felt that if its supporters really had the interests of economy at heart, they ought to take the direct road of moving reductions on the Estimates, and of opposing the growing extravagance of the Government. The pockets of the people of this country were not unlimited, and at its present rate the enormous expenditure would exhaust the resources and cripple the industries of the nation.
SIR H. OAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that a week ago he had found it his duty to make some strong observations on the growth of expenditure,
1306
and therefore it was only right that he should again take part in directing attention to the subject, although the Estimates under consideration were those for the Navy. He would at once admit that on the quest ion of maintaining a strong Navy there was an almost universal agreement. The Navy attracted to itself most rightly a great deal of popular sympathy and confidence; and a tendency to increase expenditure was more likely to meet with approval in respect of the Navy than in respect of almost any other department of the public service. But it was somewhat remarkable—and the House could probably derive comfort from the fact—that there should be this increase of £2,500,000 in the Navy Estimates this year, because it must naturally be supposed that the Government, before agreeing to so large an increase, must have looked to the financial position of the country, and have satisfied themselves that the country could afford this expenditure without inconvenience. Therefore, the Government must have found that the revenue of the coming year would be more than sufficient to cover any excess of this kind. Some comfort was to be extracted from this consideration, because it was impossible to imagine any Government which, contemplating a narrow equipoise of revenue and expenditure, and still more a deficit, would bring forward as the very first Estimates to be laid before the House an increase of £2,500,000. The Navy was popular, and all wished to see it maintained in adequate strength. But the House looked for their guide in that matter not to the Board of Admiralty, but to the Cabinet and the Government at large. There was a singular passage in the explanatory statement of the First Lord, to which he would call attention for a moment. It was as follows—
"The Board of Admiralty are well aware that the charge they are asking Parliament to sanction is a heavy one, but Parliament mast remember how heavy is the responsibility cast by it on the Board of providing the country with a Navy strong enough to sustain a struggle with the navies of any two Powers, and also strong enough to ensure reasonable security to its vast sea-borne trade, and to the food supply of the people."
That was not to state the matter quite fairly. The question of responsibility was not one as between Parliament and the Board of Admiralty, but as between

1307
Parliament and the Government. This was rather a usurpation by the Board of Admiralty of the responsibility constitutionally attaching to the Government. In all technical and professional matters, the opinions of the Board of Admiralty should have the greatest weight; but the Government had to take into consideration other matters with which the professional members of the Board of Admiralty had nothing to do. In the first place, the Government had to consider what they knew of the disposition and intentions of this country towards other countries, and of other countries among themselves and towards us. They must know all that in a much more deep and intimate sense than would be conveyed by the courteous phrases usually employed in the King's Speech. Then the Government were also acquainted with the financial position of the country. They knew whether the country could afford all that the professional advisers wished to see provided, and on these grounds he declined to accept the doctrine that the Board of Admiralty was responsible to the House of Commons. It was the Government that was responsible. From this point of view as well as others he regretted the absence of the Prime Minister, because the right hon. Gentleman could have told the House better than anyone else what was the view on this question of the Cabinet at large, and he could have given an authoritative statement as to what might be called the naval policy of the Government. The House was quite at sea with regard to naval policy. A great deal had been said about a two-Power standard. The investigations which he had made of the figures pointed rather to the standard of this country being a three-Power standard. But, in any case, the fact remained that according to the accounts now presented we were simply drifting—simply playing a game of follow-my leader, infused with a strong "ash of that other game "beggar-my-neighbour."
The statement of the First Lord said that the Board asked for nothing which they did not believe to be necessary; that they had avoided giving any stimulus to the expansion of armaments by the formulation of large programmes, but that when such programmes
1308
were adopted by other Powers, they had no choice but to take them into account. That was the unbroken story. We built, and then others Powers with which we matched ourselves followed suit. Next year the Government would come forward and use the fact that they had indulged in an increase as a reason for further construction. They would cite it as a reason for a further advance; and so things went on. What was wanted was to try to stop this absurd and ruinous rivalry. The right hon. Gentleman said that our Navy existed for defensive purposes. Other States could say the same of their navies; they existed for offensive and defensive purposes. But do not let us be so insincere with ourselves as to conceal from ourselves the fact that this was the case. Undoubtedly we had a position in the world which required us, beyond the requirements of any other country, to maintain our Navy in a full state of efficiency; but were we to go on with this game, this constant race in armaments, without any hope of reducing them? The proposal of his hon. friend must commend itself to every reasonable man—namely, that an effort should be made to bring other nations into counsel in the matter in order to see whether we could not come to an understanding to save both them and us from the sacrifices that were evidently in front of all? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had already done this, that Ministers in both Houses had made certain statements which expressed our willingness to the world. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that he hoped there would be some sort of reasonable agreement between the Powers. Other Powers had said the same thing, and France had gone further. The Finance Minister in France had warned his countrymen of the extreme limit of the sacrifices that could be imposed upon them, both for land and sea services, and on 23rd November M. Delcassé spoke about the good relations which happily existed between most of the nations and the desire for an agreement on questions that divided them. In discussing a Motion like this, that France should take the initiative in suggesting a reduction of armaments to other

1309
Powers, M. Delcassé said: "France has no need to speak to the nations; she has acted for several years so that her naval and military estimates have been slightly lower." The Secretary for War laughed
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said they were reduced by £400.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that, whatever the reduction was, the estimates were "slightly lower," and France did not increase them by £2,500,000. M. Delcasse had shown again and again what a friend of this country he was, always in subordination to his friendship and loyalty for his own country. "Other nations," M. Delcassé added, "can follow her example; acts are worth more than idle words." He agreed that some of the, words let fall by the right hon. Gentleman were of a satisfactory nature; but no mere repetition of what Lord Salisbury said in the House of Lords and the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on previous occasions, which were little more than the obiter dicta of individual Ministers, could be held to take the place of the opinion of the Cabinet. They would never do any good unless they showed that they were in earnest and were sincere. He therefore regretted that the Government had not seen their way to take the moderate, reasonable, and wise step proposed in the Amendment. He would certainly support the Amendment as a demonstration of the wish which he believed to be general in this House. If the Amendment was agreed to by the House he believed that it would express the general opinion of the House better than the negative attitude which the Government seem to think sufficient.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the Secretary of State for War no doubt felt bound to take part in this discussion owing to the office he filled at the Admiralty before he occupied his present position at the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted the House with what he termed amateur criticism, but the word amateur might, in his opinion, also be applied to the administration of the War Office and the Admiralty at the present time, having regard to the fact that all the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury
1310
Bench at the present' time had been lately at the War Office or the Admiralty. After the ruling given by Mr. Speaker he felt himself in a difficulty in this debate as he was debarred in consequence from entering into and referring to the absurd relations of the Colonies with reference to the enormous expenditure which this House was asked to undertake from time to time in respect to the Navy. The terms of the Resolution of the hon. Members were to call attention to the continual increase in the charges for naval expenditure; and to move—
"That, in view of the heavy burdens placed upon the people of the country by this increasing expenditure"—
In this relation the expenditure must be taken to include Ireland as well as England, and from that point of view he must repeat the protest he had made year after year so long as he had been in this House. From an Irish point of view he protested against this expenditure. The people of Ireland derived no advantage from it. They found it difficult even to get the service of a gunboat to protect their fisheries, nor did they derive any benefit in the shape of wages in their shipbuilding yards. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, "Where was this game going to end?" He knew there were Members of the House who did not regard an increase of £2,000,000 on the last year's Estimates as a matter of much importance, but others who had listened to such statements as had been made from the Treasury Bench year after year, regarded it in quite a different light. Not so many years ago the Naval Estimates were little more than half what they were at present, and year after year there had been the same story of millions added to the expenditure, and it was time for somebody to ask the question, "Where is this expenditure going to stop or when the limit will be reached?" What had been the result of all this expenditure? Were they any safer or more sure that if they were attacked they were any more secure in their defence? They saw only the other day how in the course of an hour, with a run of ill luck, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in ships might be destroyed. From the English point of view, though not

