Sitting of 3 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farnborough) Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Common Scheme (Hillingdon East) Provisional Order Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Dumbarton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, I "An Act to make further provisions for the foundation of a Dean and Chapter of Newcastle; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Newcastle Chapter (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition from Tynemouth, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Bath (two); Oldham; Birmingham; Manchester; Ingatestone; Skegness; Westminster; Skewan; Dolgelley; Kenton; Church Cresley; Salisbury; Heckmondwike; Llanelly (two); Sunderland; Corwen; Reeth; Hastings; Buck-low Hill; Maentwrog Uchaf; Birmingham; Stretford; Hunwick; St. Ives; Field Road; Bridgnorth Queensbury; Forest Gate; Stratford; Maentwrog Isaf; Shipley; Windhill (two); Saltaire; Barnstaple; Kingsbridge; Spalding; Torquay; Salford Dock; Woodleigh Waterfoot; Rawtenstall (two); Crawshawbooth (two); Waterfoot; Lumb in Rossendale; Sunnyside; Clowbridge Hareholme; Goodshaw; Cloughfold Newchurch; Cumberworth; Newark Bethania; Nottingham; Isleham; Whitby Tollington Park; Snodland; Llandudno Chesterton; and Seaton Delaval; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petitions for withdrawal; from Heckmondwike; and Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-third Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF DORSET.)
  Copy presented, of Order made by the county council of the county of Dorset
  40
  altering certain Polling Districts in the Northern Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CONTINUATION CLASSES).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY, ETC., BILLS.
  Return presented, relative thereto (ordered 2nd March: Mr. Gerald Balfour); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Address for "Return of the number of all deaths in the Administrative County of London, in the year 1903, upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation or Death accelerated by Privation, together with any observations furnished to the Local Government Board by Boards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 279, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Talbot.)
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Copy ordered, "of Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1904; and Return of the number of persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1898 to 1903, both years inclusive; together with a statement of the pi ogress made in the arrangement and description of the collections, and an account of objects added to them in the year 1903."—(Mr. John Morley.)

  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Copy ordered, "of Monthly Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain foreign countries and British possessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 82.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Belfast Revaluation Appeals.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the delay in the publication of the revaluation lists of Belfast, he can arrange that the appeals lodged on the 8th February last shall be delayed until Parliament has determined the proper Court of Appeal which would be applicable to the whole county.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) There was no delay in the publication of the revaluation lists which were issued in 1901, but cannot come into force before March, 1905. The appeals to quarter sessions were lodged before 29th February, 1904. I cannot give an undertaking such as suggested, but I am looking into the matter.

  Cultivation of Cotton in German Colonies.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain whether the cost of the steps which are being taken by the German Colonial Committee, in order to establish and extend the cultivation of cotton in German Colonies, and which are described in detail in the Board of Trade Journal of 25th February, 1904, is being borne by the State or by private individuals.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The experiments are paid for by the Colonial Scientific Committee, which obtains all its funds partly from subscriptions and

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.†

  Barrels.

  Barrels.

  Barrels.

  Imports (for Home consumption) from—

  United Kingdom

  664,315

  753,101

  599,247

  Holland

  371,173

  451,443

  533,004

  Norway

  153,270

  195,108

  110,387

  Sweden

  10,878

  10,635

  7,214

  Denmark

  973

  3,111

  201,891

  Other Countries

  165,165

  159,119

  1,365,774

  1,572,517

  1,452,403

  † The figures for 1903 are provisional.

  partly from the proceeds of lotteries. The J German Government grants no direct; financial aid.

  German Inquiry into "Dumping."
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any information as to the result of the inquiry, stated by His Majesty's Consul at Frankfort in his last report to be then about to be held, in consequence of complaints received by the German Government of the effects on German trade of the action of trusts and cartels in selling surplus stocks of raw materials and partly manufactured goods in foreign markets at lower prices than those required of German consumers of such goods.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) A summary of the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry down to June last is given in the Blue-book on British and foreign trade and industry issued by the Board of Trade, pages 333 to 342 [Cd. 1761].

  Imports of Salted Herrings by Germany.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amount of salted herrings imported by Germany during the years 1901, 1902, and, if possible, 1903, showing how much of these imports came respectively from Britain, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and other countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The following is the information desired by the hon. Member:—

  Breakage of Steel Rails in the United Kingdom.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing the percentage of breakage of rails on railways in the United Kingdom made from steel manufactured by the basic and the Bessemer acid processes, respectively; and, if not, will he institute inquiries as to the comparative safety of rails made by the two methods.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no information as to the percentage of breakage of rails manufactured by the basic and the Bessemer acid processes respectively, and I do not think such an inquiry as is suggested would lead to any useful result. I may add that accidents from broken rails are of rare occurrence. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the Report of a Committee on Steel Rails (1900, C. 174).

  Inquiry into Sources of Iron Ore Supplies.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his inquiry as to sources of iron ore supplies; and, if so, will he lay upon the Table the results of his inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) A large amount of information has been received, but there are still a certain number of reports outstanding. I propose to lay upon the Table, as soon as practicable, a Report based upon the information already obtained.

  Exports of United Kingdom to Protected Countries.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when it will be possible to give the total for 1903 of values of exports of manufactured and partly manufactured goods from the United Kingdom to principal protected foreign countries, in continuation of, and on the same basis as, the figures given at pages 21–2 of the Blue-book, Cd. 1761.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It will not be possible to give the figures referred to by my right hon. friend before the completion of the "Annual Statement of Trade" for 1903, that is, for some months yet. The value of the total exports of British produce and manufactures to the "principal protected
  44
  foreign countries," included in the Memorandum referred to, was £106,000,000 in 1903, compared with £104,700,000 in 1902.

  Amount paid to Foreign Firms for Telephone Instruments.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the sum expended on telephone instruments in connection with the new system up to date; how much of this amount has been spent on instruments manufactured in England and how much on instruments manufactured in Sweden, Antwerp, and America; and whether he can give the patent number of the instruments which he is compelled to purchase from foreign firms.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The sum expended on telephone instruments for the new system in London could not be given without a careful analysis extending over four years, and this would involve much labour and expense. The amount expended on stores of all kinds for the telephone system of the whole country during the four years is £1,328,966. Of this amount about £176,500 was spent on articles manufactured abroad; but most of this was on account of central battery switchboards and their equipment, which are patented, the patent numbers being as follows: No. 20,099(1890); 4,427(1892); 4,428(1892); 17,160(1892); 3,831(1893); 9,638(1893); 8,222(1895); 11,548(1895); 11,549 (1895); 18,613 (1898); 6,712 (1899); 24,718 (1899); 10,124 (1900). Telephones for the use of subscribers have had to be obtained from abroad from time to time because they could not be obtained in this country; but I am glad to say that British companies are now prepared to manufacture them, and I hope I shall be able to reduce more and more the amount spent with foreign manufacturers.

  Relations of Post Office to National Telephone Company.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the recent report of the National Telephone Company in which the chairman states that they are working in partnership with the Post Office; if so, whether he will state when the present partnership with the National Telephone Company expires, and what are the arrangements made for taking

  45
  over their business; and whether, in view of the increasing business of the National Telephone Company, he will endeavour to expedite the completion of the new Post Office system.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The statement made by the chairman of the National Telephone Company had reference, probably, to the arrangement made in 1901 for free intercommunication between the exchange systems of the Post Office and the company in London. This arrangement has proved to be a great convenience to the large body of telephone users in the London area. It will continue until the termination of the company's licence. The company are bound at the expiration of the licence to sell to the Post Office their plant in the London area at a valuation on what are known as "tramway" terms. As soon as funds have been provided under the Bill which I hope shortly to obtain leave to introduce, the development of the London telephone service by the Post Office will be expedited as much as possible.

  Publication of Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Civil Service Estimates will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Some of the classes will be circulated this week and the remainder in the course of next week.

  Dismissals from Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number of men belonging to the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been dismissed from 1st April, 1897, to 1st September, 1900, and the number from 1st September, 1900, to 1st February, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In the first-mentioned period the number of men dismissed was 101 and the number discharged for misconduct 108; total 209. In the second period the number dismissed was 129 and the number discharged seventy-five; total 204. The statistics of other punishments for indiscipline in the force show a very considerable reduction in the period that has elapsed since the present
  46
  Inspector-General assumed command on the 1st September, 1900, as compared with the corresponding period prior to that date.

  Exclusion of Press from Constabulary Courts of Inquiry.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number of Constabulary Courts of Inquiry held within the past ten years from which the Press have been excluded; and what were the reasons for excluding representatives of the Press.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This information will be procured and communicated to my hon. friend.

  Hearing of Appeals to head Land Commission in County Tipperary.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state whether a time and place has as yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeals to the head Land Commission from the county of Tipperary which had been fixed, some time since, for hearing in Waterford on the 22nd instant but were struck off the list.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No arrangements have yet been made for the hearing of the appeals referred to.

  Valuation of Publicans in Belfast.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the deputation of the Belfast licensed vintners that waited on the Commissioner of Valuation for Ireland in September, 1901, had relation only to that year's annual revision, where some twenty-six publicans' valuations were dealt with in a particular district; that the Commissioner then arranged to hear the several cases in the council chamber of the town hall on 7th October, 1901, and with one exception set them back to the original valuation; and that an interview of one member of the licensed vintners, without authority from the general body, has been taken by the Commissioner to comply with the undertaking to arrange interviews with public bodies in Belfast; and, if so, can he take

  47
  steps to secure that the Commissioner will now interview the Belfast publicans before their cases are decided at quarter sessions, and try to come to some amicable understanding without involving appellants in legal expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Commissioner of Valuation is prepared to arrange for an interview with a deputation of the Belfast publicans at an early date, and will communicate with the secretary of that body for the purpose.

  South African War—Officers' Gratuities.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that in respect to the South African War a regimental captain appointed as staff lieutenant would get £60, the captain's gratuity, a regimental lieutenant appointed a local captain would get £60, being the benefit under the Army Order No. 5 of 1901, but that a regimental lieutenant appointed both a local captain and a staff lieutenant would get only £27 10s., although as a staff officer he would have more responsibility than as a regimental local captain, instructions will be given to rectify this apparent inequality.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley-Davenport.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish the details of any such eases as those mentioned in the latter part of the Question, they shall be inquired into.

  Private John Duite, Leinster Regiment.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his

  Year.

  Expenditure on Estimates apart from War.

  Expenditure under Military Loans.

  Total Expenditure (apart from War) including Loans.

  £

  £

  £

  1895–6

  18,470,535

  619,579

  19,090,114

  1898–9

  20,096,373

  947,423

  21,043,796

  1901–2

  25,528,574

  1,749,487

  30,278,061

  1902–3

  28,716,627

  1,622,294

  30,378,921

  1903–4

  29,800,000

  3,600,000

  33,400,000

  1904–5

  28,830,000

  —

  28,830,000

  attention has been called to the case of Private John Duite, Leinster Regiment, No. 5674, now a prisoner in Maryborough Gaol, serving a term of five years penal servitude for being engaged in a military riot in Pretoria last year; and whether, in view of the age and circumstances of this man's parents, he will have his case taken into consideration with a view to having his punishment ameliorated if his conduct has been good during his imprisonment.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). This man participated in an armed meeting at Pretoria of an exceedingly grave character which resulted in the death of one of his comrades and the wounding of two others by rifle bullets. He was sentenced to five years' penal: servitude on 14ih May, 1903. The case has been carefully considered, and it has been decided to let the law follow its ordinary course, in accordance with which he may obtain such remission of his sentence as is accorded by prison rules to a man who conducts himself well whilst in confinement.

  Military Expenditure.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total normal military expenditure of this country in each of; the financial years 1895–6, 1898–9, 1901–2, 1902–3, 1903–4, 1904–5, including Supplementary Votes and expenditure under Military Works Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The normal military expenditure for these years is as follows:—

  Military Expenditure and Recruits
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total number of recruits, excluding colonial forces, and the total military expenditure for each year since 1896.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Faster.) The number of recruits for each year since 1896 are as follow:—1897,

  Year.

  Expenditure on Votes.¶

  Total.

  Expenditure on Works Loans.

  Total Expenditure.

  Apart from War.

  On War.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1896–97

  18,156,520

  —

  18,156,520

  456,787

  18,613,307

  (96?97)

  1897–98

  19,528,390

  —

  19,528,390

  819,132

  20,347,522

  (97–98)

  1898–99

  20,096,373

  —

  20,096,373

  974,423

  21,043,796

  (98–99)

  1899–00

  20,275,398

  22,790,000

  43,065,398

  1,216,207

  44,281,605

  (99–00)

  1900–01

  26,082,544

  65,261,000

  91,343,544

  1,285,772

  92,629,316

  (00–01)

  1901–02

  28,528,574

  64,132,300

  92,660,874

  1,749,487

  94,410,361

  (01–02)‡

  1902–03

  28,716,627

  40,146,900

  68,863,527

  1,662,294

  70,525,821

  (02–03)

  1903–04

  29,800,000

  7,145,000

  36,945,000

  3,600,000

  40,545,000

  (03–04)

  1904–05

  28,830,000

  —†

  28,830,000

  —

  28,830,000

  (04–05)

  Appointment of Acting Director of Army Contracts
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Report of Lord Esher's Committee, he will withhold his consent from confirming the appointment of the Acting Director of Army Contracts in succession to Mr. Major, whose appointment expires next month on completing forty years service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The future appointments of the Civil Staff of the War Office will be dealt with by the Army Council after the Report of the Committee has been approved.
  § Enlistments during South African War excluding Colonial Corps recruits and including recruits enlisted for one year's service or the duration of the war, ex soldiers re enlisted, and garrison regiments.
  ¶As in Army Estimates.
  33,722; 1898, 38,418; 1899, 40,207; 1900, ordinary recruits, 47,700; S enlistments of all classes, 96,801; 1901, ordinary recruits, 45,157; S enlistments of all classes, 73, 769; 1902, ordinary recruits, 50,753; S enlistments of all classes, 64,116; 1903, ordinary recruits, 40,339; S enlistments of all classes, 41,789.
  The total military expenditure for each year since 1896 is as follows:—

  New Army Scheme—Troops at Salisbury Plain.
  MR. WALTER PALMER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how the proposals under the new Army Scheme will affect I the number and disposition of the troops in the neighbourhood of Salisbury throughout the year; and whether it is intended to retain the present headquarters at Salisbury.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am not yet in a position to reply to this Question.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal—Opposition of Natives.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: To ask the Secretary of State
  †The expenditure during 1904–5 on the Military Works Loan cannot at present be estimated.
  ‡The figures in the first column from 1901–02 onwards include expenditure under the "Mowatt" programme for Reserves of Stores, &c.

  51
  for the Colonies whether he has had any information as to a meeting of natives in the Transvaal, said to have been held early in February last, at which strong opposition was displayed to the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese labour.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received no information as to this meeting, but if the right hon. Gentleman will furnish me with particulars I will telegraph inquiries.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Visitors to Gibraltar and Malta.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when a foreign potentate visits Gibraltar or Malta, he and his staff, or any of them, are allowed to inspect any parts of the fortifications which we do not usually show to ordinary visitors; and whether the Governors of Gibraltar and Malta have instructions on the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Sovereign of any friendly country will be gladly welcomed at Gibraltar or Malta, but it is obvious that such a visitor could not be asked to inspect any portion of the fortifications which it is considered necessary to withhold from the inspection of foreigners, nor is there any reason to anticipate that any such request is likely to be made.