1311
from his point of view, it was inadvisable to spend money in the reckless way in which it was spent, in the hope of being able to produce a Fleet which would dominate all the other Fleets of the world. However, if the people of this country allowed themselves to be led into a state of ruin by the young men who had now got charge of the Army and Navy Departments, all he could say was that the look-out would be bad for this country. He was in the position of protesting against this expenditure on behalf of people who were taxed against their will, but if he were the representative of the English taxpayer he would be exceedingly sorry to find the Army and Navy Departments controlled by a number of gentlemen whose personal excellence he would be the last in the world to call in question, but who were, to say the least of it, a lot of inexperienced young men. In regard to the young man representing the Admiralty, he dared say that in the course of half-a-dozen years or so he would develop into a first-rate Government departmental official, but he might be allowed to ask without offence What did the hon. Gentleman know about the Navy when he had just arrived in his present office? He did not mean any disrespect when he said that one might take anyone from the lobby outside, a policeman for choice, and put him there. He had not the slightest intention of being disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman. He considered that the system which allowed any inexperienced Member of this House to be promoted as the representative of a great Department was not right. He did not think it was business. If this extraordinary expenditure was to be undertaken it ought to be administered by men of knowledge and experience of the Departments. Nobody could say that he was wanting in respect, or personally offensive when he alleged that these qualities could not be possessed by the young men who had been promoted for one reason or another, without going through any probationary course at all, so far as one could judge. These reflections would not have come to his mind had it not been for the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the criticism was amateurish. In
1312
regard to amateurishness the less he said the better. It was not business that they should not have in this House the head of the Navy Department. There was an expenditure proposed of £36,500,000 on the Navy at a time when peace was supposed to prevail, and when everybody was led to believe that there would be a great curtailment of expenditure both in the Navy and Army. With the other items referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee the expenditure was brought up to £42,000,000. Why was not the head of the Department in this House? He did not speak in terms of disrespect of the First Lord of the Admiralty because he happened to be a Peer. It was not his fault, but the head of the Navy ought, to be here.
MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is the Amendment. The question whether the First Lord of the Admiralty should be in this House or the other does not arise on this Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he bowed to that ruling. He had not the slightest desire to travel outside of the Amendment. The references he was making were references he had made year after year.
MR. SPEAKER: Not on the same Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid there were other occasions on which he made them. He would not refer to that matter further at the present time, but he had no doubt there would be an opportunity of taking notice of something that would not be tolerated in any business firm, namely, that the officer responsible for the expenditure was not present. The Secretary of State for War had stated somewhat petulantly that the communication asked for in the Amendment had been made over and over again. There was no need for petulance in these matters. He ventured to assert, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that no such communication had been entered into with any foreign Power. He wanted to know why such communications should not be

1313
entered into. Whether they believed in the bona fides of foreign Powers or not there could be no objection to asking for an interchange of opinion in this matter. He protested on behalf of the Irish taxpayers, against having to pay a farthing
of this cost, which was of no use to the Irish people now, or at any other time.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 174: Noes. 122. (Division List No. 30.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Forster, Henry William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

Morgan David J. (Walthamstow

Allsopp, Hon. George

Fyler, John Arthur

Morrell, George Herbert

Arnold-Forster Rt. Hon Hugh O.

Galloway, William Johnson

Morrison, James Archibald

Arrol, Sir William

Gardner, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garfit, William

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Aubrey Fletcher Rt. Hon Sir H.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Myers, William Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Percy, Earl

Baird, John George Alexander

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Plummer, Walter R.

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Gretton, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Federick George

Gall, Edward Marshall

Purvis, Robert

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pym, C. Guy

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

Ratcliff, R. F.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Reid, James (Greenock)

Big wood, James

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Richards, Henry Charles

Bond, Edward

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Boulnois, Edmund

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brassey, Albert

Heaton, John Henniker

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bull, William James

Hogg, Lindsay

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Butcher, John George

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Campbell Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow)

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Chapman, Edward

Kenyon-Slaney Col. W. (Salop.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes)

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Stock, James Henry

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kimber, Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Tuff, Charles

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Davenport, William Bromley

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Lowe, Francis William

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (Yorks)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Macdona, John Gumming

Wylie, Alexander

Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Majendie, James A. H.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Fison, Frederick William

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Federick G.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Milvain, Thomas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Partington, Oswald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Paulton, James Mellor

Allen, Charles P.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Rea, Russell

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Reddy, M.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Redmond John E (Waterford)

Blake, Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Roland, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rickett, J. Compton

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, William (Snowdon)

Burke, E. Haviland

Joyce, Michael

Roche, John

Burt, Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Russell, T. W.

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cameron, Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

Leng, Sir John

Sheehy, David

Causton, Richard Knight

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Crean, Eugene

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Slack, John Bamford

Cremer, William Randal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cullinan, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwell)

Sullivan, Donal

Davis, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Crae, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Delany, William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Tennant, Harold John

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

M'Kean, John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Toulmin, George

Doogan, P. C.

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark.)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S)

Dunn, Sir William

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Elibank, Master of

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Evans, Sir Francis H. Maidstone

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

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Kelly James (Roscommon N)

Young, Samuel

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Malley, William

Ffrench, Peter

O'Mara, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Roberts and Mr. Buchanan.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Flynn, James Christopher

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

Main Question again proposed.
And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [29th February],"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Main Question again proposed.
  ME. J. F. HOPEsaid there were one or two matters he desired to call attention to before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. With regard to the three battleships which were voted
  1316
  last year to be built in private yards, he noticed from the Memorandum of the First Lord that they had been undertaken in Government yards. Under those circumstances he thought private yards had some reason to complain of the action of the Government. The number of shipbuilders who were qualified to build battleships was limited, and when it was announced that three battleships were to be put out to contract in one year, naturally some of those shipbuilders expected to execute part of the orders. The reason for the change appeared to be that the work in the Government yards had been got through at a greater rate than was expected, but it was rather hard that the private shipbuilding yards should suffer owing to a want of foresight on the part of the Government. He quite appreciated the argument that the change was necessary in order to keep the hands in the Government yards

  1317
  together, but, even so, a compromise might have been arranged whereby two of the ships might have been given out as proposed to the private yards, because it must not be lost sight of that they too had to keep their hands together. The position of the manufacturers was affected in more ways then one because these private contractors were at the same time manufacturers of armour plate. And in this regard they were entitled to expect a large share of the orders having regard to the fact that some three or four years ago pressure was brought to bear on the armour-plate manufacturers to increase their productions. Thus Sheffield manufacturers increased their production by 10,000 tons each and yet the programme of the year would not come up to a third of their capacity. He also understood that the amount of repairs given to private yards in the future would be considerably less then in the past, but he certainly hoped having regard to the pressure put on these contractors in the past that the Admiralty would strain a point in their favour in that matter. It might be so that, in these matters, the national interest came first. That was no doubt true, but was all being done in the national interest that shuold be. Were some of the old battleships such as the "Majestic" and "Royal Sovereign" class and the "Centurion" and "Barfleur" class adequately protected in armour? He understood that at modern trials the armour-piercing shells were such as to prove that the armour of those vessels was far from adequate. There were other classes of ships which needed not only re-armouring but re-arming as well. With regard to the general question as to whether the strength of the Navy was the two-Power standard, he could only say that according to the figures in Brasseys Annual we had hardly reached that standard. According to that work the combined force of France and Germany were seventy-seven as against sixty-two. Of course all these calculations were difficult to harmonise, but so far as the mere statement as to the numbers was concerned, he believed that those figures were fairly accurate. So far as he was concerned the criticism he would make was not that the present Estimates were too large but rather that they were too small. He quite admitted that he did not approach this matter with an entirely unbiassed view, but if his
  1318
  criticisms were sound his personal leanings he submitted did not affect the question.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken exception to the fact that certain battleships that were to have been built by contract had been placed in Government yards. It must necessarily be the policy of the Government to give work to its own yards when they were short of employment. There was no doubt the Government cut the matter too fine last year with regard to the matter of laying down new ships. It was pointed out then that unless they did lay down some ships in their own yards there would either be a large discharge or other work would have to be found. At the moment they appeared to have had the belief there was ample work, but it turned out differently, and of course they were right in seeing that their own yards, which would have no other opportunity of getting work like private yards, were duly employed. With regard to the "Prince of Wales" battleship, he had asked whether it was the fact that one of the armour plates had developed serious defects, and the answer was that the defects were not as serious as he suggested. His information was to the effect that the fissure was so serious that a man was able to put his finger in, and that pieces 22 inches in length, 6 inches wide and three-eighths of an inch in thickness had blown off. There was something chemically wrong with these plates. He knew the Admiralty had investigated this matter, and no doubt a report had been made. It would be of great interest to the House to have an explanation from his hon. friend as to the cause of this serious defect. He wanted to know what steps the Admiralty had taken with the contractor to compel him to make good not only the plates themselves but the loss that might be occasioned to the Admiralty. They had been told that the Admiralty had decided to take steps to cease the manufacture of certain commodities that were supplied to the Fleet by way of victualling, that they had decided to discontinue the manufacture of flour, oatmeal, etc., but they had decided to continue the manufacture of

  1319
  biscuit and cocoa. With regard to cocoa he had nothing to say, but with regard to biscuit he made a definite statement that the Admiralty were producing in their own factories biscuits at a cost of 40 per cent. more than they could be obtained in the open market. The hon. Gentleman shook his head, but that was his assertion after examination and inquiry.
  For the first time for twenty years in these Estimates there was a notification by the Admiralty that all the money voted last year would have been spent and earned by the contractors and the Government yards before the end of the financial year. For ten years they had been met every year with the fact that the money voted during the preceding year had not been spent. There had been all sorts of explanations of this. As regarded contract-built ships, the Admiralty had adopted the system he was the first to suggest, that ships built by private firms should be absolutely completed there and not brought round to the Government yards to be overhauled, which resulted in time and money being spent on them there. It was encouraging to find the good business results the Admiralty had achieved from having the ships thoroughly completed in the contractors' yards. He had advocated in past years that ships built by contract and requiring repairs should be sent back to the contractor who built them. It must be obvious there was an advantage in that. The contractor knew all about his ship and he naturally took an interest in it. He believed if that system were adopted as far as possible they would get better work, a longer life to the ship, and that there would be an economy to the State. Another point was that the Admiralty ought to take some further action to get an estimate of the cost of repairs before they proceeded to put the ships into the hands of the contractors for repairs. He was certain the present system was most extravagant. He never would believe it was not possible to get an approximate estimate in advance.
  He was glad to notice in the First Lord's statement that gunnery continued steadily to improve. He thought that was mainly due to the Parliamentary
  1320
  and Press discussion which had taken place. The primary object of the Fleet was to shoot well, and the result of the encouragement given by the Admiralty to the men was that there was a keen interest not only in the Navy, but through the nation in the results of the target practice and rapid firing and hitting. It would be of interest to know what ships shot badly, and he did not see the objection to publishing the results in the fullest possible detail. We got to know the records of the shooting of other nations, and if we advertised the fact that ours was the best shooting nation in the world it was not likely to do us any harm. He agreed that the practice should be in accordance with the conditions prevailing in time of war; it was in that direction we ought to excel. Every endeavour ought to be made to improve the material the men had to use, and especially was that the case in the matter of sighting. Had the Admiralty given that attention to this matter of the sighting of the guns which its importance deserved? What were the facts in connection with the "Centurion"? That ship returned from the China Station last year for the purpose of a thorough overhaul and refit. She was just on the point of being sent back to the China Station when rumours began to be circulated that the sighting of her 10-in. guns was imperfect. The Admiralty must take a great amount of responsibility in this matter; they could not pretend that they were in ignorance. It was generally known that the Gunnery School at Whale Island made representations on the point. Everybody knew, also, that when a ship came home to refit, the captain had the responsibility of making a full report with a full list of all requirements necessary to make his ship up to date and efficient. Did the captain fail in that respect? Undoubtedly not. The captain made representations to the Admiralty that the sighting was defective, and yet this ship had gone away to China with its gun sighting defective.
  MR. PRETYMANwas understood to dissent.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the sighting was admittedly imperfect at any rite. Lord