  Royal West Kent Regiment.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how the arrangements are made for the foreign service of regiments; whether the Royal West Kent Regiment, now under orders to leave for Malta this month, returned to England in the winter of 1902–3, after twenty-one years continuous service abroad, including the Egyptian campaign of 1881, the Nile campaign of 1884, and the North-west India campaign of 1897–8; and why some other regiment with a shorter record of foreign service has not been selected.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I have already explained to the House in reply to a similar Question concerning another regiment†, owing to the present exigencies of the service more than half of the battalions of the line are required abroad, and it has accordingly been found necessary to curtail the period of home service. The claims of the various battalions who have been selected to proceed abroad have been most carefully weighed, and I am afraid that it is impossible to amend the selection without unfairness to others. I may add that the period of foreign service for individual men is in many cases very short, as a portion of their Colour service is with the battalion at home.

  Expenditure on Barrack Accommodation in South Africa.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the amount already spent and estimated to be spent in building permanent accommodation for troops in South Africa.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows:—Actual expenditure out of Army Votes (up to 31st March, 1903), £1,028,000; estimated expenditure out of Military Works Loan, from 1st April, 1903, to 31st March, 1904, £1,230,000; from 1st April, 1904, to 31st March, 1905, £1,075,000. Total, £3,333,000. The above total will, it is anticipated, complete the permanent accommodation for the force to be maintained in South Africa. As a set off against the above total, there will be the amount to be realised by the sale of the main barracks at Capetown.

  Army Reorganisation
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the size of the force intended by the new Army scheme to be kept ready for expeditionary purposes abroad without calling out Reserves.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No new scheme for the Army has been put forward; consequently no change has been
  † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 335.

  53
  made in the existing arrangements for the despatch of an expeditionary force.

  Military Works Acts Expenditure
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what the estimate is for expenditure under the Military Works Acts for the year 1904–5.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not in a position to give the information asked for at the present time.

  Indian Reliefs.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if ho can state the number of men under a three years engagement now serving in India, as well as those with the same engagement under orders for India during the present trooping season.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number of non-extended three years' men serving in India is 447. The number under orders for and on passage to India is 3,660.

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
  *MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 91st Battalion Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders has not been quartered in Scotland for some years, and that since their return from South Africa they have been quartered at Longmoor, Aldershot; and whether he will arrange that this battalion may be quartered in that portion of the United Kingdom to which it belongs.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member has been misinformed. This battalion was quartered in Edinburgh from March, 1892, to June, 1894, and at Glasgow from September, 1896, to August, 1898. Considering that there are only three stations in Scotland for ten Scottish regiments, this battalion would appear to have had a very fair share of home service in Scotland.
  *MR. AINSWORTH: I shall drawl attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  British Fleet in the Far East.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary
  54
  to the Admiralty if he will state the strength of our naval forces in the Far East.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The strength of the Fleet in the Far East at present is:—five battleships; four first-class cruisers; four second-class cruisers; one third-class cruiser; eight sloops and gunboats; nine destroyers; twelve river gunboats and special service ships; four torpedo boats.

  Naval Protection of Fishery Grounds.
  *MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is prepared to employ a sufficient number of gunboats or other suitable vessels to patrol the fishing grounds of the United Kingdom and to prevent the infringement of the three-mile limit.
  MR. PRETYMAN: It is not possible to detail any vessels for the sole duty of patrolling the coasts of the United Kingdom in order to prevent the infringement of the three-mile limit, but there are a considerable number of gunboats and Coastguard cruisers which combine this work with their other necessary duties.

  Land Settlement in the Transvaal.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he is in possession of as to the progress and position of the Transvaal Land Settlement Scheme, up to 30th June, 1903; and when he expects to be able to furnish the Return as to sum of money spent, number of settlers in actual agricultural occupation, and the number of holdings and total acreage allocated up to the present time.
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): A Return of 23rd July last laid upon the table of the Transvaal Legislative Council gave the amount of expenditure in connection with land settlement as £831,896, of which capital expenditure represented £718,955, and the number of settlers on the land 313. The report for which the Governor has been asked will be expedited as much as possible, but I am

  55
  unable at present to give a definite date for its receipt.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance and Regulations
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now say when the Ordinance and regulations for the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal Colony will be laid in their first complete and operative form.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am unable to add anything to my reply to the same Question in answer to the hon. Member on the 25th February.†

  China and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, at the conference between the Colonial and Foreign Offices, convened to determine certain matters in connection with the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal, the Chinese Minister took objection to the recruiting of coolies by agents from the Transvaal before the terms of the Ordinance and the form of the accompanying regulations had been settled as between the Chinese and British Governments; and, if so, whether any assurance was given that the recruiting of coolies for the purposes of the Ordinance would be discontinued until the first complete and operative form of the Ordinance and its regulations had been determined upon.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I must decline to make any statement with regard to the conference while the negotiations are proceeding.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance—Provision for Securing Labourers' Consent to Transfer.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ordinance for the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal introduced into the legislative Council, and which passed its Second Beading, contained a proviso
  †See (4) Debate, cxxx. 977.
  56
  (to Section 10) that no transfer of the contract of employment should be valid until the superintendent had satisfied himself that the labourer had given his consent thereto; whether this proviso was deleted during the passage of the Ordinance through Committee; on whose Motion these words were deleted, and I whether the Attorney-General and the official members supported the Motion for their deletion; whether Lord Milner gave, or whether the Secretary of State asked for, any explanation of the omission of these words.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I think it best to refer the hon. Member to the further Papers which are to be published this afternoon, which will furnish a reply to all his Questions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision has he made, and on what date did he make it, to secure that the transfer of the indentured Chinese labourer to another employer must be with the consent of the labourer himself; whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence that he has had with Lord Milner with reference to this point; whether this security for the labourer will be inserted in the Ordinance itself or merely carried out by administrative regulations which are liable to be revoked at any time at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have to refer the hon. Member to the Papers published to-day. The security will be provided by regulations. Obviously no alteration; on such a point would take place without communication with the Secretary of State.

  Sale of Intoxicants and Opium to Chinese Labourers.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of state for the Colonies whether the regulations relating to the Transvaal Labour Ordinance will contain special provisions with reference to the sale of ntoxicating liquors and prohibiting the sale of opium to the Chinese imported labourers, also whether, in view of the importance of the question of including

  57
  in the regulations relating to the Ordinance such provisions, he will state when he will be in possession of Lord Milner's views on the subject; and whether Papers will be laid before the House containing the suggested new regulations before the final decision of the Government is arrived at.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have to refer the hon. Member to my reply given yesterday to the similar Question of the Member for the Cleveland Division of Yorkshire† Papers will be laid. I am unable to make any statement about the date.

  Transvaal Indebtedness
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government will be able to meet its obligations I in respect of the £35,000,000 borrowed last year without having resort to the Imperial guarantee.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Lord Milner has written (p. 8 of Cd. 1899) that he can certainly avoid contribution from Imperial Exchequer during the present financial year, but that if he is compelled to rely for a much long period on about one-third of the available resources of the Transvaal he is unable to say what may happen afterwards.
  MR. LOUGH: When does the financial year end?
  MR. LYTTELTON: In June.

  Cross River Trading.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether ne is aware that negotiations are taking place with certain associated firms at Old Calabar in respect of the conferring of trade privileges in the Cross River district; whether his attention has been called to representations from the Liverpool and Manchester Chambers of Commerce upon the subject; and, if so, will he say what steps he will take to secure that such privileges, if granted will not
  †See (4) Debates, cxxx., 1
  58
  constitute a monopoly of trade to the recipients.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Answers to the first and second Questions are in the affirmative. With regard to the third Question, I do not admit that the arrangement proposed would constitute a monopoly, but the matter is receiving further consideration, and I propose to communicate with the Chambers of Commerce again before coming to a final decision.

  Southern Nigeria—Ibibio Expedition
  *SIRCHARLESDILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the exact objective of the expedition to the Ibibio country in the Southern Nigeria Protectorate consisting of 450 troops, with five Maxims and two pom-poms; whether the expedition was sanctioned by His Majesty's Government; and whether any official explanation has been received as to the causes of the alleged rising near Asaba, and of the measures taken to suppress it.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The object of the patrol through the Ibibio district was to bring the country under Government control, to take away the war-guns and arms of precision in the possession of the natives, to open the country to trade, and to stop slave raiding. Many of the towns which were disarmed in the Aro expedition, and were consequently unable to defend themselves, have been raided by the Ibibios. The patrol was sanctioned by my predecessor. The force employed consisted of four small columns acting in concert, amounting to 430 rank and file in all, with four Maxims and two 75 millimetre guns. No detailed report has yet been received as to the disturbances in the neighbourhood of Asaba, but the district has a bad reputation for lawlessness, the inhabitants being terrorised by a society called the Ekumekus, who have given trouble on previous occasions by attacking the missionary stations situated in the country.

  The Tibet Mission
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state what are

  59
  the instructions which have been given to Colonel Younghusband in regard to the Mission to Tibet; whether he can state what the expense of this Mission has been so far; and, whether it is intended to proceed by force in case the Government and people of Tibet should oppose the progress of the Mission.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODICK,): The instructions given to Colonel Younghusband will be found at page 198 of the Blue-book. (2) I have received no accounts of the actual expenditure incurred, but the latest estimate of cost of the Mission to the end of the current financial year is £300,000. (3) The instructions to Colonel Younghusband are that he is not to take hostile action unless attacked, and I can make no statement on a question which has not yet arisen.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether all the instructions given to Colonel Younghusband were contained in the Blue-book, or whether any had been given to him since.
  MR. BRODRICK: The instructions given to Colonel Younghusband are fully included in the Blue-book.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has Colonel Younghusband been provided with an Army Corps?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman read page 210 of the said Blue-book?
  [No reply was returned.]

  British Central African Cotton Estates. Scarcity of Labour.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the last wet season in British Central Africa, extending from November, 1903, to the present time, cotton estates have been left to go to weed, and work on the railway almost stopped, because sufficient labour was not available: and will he say whether the reports which the Foreign Office has received from officials in that country indicating that there is a surplus of
  60
  labour, refer to the wet or the dry season; I and whether there is any objection to laying the reports upon the Table of the House.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARYOF STATE; FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY.,): The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to I the facts alluded to by the hon. Member, and in reply to our inquiries His Majesty's Commissioner reports as follows: That labour in the Protectorate is always I scarce during the rainy season—from beginning of December to end of February—because during that period the natives cultivate their food crops. But it is not more scarce this season than it has been previously, and the emigration of a few I thousand labourers from the highland districts will not affect this periodical scarcity in the local supply. From March to November the supply has; hitherto exceeded the demand, and local employers of labour would secure more men by the offer of higher wages and better treatment. The hon. Member will find further information on the subject in; the Papers which have already been promised.

  Transvaal War Contribution.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether I he will state how long the Government proposes to delay requiring from the Transvaal Government the fulfilment of its undertaking to pay £30,000,000 towards the expense of the war; if he will state the loss of interest arising to the Imperial Exchequer; through each year's delay: and whether the Imperial Exchequer will receive from the Transvaal Government any compensation for this loss of interest.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Payment of the first instalment has been postponed for more favourable conditions both in the: money market and in the financial position of the Transvaal. The Transvaal Government did not undertake to effect repayment at any particular date, and so no question of compensation for loss owing to postponement can arise.
  MR. LOUGH: Is the agreement for underwriting this loan binding?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, it is binding.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is it only binding to the extent of £10,000,000?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is binding for as much as is underwritten. That agreement is not affected at all.

  German Coal Exports to France.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity of coal exported from Germany to France in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The quantity of coal of domestic production exported from Germany to France in 1901 was 784,000 tons; in 1902, 965,000 tons; and in 1903, 1,056,000. This last figure is provisional and may be subject to revision.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Do these statistics include coke and patent fuel?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will inquire.

  Official Memorandum on "Dumping."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, why was the official Memorandum showing by statements and facts the absence of any ground for alarm at the system of trade known as dumping, which was attached to the Board of Trade fiscal Blue-book, not included in the copies of that Blue-book, laid upon the Table of this House; and will he now lay a copy of that Memorandum upon the Table.
  MR GERALD BALFOUR: The Memorandum to which I suppose the hon. Member refers is quite incorrectly described in the Question, and was not attached to or intended to form part of any published Blue-book. It was a confidential Paper prepared in my Department, and circulated by me for the
  62
  information of my colleagues in the Cabinet. I am not prepared to lay it on the Table. Perhaps my answer to this Question may be taken to include Question 62 put to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member for Halifax.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Balfour in another place stated that this Memorandum was attached to the Fiscal Blue-book?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If that is the case he is in error.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman present the Memorandum to the quasi-Royal Tariff Commission?
  [No answer was returned.]
  Appended is the second Question referred to in the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay on the Table the Memorandum which was prepared by the Board of Trade to accompany the Fiscal Blue-book.

  Infantile Mortality in Big Cities.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can furnish a Return for the last five years of the number of infants accidentally suffocated in bed, and for the proportion of such deaths in London, Liverpool, and Manchester, compared with the rest of England and Wales; and further, for the number of cases that occur in December and January compared with any other two months.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I scarcely think that this is a matter for a Return. Perhaps it will serve the hon. and gallant Member's purpose equally well if I give him such figures as are available. I will send him the details for the towns which he mentions, and merely state now the totals for England and Wales, viz., in 1898, 1458 children were accidentally suffocated in bed; in 1899, 1621; in 1900, 1619; in 1901,

  63
  1434; and in 1902, 1490. There are no statistics available as to the number of cases occurring in each month. I understand that the matter will be dealt with in the forthcoming volume of Criminal Statistics for 1902.

  Postal Employees Subsistence Allowances.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the discontent caused by the reduction of subsistence allowances granted to postal and telegraph clerks when absent from headquarters for the purpose of instructing or taking temporary charge of sub-offices; if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter, and will he state whether in these cases the time occupied in travelling counts towards the day's attendance; and whether, in the case of duty at town sub-offices, any monetary allowance is made for either subsistence or travelling.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am not aware of any general discontent in regard to subsistence allowances paid to officers when absent from headquarters for the purpose of instructing or taking temporary charge of sub-offices. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the cases to which he refers I will inquire into the matter. In such cases as those mentioned the time occupied in travelling, if properly certified, is taken into consideration in fixing the subsistence allowance. In the case of duty at town sub-offices an officer is allowed any extra expense incurred for travelling. At town sub-offices in a town other than that where his headquarters are situate, an officer would receive allowance for subsistence, but he would not receive such an allowances if detached for duty at a town sub-office in his own town.

  Hopton Wafers (Shropshire) Schoolmaster.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the letter written to a candidate selected for appointment to the office of headmaster of the Hopton Wafers Non-Provided School, Shropshire, by the corresponding manager on 9th February; whether that letter, which asks the candidate if after appointment he will play the
  64
  organ and trim the lamps, is a violation of Article 71* of the Education Code, which makes it illegal to impose any duties outside the ordinary school hours as a condition of appointment; whether he will ascertain whether the local education authority has sanctioned the appointment in question; and, if so, whether he will call the attention of the authority to the fact that, if Article 71* be violated, the Board of Education will not recognise any teacher in schools where the conditions of that of Article have be n evaded.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I have seen the contents of the letter to which the hon. Member refers. It is a letter of inquiry addressed by one of six managers to a candidate for a teacher's place as to whether he can play the organ, and contains some information as to work done by the retiring teacher outside the duties of his post. There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the undertaking of this work was a condition of appointment—indeed, the exact contrary is stated—or that the manager who wrote the letter addressed this inquiry on behalf of his five colleagues. I am informed that the local education authority will shortly consider the matter. In the absence of further information, and until the local education authority have considered the matter, it would not be desirable for me to give a definite opinion as to whether Article 71* has been violated.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Does the hon. Gentleman think that for a corresponding manager to write such a letter is a proper proceeding?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! That is a matter of opinion.