  1321
  Selborne the other day gave some explanation as to what happened. In the first place, he said that, as part of the refit a new sighting installation had been entrusted to the Messrs. Armstrong; and in the second place, that it could not be completed owing to want of time. That appeared to be very plausible on the surface; but either the Admiralty did not act on the information supplied by the captain at the earliest possible moment, in which event they were dilatory in an important case of sighting ten-inch guns, in which there ought to have been no delay; or, if the Admiralty said they had not been dilatory, they asked the House to believe that the Messrs. Armstrong, one of the greatest shipbuilding firms in the world, with an unlimited number of hands, and all other facilities at their command, were not capable of installing a new and satisfactory system of sighting in the "Centurion" in a period of four months.
  MR. PRETYMANwas understood to say that that was so.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that if it were so it seemed to him astounding. This was so important a matter that the Admiralty would do well at once to appoint a Committee of Inquiry composed of the best gunnery experts, and the best shipbuilders in the country. He did not believe that it was impossible to get a proper sighting equipment installed in the four months the ship was at home. The Admiralty were not free from responsibility because, when the Messrs. Armstrong had failed, they had not hesitated to send this ship back to her station in a defective state. His hon. friend might reply that the "Centurion" was efficient with the old sighting apparatus; but everybody knew that the old system of sighting was quite out of date, and knocked off at least 50 per cent. of efficiency as regarded accuracy and rapidity of firing, compared with the system installed in ships built within the last two or there years. It seemed to him strange that the Admiralty should have been in such a desperate hurry to send the ship back to the China Station with the old sighting. The "Centurion" was not an isolated case. He was told that there were many ships in the Navy at the present moment with sighting equipment which was seriously
  1322
  defective. He had only one other word to say on the subject of gunnery. He had urged over and over again that the Admiralty ought to give further encouragement to the men to stimulate them in shooting. He suggested that larger prizes should be given for accurate and rapid shooting. The best man in the Navy secured for the best shooting of a 12-in. gun, which fired an 800lb. shot, the magnificent sum, under the improved conditions of payment, of £3, accompanied by a silver medal. A man went to Bisley and fired an ounce bullet at a target and received £250 in money and a gold medal. The Admiralty seemed to overlook the fact that what honour was to the officer, money was to the men. It was a, question of bread and butter to them. He had come in contact with a great number of men Of the lower deck, and they were all in favour of large money inducements being given to the very best shooting men. There should be a naval Bisley every year, although he knew that certain objections might be stated against it—that there were variations in weather and light in different parts of the world, and that therefore it was impossible that the competitions could be carried out under fairly similar conditions. But he was told that whenever prize firing was engaged in. the state of the weather must be such that an open boat could be lowered and lay to so as to be able, as required, to make the necessary repairs to the target and to his mind that fact showed that the competition could be carried on under fairly similar conditions.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he wished to identify himself with the compliment which had been paid to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty on the very lucid, although lengthy, statement he had made on the Navy Estimates The distinguishing feature of the Estimates was the large sum of money required. The contrast between past years and the present was so marked that to-day we had a peace Estimate larger than any presented in time of war. That was a very remarkable circumstance, even more remarkable than the fact that these Estimates were £2,500,000 larger than those of last year. The two questions

  1323
  which the country would ask upon such enormous Estimates were—first, was this vast expenditure necessary; and second, was the country getting value for the money? He thought, and especially after the very specific statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of Secretary of State for War, that there was nothing provocative in the Estimates as they stood, nothing to challenge a response by any foreign Power. The country had recently heard with comparative equanimity of the state of appalling inefficiency of the Army because it was generally fully persuaded that the Navy was not only large but also efficient. The two-Power standard had been recognised as necessary even by the hon. Member for Denbigh. But, in making this comparison, American as well as German preparations could not altogether be neglected. It is true that the possibility of war with America was quite remote; he hoped that it was practically non-existent; but however friendly a Power might be, it was our duty to take into account- all the naval preparations of that Power, which he noticed proposed to spend £100,000 on experiments with submarines. Reference had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That was a very remarkable document, for there was scarcely a topic connected with naval preparations that was not dealt with in it in an exhaustive manner. In regard to the Chilian battleships, the hon. Member for Cardiff had said with characteristic modesty that these ships, designed by himself, were the best at the present time in the British Navy. He could hardly go so far as that, but he held that, considering their limited displacement and tonnage, there were no battleships superior to them, and their acquisition by the Admiralty was one on which the Board might be congratulated. If the rumours as to the circumstances surrounding that acquisition were correct, then the whole country owed a deep debt of gratitude to Lord Selborne for the personal steps which he took to secure these vessels at a moment of emergency, when they might have otherwise been lost to the service of Great Britain, and perhaps one day have been ranged against us.
  1324
  The hon. Member for Devonport had referred to the manner in which criticisms in the House had been accepted by the Admiralty. He ventured to say that the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Memorandum of the First Lord teemed with proofs of the success of criticisms in this House of naval details. He remembered that the criticisms of the late Sir W. Allan and other friends had been accepted by the Admiralty, and were now doing good and useful service in naval preparations. Take the question of sea trials of the marine boilers. These were now common, and the comparative results obtained were most valuable. That was a right policy, and so long as the Admiralty adopted the testing of novelties at sea they would meet with approval from practical men in the House. He maintained that the Boiler Commission, which was at first intended to be a temporary expedient, should be made a permanent board of advice to the Admiralty. There could be nothing possibly better than that the experience of men of high standing in the mercantile marine should be at the disposal of the Admiralty. Then the increase of the Navy Intelligence Department was also an improvement that had been the result of long and frequent debate and suggestion in this House. The Admiralty were moving in a right direction when they appointed naval attachés in all the great European capitals who would obtain intelligence regarding all foreign Navies. The drastic regulations for the compulsory retirement of captains was the result of representations in this House. The result of these regulations would be to obtain not only a large reserve of admirals, rear-admirals and captains, but] also to have the rear-admirals very much longer than they had ever been before, capable of taking command in the years when their vigour was at its best, and their experience sufficiently matured. That improvement had been carried out without any violent change of system or anything leading to injustice to individuals. It was also very satisfactory to find that the system of recruiting and training younger officers was working out in a way which the Admiralty considered satisfactory. "Water babies," as they

  1325
  were called, were entered now in considerable numbers, and there was every expectation on the part of those who had practical knowledge of the subject that the system would work satisfactorily. He had no doubt that experience would show that, even if changes in detail were necessary, the system was on the whole the right one for providing officers for the Fleet. He expressed approval of the training of boys in gunnery and other matters instead of masts, yards, and spars, there being no object to be gained by training young bluejackets in the obsolete system of navigation by sailing. Now they were really taught, as the officers were taught, what was necessary for practical use. The increase of the personnel was stated to be 4,000, but it was really more, because 1,240 boys had been done away with and men substituted. He did not know how the Admiralty proposed to provide for the future train-in? of blue jackets when so large a proportion of boys had been abolished, but perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give an explanation. It might be that the great increase in the Reserve made it unnecessary to train so many boys, and that, therefore, the personnel of the Fleet could be kept more efficient.
  Another matter of the utmost import- I once was the association of the Colonies and the colonial sailor-men with the British Fleet. That was clearly at work, according to the statement of the First Lord, both in Australia and New Zealand, where the Colonial Parliaments had accepted the overtures of the mother country, but he noticed with regret that there was no mention of Newfoundland, which had a large reserve of sailors who might be utilised in the same way. Reference had been made to the rapid rate of construction in the dockyards. Credit must also be given to the improved system of organisation in the dockyards which had been introduced by the present Director of Naval Dockyards, Sir James Williamson. Whatever the cause it was satisfactory to find that the great reform urged upon the Admiralty over and over again of allowing private contractors to finish their ships in preference to Bending them to the dockyards to be changed and pulled to pieces, was not only working
  1326
  well with regard to the ships built by contract, but also because it left the dockyards to their own proper work of building their own ships. The Leader of the Opposition had expressed the opinion that the £2,500,000 increase in the Estimates ought not to be associated with any idea that the Budget would not be a favourable one. What had the Budget to do with the safety of the country? He believed that the Estimates, large as they wore, were absolutely necessary, and would be regarded by the country as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he could not help thinking that the compliments which the hon. Member for the Shipley Division had paid to the present Board of Admiralty, and also to past Boards, and some of the detailed criticism, might have been reserved for the Committee stage on the Estimates. At this particular stage hon. Members who did not represent dockyard constituencies, or any trade interest, might be given the opportunity of dealing with the question of the Navy from the standpoint of the country. The hon. Member for Tynemouth quoted something which he himself said twelve months ago when the Estimates were under discussion. The hon. Member repeated what he said with fair accuracy, but he entirely lost the point of his argument. What he did a year ago was to point out that between 1860 and 1885 there was no rise practically in the Navy Estimates, though these twenty-five years represented the period of the greatest commercial progress this country had ever seen. We did not add £1,000,000 to the cost of the Navy during that time. He pointed out further that in the succeeding period we had doubled, trebled, and quadrupled the cost of the Navy, though our commerce had not increased more than £1 per head. His point was that a strong Navy did not necessarily give us good commercial results. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that afternoon that the safety of our commerce depended entirely on the Navy in time of war. He would remind the House that we passed through critical times in the twenty-five years to which he had alluded, but

  1327
  our commerce flourished all the time. There was the American Civil War accompanied by circumstances of great irritation against this country, and the great conflict between France and Germany, but our trade flourished all the time. Why was the country so prosperous? It was because there were gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who did not suggest the expenditure of another £1,000,000 on the Navy, and who appreciated that the real soiree of successful commerce was national wealth and well being. His hon. friend the Member for the Shipley Division asked what the Budget had to do with the matter if the safety of the country was at stake. But was safety secured by this huge expenditure? Be failed to see how such a policy could be described as safe, if the country was being bled white by a reckless Government which asked for more than there was any necessity for. The House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Dundee for pointing out definitely what, the Estimate exactly meant. The hon. Member put it moderately when he stated the sum was £42,000,000. He did not think-there had ever been a period in the history of the country when such a huge payment could be so ill afforded as at present. The House would not realise that all this meant unless they tried to bring home to their minds the other burdens of the people at the present time. The whole burden estimated for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Imperial purposes was £144,000,000, but this great sum did not include expenditure on capital account, so that the total amount of expenditure was £155,000,000. That was only one part of the burden that rested upon the people. He was informed that the burden of the rates amounted to £105,000,000 in 1902.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that at present he can only discuss questions relating to the Navy Estimates.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would obey that ruling. He only wished to point out in a sentence that the total expenditure of the country was £260,000,000. He presumed he would be allowed to say that any
  1328
  proposal to increase this largo amount was a serious responsibility for any Government to undertake. The Government were totally ignorant of the feeling of the country with regard to thus matter. [Cries of "Oh."] He was arguing that point. Hon. Members who had backed up this Government in all their extravagance might feel that the nation was perfectly satisfied with any burden put upon it. But surely he was at liberty to take another view ! The Government had displayed no appreciation of the feeling of the country with regard to the serious burdens thrown upon it at the present time. Every man out of doors expressed the same opinion. The great national securities had fallen to a point never touched before since the wars of 1815, and there was every indication in the commercial world of great depression. Wages had decreased, the savings in savings banks had diminished and simultaneously the price of bread and other great articles of consumption were going up. All this was owing to the vast expenditure of the Government, of which the Navy Estimates formed the I largest item. The people of this country I were suffering in a hundred ways of which hon. Members opposite did not I appear to have the slightest knowledge. Yet the Government took no account of those things and were steadily increasing the expenditure. The state of Ireland was perfectly shocking, the agricultural depression was particularly severe there. The wet season had affected all the crops on which the subsistence of the people depended, and in view of that surely the Government might have postponed many increased demands until they were in a better position to meet them.
  The explanations given by the Government on this occasion had been marked by an entirely novel feature. They had now adopted a new standard of naval power different from the two-Power standard. For three or four years past hon. Members had unsuccessfully tried to elicit from the Government what standard they were aiming at. but had never been able to get any candid admissions. Now the cat had been let out of the bag, and they had had a statement of extreme significance. The two-Power standard was no longer to be applied to the general expenditure on the Navy—it was only to apply to battleships,

  1329
  and not to cruisers, torpedo boats, and other vessels. This was a most important departure. The Secretary to the Admiralty had indistinctly alluded to the new standard as a sort of insurance on our commerce. He wanted to know what the rate of insurance was, and was there to be any definite relation between the expenditure and the alleged increase of commerce to which attention had been drawn. They had in recent years heard members of the Navy League speak of the naval expenditure being proportionate to the whole commerce of the country. What were the views of the Government on that point? Would the Secretary to the Admiralty define the position a little more closely and tell them to what extent he proposed to go. He had stated the whole value of our commerce at £1,200,100,000, and had said that on such a vast trade we could well afford to pay insurance. He seemed to suggest that we should make the Navy strong enough to convoy our merchant ships to all parts of the world in time of war so that there could be no interference with commerce at all. That was a most absurd idea. Convoying would not be practicable at all to any considerable extent. This, at any rate, represented a startling change in their ideas as to what the strength of the Navy should be. A fundamental change was being made to the Navy standard, and the House was entitled to further explanations. In 1883 our naval expenditure represented 10·4 millions while the two greatest naval Powers on the Continent spent £14,000,000, in 1893 we spent 14·3 millions against their £18,000,000, but last year we spent 34·5 millions, while they only expended £25,000,000, so that we far exceeded their standard. These figures prove that ten and twenty rears ago we had a perfectly clear idea of what the two-Power standard meant. It meant that the total expenditure of this country should be a little less than that of the two next countries with the largest navies, but during the last few years this interpretation has been entirely abandoned. How much further did the Government propose to go? What did the new standard which they had invented mean? One hon. Member had told them that it would involve the building of 160 new first class cruisers. Did the Government
  1330
  assent to that? Surely they ought to have a more complete definition of the new standard.
  The Estimates filled him with alarm. The country was never so ill-equipped to bear so heavy a burden. Ho had put down an Amendment which he knew, by the Rules of the House, that he could not take the opinion of hon. Members upon. It directed attention to one particular form of extravagant expenditure—that was the expenditure on capital account in the Estimates. A Committee was appointed a year ago to deal with the question of national expenditure, and it made a Report showing how the growth of the expenditure on capital account had increased from £40,000 in 1883 to 9·4 millions in the current year. Tins constituted one of the most serious sources of extravagance in the administration of the affairs of the country. Expenditure on capital account meant that instead of paying for the service of the year out of the taxes of the year according to old financial traditions, recourse was hud to borrowing. He might mention that in connection with the Navy there was no expenditure on capital account in 1883, but in 1893 1·4 millions was spent on that account and this year the total was 4·1 millions. That was an extraordinary and alarming growth, and unfortunately every public Department was going on the same lines, even the Post Office had spent £600,000 on capital account. This growth of expenditure was creating difficulties; the borrowing was coming home to roost; the interest was becoming heavy, and the Government were feeling the difficulties of a system under which there could be no clear statement of annual expenditure, and economical finance was prejudiced. Let the Secretary to the Admiralty inaugurate his period of office by putting a check on this bad system of borrowing money for naval work so that if the nation were extravagant it might at least pay its way.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the hon. Member for West Islington had stated that the people of this country were averse to expenditure on the