  Buildings in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state how many houses and other buildings there are in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; whether all of them are required at the present time, and whether he will take steps to

  65
  secure the removal of all or some of them; what is the area occupied by the new police barracks in Hyde Park, and for how many men is accommodation there provided.
  LORD BALCARRES: The buildings are Kensington Palace, the Ranger's house, sixteen lodges, the block of administrative offices, the powder magazine, guard-room, and lodge, one police station, one pumping engine-station, one refreshment pavilion, the Royal Humane Society's receiving-house, and sundry plant-houses, boat-houses, kiosks, stands, shelters, and public conveniences. All of these are required. The police-barracks occupy an area of 22,000 square feet, and accommodation is provided in them for thirty-seven police officers and prisoners.

  Hyde Park Enclosure.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, before any further laying-out takes place of the new enclosure in Hyde Park on the north side of the Serpentine, an opportunity will be given to the House to express its opinion on the proposed change.
  LORD BALCARRES: The outlay hiving been sanctioned by Parliament last year, there is no proposal before the First Commissioner to make further additions to the ground enclosing the frame houses.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether assent has been given to the scheme for devoting the southern front of the new Victoria and Albert Museum to the purpose of exhibition as originally proposed.
  LORD BALCARRES: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Caithness Crofters' Distress.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that in consequence of the nature of the harvest last year in Caithness the crofters in the congested districts
  66
  are without seed corn and cannot lay down crops this year unless seed be provided; and whether, in these circumstances, he will cause inquiry to be made and seed corn provided by the Congested Districts Board.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am aware that the harvest last year was far from good. The Congested Districts Board have offered to supply seed corn, carriage paid, in the congested districts of Caithness at a charge greatly below cost prices. To supply seed on other terms would be to infringe the general policy of the Congested Districts Board, which has been adopted after most careful consideration.

  Irish Magistracy.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that magistrates appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since 1892 are confined, by the terms of their commissions, to certain Petty Sessions Courts, outside of which they cannot adjudicate, he will say whether such magistrates, by direct application to the Lord Chancellor, can have their areas of adjudication extended.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The statement contained in the Question is not quite accurate. The Lord Chancellor, in order to make arrangements for the proper manning of the Petty Sessions Bench, and the due discharge of business, requires a justice, when appointed, to confine his attendance to certain districts then arranged between them. Of course the Lord Chancellor will be ready to consider any application of a justice to have the arrangement altered.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in several parts of Ireland Petty Session Courts have to be adjourned for want of sufficient magistrates, they only being allowed to sit in a limited area?
  MR. ATKINSON: I know adjournments do take place, but not for that reason.
  MR. FLAVIN: I say so from personal experience.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that resident magistrates have a roving commission all over Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Cloonkeen Parish Committee
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Cloonkeen Parish Committee of the Congested Districts Board hold their meetings on a Sunday, and at a time when Protestant clergymen who are members of the Committee are unable to attend; and will he give instructions for these meetings to be held at a time when persons are not engaged in religious worship?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The time of holding these meetings is left to the discretion of the Committee, I am not aware that inconvenience, as alleged, is caused to members of the Committee, but I will cause my hon. friend's suggestion to be brought under the notice of the Committee.

  Adair Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been received by the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the evicted tenants upon the Adair (Mountmellick) Estate, Queen's County; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this estate has been sold to tbe tenants under the Ashbourne Act, he will state what steps it is proposed to take with reference-to the evicted tenants upon the property who have not been restored to their holdings or otherwise provided for.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Three such applications have been received. Should the Commissioners have an opportunity of acquiring untenanted land in the neighbourhood, the claims of the applicants will be considered.
  In reply to a further Question, Mr. WYNDHAM said he did not pretend to have personal knowledge of all these estates,
  68
  but he had every confidence in the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. DELANY: Well, the statement I have made is true.

  Granard Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P.FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state why it is that the tenant purchasers on the Granard Estate living at Soran, county Longford, have been deprived of their turbary, although a large quantity of bog is available in their vicinity; and whether he will direct the Land Commission to take steps under Section 21 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, with a view to providing these tenants with turbary as before.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sales to tenants in this district were closed seven years ago. They were not deprived of any rights of turbary enjoyed by them before purchase.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the judgment of the Land Commissioner in which he expressly declined to give these tenants their turbary rights.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have not seen the judgment but I am informed that after the sale they had every right they enjoyed before.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will forward the judgment to the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he will bring it to the notice of the Estates Commissioners.

  Jessop's Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in negotiations for the sale of the estate of J. H. Jessop, in county Longford, the applications of two evicted tenants, Peter Farrell, of Cloghan, and James Brett, of Castlerea Mountain, were refused by the landlord's representative; and, if so, whether he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the case of these men with a view to arranging a sale to them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been received by the Commissioners from

  69
  either of these evicted tenants. If made, it will be considered.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will grant a Return showing the names of the purchasers under the Land Act, 1903, of 860 acres of the Cusack Estate, and how many of these purchasers are themselves evicted tenants or the sons of evicted tenants on this property; and whether, seeing the difficulty of procuring untenanted lands in county Longford for the settlement of evicted tenants in that county, he will represent to the Estates Commissioners the inadvisability of accepting the offers of graziers or large farmers for any portion of this estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate, I have already informed the hon. Member, is administered in the Land Judge's Court. The solicitors having carriage of the proceedings propose to apply to the Land Judge for an Order authorising the Estates Commissioners to issue a request under Section 7 of the Act of last year with a view to their making an offer for the purchase of the property. The matter has not, therefore, yet been brought before the Commissioners.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: This request will shut out the evicted tenants. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action accordingly?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can hold out to the debenture holders in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society any hope of having the available assets of the society, which were collected by Mr. James Stephens, J.P., the receiver, distributed amongst them by way of compensation for their losses.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Loan Fund Board hopes to be able to authorise payment of a dividend to the debenture holders of this society in the course of the present month.

  Irish National Holidays for Government Officials.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Government works in Dublin, particularly the Board of Works, bank holidays such has St. Patrick's Day are observed only by the civil servants, and that tradesmen and others in the Government employment work as usual on these days; and whether this arrangement will be discontinued on next St. Patrick's Day, so that the national holiday may be observed by all Government officials and employees in Dublin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This Question, in so far as it refers to the Board of Public Works, should more properly be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury. If, however, there is any other Department in Dublin, for which I am answerable, in which the practice mentioned is alleged to exist, perhaps the hon. Member will communicate the name of the Department to me, when I shall be happy to make inquiry in the matter.

  Irish Rating.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the provision in the Local Government Act which imposes on tenants of rateable holdings of £4 valuation and under full liability for the rates has invariably resulted in the increase of their rents by this amount; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of reverting to the former system of rating.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information that the fact is as alleged. Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1898, provides for the equitable adjustment of rents between landlords and tenants in consequence of the variation in the incidence of rates. In answer to the concluding inquiry, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's similar Question of the 24th February.†
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 856.
  MR. SHEEHAN: What constitutes equitable adjustment between landlord and tenant?
  MR. WYNDHAM: An adjustment which is calculated to meet the legitimate claims of the parties.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Government Act has actually increased the rents of the weekly-tenement holders, and of the tenants under £4 valuation by the amount of the rates assessed on them?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Annaly Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the present position of the Annaly Estate with regard to its sale; whether the nine-teen tenants whose agreements to purchase I were signed but not sanctioned by the Land Commission will now have these agreements sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in the case of five evicted tenants on the estate, proposals for sale to them will now be considered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations with these nineteen tenants are not yet complete. The Receiver will meet them very shortly and will also endeavour to deal with the evicted tenants.

  Public Works in Galway.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the memorial to the Galway Council, in reference to the Marine Works Act, was only sent to that body on the 9th February, and as the reply of the council was forwarded to Dublin Castle on the 16th February, he will state when the proposed works at Cleggan, Roundstone, and Clifden will be commenced: and, if there is to be further delay in the prosecution of those works, he will state the cause of the delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The forms of memorial were sent to the county council
  72
  early in October. They were received back from the council, perfected and sealed, on the 25th February. The Lord Lieutenant's certificates in respect of the proposed works at Roundstone, Cleggan, and Kilronan were communicated to the Treasury this morning. In the case of Clifden negotiations have not yet been concluded.

  Limerick Land Appeals.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the head Land Commissioners, during periods varying from four years downwards, have not given their decisions in the cases sent forward on appeal from the sub-Land Commissioners Courts held in Limerick and around, he will take steps to ensure that a sitting of those head Commissioners shall take place as soon as possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The last sitting of the Appeal Court which heard cases from this district, was held in November, 1902. Decisions have long since been announced in all the cases heard. A further sitting will be held at as early a date as possible.

  Galway Hospital.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances leading to the death of a farmer named John Holland, of Park, Athenry, county Galway, on the 11th instant, from the effects of a bullet-wound received on the night of the 1st of January last, and to the fact that at the inquest held the jury condemned the governing body of the Galway Hospital and held that this young man lost his life through their action in refusing him admission to that institution; and, if so, whether, in view of the Act of Parliament passed in 1896, creating this institution a public hospital for the county of Galway, and of the liability the upkeep of the hospital imposes on the ratepayers of the county, he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held into the circumstances leading up to this death of this young man, and consider the necessity for making some compensation to his family.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board of Management of Galway Hospital will

  73
  meet on Saturday next, I understand, to consider the circumstances of this case, and I hive caused the hon. Member's Question to be referred to it for observations.

  Lalor and Nolan Estate, Castlecomer.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Lalor end Nolan Estate, Damerstown, Castlecomer, have come to terms as to the purchase of their farms, under the Land Act, with the owners; and, if so, will he state the cause of delay in completing the negotiations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been so far made to the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of this estate.

  Kavanagh Estate, Kilkenny.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the arrangements made on the Kavanagh Estate, in the parish of Ballyraggett, county Kilkenny, as to the sale of their farms to the tenants under the Land Act; and, if so, will he state what arrangements have been made for the re-instatement of the families evicted on that estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No proceedings are j at present pending before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of this estate. The cases of the evicted tenants will be duly considered in the event of such proceedings.

  Burke Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have purchased the Burke estate, near Claremorris, county Mayo; and, if so, whether, seeing that on this estate there is a considerable quantity of grazing land suitable for distribution purposes, and that there are a number of evicted tenants on the estate, he will take immediate steps to put the provisions of the Land Act of 1903 into operation in that district by giving a preference to the evicted tenants before planting any other tenants on these lands.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Congested Districts Board has purchased this estate, which is nearly ready for re-sale to the tenants. I am making inquiry into the hon. Member's suggestion in respect of the evicted tenants.

  Irish Board of Agriculture Inspectors.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of inspectors employed by the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland; how many of these are Irishmen, Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Germans; whether any competitive examinations took place at which Irishmen were allowed to compete for these offices; whether the appointments were the result of examination or recommendation by English and Scotch examining bodies; and whether the Department conducted any examination on its own account.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Seventy-one inspectors. None of these positions are filled by competitive examination. The qualifications are professional or scientific, and appointments are made on the principle of choosing the men best qualified by knowledge and experience, without regard to considerations of nationality. For the reasons explained in my letter of the 29th February, I am unable to give any information on the latter point.
  MR. FLAVIN: How many Irishmen have been done out of appointments?

  Equivalent Grant—Wexford County Council Resolution.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Wexford County Council recommending that the unappropriated portion of the Equivalent Grant be applied to the heating, cleansing, and proper sanitary fitting up of primary schools in Ireland; and whether he proposes to apply this sum to this purpose as well as the increase of inadequate school staffs and encouragement of education by a system

  75
  of school prizes for attendance and proficiency.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The manner in which it is proposed to allocate this money will be shown in the Development Grant Estimate shortly to be laid before Parliament.

  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 steamer, and between Ennistymon 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 Ennistymon and Ballyvaughan.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All three services were established on the 1st June, 1897. The Listowel to Tarbert service has been worked daily, Sundays excepted. The other two services have been worked from June to September in each year (both months inclusive)—the steamer service daily, except on Sundays, and the Ennistymon to Ballyvaughan service on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

  Reeves Estate, Skibbereen.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named Cornelius Sullivan, formerly living on the Beeves Estate, near Skibbereen, has failed to obtain shelter for himself and family for some months past, in consequence of the action of the police who have visited neighbours who had promised him a site for a house and induced them to break their promise to this evicted tenant; whether he will grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police in this matter and also direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this evicted tenant's case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that this evicted tenant and his family are living in a labourer's cottage in the
  76
  locality. The District Inspector of Constabulary assures me that the allegation in the Question affecting the police is entirely without foundation. Any application made by the evicted tenant to the Estates Commissioners will be considered.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is it the fact that this tenant was refused the right of free sale by his landlord, who is a Dean of the Protestant Church?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information as to that.

  Irish National Schools-Pupil Teachers' Training.
  *MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the inspectors of Irish primary schools, while praising the enthusiasm and diligence of the teachers, have reported that the practical training of pupil teachers and monitors is unsatisfactory, he will consider how far this is due to the schools being understaffed and insufficiently equipped with teaching apparatus; and whether he will recommend that the balance of the Irish Development Grant should be devoted to the purposes of primary education in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners were not satisfied with the training given to pupil teachers and monitors, a result largely attributable to the defective system of training pursued by teachers in whose schools they were employed. The manner in which it is proposed to allocate the Development Grant will be shown in the Estimate shortly to be laid on the table.
  In reply to a further Question, Mr. WYBDHAM said he could not in an Answer across the floor of the House embody the speeches he had made on the Education Estimate.
  MR. SLOAN: Is there any Committee of Inquiry sitting on this?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

  Local Taxation (Ireland) Account.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the amount of the unappropriated balance to the credit of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account; and how it is proposed to deal with this sum.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A sum of £70,000, representing the unexpended balance of moneys paid into the account as the I equivalent of local taxation licences under Section 58 (1) of the 61 and 62 Vic. cap. 37. This balance cannot, under Sub-section 5 of the same enactment, be diverted from the Local Taxation Account except in such manner as Parliament may direct.

  Land Purchase—County Council Liability.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Donegal County Council on the 19th ultimo urging that, inasmuch as the county councils may be liable to the Government for any default made by purchasers under the Land Act of 1903 in payment of annuities, the county councils should be empowered, in the absence of any inspection by the Land Commission, to intervene in all sales advertised between landlords and tenants in order to safeguard the ratepayers from being liable for the default of purchasers; and, if so, will he date what has been his reply thereto, and what steps, if any, does he propose to take by way of amendment to the Land Act of 1903 or otherwise to secure the ratepayers from liability for default in payment of such annuities.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution was received and acknowledged. It calls for no further action.

  Land Purchase in Ulster.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on certain estates in Ulster the solicitors to the landlords are putting pressure on the tenants to come in and purchase on high prices by an assurance to the tenants,
  78
  coupled with an offer of the best bogs, that the Estates Commissioners will treat as an estate any purchase of the property when an agreement is arrived at; and what steps, i any, does the Irish Government propose to take for the purpose of refuting this misrepresentation as to the intention of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the first part of the Question. Any such assurance, if given, would be a misrepresentation of the provisions in the Act and the practice of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think it comes within my province to do so.

  Proposed Railway Station at Kilconnell.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the Midi ml Great Western Railway Company have purchased and fenced in a piece of land in the neighbourhood of Kilconnel, county Galway, for the purpose of building a station for the convenience of the people of that district, and that the number of stock frequently sold at the Kilconnell fairs require a special train for their removal, and at present have to be driven a distance of from five to nine miles to the nearest stations, and that the people of Kilconnell and the public boards in the district, together with the Lord Lieutenant and magistrates of the county, have frequently requested the directors to erect a station, he will bring pressure to bear on the directors of this company, on which special powers have been conferred, to comply with this request.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was considered by the new Department a couple of years ago. The Department was then advised that it did not come within the scope of its powers under Section 17 of the Act of 1899.