  1331
  Navy. If he meant it us a matter on which he was prepared to take the decision of the country, he ventured to say that any Member on the Government side of the House, if the issue of an election were limited to that, was, to use a vulgarism "prepared to take him on." However much the country and House disliked large figures, they approached this matter of the Navy as one of necessity, and as one that had to be faced. There was one matter which he desired to suggest to the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was a matter of general importance in their naval system, and that was the use of electricity on ships of war. Last summer he was on board one of His Majesty's ships of war, and was struck by the absence of electric appliances. There was no telephone aboard, and during hot weather the only cooling apparatus was a system of pumping of air by steam engines, which made it hot air. The same afternoon he went on board an American flag-ship, and the whole vessel was supplied with electric appliances and apparatus, which made it very cool and very agreeable. It might be that in our Navy electricity was not used because it was thought to be dangerous; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell him whether there was any well-considered plan upon which they acted. Another matter which he thought should be cleared up had relation to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. He had seen it stated in a newspaper that no less than 340 lieutenants in the Royal Naval Reserve had absolutely no qualifications for that rank beyond the fact that they had done their drills on one of the stationary drill ships. He did not make that statement with any intention to throw aspersions on the efficiency of the officers; but he mentioned it because it had been stated in a public newspaper, and he thought it desirable that some notice should be taken of it in the House. One of the most important matters, he apprehended, in the supply of their naval needs was the question of the supply of stokers. It was satisfactory to revert to the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that, as far as the Royal Fleet Reserve went, it was certain that the whole number
  1332
  of 625 stokers would have been enlisted before the end of the present financial year The question of stokers was a most important one, and it was satisfactory to know that the calculations of the Government were working out so well.
  Of late years many Members had adversely criticised the shooting in the Navy, and it became a duty, therefore, as well as a pleasure, to make public acknowledgment of the improvement that had taken place. He thought praise was due to Lord Charles Beresford for what he had achieved in his own squadron, and as far as he was able to judge a similar improvement was noticeable in the Mediterranean Fleet and throughout the Navy generally. Incidentally he thought they should recognise a very creditable piece of seamanship recorded last autumn in the squadron under the command of Lord Charles Beresford in the case of His Majesty's ship "Prince George." He saw that vessel in dock, and even a landsman could recognise the imminent peril in which the ship was placed and appreciate the extraordinary state of efficiency in which the crew must have been to have avoided disaster. He thought Parliament ought to be ready to recognise such obvious efficiency. Another point in regard to which he was not so sure they might rest contented was in the matter of guns. This question was raised last year principally in connection with the "County" class of cruisers. In the newer ships of that class bigger guns had been put in, but as he read the present Minute the secondary armament of our newest battleships was not as good, or as big, or as efficient as that which was being put in the newest battleships of the German Navy. In the new German ships, of which one was laid down last year and two were to be laid down this year, the smallest calibre of gun, 6·7, had been increased to 8·2, whereas in our "King Edward" class beyond our 9-in. guns we had nothing but 6-in. He did not say this was wrong, but he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Admiralty would give the House some information and tell them whether the Admiralty were satisfied that the requirements of the situation were being met. The Member for Shipley was inclined to find fault with the dockyard Members for raising

  1333
  dockyard questions. If he were a dockyard Member he would have more sympathy with them.
  He must be permitted to refer to one point which was in the Memorandum. The scale of pensions for the widows of seamen killed or drowned on duty had been raised and now corresponded to that for which provision was made from naval funds for widows of men killed in warlike operations. He did not propose to enlarge on that question now as he did last year. Without going into the matter he desired to ask, as had often been done before, whether the Admiralty had any intention of taking over the whole of this charge. Reference had been made to the dockyard question. There were many points which it seemed to be his duty to bring before the House, but for obvious reasons he could not do so. He suggested that what had been done in previous years should again be done, viz. that there should be a private conference between the representatives of the Admiralty and the Members particularly concerned. The points at issue could then be threshed out more effectively than in open debate, and the time and attention of the House generally would not be taken up by these matters of purely Departmental concern.
  MR. POWERthought it was time to ask when this gigantic expenditure was going to cease. About ten years ago the Navy Estimates were £19,000,000; they were now £36,000,000. He contended that the rate of increase was greater than was required to keep up to the two-Power standard. It had been said that it was difficult for England to bear the heavy burden of taxation necessitated by the enormous expenditure, but the argument applied with ten-fold force to Ireland, it being a purely agricultural country, and having to bear a share of the burden much greater than her proper proportion. England and her colonies were greatly interested in the protection of their commerce, but Ireland had no commerce to protect, and she received absolutely no benefit from all this expenditure. Large sums out of the money voted for the Navy were expended at Woolwich, Portsmouth, and similar places,
  1334
  but Ireland received practically nothing. In this as in all oilier respects she was treated in the most niggardly and cheeseparing way. For years her representatives had asked for a couple of gunboats for the protection of her fisheries, and, although such boats had been provided for the Scotch fisheries, Ireland had had to go without, so far as the Admiralty were concerned, and the cost of patrolling the coasts had had to be borne by the Irish Fisheries Board. It was probably not much use calling attention to particular cases, but as an illustration of the manner in which Ireland was treated by the Admiralty he would refer to one instance. At Tramore, in county Water-ford, a large number of men had joined the Royal Naval Reserve. They were physically a fine body of men, and the Admiralty had been asked again and again to give the local authority some little assistance in the construction of a pier to facilitate landing and so on. The present Secretary of State for War, after inquiring into the matter, said the work was not absolutely necessary. Works, without being absolutely necessary, were often highly desirable, and even from the naval point of view the construction of this pier would have resulted in much good to the service in which the Admiralty were interested. This was a small matter from an Imperial point of view, but it was of considerable importance to the people concerned, and it was an exemplification of the beggarly way in which Ireland was treated in connection with the naval expenditure. Much was not asked, but it was desired that local effort should be supplemented, and doubtless, if the pier was constructed, the Admiralty would not hesitate to take advantage of the work towards the construction of which they had not had the decency to contribute.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it was only by leave of the House he could again speak, but it would probably be to the general convenience that he should answer certain Questions which had been addressed to him. He assured the hon. Member for East Waterford that it was the desire of the Admiralty to spend proportionally as much money in Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom so far as the interests of the Navy would allow. The Admiralty