  Tipperary Labourers Order Loan.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  79
  of Ireland, whether he will state the cause of the delay in forwarding to the No. 2 Tipperary District Council the first instalment of the loan under the Tipperary (No. 2) Labourers Order, 1903, Part 1, seeing that, at the January meeting in this year, the district council were asked by the Board of Works for the sum of £8 10s. to defray expenses in preparing deeds of mortgage, and forwarded this money so that the first instalment of the loan might be received in February, so as to give the plots for tillage to the labourers; but no instalment has come, nor has any labourer got his plot.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The necessary lodgment for legal expenses was not made by the Tipperary No. 2 Rural District Council until the 11th ultimo. Treasury authority has been given for the payment of the first instalment of the loan as soon as possible.

  War Office Reorganisation Committees Report.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the War Office Reorganisation Committee, published on the 29th February, has been approved by his Majesty's Government; if so, whether it is proposed to give immediate effect to the proposals contained in it; and whether the recommendations in the Report are to be considered as binding on the War Office.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No Reports of Committees can ever be binding on the Executive Government. As regards the particular representations contained in the Report referred to, and which have been recently published, they have not yet been considered by the Army Council, which was brought into existence in accordance with the recommendations of the first Report of the Committee. In these circumstances I am not yet prepared to state the opinions of the Government on the proposals.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the fourth successive day I have to ask when this Report is likely to be in the hands of Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Since the right hon. Gentleman first put the Question to me I have looked further into the matter, and I shall be glad to give the House, if it cares to have it, a succinct account of what has happened. The Report, however, is actually in the Vote Office at the present moment, as probably a great number of Members of the House are aware.

  Defence of the Thames.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the question of the better defence of the entrance to the Thames will receive the consideration of the Defence Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of the better defence of the entrance to the Thames is part of a more general question which is receiving attention.

  Prime Minister and Protection.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the public interest in the subject, he will now take some means of putting the public in possession of his pamphlet in advocacy of protection, which was placed before the Cabinet contemporaneously with his published pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade."
  MR. BALFOUR: There was no pamphlet such as the hon. Member refers to, and I have never advocated protection in or out the Cabinet.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I, as s, matter of personal explanation——
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult to see how a personal explanation arises on this answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wished to explain that I should not have put the Question had I not been fortified by a speech of the late Secretary of State for India.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a personal explanation. The hon. Member should be more careful when claiming to make one.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With all due respect, Sir, I think every Member

  81
  who puts down a Question is responsible for seeing that it is well founded, and I only wished to state my authority for this Question.

  The War Office Committee.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is now possible to indicate a date when a special opportunity will be afforded for discussing the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee and the changes consequent thereon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is possible yet to indicate a date such as my hon. and gallant friend desires; but, of course, such an opportunity must be given. I would, however, suggest to the House that it would be more convenient that that date should be deferred until we are in a position to state whether, and how far, we desire to modify the recommendations of the Committee. I cannot give a day first to discuss the Report of the Committee and afterwards to discuss the policy of the Government with regard to that Report. I, therefore, think it would be better to defer the matter until the Government are in a position to state what is their exact policy as regards War Office reconstruction, in addition to what they have already done and propose to do.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to those points in the Report which are affected by the Estimates of the present year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether it is not the fact that there is a S third and even more startling part of the Report to appear, and whether my right hon. friend will consider the advisability of postponing the discussion until after that appears?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask whether, if the Government have definitely adopted the first part of the Report, the Army Estimates ought not to be remodelled in order to exhibit the I effect of the change of policy upon the Estimates, so that some notion may be
  82
  given to the House of what the cost of the change may be?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not exactly follow the right hon. Gentleman's Question; but if he refers to the cost necessitated by the changes in the staff at the War Office, I have already given him my undertaking that if I find that there will be any additional cost, which I do not anticipate, it shall be brought before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to any organic changes in the distribution of the Army on a large scale, I do not think it is possible to bring any alteration that may be due to them into the Army Estimates for the coming year. I do not think that any alteration of expenditure can possibly be decided upon in the present year.
  MR. WHITLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask the House of Commons to vote the salaries for offices which have been abolished?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Baronet asked me whether the first part of the Report would come up for discussion on the Army Estimates. I would remind him that the whole of the first part of the Report has not been adopted by His Majesty's Government, though certain recommendations have been accepted; but, personally, I think if the House would abstain from leading the debate on the Army Estimates into a channel which deals with these changes it would be an advantage. I think it would be more convenient if we could discuss the changes as a whole when the Government are in a position to state what they are. That, of course, is only advice which I am not able to enforce. My hon. friend behind me asks me whether the general discussion which I have foreshadowed could be postponed until the third and, I believe, the final instalment of the Report of the Committee is before us. I have not seen the remaining instalment, and I have no idea of its contents; but I should think it would be better that we should discuss the Report as a whole and the action of the Government as a whole. The House will the a be in a position to criticise the Report of the Committee, and if the action of the Government differs from

  83
  the Report of the Committee to criticise the Government for their departure from the Report.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Shall we not have to discuss reductions in cost and in the number of men? Also the decision of the Government on the linked battalion; and Army Corps systems?
  MR. WHITLEY: Are we to be asked to vote the money first and discuss the abolition of the offices afterwards?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no proposal in the Army Estimates for an alteration of the army corps system or of the linked battalion system. Neither of these suggestions has been adopted by the Government as specific acts of policy. The Estimates will be framed on the basis of continuing the present system until it is decided to alter it. No alteration in the existing system will be made until the Government as a whole has accepted the Report and the House has sanctioned any action of the Government that may be taken in consequence.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is somewhat difficult to understand the precise degree of approval or consent which the Government have given to these proposed changes. There was a curious little note before what was published in The Times on Monday, which certainly did not appear in all the other papers—perhaps in no other paper—stating that the King had given his leave for the publication of the Report. Was that intended to convey any additional authority to the recommendations of the Report, either on the part of the Government or of His Majesty himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of the note to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and I do not think His Majesty's name, ought to be dragged into this discussion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not drag His Majesty's name in. The person who dragged it in was the member of the Government or some other official authority, and who sent the note to The Times.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I meant no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman. It was the last thing I intended. All I meant to say was that the Government, and the Government alone, in fact, in this case the Prime Minister alone, is responsible for the permission to publish the Report on Monday. I was asked whether I had any objection, and I said I had no objection, and it was done, and done under circumstances which, I am sorry to say, have prevented Members of the House from being in personal possession of the Report as soon as they ought to have been. For the permission to publish I am wholly responsible. That publication does not carry with it any indication that the Government approve or intend to act on the Report. That we shall probably adopt a great many of the recommendations I do not personally deny; but there is absolutely no suggestion that we are bound to accept the Report. It ought to be in the hands of the public, and it is in the hands of the public. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: But not in the hands of the House.] It is in the hands of the House and of the hon. Gentleman, if he desires it, through the newspapers. I am sorry it was not in his hand as a Member of Parliament, that he did not have it on Monday morning with his official Papers. I do not know that I can say any more than that by the way of explanation or apology for what has occurred. I hope our attitude towards the second Report of the Committee has been made perfectly clear by what I have said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and to my gallant friend behind me.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked by whom the communication was made to which the right hon. Gentleman's answer was that he had no objection.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the House that it is now past Three o'clock, and the Standing Order does not allow a fresh series of Questions to be entered upon.

  Alteration of Questions.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORas a matter of the personal explanation complained that a Question of his, which he handed in at the Table on the

  85
  previous day, had been rendered absolutely incoherent by alteration, and asked whether hon. Members should not have the opportunity of seeing the revised edition of their Questions before they were printed on the Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that a few days before he had stated the general principle that it was the duty of the Clerk at the Table to give notice of alterations not merely verbal, but sometimes, with perhaps a hundred Questions coming in in a day, mistakes might occur. He would make further inquiry into this matter, but he could assure the hon. Member that mistakes of the kind he complained of, though occasionally inevitable, were in no way intentional.

NEW BILLS.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To authorise the transfer to the Secretary for Scotland of certain powers and duties under the Acts relating to Reformatory and Industrial Schools," presented by Mr. Cochrane; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed, [Bill 107.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 3) HILL.
  "To establish a system of Old Age Pensions," presented by Sir James Rankin; supported by Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Hozier, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Bousfield; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as to the style and title of the Commissioners, the execution of deeds by them, and the application of the Fund constituted by the said Act," presented by Mr. A. Graham Murray; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS REGULATION BILL.
  "To provide for the better prevention of fishing by Foreign Trawl Vessels within
  86
  areas closed to British Trawl Vessels," presented by Mr. Black; supported by Mr. Weir, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), Mr. Ainsworth, and Captain Ellice; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
  "To enable courts to suspend the Certificates of Trawlers convicted of illegal trawling," presented by Mr. Harmsworth; supported by Mr. Weir, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Black, and Mr. Cathcart Wason. To be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

SUPPLY [1ST ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
*THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,)understood it would be a convenience to the Committee if he made a brief explanatory statement in reference to this Vote and with regard to navel works generally. It had been the recent practice, in years when Naval Works Bills were not introduced, to allow on Vote 10 a discussion of the large Loan works sanctioned by Bills of previous years. The apparent increase in the Vote was £132,000, but there was really no effective increase as regards new works, the difference of £132,000 being entirely attributable to annuities which had become due for the repayment of loans

87
advanced under previous Naval Works Bills. The effective works portion of the Vote remained the same as last year, viz., £1,000,000. Logically speaking, there should be an increase in the effective portion of the Vote, because it was really the handmaid of the other Naval Votes, providing or maintaining works made necessary by the policy expressed in these Votes. A very small portion, indeed—only £90,600—of the Vote this year represented works for which Parliamentary sanction was now asked for the first time. The great bulk was for fixed charges and continuation services which were rapidly and inevitably growing. Last year they absorbed £820,000, and this year £900,000, out of the £1,000,000 available, and it was almost inevitable that next year they would absorb the whole of the £1,000,000, at present allotted to the effective portion of the Vote, so that there would be no balance remaining for the commencement of any new works which might be considered necessary. It would be obvious to the Committee that these maintenance charges and continuation services and also the total of the Vote must necessarily steadily increase, because every year the amount to be repaid under previous Naval Works Loans Acts steadily increased. But the Committee would probably be chiefly interested in the new items. The sum to be spent under this head, as he had already said, was only £90 600, and, speaking generally, in the allocation of the money the educational services of the Fleet had been first considered. The policy of the Admiralty was to push on the new items as rapidly as possible, and, where it could be done, to finish all comparatively small items within the current year. I hat was an economical system based on the principle of paying as they went, and it tended to reduce the amount for continuation services in succeeding years. Within the last few days the Admiralty had been charged on many occasions with extravagance, but he could claim that there was no Vote in regard to which more rigid economy was exercised than the Vote now under discussion. The Committee would perhaps be surprised at the small proportion which the number of services
88
for which Parliamentary sanction was now asked bore to the number of services put forward by the responsible naval authorities in different parts of the world. The number of demands put forward for the present Estimates were 593, of which 312 were backed by the responsible heads of Departments as being necessary. The number now submitted to the House was only 163, of which only twenty-four were actually works of magnitudenvolving an expenditure of more than £2,000. He would not trouble the Committee by detailing the new works, for they were set out in the Estimates, and he would only say that he was anxious to give the fullest possible information about any of those works, whether on Vole 10 or being constructed under the Loans Act for previous years.
With regard to the Loan works under construction, hon. Gentlemen had asked what was the financial position of the Loan works at the present time. He would summarise his answer. The actual expenditure that had already been paid out on these works to the beginning of this year was £16,300,000. In addition to that they had actually incurred liabilities in the way of contracts to the extent of some £7,000,000 more. That left about £8,250,000, already sanctioned under previous Works Act, sstill intact. The expenditure for 1903–4 on these Naval Works was £3,500,000, and it was estimated that it would be slightly more during 1904–5.
MR. O'MARA: Do I understand that £7,000,000 will complete the works now in hand?
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that amount would complete the sum of money already sanctioned by Parliament under previous Works Bills. In the Bill of last year there were three items put down as token sums because it was not possible to estimate the expenditure on those works. There might have to be a Works Bill next year to provide the money for those works.
MR. O'MARAasked if the hon. Member had any idea what the liabilities of the

89
country were in regard to works already undertaken?
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was impossible to give an estimate of the cost of works of magnitude, the extent of which had not yet been decided.
MR. O'MARAasked if the hon. Member could give him an approximate estimate.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEreplied that that was not possible. This great expenditure had become necessary, not merely on account of the increase in the Fleet, but on account of the starving of Vote 10 in previous years. As regarded the works under construction, he would merely say that generally they were progressing very favourably, with the exception of the dockyard extensions at Malta and Bermuda. In his opinion there was no expenditure which was really more effective and more vital to the efficiency of the Fleet than this expenditure. Works of this kind did not become obsolete very quickly, and were not so liable to destruction in time of war, at least not in the same sense as the ships which were so cheerfully voted for the Navy. Under this Vote the country had permanent value for the money, which was not possible in the building of ships. He would cite as an example the new battleships of the "King Edward VII." type, which in twenty years would probably be sold as scrap-iron, whereas, works of this kind in twenty years time would be in the heyday of their youth, and for many years after that time would remain of permanent value to the country. The lessons of the present war in the Far East showed that the unfortunate position in which the Russian fleet found itself at the present time was due not so much to any lack of fighting power, as to the lack of adequate facilities for repairing and for the sheltering of the fleet from torpedo attacks. That, he thought, was a justification for this vast expenditure, and one which he hoped would commend itself to the Committee. In conclusion he thought he might claim that although the secret of their sea-power primarily depended upon our fighting Fleet, it also depended in no small degree upon the bricks and mortar
90
for which he was now asking the Committee to vote these vast sums.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was sure the Committee was well pleased with the first performance of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member, however, had not mentioned the administrative reason, which was that it was necessary to have Treasury authority for new works of magnitude, and it had always been the practice to take Vote 10 early in the year. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the progress under the Naval Works Acts, and he seemed to indicate that this would be the only opportunity they should have of considering it. The question, however, might have to be raised at another time, but he wished to recall the fact that in years in which there was no Naval Works Act they had always held themselves entitled, on the Admiralty Vote and on the Vote for the salary of the First Lord or the Secretary to the Admiralty, to raise any question in regard to naval works. Consequently he preferred to postpone his criticisms to that period. By that time they would have the annual report of progress made under those Acts, which was published some time in July, and then they might proceed to deal with the various items in the Naval Works Acts. Ho was glad to see the hon. Member for Exeter in his place, because he had been able to give them some very valuable financial criticism on the Navy Estimates in general. The Civil Lord had said that Vote 10 was the handmaid of the other Votes, and he had compared and justified the large amount by the fact tint it was starved in other years. To a certain extent that was true. The Works Vote in former days was not the handmaid, but it was the Cinderella of the Navy Vote, and it was snubbed and robbed. That was in the days before Civil Lords were efficient Ministers. It was no doubt starved and plundered, and in the days before the I Naval Works Acts it had reached dangerously small figures. What he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Exeter was that the increase in the general Estimates about which they had raised such a clamour, was nothing compared to the increase in this special Vote. He admitted that the figures were too low before the Naval Works Acts were passed, and it was because they were too low

91
that those Acts were introduced. There was one fundamental fact which would illustrate what he meant. For years before 1895, the time of the first Naval Works Act, he thought they would find that Vote 10, for works, amounted to about £400,000 or £500,000. What was the expenditure on naval works this year? He deducted from the Estimate they were now discussing the whole amount of the annuities, and, deducting them, the net Vote was £1,000,000. What would be the net expenditure under the remaining portions of the Naval Works Acts. Nominally, it would not be more than £3,500,000. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the balance of the £8,500,000 sanctioned last year. They were spending £3,500,000 this year, and there was a balance of £5,000.000 in the hands of the Admiralty to be spent on the previous Acts. If they put those sums together they would see that upon bricks and mortar the Admiralty was empowered to spend in the coming financial year the sum of £6,000,000 sterling. That was a great increase compared with the increase in new construction. When the total Navy Estimates amounted to about £14,000,000, we spent only about one twenty-eighth of the whole on works; now, when the total was £42,000,000, we spent nearly a third on works. These were facts well worthy of consideration. The mere amount of the expenditure alone was so startling that it deserved the serious attention of the Committee.
Probably the Civil Lord did not know that a good deal of the expenditure under the Acts of previous years never received the sanction of the House at all, because it was one of the achievements of the representatives of the Admiralty in former days, that, after allowing discussion on works already sanctioned, they closured the House when considering new works. The hon. Gentleman had justified, in general terms, the policy of these Acts. He was not disposed to attack the policy, but he would point out that it had received an enormous development since it passed away from their hands; and that they were no longer responsible for what was now done under Naval Works Acts. He thought the hon. Gentleman drew the correct inference
92
from the events going on in another part of the world. What they were reading about proved the wisdom of the policy of building enclosed harbours fortified against torpedo attack. But that justified his argument that, when considering this two-Power standard, we were not to count battleships or men or money alone. These very naval works constituted part of our superiority, and ought to enter into any comparison of our naval strength and that of other countries. In view, therefore, of their works policy, what was the Government's standard? How would they estimate our relative superiority over any other country or over all others put together, considering that docks, defended ports, and coaling stations, were all items into which this expenditure entered? Such a comparison between ourselves and other Powers would be interesting. These great docks, harbours, and coaling stations were just as necessary to battleships as any part of their equipment. In any comparison between our Navy and other Navies that must be counted. He was sorry he had not all the materials wherewith to make a comparison, but he would be very much astonished if it did not I turn out that in this respect the British Navy was beyond all approach from any other Power. They had had a definite pledge from the Government that the items in the Bill formerly before the House, and now an Act, were final. It now seemed that they were not final, but he hoped the Government would be able to renew that pledge before the debate closed. They could not discuss the new works until they had a full estimate of the expenditure under the new Works Act, and he therefore hoped that hon. Members would not overdo the discussion on the subject at this stage. What they desired to do was to raise a general discussion on the whole expenditure. It would be noted that a very large amount of the expenditure under Vote 10 was to be administered abroad. These docks, ports, and coaling stations were necessarily scattered all over the world. He should like to know what portion of the expenditure belonged to Great Britain and what belonged to other parts of the Empire. Hon. Gentleman from Ireland had called attention to the smallness of the colonial contribution. He thought it was not too much to expect that where land was

93
wanted in a self-governing colony for the purposes of the Navy or any other service, a free grant should be made by the colony to the British Exchequer. How much did the Colonies contribute to the Navy, and how much did this country spend in the Colonies? He should like all those critics who had been shocked by the rise in the Navy Estimates to devote some of their criticisms to this abnormal rise for naval works.
*SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid it was time that the House and the country should have from the Government an authoritative statement and accurate account of this colonial naval expenditure; and he asked his hon. friend to give his attention to this matter, as on broad grounds it was desirable to have the information. They had all listened to the hon. Gentleman's statement with great pleasure. He was brief, to the point, and lucid. The hon. Gentleman had pointed to events in the Far East, and the argument he intended the Committee to understand was, how much better off the Russian Fleet would have been at this moment if they had had more docks at Port Arthur. That was only true to a very limited extent; because while it was most desirable that at these distant stations we should have docks, on the other hand there was a danger of our being too profuse in the expenditure of our money on docks. How many docks did the hon. Gentleman think would have altered the position at Port Arthur? There were nine ships. If one ship occupied a dock the other eight must wait. You could not provide a dock at every station for every ship you had got there. He mentioned that in view of another Naval Works Bill next year; and he hoped the Admiralty would be very cautious in proposing any further extensions of the number of existing docks—he did not say in increasing the dimensions of the existing docks. His own opinion was that if at Port Arthur the Russians had had a couple of reserve ships their position would have been a great deal better than if they had had docks. He would like to ask if the hon. Gentleman was in possession of any information of considerable damage
94
having been done by a gale to the preparations of the breakwater at Malta? If his information was correct, the damage caused by the gale would materially delay the construction of the work. Under Sub-head NN. there was a charge of £3,700 for pay of seamen and Marines employed on works abroad. He would like some details as to why there was this charge, and why it was only made for one particular station—Bermuda. What advantage was there in employing seamen and Marines on works on shore at that place? When all the men were receiving a good deal of skilled training in mechanics, he looked forward to a policy which would take the older seamen and Marines out of active service if they could be usefully employed at the bases on different foreign stations where we had means of repairing. He thought this sum of £3,700 for extra pay was one rather of tradition. What he wanted to know was whether, compared with other stations, where only civil workmen were employed it was more economic to employ seamen and Marines at this station. If it was not, why was the system retained at Bermuda; and if it was, why was the system not applied elsewhere?
MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to make a few observations of a general character on this Vote, particularly on the expenditure under the Naval Works Acts. He did not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, who was rather in favour of postponing the discussion on the progress of the naval works, to give time to the Secretary to the Admiralty to submit more information to the Committee. He was disposed to think that, considering the possible changes and chances of Parliament were never greater than at present, they should avail themselves of the opportunity now offered to discuss this important subject. On the general question of expenditure upon naval works, as it appeared before the Committee in the present year, he should like to emphasise what had been said—and not strongly enough—by his hon. friend regarding the enormous expenditure this country was making in this one particular department. The Secretary to

95
the Admiralty, in answer to the hon. Member for Exeter, acknowledged that the estimated amount to be spent in the ensuing year on naval works was £5,000,000. There was to be added to that the effective part of this Vote, £1,000,000, or £6,000,000 in all. So far as relative proportions were concerned, that was the greatest of all the increases in the Estimates on naval expenditure. What he would like to call the attention of the Committee to was, that as soon as we introduced a system of expenditure out of loan money for the purpose of naval works, Vote 10, instead of decreasing, went up by leaps and bounds; so that the greater the facility given to the Government for spending money out of borrowed capital, the greater was the increase in the amount of the annual Estimates. Between 1890–1 and 1894–5 the average amount of Vote 10 for naval works was between £400,000 and £450,000. When the Naval Works Bill was first introduced up went the expenditure to £650,000; in 1899 it was £800,000, in the following year £850,000, and now it had reached £1,000,000, while in future years it would considerably exceed £1,000,000, as was admitted by the hon. Gentleman himself.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that what he had stated was that the Vote would have to be increased because there was no money available for new works.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that the hon. Gentleman admitted that there would be no margin for new works, and therefore he was justified in concluding that there would be, in all probability, an increased Vote next year. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee referred to this point when he was comparing our expenditure with that of other countries. He was under the mark when he said that our naval works expenditure was more than equal to that of two or three other Powers. It was more than that of all the other naval Powers in the world. In Lord Brassey's Navy Annual it was stated that before the Naval Works Act was passed we spent £3,500,000. Russia spent nearly £1,000,000; France and Germany combined, between £700,000 and £800,000; so that we spent nearly double the amount spent by the whole of these
96
great Powers. Of course, he recognised that the necessities of our widely extended Empire were enormously greater in this respect than the exigencies of any other Power. Still there could be no doubt that this was one of the most rapidly increasing Votes in the whole purview of the Committee's survey of naval affairs. This method caused confusion in the accounts, and also difficulty in following the course of the policy of the Government with regard to naval works. Since the practice of annual or semi-annual Bills was introduced they were constantly finding that similar works were at one time placed on the Naval Works Acts and at another time on the Votes; and it was almost impossible to ascertain what the gross expenditure was. In the Naval Works Bill of last year there was an item of over £1,250,000 for dredging purposes. In the Vote before the Committee there was a considerable number of items for the same purpose. It was possible that money for dredging was now being asked for in connection with the identical ports for which money had been already voted in the Naval Works Act.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said, as he told the hon. Gentleman last year, the maintenance of dredging was paid for out of the Votes, but new dredging was paid for by loan. New dredging was in connection with schemes which did not previously exist.
MR. BUCHANANsaid how could a distinction be drawn between Loan money spent in Wei-hai-Wei, and the money out of the Votes that was to be spent on it? Last year, on the Naval Works Bill, he drew attention to the fact that no such distinction was drawn or could be drawn. The answer of the hon. Gentleman then was that the general lines on which the Admiralty proceeded was that large works which might be looked upon as of a permanent character were paid for by loan and that temporary works were paid for out of the Estimates. Then, again, borrowed money was expended for the provision of coaling facilities; but money was also being asked for that purpose on the Votes, and there was nothing on the face of the Estimates to show any distinction between the two. Some distinction

97
ought to be shown; and he was led to make that observation because a change had been introduced into the Naval Works Bills of the last two years. In the Act for which his hon. friend the Member for Dundee was responsible there was a schedule stating the specific works which were to be constructed and their estimated cost. In recent Bills, however, a large sum was asked for for general purposes such as dredging and the provision of coaling facilities, and items were inserted for which no estimate was given. He thought that the Admiralty might give information to the Committee with reference to the three large items on last year's Bill. Last year the Admiralty promised to state the total sum that would be spent on coaling stations. The Committee should also be told what was the estimated cost of the new dockyard on the Forth and what was the progress of the surveys there. As regarded the confusion caused by charging certain sums on the Estimates and other sums on the Naval Works Act, he would like to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a question with regard to Coastguard stations and the barracks for the Royal Naval Reserve. In the Naval Estimates last year there were twenty-one items, for nine of which money was voted. Nearly all of the others had disappeared; and so far as he could make out they could not have been completed unless the Admiralty had completed them with savings from other sub-heads. He should like to know what became of the items. He had a suspicion that they had been swept off the Estimates and put into the naval works expenditure because, in the Act of last year, the Admiralty obtained unlimited credit for the purposes of Coastguard stations and barracks for the Royal Naval Reserve. The same criticism applied to the next item, in which there was a very large decrease as compared with previous years. Such trifling, works should be paid for out of the Estimates year by year, and the expenditure on them should not be spread over a period of thirty years. That was an extravagant form of finance and ought not to commend itself to the House. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that they were exercising rigid economy in regard to this Vote. He himself was very glad to hear it, because this was a branch of the service in regard to which
98
economy had not been practised in recent years. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been 593 applications for extra expenditure, 312 of which were backed up by the responsible naval authorities, but only 163 of which were approved. Were the Committee to understand that this economy was due to the Admiralty or to the Treasury. Was it the Treasury that had put the curb on extra naval expenditure? If so, they ought to be thankful to that Department. It would be a great danger to the taxpayers of this country if the control of the purse were handed over to the great spending Departments. Essentially what was wanted for the protection of the taxpayer, and with a view to economy, was some controlling Department which would hold a tight hand over the demands of the naval and military authorities.
*SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he was in general agreement with what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee and also by the hon. Member who had just spoken. The Vote had been called a "handmaid" Vote and a "Cinderella" Vote; but he was inclined to call it a sham Vote. As a matter of fact, it did not represent in the least the total expenditure of the year. The Committee were apparently voting £1,136,000, but the real amount that would be spent would be something like £6,000,000. His criticism applied both to the fact and to the form. It appeared to him that the total expenditure which it was proposed to incur during the year ought to be clearly shown on the Estimates. That was an alteration which could be easily accepted by the hon. Gentlemen representing the Admiralty. The Committee ought to have a full statement of the cost of all the works to be undertaken. Of late, whilst important reforms had been carried through, and whilst he was the first to recognise the practical vigour of the Admiralty, he had noticed there was a very prevalent idea in the service that it was much easier to get money now than formerly. Consequently many demands of not very urgent importance, were now put forward. If that idea could be dispelled he believed great economies could be effected. His objections to the

99
present form of the Estimates, and particularly with regard to the larger portion of the money to be expended, were of a varied character. The system had one very considerable financial defect, inasmuch as it entirely deceived the House and the country. Any one looking at the Estimates would imagine that all that was to be expended was £1,600,000, whereas in reality the amount to be expended was £6,000,000. Another effect was the hypothecation of future Naval Estimates to meet present needs. He was convinced that the expenditure in the future would not be reduced on account of present borrowing, and the fact that a large sum was owing would be made an argument and used as a lever to increase still further the Estimates of the future. He further complained of the plan of drawing from the control of the House large amounts of important expenditure. It was an admitted principle of sound finance that every service must be reviewed at one time, and it was a most absurd practice to deal now with one item of £1,600,000 and with another item of precisely similar character at another time. Both these proposals ought to be reviewed at the same time, and accepted or refused together. The truth was that the Naval Works Bill had become a grave financial scandal, and a grave danger. This Committee could not put its foot down too soon on this particular point, and say that the whole financial expenditure of the year must be discussed in one budget. At the present moment the budget represented only a proportion of the expenditure, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer when making his financial statement would consider the advisability of including the expenditure under the Works Bills, so that the House might know where it was. The Admiralty had taken a very wise step in that direction, inasmuch as they had set forth in a recent Return the total expenditure of the year under both the Estimates and the Naval Works Bill. That was a practice he desired to see imitated by the Military and all other Departments which obtained funds under similar powers. Another point which was really only the corollary of what he had said was that in his judgment Article 2, "Annuities and payment
100
of advances under the Naval Works Acts," would under a sound system of finance not be on the Admiralty Vote at all. It was a very dangerous plan to have a National Debt, and outside the Debt to have individual Departments each having a little private debt of its own. Such a plan must lead to exaggerated expenditure, exaggerated borrowing, and concealed our latent debt. He criticised the present Vote on the ground that it did not put the true state of affairs before the Committee, and that the plan adopted, if persisted in, would seriously hamper and cripple the Navy in future years.
MR. O'MARAsaid he had always thought it much easier to obtain information from the Admiralty than the War Office, and, with regard to the Vote they were now discussing, he tendered his thanks to the Civil Lord for the publication of the Estimates. He complained that these Works Bills practically gave a blank cheque to the Government, for the reason that the items contained in them could not always be adequately discussed owing to time not always being given by the Government. He further complained that no guarantee had been given that the sums now asked for would be the final amounts required. The Committee laboured under the difficulty that details were not given and they were unable to discuss them. As regarded repayments, he noticed that they were spread over a long period of years. Doubtless many of the works would be in good condition in twenty years' time, but, on the other hand, many would be quite out of date. The burden of such works as dredging ought surely not to be placed on the shoulders of posterity; they should be paid for out of current revenue. Loans Bills encouraged extravagance and were altogether wrong in principle. Some of the works were estimated to occupy ten years or more in construction, so that, if the fixed charges increased at the same rate during that period as within recent years, there would be fixed charges amounting to nearly £3,000,000. That was an altogether too heavy permanent charge to hand on. The whole system of finance adopted in these Bills was as bad as it could be. It absolutely deceived the public, because in the present year they imagined the total expenditure on the Navy to be £36,800,000,