  1335
  fully sympathised with the attitude taken up by the hon. Member with regard to the pier at Tramore and the provision of a gunboat for the protection of fisheries, but such matters could not be dealt with out of naval funds. In no case did the Admiralty expend money on the construction of private piers. If, however, piers were constructed in private or public harbours by private money there were occasions when the Admiralty paid for the use of them, and in that way assisted the local authorities. Nor did the Admiralty supply boats for the protection of fisheries within the three-mile limit. That was the duty of the Fisheries Board, to whom hon. Members should direct their application. As to the expenditure of Navy funds on construction and repairs, a considerable sum was spent in the North of Ireland, and a not inconsiderable amount at Haulbowline, while during the past year three ships had been sent to the Channel Docks situated in the neighbourhood of Cork.
  With regard to the complaint that three new ships had been laid down in dockyards instead of in private yards, it was of course the fact that the armour would be constructed by private firms whether the ships were constructed in the Government yards or in private yards. The total of new construction for 1904–5 sent to private yards would exceed that of the past year by something like £1,000,000, so that private yards might expect to obtain a full share of the work. The hon. Member for Devonport had referred to two matters—the armour-plate of the "Prince of Wales" and the sighting of the "Centurion's" guns. The armour-plate of the "Prince of Wales" was a 12-inch plats, and at present there was a crack and scaling of the surface of the plate to the depth of ⅜-inch. It was impossible to doctor a plate, so that either the plate must remain in situ or be removed altogether and be replaced, and as the latter was a very expensive business involving great delay in the completion of the vessel, it ought not to be undertaken unless it was absolutely necessary. At present the defects did not justify the removal of the plate, but if they developed so as to endanger the security of the guns, action would be taken and the
  1336
  contractors would be held responsible. The cause of the defect was obscure, as the plate had been manufactured by the processes which had been uniformly successful in other cases. As to the "Centurion's" sights, these were turret sights attached to the mountings and not to the guns. The point of greatest importance in a sight was that it should be accurately attached, and that was where the "Centurion's" sights had always been defective, owing not to any defect in the sight itself, but to the character of the gun-mounting, which was now obsolete. In these particular mountings the attachment had to run in and out with the gun, with the result that the attachment was extraordinarily difficult and it had never been thoroughly satisfactory. The "Centurion," however, made a very fair average practice on her two commissions; but on her return, the Admiralty, instead of neglecting the question, did what was possible to repair the defects. Messrs. Armstrong were commissioned to devise a satisfactory attachment for this particular mounting. After a few months Armstrongs, with the assistance and advice of the gunnery experts of the Admiralty, produced an attachment which was an improvement on the old one, with which fair shooting had previously been made. That was the attachment with which with the "Centurion" had gone out, but it was not perfect; and he could not hold out hope that it would be possible to make an absolutely perfect attachment for that form of mounting. As very fair shooting was made with the old attachment and this was a better one, he did not think there was any very serious defect to be apprehended. The attachment not being absolutely perfect required that in laying the gun the last motion should be one of elevation. It, of course, needed a little handling on the part of the men; but the practice made with the gun was little inferior to that made with the other guns. The Admiralty had done all they could in the particular circumstances of the case, and Armstrongs had been asked to make a further attempt to secure a better attachment to the gun.
  In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for the Shipley division, the reduction in the number of boys to be

  1337
  entered next year was because the rate of increase in men for the personnel of the Navy would now be reduced. They now entered boys only to make good the ordinary wastage, and to some extent the reduction had become possible owing to the strengthening of the Reserves.
  Hon. Members who criticised the Admiralty for the size of the Estimates approached the question solely from a financial point of view. The hon. Member for West Islington practically admitted that that was the only point of view from which he had attempted to consider or to study this question. He assured the hon. Member that had his approached the question not only from the financial, but also from the naval side as well, and had he devoted the same study to the naval side, he believed he would have taken the same view as the Admiralty that although the increases were large, not one of them was unnecessary. Although there had been much criticism which was fully justified from a purely financial standpoint, he wished to remind the House that that was not the only standpoint, and it was not the one from which the Admiralty looked at these Estimates. From no single hon. Member who had addressed the House on these Estimates had they received any suggestion by which any particular economy could be effected.
  Mr. LOUGH: Make a reduction of £5,000,000.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid there were only two ways in which a large economy could be carried out First, if a responsible Government were, under the authority of the country, to say that the two-Power standard should no longer be adopted. But he believed that if there was one thing which the country was determined upon it was that the Navy should be adequate to the Navies of any other two Powers. If this country were to be engaged in a struggle for existence and the Navy was not prepared, then the country would bitterly rue any false economy. If it were true that they were not so prosperous as about four or five years ago, he did not see any adequate reason why the Navy Estimates should be reduced. To cut down the Navy
  1338
  Estimates now would be doing something on the same principle as if a large commercial firm were to say, "We have had a bad year, and we will not pay our fire insurance this year." Was it conceivable that any business could be conducted on those principles?
  MR. LOUGH: I don't believe in fire insurance.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that if the hon. Member's premises were burnt down, he thought he would be in favour of fire insurance after that.
  MR. YERBURGHasked if a saving could not be effected in regard to the ships which would have to be laid aside in the event of war and their crews transferred.
  MR. PRETYMANadmitted that there were still a certain number of sloops which would be perfectly useless in time of war; but those ships were doing duty absolutely necessary in time of peace, though it might be possible at some future period to design vessels which would serve some purpose in war better than the sloops referred to could. The second method of reducing expenditure to which he had referred would be if a responsible Government should be able to go to the country and say that their expert advisers informed them that we could maintain the two-Power standard with fewer ships and less equipment. He did not believe the country would ever accept any amateur opinion upon the point. The country itself and the House were fully competent to judge whether or not the two-Power standard was sufficient, and that was a question easily understood.
  MR. LOUGH: But you are going entirely beyond the two-Power standard.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he did not admit that we were now going beyond the two-Power standard. He did not think the country would ever accept any opinion, as to what was or what was not sufficient in regard to the strength of the Navy, unless it was backed up by the opinion of the experts at the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had asked a (Question about the secondary

  1339
  armaments of the battleships of the "King Edward VII." class, which were equipped with 6-inch guns, four 12-inch guns, and four 9·2 guns. His hon. friend was of the opinion that the Admiralty might put in a larger number of 6-inch guns. The 6-inch guns which were being mounted in the ships of the "King Edward VII." class were a very powerful gun, and enormously superior to the 6-inch gun at present in the service, and it would not be possible to replace them with 7·5 guns without a complete re-design of the ships. With regard to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, a very large proportion of them were now going through training, and many of them had already received it. There were 1,550 officers of the Royal Naval Reserve all told. He thought he had now dealt with all the principal Questions which had been raised in the debate, but if any minor points had been omitted he hoped the House would allow him to reply to them in Committee.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he wished to thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for the fulness with which he had answered the various Questions which had been put to him. He wished, however, to say that to those representing Ireland those answers were not satisfactory, more particularly in regard to the amount of money spent. He thought if Ireland returned Conservatives and Liberals to the House of Commons more money out of the Naval Estimates would be spent in Ireland. With regard to the fisheries off the coast of Ireland, he understood the hon. Member to promise that outside of the three-mile limit the fisheries would be carefully guarded. He inferred that that was the reply which had been given them, and he understood that in future a couple of gunboats would be put there to protect the Irish fisheries outside the three-mile limit. The hon. Member representing the Admiralty had stated that they were all
  1340
  anxious for economy, and that the English Members had not suggested any means of effecting economy in the Navy Estimate, in fact they had said that they were anxious to have a strong Navy. He did not care whether they had a strong or a weak Navy, but he thought an easy way for economising would be to adopt the policy suggested to the Russian Government by Lord Salisbury in regard to the building of battleships. Some of the Russian battleships had been disabled in Port Arthur, and therefore he did not see why this country should go on building more battleships at the present time Although two Chilian battleships had been bought, the naval programme had only been reduced by one battleship. He suggested to the Secretary to the Admiralty, in these very difficult times, when they were not advancing in prosperity or anything else, and when Ireland was suffering from very severe agricultural depression that £1,000,000 saving upon a battleship would be very acceptable both to this country and to Ireland. He would therefore suggest that the Admiralty should only put two battleships down next year instead of three.
  They had heard a lot about the Colonies during the recess, and they had been told that the colonial trade could only be carried on in time of war with the help of the Navy. The hon. Gentleman opposite had told them that the Navy was a sort of fire insurance up-on their trade and he was quite right. When he looked at this question from the point of view of Ireland, he could not help asking where was the oversea trade of Ireland? Foreign ships that came to Ireland were very few indeed and the oversea trade was very small, and for Ireland to pay £2,000,000, which was her proportion of the expenses of the Navy every year, was an insurance from Ireland which was an exceedingly large amount. In Canada the population was pretty nearly double what it was in Ireland [Cries of "No, no."] There were over