101
whereas it really amounted to £42,000,000. As to Wei-hai-Wei he understood it had been abandoned as entirely unsuitable for a dockyard.
*ME. ARTHUR LEEpointed out that Wei-hai-Wei had not been abandoned for naval purposes, but merely as a fortified port.
MR. O'MARAsaid that as he was not an expert he would pass from that point. Large expenditure was to be incurred in connection with different ports in the Colonies. If Great Britain was to continue spending enormous sums on the ports of the Colonies, not for the benefit of this country, but purely for the benefit of the Colonies, was it not only fair that the Colonies should contribute adequately towards the cost? Why should this country bear the whole cost of fortifying the Colonies and protecting them against all possible invasion? The case of Canada was the worst of all, as the colony did not subscribe a single penny towards the upkeep of the Navy. Not only did we keep two regiments of soldiers at Halifax, but we were going to build a dockyard. It might be said it was for the North Atlantic Fleet, but what was the North Atlantic Fleet for but to protect the trade of Canada? £42,000 was to be spent at Sydney, and so the thing went on. Every time these matters came forward he was determined to protest as strongly as he could against this scandalous waste of British taxpayers' money for the benefit of the Colonies and their trade. The least the Colonies ought to do was to contribute to the Empire an amount equivalent to the actual cost of the local defence. The present contribution was so small as to be altogether negligable in considering the accounts. It was true that Natal made a small contribution of £50,000, but that was not enough to cover the expense they put us to. He trusted that, as a result of the representations he had made, that the imperial Defence Committee would take into consideration the question of colonial contributions and request the Colonies to increase them to a sum at least adequate to defray the expenses of their own defence.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was only in recent years that the Admiralty had diverted its attention from the building of ships to bricks and mortar. In almost every case where the Admiralty had undertaken large works the expenditure had been grossly mistaken, and more mischievous than otherwise. Everything that caused their ships and crews to rely for protection upon bricks and mortar was a mistake. This was a Vote for £1,634,000 and it really represented no less than £31,000,000, which was the total amount of the loans during the last few years, and £600,000 of this amount represented the annuity that went to the extinction of the principal sum of those loans. The whole work in connection with loans was, therefore, in question in that £600,000, but in spite of that fact they had no details whatever as to the expenditure. A sound system of finance required that they should estimate their expenditure. Under the present system they took a lump sum of £31,000,000 and Parliament had no annual control over it. The Admiralty spent, what it pleased and in no year did Parliament receive any details of the expenditure. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that they did not know how much they were going to spend and that was precisely his objection to the system. The result was that they were debating an expenditure of which they knew nothing, and which was to be applied to purposes of which they had no account whatever, That was a contradiction of the whole theory of finance in this country, and that constituted his objection to the loan works system. In the old days there was a Works Department, but this had now grown to such an extent that it overshadowed the Admiralty itself. It was this monstrous new Works Department which overshadowed everything else, and instead of having one Department of the Admiralty employed with this bricks and mortar business they now had two Departments. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would consider the advisability of fusing those two Departments. He had no confidence in the Loans Department as a Department for conducting works, and he could give numerous instances of the way in which it had failed to discharge its

103
duties efficiently, and therefore he hoped that some improvement would be made in this direction. He trusted that the very next time the Naval Works Bill was brought before the House hon. Members would refuse to assent to it until the Admiralty brought in the amount they wanted to spend year by year. These amounts should be submitted to the House in a way which enabled the Committee to deal with them, and the present abuse was a system which would have to be looked into very soon.
There was an item for accommodation of naval cadets at Osborne. The sum in 1904–5 was £54,550, and the total estimate for the work was £160,000. That was for buildings at Osborne. The other day they were told that other naval buildings at Osborne, for naval convalescents, could not be charged on the Naval Vote, and that it was necessary to charge them on the Vote for Royal Palaces, and the only compromise offered to them was that in future it should be made a separate Vote. If it was possible to put money in that Vote for the accommodation of naval cadets it could not be impossible to put in the same Vote the cost of new buildings for naval convalescents. The question he wished to ask was if it was not possible to put the Vote for naval convalescents into this Works Vote, how was it possible to put the Vote for cadets in I With regard to Hong-Kong it was an absolute fact that the most tremendous mistake had been made in the erection of a huge dock at Hong-Kong. Ho believed it had been found necessary to put a portion of the stores on the inland. The result was that the necessary stores were divorced from the dockyard. He had also been informed that the greatest difficulty was to be found in the construction of the docks, and that the nature of the ground upon which the foundation rested was such that the greatest difficulty had been experienced, and it was the opinion of naval officers and others that an enormous mistake had been made in putting the docks where they were, because they were in the wrong place, and the Admiralty had resisted every suggestion to put them in the right place. As to Gibraltar he would say very little. The two reports which had been issued in regard to Gibraltar
104
proved that he was right and the Admiralty were wrong. The only effect of those reports had been to expend more money upon high-angle guns. Dover was another tremendous mistake on the part of the Admiralty, for no battleship in modern days ought to be anywhere near Dover unless it was passing at full speed. Ships at Dover would be exposed to bombardment and torpedo boats, and one of the greatest mistakes ever made by the Admiralty was the construction of this enormous harbour at Dover. It was most unfortunate that all these millions were being plunged into the water at Dover. As to Wei-hai-Wei, he really did not know what to say about that interesting "watering-place." It was said some time ago that it was acquired as a reply to the Russian possession of Port Arthur. He did not know how its adequacy in that respect appeared in the light of recent events. There was a good deal of money being spent at Wei-hai-Wei on hospitals and canteens. He did not know for what purpose that port was being used. Certainly if it was a coaling station it did not require a hospital or a canteen. But that was the principal justification as far as he understood nowadays, of that most unfortunate adventure. If any other justification could be adduced for the retention of Wei-hai-Wei, perhaps the Committee would be told what it was. He hoped the Committee would appreciate the great danger there was in the extension of naval works, and more especially the danger of sanctioning year by year payments and annuities for enormous loans of which they had no details.
MR. BROADHURSTcalled attention to the reference on page 22 of the Statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to Keyham Dockyard extension. It was stated in regard to the "closed basin" that about 1,370,000 cubic yards of mud had been removed, and, in regard to the "tidal basin," that the enclosing walls were well in hand, and about 7,000 cubic yards of mud had been removed. These statements seemed to indicate that there were yet considerable contracts to be let in connection with the granite for the stonework along the sides of the docks.

105
He asked the Civil Lord whether he could give an approximate idea of the extent of these contracts. When the present Deputy Master of the Mint was Civil Lord of the Admiralty, some years back, attention was drawn to the fact that the contractor for the granite-work of the docks at Devonport was having the whole of the granite wrought in the North of Europe—he thought it was in Norway—and imported. The then Civil Lord refused to interfere, stating that it was no part of the Government system to interfere with work done abroad which was imported into the country. He was able to demonstrate to the officials at the time that the granite of Cornwall and Devonshire was as good as the Norwegian stone. In the opinion of an expert to whom he submitted specimens the English stone was better than that of Norway. From its composition it was calculated to last a longer time. What he wanted to know from the Civil Lord was whether there were large contracts yet to be let for granite-work, and, if so, whether he would see that conditions were laid down in the contracts that the stone would be wrought in this country. He made no complaint about the work being done cheaper. As a matter of fact he believed that in Norway wages were little more than half what they were in this country. If the taxpayers of this country were obtaining any share of the advantage of the cheapness it would be a different matter, but he understood that the contractor himself got the advantage. As a matter of fact the contractor sub-let the granite-work to people who could do it much cheaper than it could be done in this country. There ought to be no approach to sub-letting in dockyard work. It was important that the work should be done as accurately as possible in order to prevent the ingress of water, which in course of time might weaken and force out the walls. He was not going to say that Norway could not produce as good masons as Cornwall and Devonshire, but he would point out that in the sub-letting of this class of work there was the greatest danger of scamping. He expressed the hope that the Admiralty would exercise vigilant supervision over the works at Keyham Dockyard. If they would exercise the same
106
supervision there which the Liverpool authorities had always done when building docks, he believed the country would get better value for the money expended than they probably got under this system of sub-contracting. The quarries in Cornwall were close to the waterside, and granite could be conveyed thence by boat to Devonport harbour. There would in that case be no difficulty in regard to land carriage such as there might be in the case of granite from Devonshire. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to have this matter thoroughly gone into, and stated that he would be very glad to see him on the subject if he would do him the honour to discuss it with him.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he fully recognised the special knowledge of the hon. Member for Leicester on this subject. The suggestion he had made in regard ^to contracts was worthy of the consideration of the Admiralty. So far as he was concerned he would only be too glad if the hon. Member would give them his advice on matters of this kind. In regard to the Keyham contract the question raised by the hon. Member was fully considered by the Admiralty at the time. It had been, and was, the policy of the Admiralty to have home materials used as far as possible, consistently with economy, in the construction of naval works. In the case of the Keyham contract an immense amount of granite was needed at the time, and the contractor was given permission to get the stone where he could, so long as it was up to a certain standard of excellence. As a matter of fact the amount of granite which was required could not be obtained at home in proper time. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had, in his criticism, tried to make him responsible not only for the policy of loans for naval works, approved by Parliament at various times since 1895, but also for many matters of policy assented to in previous years with regard to the construction of dockyards, and so forth. He was afraid that after his brief stay at the Admiralty he could nor accept the whole responsibility for all that had been done by his predecessors as regarded the specific points raised. Then he thought that the hon. Gentleman advanced rather a wide proposition

107
when he said that works like those at Gibraltar, instead of adding to the efficiency of the Fleet, rather deteriorated it; that they encouraged naval officers to rely too much on docks and breakwaters, and destroyed some of that spirit of naval daring which distinguished the British Navy of old. He could not think that there was any justification for the suggestion that the spirit of the British Navy had deteriorated as the result of naval works. It might as well be said that the introduction of armour-plates or any other protection on board ship had deteriorated the spirit of the Navy. Then his hon. friend found great fault with the Admiralty because they did not foresee with exactitude the expenditure that was to ensue on naval works. He would point out that it was impossible to estimate exactly what the expenditure on a particular work would be in any given year. He would give a concrete example. At Malta there were large works for the extension of the dockyard and the creation of breakwaters to make the harbour safe from probable attack. Only the other day a severe storm arose which destroyed the whole of the preliminary works by means of which these breakwaters were to be built. The result was that their progress would be delayed several months, and there would be a shortage of expenditure for the year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not think he could have explained his point accurately to the hon. Gentleman. His complaint was that there were items on the Estimates for works, the expenditure on which was to be charged within the financial year, but in respect of expenditure on loan works there was no estimate.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that an estimate had been made last year when the Naval Works Bill was introduced. What should be expended this year was the surplus remaining over after the expenditure of the past year. It was impossible to foresee what the expenditure would be all over the world two years in advance. The Admiralty merely took what they believed would be a reasonable expenditure from the amount granted by Parliament as a maximum. His hon. friend had made a violent attack on the Works
108
Department of the Admiralty and on the Loans Works Department. That attack was unjust, because he thought that both these Departments were conducted in a most efficient and economic manner by their respective chiefs. He said this from his own knowledge, and he strongly resented any attack on these officials on the ground that they were not acting for the efficiency and economy of the public service. His hon. friend suggested that these two Departments should be fused into one, and with that he entirely agreed. His hon. friend had also touched on the subject of Osborne, and particularly on the accommodation for the naval and military convalescent officers. That question had already been discussed on Civil Service Estimates, and as it had nothing to do with the Admiralty it was not his business to reply on it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if he was to understand the hon. Member to say that convalescent naval officers had nothing to do with the Admiralty.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that all he meant was that the accommodation for convalescents at Osborne House did not come on the Admiralty Votes whilst the accommodation provided for the naval cadets at Osborne College had, however, to be paid for by the Admiralty. His hon. friend had referred to Hong-Kong, a place with which he himself was somewhat familiar. The hon. Gentleman laid down the proposition that the dockyard there was on the wrong site, and that the naval experts had united to condemn it. Well, of course, his hon. friend might have access to naval opinion which was not open to the Admiralty; but the professional naval advisers of the Admiralty, including the commander-in-chief on the China Station, unanimously approved of the site; in fact, it was selected on their representation, and he personally had no doubt whatever that the dockyard was in the light place. There were stories about that certain private persons who wanted the d ckyard built elsewhere, spread rumours that there were difficulties in constructing the dockyard on the present site, but these difficulties had not been found. As to Gibraltar, he must say that, anticipating his hon. friend's criticism

109
on the point, he had taken the precaution of visiting Gibraltar. His hon. friend said that the only result of all his labours in connection with Gibraltar had been the introduction of a few high-angle guns. He had great pleasure in giving his hon. friend the information that a new high-angle gun had been designed for that fortress, and there rumours from other sources that his hon. friend was taking very generous and and kindly interest in that particular gun, and the result would doubtless be an improvement in the shooting. He wished to thank the hon. Member for Dundee and other hon. Gentlemen for the very kind references made to himself on taking office. In the course of his previous remarks he ventured to state that Vote 10 had been starved in previous years; and he was thankful to the hon. Member for Dundee for having used stronger language—that this Vote had been snubbed and robbed. That accounted to a large extent for the necessity of expenditure for loans on naval works. The hon. Member had returned again to the question of the two-Power standard debated at such great length during the previous three days, and asked how far was it possible to compare our expenditure on naval works with foreign expenditure on ships.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that what he wanted was a comparison between the expenditure on naval works by this country and the corresponding expenditure on naval works by other nations.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid ho must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He thought the hon. Gentleman was making a comparison between our expenditure on naval works and the expenditure of foreign nations on ships. No comparison on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman was possible, because our needs for naval works were not comparable to those of foreign nations. But these foreign nations had found that ships were only a portion of their naval expenditure, and that they would have to expend large sums on dockyards and other naval works, in order to keep their ships in condition. He, however, contended that the requirements of the British Empire
110
were unique in this particular. Ours was a world-wide Empire; we had more to defend; and therefore we required more naval bases than foreign nations. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Perthshire referred to the understanding that although it might be necessary next year to ask for further money for the purpose of naval works, the Admiralty should give an undertaking that no new items should be put down. He had no hesitation whatever in repeating the assurance already given, that it was not proposed, as far as could possibly be foreseen, to introduce any new items next year. The hon. Gentleman said that they should build no more new docks; but they had not yet pledged themselves to the exact number of docks there would be at Rosyth when it was completed. His statement must be interpreted in that sense. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee asked what the expenditure in the self-governing Colonies would be under Vote 10 this year. The total amount was about £70,000, but that expenditure was not for the benefit of the Colonies, but for the benefit of the Fleet generally. That he thought was a sufficient answer, and he did not think it would be desirable that he should attempt to discuss, on the present occasion, whether the Colonies should or should not make a larger contribution to the Navy, because this country would have no power to compel the Colonies in that direction even if it was thought desirable.
MR. O'MARAasked if representations had been made to the Colonies.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was not the business of the Admiralty to make representations to the Colonies.
*MR. O'MARAasked if the hon. Gentleman would ask the Secretary to the Colonies to make representations.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that, in the humble position which he had the honour to fill, he could not discuss matters of high policy of that kind. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth raised a very interesting point. He warned

111
the Admiralty against the policy of constructing a dock for every ship. There was no intention on the part of the Admiralty of adopting any such far-reaching policy as that to which his hon. and gallant friend referred. With reference to the remark which he himself made about the lack of repairing and other facilities in the Far East which Russia possessed, all he ventured to suggest was that the policy of possessing harbours secured against torpedo attack had been amply justified by the course of events in the Far East. It would be impossible to conceive a more striking justification of that particular policy; and he did not suggest more than that. As to the specific question asked by his hon. friend with reference to the works on the new breakwater at Malta, he was at Malta himself a few weeks ago and saw the, works. It was then pointed out that the staging which had been erected would not be strong enough to withstand one of the local storms, or Gregales. The contractors were quite satisfied that it would; but the power of the storm was justified by the result; and, unfortunately, a large portion of the preparatory work was swept away. The delay, however, would net be very great, possibly not more than three or four months, because the same contractors were engaged on the Dover harbour works, and they immediately sent out the necessary appliances which they had there. The contract provided that the dockyard extension at Malta should be finished by the end of 1904; but he was sorry to add that the progress made by the contractors had been most unsatisfactory. He went carefully into the matter on the spot, and the Admiralty found it necessary to take very strong steps in order to bring home to the contractors the necessity of more vigorous and scientific operations. Every effort, he believed, was now being made by the contractors to remedy their deficiencies in the past. The delay, however, was a serious matter, and he was glad his hon. friend had called attention to it.
AN HON. MEMBERasked when the 3 dock at Gibraltar would be ready for use.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that that dock was practically complete and would
112
be ready for the accommodation of ship^ in the course of the ensuing summer. The hon. Member for East Perthshire referred to the fact that there were some works of a large nature put down on the Votes and others paid for by way of loan. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that works loans were looked upon as a temporary expedient in order to provide for past deficiencies. It was not the policy of the Admiralty to depend in future on loans; and when the deficiencies of the past had been supplied, then nearly all the expenditure on works would fall on Vote 10.
MR. BUCHANANasked if they were to understand that it was the policy of the Admiralty to abandon Loan Acts in the near future.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he could not give any pledge, as that would depend entirely on naval requirements; but it was the hope of the Admiralty that they would be in a position to discontinue the system of borrowing for works, and to construct them out of the Estimates. It was obvious, however, that there must be a transition period, and they were now putting such works as they could on Vote 10. That accounted for some of the large items to be found on the Vote. Small items, although they might be regarded as permanent, would in any case be put on the Vote, as it was undesirable to borrow money for them. They included such items as that for Wei-hai-Wei. The hon. Gentleman referred to putting down a token sum as objectionable. He admitted that in one sense it was objectionable because it did not give a precise indication of what the future expenditure would be; but it was clear that in the case of large establishments, such as Rosyth, it was impossible, in the first instance, to estimate what the total expenditure would be. There was, in fact, a great deal of preliminary expenditure, such as the examination of the ground, borings, and so forth, before even a sketch estimate could be drawn up. That was the case in regard to Rosyth. The work was proceeding as rapidly as possible, and when the Admiralty had decided the matter they would take the House of Commons into their confidence. The hon. Gentleman also complained that the Committee was not told

113
what approximately the total sum taken for the Coastguard stations was to be. He understood that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury informed the hon. Gentleman last year that the total sum would be, as nearly as it could be ascertained, about £500,000. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that certain of the Coastguard stations, which appeared on the Vote last year, had disappeared. The explanation of that was very simple. The stations that remained on the Vote were those on which work was already in progress, the remainder were transferred to Loan. Several hon. Gentlemen referred to a statement he made about the number of works which had been cut out. He did not claim any credit for that. It was the customary practice, and they had to cut their coat according to their cloth. It was the duty of the naval advisers of the Admiralty to put forward proposals for consideration by the Admiralty, which it was desirable and necessary to undertake, and then the Admiralty cut their coat according to their cloth.
MR. LOUGHasked if all Coastguard station expenditure was in future to be put to the loan account.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that all stations which had not yet been commenced would be charged to the loan account under last year's Act. His hon. friend the Member for Exeter cross-examined him very closely on a matter of high finance, for which he was not really responsible. His hon. friend objected to the system of annual Loan Bills. That was a perfectly reasonable objection to put forward; but the principle underlying those Bills had been sanctioned by the House of Commons in 1895, and frequently since. He did not think they could go back on them now. His hon. friend was entitled to his opinion; but the system had been sanctioned by the House of Commons. Complaint had been made that the Estimates did not show the total expenditure. It was obvious that with regard to these Loan Bills the totals could not be shown. But if it was of any convenience to hon. Members he would undertake in the future to circulate with the Estimates a separate statement showing
114
the expenditure under those Loan Bills With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Kilkenny that no pledge had been given that the Works Bill of last year was to be final, he might say that the Admiralty never pretended that it would be. The token sums put down clearly showed the contrary. With regard to Wei-hai-Wei, it was the original intention of the Government to hold the place as a fortified naval station. Some two years ago that intention was modified as the result of a conference between the naval, military, and colonial authorities, and it was then decided to hold it as a peace station and health resort, where the Fleet could go in the hot weather for shore exercise, and so forth. A small amount of coal, 6,000 or 10,000 tons, was kept there for the current needs of the ships, but it was not in the, ordinary sense of the word a coaling station, which was generally a strongly fortified station, with a large supply of coal. A naval hospital and a canteen had also been established. The canteen was considered necessary, in order to supply good accommodation for the men, so that they might not go elsewhere.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he was encouraged by the explanations already given to ask one or two questions in connection with I points on which he had some knowledge. He pointed out that on page 141 there was an item for the establishment of additional hospital accommodation at Queensferry. It was in the statement of the Civil Lord that in the next Loan Bill there would be a large demand for naval works across the water, and therefore he would like some explanation of this item, because he did not suppose it was the intention of the Government to ferry their sick across the Firth. He also asked as to the item of £11,000 for additional church accommodation at Deal, where he should have thought there was sufficient accommodation already. It was difficult to discuss subjects like Gibraltar and Dover, and other schemes of a like character, in full Committee of the House, but hon. Members would be grateful for the speech made by the hon. Member for Exeter, who had stated clearly and tersely what many had been thinking; and the representatives of the Admiralty

115
would do well not to increase the feeling which existed in the country, that the full burden of the Navy expenditure had not been realised under this system of dividing the Works Department from the Estimates. He hoped the speech of the hon. Member for Exeter would not be lost on the Admiralty. There was also a feeling in the Committee that under this system of Works Bills they lost their control over expenditure where that control was most particularly required, because money easily acquired was easily parted with. Money raised by loan was more easily got than that raised by taxation, and the control of the expenditure of the money passed into the hands of experts, who could not assume that responsibility which Parliament must itself bear. It was a little difficult sometimes to draw a clear distinction between capital and current expenditure.
GENERAL LAURIEreferred to an item of £10,000 for an official residence at Jamaica. It had been generally understood to be the intention of the Admiralty to concentrate the whole of our establishments in St. Lucia, but from this item it appeared as though a large establishment was still to be maintained at Jamaica. This was apparently such an absolute change of policy that he thought the Committee were entitled to some explanation from the representative of the Admiralty with regard to it.
MR. LOUGHpointed out that the whole of the growth in this Vote was accounted for by the increased payments of interest on capital expenditure, and the increased amount of interest was of course due to the greater amount of annual expenditure arranged for by loan instead of being met by the ordinary Estimates. The amount was now so large that the Committee might well pause and insist on the Admiralty giving some definite pledge in the matter. Ten years ago this Vote amounted to only £400,000; now, mainly owing to the borrowing, it was £1,600,000. The larger the amount raised by loan, the greater this Vote became. The borrowing system was not economical, and really conferred no benefit whatever on the nation. All it did was to relieve that Department,
116
and to assist through his difficulties the poor struggling Gentleman who had to defend the Estimates. It would be much better if the nation furnished the necessary money every year as it was required. Twenty years ago the total annual expenditure on capital account was only £40,000; it was now £9,500,000, and the largest items were connected with the Navy. The vicious system which was started by the Navy had spread to the Army and the Civil Services, and instead of the nation meeting the expenditure of the year out of taxation they really did not know where they were, since, owing to the development of this system, they did not know what the annual expenditure really was. Instead of giving a definite answer to the criticisms which had been made, the Admiralty had confessed that even the money for the maintenance of Coastguard stations was now to be borrowed.
*MR. ARTHUR LEE: Not the maintenance, but the cost of construction.
MR. LOUGHcontended that such a course would tend to extravagance. So small an item ought to be borne on the Estimates of the year, and if it was proposed now to inaugurate this system the Committee ought to protest against it. The increase for loans this year was £130,000; next year it would be £200,000; the year after it would probably amount to £250,000; and so the increase would go on. In a very few years the nation would have lost whatever advantage it might appear to derive from the system of borrowing. It would be much better for the Admiralty to stop the system at once, to have no more of these Loan Bills, and to provide each year on the Votes the amount they required. It was impossible to repeal the Bills already passed. The money had been borrowed and would have to be repaid. But no Bill had been passed which would carry on the Admiralty for more than about two years, and he suggested that in that interval the whole system should be reconsidered. The nation was kept in ignorance of the true position of its finances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say in his Budget statement that £7,000,000 had been paid off the National Debt, and the country would

117
be unaware that another £9,000,000 had been borrowed for works. This was one of the most serious items of our national expenditure, because it was so subtle, and it invited extravagance instead of leading to economy. He hoped the Committee would insist on having a clear and definite statement from the Secretary to the Admiralty on the matter.
MR. WHITLEYexpressed his concurrence in the views just expressed, and supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Exeter. He had made a calculation as to the cost of the work done under the present system, and he found that for every £100, in value, the nation had to spend £150. That showed how serious a matter it was. In about five years there would be no saving even in the annual expenditure. The loans were mounting up at the rate of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year, with the result that when about half the thirty years period was over the country would be worse off than if they had never started the system. It merely led to extravagance, and hid from the country the real expenditure that was going on. It was a pity there had not been a representative of the Treasury present during the debate. These Bills not only came up every two years, but they tended to increase in amount, and to throw a greater burden on posterity, who would doubtless have a sufficiently heavy load of their own to carry. The time had come when a stop should be put to the system, and the Committee should follow the advice of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and refuse to sanction the passage of any more of these Loan Bills, even though they were introduced at the fag-end of the session when the House was not in a proper condition to discuss them. Another matter he had examined into was as to the amount of the works in progress in regard to which the Estimates had been revised during the last twelve months, and he found that there had been increases to the extent of £422,000, and decreases to the extent of £80,000, or a net increase of £340,000.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the hon. Member included in that sum the increases under G.G.; if so, he could explain those.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he proposed to move an Amendment on that Vote. He was simply stating that works for which a revised Estimate was now submitted, as compared with twelve months ago, showed an increase of £340,000, which ranged over something like twenty-four or twenty-five different items. How were they to have any control over expenditure if they were asked to vote money on the face of certain Estimates, and twelve months afterwards they were told by means of foot-notes that they had been revised to the extent of £340,000. There were several other matters in this Vote which required careful examination, and when the general discussion had been completed he proposed to move one or two reductions.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid that whilst admitting the inconveniences that resulted from the method of constructing works by means of loans he wished to remind the Committee that it was a policy deliberately adopted by the House at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and the hon. Member for Dundee, and if he remembered rightly—and perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee would bear him out in this—the principle then laid down, upon which this loan system was founded, was the principle of distributing the cost of the great works, of which many generations would derive the benefit, over a considerable period of years. Inasmuch as these works themselves were not attractive, and in some cases were many thousand miles away from the House of Commons, they loomed very small indeed in the memory, or imagination, or view of most hon. Members of this House. Naturally hon. Members looked more to the finance of the question, and when the bill for the works came in objection was very naturally taken to it. He could thoroughly sympathise with that view, but the one point which critics appeared to lose sight of, was the fact that the works were there, and represented every penny bestowed upon them, and future generations, when called upon to pay this money would actually have the works and the full value for this money. As had been stated by the Civil Lord, if there was one lesson they had been taught from the situation in the Far East it was the

119
wisdom of the policy inaugurated by the Gentlemen on the Benches opposite, of borrowing money in order to construct these great harbours to provide shelter for our Fleet. His impression was that the House of Commons deliberately preferred and deliberately instituted the policy of borrowing money for these great works, and preferred that it should be raised on loan instead of out of the money voted each year. If the House of Commons preferred to find the money each year, it would not be for the Admiralty to raise any objection, for they would be quite prepared to ask for the money which they considered absolutely required every year to meet naval needs. This money was as necessary as the money for ships, and Parliament had already decided that the money should be found in this manner. He shared the views expressed as to the inconvenience this method presented in many aspects, but, after all, that inconvenience arose principally from the fact that it was always objectionable to have to pay for anything. Nobody liked to pay when the bill came in, and, whatever form the bill was presented in, it was customary that some objection should be taken to it. It was not for the Admiralty now to defend that financial policy; they had simply to submit the sums they considered necessary for the needs of the Navy. In doing that he was anxious to give every possible information to facilitate control of expenditure by the House. The works represented full value for the money, but the real difficulty was that effective criticism was not possible without some knowledge of the material aspect of the works, their magnitude, and character. Any pertinent criticism of these works must come from some actual knowledge of the works. He remembered last year attempting to give to the House the best information he could of the works extending over this vast area, and he believed that he wearied the House in doing it, but he did it with the object of putting the House in possession of that information which would give them the power of control and criticism.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid this debate was an example of the soft words of a Minister turning away wrath. He
120
was sorry that the Secretary of State for War was not there to see the effect on the business of this House of courtesy and good temper. The hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the Government had no power to compel the Colonies to refund the money spent for their benefit upon the Fleet, and he went on to assure the House that he was too obscure a member of the Government to suggest that the Colonies should be called upon to contribute more. But the hon. Gentleman and his colleague were the representatives of the Admiralty, and if they could not make representations to the Colonial Department he did not know who could. Canada did not subscribe a cent to the upkeep of the Navy, and he thought she ought to be ashamed of herself. The hon. Member for Galway was always ready to defend Canada, but he was very silent upon this question of naval expenditure. He thought that the Colonies which received a portion of this enormous grant ought to pay their share. He urged that in common fairness rich colonies like Canada should make some contribution towards expenditure which was a heavy burden on the poverty of Ireland. He also desired to know how much had been spent on Wei-hai-Wei, and if the place had any other use than as a naval health resort.
MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the hon. Member for South Down had called attention to a defence he made only yesterday of the position taken by Canada, where he had spent most of his life. He was an Irish representative, and he would remind his hon. friends that it was in that capacity that he criticised the Estimates. If Canada did not contribute to the Navy it was because she believed in Home Rule. Canada had the power of levying taxes, and did not propose to delegate to a Government in which it was not represented, the power of spending its money. The expenditure at Halifax for the construction of a wharf was not at all for the benefit of Canada, but for the benefit of the British Navy. He thought it was the right of the Nationalist Members to criticise these matters. They came from a country which had to bear a heavy portion of the taxation required for the payment of the large sums spent on naval works. Money had been

121
spent on the South, North, and East Coasts, but what about the West? When the Admiralty had so much money to expend on these matters he wondered whether they could not establish a dockyard in the West of Ireland. The Irish taxpayers were asked to contribute their share of the cost of naval expenditure, but there was no disposition on the part of the Admiralty, or any other department of the Government, to return to Ireland a share of the money taken from her. They protested against the obligation imposed on them by the Government for works with which they had no sympathy.
MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to Item A for "Salaries and Allowances of Superintending Officers and others." He pointed out that the Estimate this year for twenty-six civil engineers was £9,363, while last year the amount for twenty-five civil engineers was £3,856. That was an increase of more than 100 per cent, on the Estimate, though there was a increase of one on the staff. There was an Estimate of £1,824 for nine assistant surveyors, as against £765 last year for eight assistant surveyors. In this case the increase on the Estimate was considerably over 100 per cent., though there was only an increase of one on the staff. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Allowances of Superintending Officers and others) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Whitley.)
*MR. PRETYMANsaid the figures in the Estimates were rather difficult to understand. The fact was that there had been a reorganisation of the department, and on the recommendation of a Committee that sat during the year the numbers and scales of pay of the various grades had been changed. He would be glad to send a statement to the hon. Gentleman showing exactly how these figures were explained.
MR. O'MARAsaid it would save a great deal of time if the hon. Gentleman would send the explanatory note to all Members of the House.
*MR. PRETYMANsaid ho would send it to any hon. Member who expressed a wish for it.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the figures as they stood were quite wrong.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that after the explanation given he would withdraw his motion.
Motion by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that Items B and C, Dockyards at Home and Abroad, required some explanation on account of the discrepancies between the estimates and the actual cost of works under construction. The rate of increase was a serious matter, which ought to have the attention of the hon. Gentleman. There should be some better method of estimating the cost of these works, because, to his mind, the present system gave no real estimate at all. He had made out a list of discrepancies ranging from £3,000 to £23,500. Of course he could understand that there would be variations, and if the variations up had been balanced by the variations down he would not have complained so much; but that was by no means the case. He begged to move to reduce this item by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Dockyards at Home) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Whitley.)
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that it was impossible to estimate in many cases the exact amount that the works would cost until the tenders had been actually received. In several instances there had been decreases, and he called attention to the item for new works in the dockyards at home, where the decrease was from £186,000 to £125,000. That decrease was due to the fact that the Department found they could do the foundations themselves much more cheaply than under contract, and also to the favourable condition of the iron market. He thought that the hon. Gentleman would find that the discrepancies between the increases and the decreases were not so great as he imagined, with perhaps the exception of item G.G.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it would be a great advantage if in the future there should I appear a column showing the total original Estimate, so that hon. Members might be able to compare the Estimate and cost at once.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEthought that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he would see if it could be carried out next year.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that on item C, there was a sum for the renewal of buildings of the hydraulic dock at Malta. Might he ask, was not that hydraulic dock paid for out of Loan money?
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that it had been found that the dock was not capable of doing effective work in its present condition, and therefore there required to be a renovation of the buildings.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that this was a salient case in which the two systems of carrying out works were mixed up together—out of Loan money, and out of annual Estimates. That was what hon. Members had been protesting against so often, and in order to take notice of it he moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Dockyards Abroad) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the Committee had been given excuses for this system of borrowing money; but the hon. Gentlemen representing the Admiralty were not responsible for its introduction. He did not object to loan expenditure on large works; but now all sorts of small works such as Coastguard stations had been introduced. The Committee had a right to complain that in this purely financial debate no representative of the Treasury was present. The question was one
124
almost entirely for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that a reduction has been moved on a particular item, and that he must confine himself to it.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that money to be spent at Malta under the Vote was mixed up with money from the Loans Act; and his point was that that was a financial question in which not only the Admiralty but the Treasury also was concerned. He maintained it was the business of the Treasury to give the Committee an explanation. He regretted very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present when such questions were under discussion.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he sympathised to the fullest extent with the complaint of the hon. Member who had just spoken, with reference to the absence of any representative of the Treasury. As far as matters of detail were concerned, the Committee obtained from the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty all the information they possessed. But he said with great respect that, in his opinion, and he believed in the opinion of other hon. Members also, when the Committee was engaged in discussing the expenditure of large sums, it was little short of a scandal that no representative of the Treasury was present. It was the business and the duty of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury to be present, and hear what hon. Members had to say with reference to such expenditure. It spoke very little for the respect which every member of the Administration ought to have for the House of Commons, that the representatives of the Treasury were invariably absent on such occasions. British Members might be content to be flouted in this manner, but he and other Irish Members did not take that view. His objection to the Vote was that dockyards abroad, although doubtless they were necessary for the upkeep and convenience of the Fleet, were matters for which the Irish people ought not to be called on to spend any money. He had