  1341
  6,000,000 people in Canada, and over 4,000,000 in Ireland. He understood that an application had been made to Canada for a contribution towards the Navy and that it had been refused. He would like the Secretary to the Admiralty to state if that was the case. He thought Canada ought to contribute something towards this lire insurance upon her trade, but Canada he understood had absolutely refused to share any of the responsibilities of Empire. Canada claimed all the advantages of Imperalism, but when they were asked to subscribe a few pounds to the Navy, towards the cost of which the people of Ireland had to put theirs hands deeply into their pockets, they refused to give a single cent. Why had Australia given an increased subvention to the Navy Was it purely for the love of the mother country? Australia had agreed to pay £200,000 a year in future towards the Navy Estimates, but for this she got a quid pro quo in the sending of extra vessels to guard her fisheries. An agreement had just been concluded with Australia under which she would get eight cruisers permanently in Australian waters for the protection of her trade for the payment of £200,000, a sum which would not build a single third-class cruiser. He congratulated Australia upon her astute move, for the Imperialism she had displayed was a very good business asset. The Imperialism which Ireland had got cost them £2,000,000 per annum and they could not get even a torpedo boat or a submarine boat to look after their fisheries. Cape Colony contributed £50,000 and Natal £35,000 towards the Royal Navy, but did any hon. Member believe that this money had been subscribed without those Colonies seeing that they got a quid pro quo in return? He thought the business-like qualities of
  1342
  their fellow subjects in those Colonies who had made those good bargains, were to be highly recommended. But what good did that do to Ireland where they shared not the honours of Imperialism, but only in paying the taxes. The people of Ireland every year were getting poorer and poorer, and population was decreasing, and he should be a very unworthy representative of an Irish constituency if he did not protest and vote against this enormous increase in the Navy Estimates.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension as to Scotland being better off than Ireland in regard to the protection of her fisheries. The patrolling done off the coast of Scotland was done by three boats, not of a very first-class character, which were paid for by the Fishery Board.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am afraid in that case the subject will not be relevant to the Navy Estimates.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty had referred to the difficulty of finding any proper means of effecting economy in the Navy Estimates. The rule seemed to be that, as far as battleships were concerned, this country was bound to have as many as any other two Powers put together and as many cruisers as they might consider necessary in order to guard our commerce. When they got upon commercial questions their ideas were naturally drawn to other topics. Take for instance the trade of America-Supposing that trade was doubled—was that any reason why the number of cruisers should be increased. He contended that so long as we had free imports it would be to the interest of other nations

  1343
  to protect our commerce, and that therefore it was not necessary for us to spend these vast sums on our Navy. The Secretary to the Admiralty had drawn an analogy between a business firm insuring against fire and the Navy Estimates, but he should like to remind the hon. Member that in business no fire insurance company would allow a man to insure his property above its proper value. He wished to know whether in the future there was any possibility of the Secretary to the Admiralty realising that he was proposing now to spend more than he would get. If he might follow out the analogy of fire insurance there was one way of lessening the amount paid to an insurance company, and that was to provide against the risk of fire in other ways. If they did that they would find that the fire insurance company would not ask so high a premium as they had done before. He thought the Motion which had been moved would put it into the power of the Admiralty to decrease the risk without increasing the cost to the country.
  MR. FLAVINsaid the Secretary to the Admiralty had referred them to the Board of Agriculture in regard to the use of a gunboat. If the Board of Agriculture applied for the use of a gunboat would the Secretary to the Admiralty give a guarantee that the application would be acceded to in order that Irish fisheries might be properly protected?
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he should like it made clear whether Canada did or did not contribute to the Navy. He understood that the reason given by Canada for not contributing to the Navy was that she was a Home
  1344
  Rule governing Colony, and that the Canadian Government insisted upon spending money for this purpose themselves.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the answer to that Question would be that Canada was not represented in this House. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for North Kerry he could not give any such undertaking. What he had said was that it was the duty of the Board of Agriculture to provide for the protection of the fisheries of Ireland within the three-mile limit.
  MR. FLAVIN: Where are they going to get the gunboats?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I am not aware that gunboats are required for that purpose.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then give us anything.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it was not the practice to use money voted for naval purposes for the protection of fisheries, and gunboats were not built for that purpose.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he wished to correct the Secretary to the Admiralty upon a mere historic point. The hon. Member had made the excuse that Canada did not contribute to the Navy because she was not represented in the Imperial Parliament.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No, I was asked a specific Question, and I gave a specific answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that was the hon. Member's specific excuse to a specific statement. He reminded the House that when Ireland had an Irish

  1345
  Parliament, the first tiling they did was to make a very large contribution towards the Imperial Navy which was intended to protect Irish trade, but Ireland had not got any trade now.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to give the Secretary to the Admiralty notice that in Committee he would take every opportunity of calling attention to the monstrously absurd situation with respect to the Colonies. It was too ridiculous to say that these immense communities, many of them extremely wealthy, should be merely called upon to pay what, in view of the Estimates generally, was a paltry gum, while the people of Ireland and Great
  Britain were obliged to pay millions. He would suggest in Committee that some attempt should be made to alter this. It was perfect nonsense to talk about thinking and speaking Imperially while they were allowing the Colonies to escape with a perfectly ridiculous contribution. They had had a mission to South Africa, and perhaps the same statesman would be willing to undertake a similar mission to Australia with the idea of inducing the people there to help the mother country by putting down a little hard cash, which seemed to be the last thing they were inclined to do.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 31.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Keswick, William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kimber, Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Cap. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Balfour Rt. Hn. Gerald W Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Federick George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bigwood, James

  Fyler, John Arthur-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bond, Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Butcher, John George

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw.

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

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Cavendish VCW. (Derbyshire)

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Chamberlain Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Olive, Captain Percy A.

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Morgan, David J. Walthamstow

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cook, Sir Frederiek Lucas

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Oust, Henry John C.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Percy, Earl

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Plummer, Walter, R.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seely, Maj. J E B (Isle of Wight

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

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

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stock, James Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tuff, Charles

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Allen, Charles P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Reddy, M.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roche, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Caldwell, James

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehy, David

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Mara, James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 131,100 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, including 20,656 Royal Marines."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

NEW BILL.

  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS).
  Bill to amend the provisions of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which
  1348
  relate to the Weighing of Minerals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Fenwick.

  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which relate to the Weighing of Minerals, "presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H.L.]; Maidenhead Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the Annual General Account for the year ended 26th July, 1903. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, and to provide for the punishment of incest. Was presented by the Lord Alverstone;; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 18.)

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  The following Lords were named of the Select Committee:—L. Belhaven and Stenton; L. Colchester; L. Wolverton; L. Kelvin; L. Farrer.
  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.