125
no doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty could give many excellent reasons why the naval depots should be maintained. But his constituents had not the slightest interest in the expenditure of a single farthing in Wei-hai-Wei. He denied that the Irish people got any return at all for such expenditure. None of the money was spent in Ireland; and even if there were any attempt to bribe the Irish people by large or small expenditure it would not change his view or the views of his constituents. Even if dockyards were established in Ireland he would still oppose the Vote, because generally speaking the Irish people derived no benefit from the Fleet and ought not to be called upon to pay for it. It was perfectly true that the Colonies paid scarcely anything for the upkeep of the Navy, although considerable sums of money were spent in the Colonies in connection with it. He did not blame the Colonies for making the best bargain they could. They would be fools if they paid a single farthing more for the maintenance of the Navy, when they found they could get anything they wanted for a ridiculously small sum. Indeed the Colonies were to be congratulated on the good bargain they had made. It was, however, an outrage on the very name of justice to call upon poor Irish taxpayers to pay for dockyards abroad when the people most concerned were not called upon to pay a single shilling. Was that fair or just or right? He objected to the Vote simply on the ground that it was not right to impose a proportion of this taxation on Ireland against the will of the Irish people and in view of the fact that Ireland derived no benefit whatever from it. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty answered the Questions put to him in a very courteous and obliging manner. He made no complaint of the hon. Gentleman and he did not intend to make any attack on officials who were
doing their best to explain the position to the House. He took, broadly, the ground that Ireland derived no benefit from the increased expenditure on the Navy and had no sympathy with it. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, in order to be able to answer Questions, himself went to Malta in order to see how matters stood there. It was an heroic undertaking and he congratulated the hon. Gentleman on it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would visit the other dockyards in different parts of the Empire, and be able to ascertain how much benefit they were to the localities in which they were situated, which might induce him to agree that some contribution should be given by those districts.
* MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he thought he could remove the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Perthshire, on his Motion for a reduction, by saying that in regard to the hydraulic dock the £17,000 required for the original purchase had been provided out of Vote 10 last year.
MR. BUCHANANsaid if there was no loan money involved in that matter that met his case, and he begged to withdraw his Motion for a reduction.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion again proposed.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I press my Amendment.
Motion made, and Question put. "That Item C (Dockyards Abroad) be reduced by £4:,600."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 102: Noes. 251. (Division List No. 38.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brigg, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Broadhurst, Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crean, Eugene

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cremer, William Randal

Barlow, John Emmott

Burke, E. Haviland

Cullinan, J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Caldwell, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Black, Alexander William

Cameron, Robert

Delany, William

Boland, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kean, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shackleton, David James

Ffrench, Peter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mooney, John J.

Sheehy, David

Flynn, James Christopher

Murnaghan, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Grant, Corrie

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Tomkinson, James

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Toulmin, George

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Wallace, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Weir, James Galloway

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Labouchere, Henry

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Young, Samuel

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Yoxall, James Henry

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Reddy, M.

Leng, Sir John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare)

Lundon, W.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roche, John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A(Worc

Fison, Frederick William

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Allen, Charles P.

Chapman, Edward

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Allsopp, Hon. George

Charrington, Spencer

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Flower, Sir Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Forster, Henry William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

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

Fuller, J. M. F.

Austin, Sir John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Galloway, William Johnson

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gardner, Ernest

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

Balcarres, Lord

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gretton, John

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Crombie, John William

Hain, Edward

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hall, Edward Marshall

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Cust, Henry John C.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Davenport, William Bromley

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Bignold, Arthur

Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Haml'ts

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Bigwood, James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doughty, George

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Heaton, John Henniker

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Duke, Henry Edward

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Horner, Frederick William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Houston, Robert Paterson

Butcher, John George

Elibank, Master of

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

Emmott, Alfred

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Faber, George Denison, (York)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Hunt, Rowland

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. B.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

128

129

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Keswick, William

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stock, James Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Knowles, Sir Lees

Paulton, James Mellor

Stroyan, John

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Percy, Earl

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Pierpoint, Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Plummer, Walter R.

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

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thornton, Percy M.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tollemache, Henry James

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Purvis, Robert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Pym, C. Guy

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Randles, John S.

Tuff, Charles

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

Rankin, Sir James

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Valentia, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Ratcliff, R. F.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Renwick, George

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Richards, Henry Charles

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macdona, John Cumming

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Warde, Colonel C, E.

Maconochie, A. W.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Robinson, Brooke

Webb, Colonel William George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Royds, Clement Molyneux

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

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

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Milvain, Thomas

Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Moore, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Morpeth, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Morrell, George Herbert

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wrighston, Sir Thomas

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Soares, Ernest J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Spear, John Ward

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich)

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

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

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200,
  130
  be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  MR. O'MARAasked for some explanation of the item of £9,000 for victualling stores at Sydney, which item he thought was a token Vote and the commencement of a high expenditure that was going to b made in the Colonies.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONdrew attention to the item of £8,000 for dredging at Wei-hai-Wei. It was, he said, originally intended that Wei-hai-Wei should be held as a

  131
  counterpoise to Port Arthur; then it was to be held as a secondary naval base; and finally he understood it was to be a kind of sanatorium for the Fleet on the China Station. If that were so it was difficult to see why this amount for dredging should be included in this Vote. Either there had been at the outset a very serious lack of judgment on the part of the advisers of the Government or their present decision to constitute it a sanatorium was a still greater mistake in judgment. In order to extract some explanation he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item C (Dockyards Abroad) be reduced by £1,000." (Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  MR. ARTHUR LEEagain explained the position with regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and pointed out that even for a peace station and sanatorium for the Fleet on the China station it was necessary to provide berthing accommodation in the harbour for the ships that would go there. Turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Galway, who objected to the expenditure in regard to dockyards abroad on the ground that none were to be established in Ireland, he (Mr. Lee) called attention to the fact that the expenditure for naval establishments was not made for the benefit of the localities in which those establishments were situated, but for the general advantage and the needs of the Fleet. The item for the extension of hospital accommodation at Queens-ferry was for the purpose of erecting an isolation hospital for infectious cases, which was absolutely necessary. With regard to the church accommodation at Deal he pointed out that in recent years the number of marines stationed there had been very largely increased, and owing to the lack of proper accommodation it had been found necessary to use the existing church for school purposes, which was not at all desirable, and it was necessary that these men should be provided with a proper place of worship. He had been asked as to the item for the official residences in Jamaica. There were three such residences which were used by officers on the naval establishment, but they had fallen into such an
  132
  insanitary condition that it was now necessary to expend this money in re-providing them. The item in respect to the victualling stores at Sydney was rather a measure of economy. At present we were hiring and paying very heavily for accommodation for victualling stores, and as Sydney was now becoming a great victualling centre, it was thought desirable to build our own accommodation and thus save the heavy expense we were now put to. The expenditure in respect to the coastguard stations was, for precisely the same reason, also a measure of economy—it being less expensive to build than to hire. He hoped the hon. Member for Barnsley would be satisfied with the explanation which he had given with regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and would now withdraw his Motion for a reduction.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON, by leave of the Committee, withdrew his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdraw.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the real objection to the Vote for victualling accommodation at Sydney was that the Colonies had not been asked to subscribe towards the expenditure. The Vote which he desired to criticise, and which he would have to move a reduction of, was Vote E, "Chatham, residence of Commander-in-Chief, £25,000," £7,000 of which was to be spent this year. No doubt Commanders-in-Chief required houses to live in, but the Commander-in-Chief of Chatham had been living elsewhere up to the present, and this expenditure at the present juncture was not, necessary. He thought this was a most inopportune time for starting a work which was not absolutely necessary. The present state of the finance of the country was not satisfactory. In his belief a good deal of the depression from which we were now suffering was due to the over-expenditure by the Government, and it was the, duty of the Committee to object to fresh expenditure of every kind which was not absolutely necessary for the defence of the country. This was an

  133
  item which should be put aside until either it was absolutely necessary or until such time as the finances of the country were in better order than they were at present. He thought it would be much cheaper to give an allowance, as was done in many cases, in lieu of a house, and that would not only meet the view of the officer in question but would also benefit the Exchequer. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by the amount that was to be expended this year, namely, £7,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Naval Barracks and General Fleet Services), be reduced by £7,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  MR. BROADHURSTexpressed the opinion that the hon. Member might have gone further. It appeared to him that the Commander-in-Chief would have to have a considerable private income in addition to his pay to keep up such an establishment as it was proposed to erect, and which would be equal to a house of a rental of £1,000 a year. Years ago he had been to Chatham on Government business and had had the honour of being entertained by the Admiral in charge. So far as his memory served him the establishment at which he was entertained was nothing at all approaching this one which it was proposed to build. If the Civil Lord had been move familiar with this part of the country he would know that Chatham was the cheapest part to build in, inasmuch as it was the centre of the brick-making and cement industries, and in his judgment a house costing £6,000, or £8,000 at the outside, would be quite sufficient to meet all the demands that could be reasonably made by any officer holding this great position. By erecting a house of these dimensions the Government were going to make it impossible for any man who had to live upon his pay to maintain his position, and he hoped in the interest of the Service that hon. Members would cut down some of this enormous expenditure and thus do a service to those who might hereafter be called to this high office. As he understood, the average duration of this office would be three years, and a poor Admiral would not be able to support so great a burden as the maintenance of such an
  134
  establishment. He appealed to the representatives of the Admiralty not to pursue a policy which provided only for men who had vast means. On these grounds he thought the Civil Lord ought to give the Committee some explanation of this item.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that this matter had been most carefully considered. Although he might not be very familiar with this part of Kent, he was at least familiar with this particular problem, having studied it on the spot. The Admiral's house at Chatham to which the hon. Member had referred was not the house of the Commander-in-Chief, but the house of the Admiral Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, and it would remain in the occupation of that official The residence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Nora was not at Chatham at ail, but at Sheerness, and as a matter of naval policy, which had been very carefully considered, it had been decided to be entirely wrong that the Commander-in-Chief of the More should live at Sheerness while the bulk of his work connected with the growing dockyard at Chatham was many miles distant. Communication between the two places was not at all convenient, and as a result there had been an inevitable lack of supervision in some respects. In time of peace such an arrangement was bad enough, but in time of war it would be absolutely impossible. Having decided that the Commander-in-Chief should live at Chatham, the question then arose of finding a house suitable for an officer in his position. The hon. Member for Leicester was really mistaken in supposing that Chatham was a cheap neigh-bourhood.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he referred to bricks and cement.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEreminded the hon. Member that fish was always dearer at the sea-side than elsewhere, and in the same way bricks and cement might not be so cheap at the place of manufacture as in other districts. In any case, it was the fact that the cost of building was very high at Chatham. This expenditure included not only the

  135
  building, but also the site. The greatest difficulty of the Admiralty had been to get any land whatsoever at Chatham, the whole district being so extremely crowded. This particular piece of land belonged to the War Department; it was the site of one of the War Department's Stores, and naturally that accommodation would have to be reprovided. About £5,000 had been included for that purpose, so that the estimated expenditure on the house was approximately £20,000. He fully sympathised with the view that it should not be made impossible for men without large private means to occupy these positions; he had frequently taken up a similar position with regard to Army commands; but it had to be remembered that a naval officer received certain allowances which other officers did not receive, and, although he had been anxious to build a somewhat smaller house in this case, so far from receiving any assistance in that direction from the naval officers concerned, complaints had been received to the effect that the proposed residence was not large enough. The building would provide no more accommodation than was absolutely necessary for an officer in this high position, and he was afraid the Estimate could not be reduced without rendering the house unsuitable for the purpose for which it was designed.
  MR. FLYNNdid not consider the explanation of the Civil Lord at all satisfactory. Sheerness was near the mouth of the Nore, and was an ideal place for the residence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Nore. As for his work at Chatham Dockyard, the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway had not a high reputation for speed or punctuality, but it was possible to get from Sheerness to Chatham within half an hour on any day of the week. With regard to the cost of the building, Kent was the cheapest part of the country for the principal materials, and the greatest brickfields and the largest cement manufactories were in the neighbourhood of Chatham. It, was necessary that these comparatively small details of the Estimates should be examined; it was only in that way the Departments could be urged to economy. As an Irish Member he complained that while £25,000 was to be spent on the
  136
  erection of this one house at Chatham, the whole of the new works for naval purposes in Ireland amounted to less than half that sum. Another matter of which he strongly complained was the proposed expenditure of £58,600 at Wei-hai-Wei, which had been practically deserted, as valueless as a naval base. It could not be too often repeated that full-dress debates on the Estimates would not reduce expenditure; it could only be done by carefully scrutinising every item, and he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division.
  *MR. HELMEdesired to know how many square yards the site comprised, and whether the existing buildings were dilapidated or unsuited to the purposes to which they were put. He pressed upon the Committee the necessity of seeing that the conditions under which our commanders lived and carried on their work were such that these positions were open to men of moderate means. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the question of spending £25,000 for a house for the officer in question, as it was unreasonable to expect him to keep up an establishment in keeping with the same out of the salary and allowances of the post.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEpointed out that the Commander-in-Chief's house was not merely a social residence; it included a large range of offices for the staff and retinued, and that, of course, considerably increased the cost.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONregretted to say that the explanation of the Civil Lord was not by any means satisfactory. He asked the Committee to consider the question in the light of the income which the Commander-in-Chief of the Nore received. His total income would be about £3,300, yet a residence was to be provided, the equivalent rental of which would be £1,000 a year. Everybody knew that house-rent ought not to be more than the tenth of one's income. Nobody could hold this position of Commander-in-Chief, and occupy a £25,000 house, unless he possessed a substantial private income.

  137
  When they were told by the Government that the trade of the country was going to the dogs he thought it was an inopportune moment to saddle the taxpayers with this excessive expenditure for the provision of a house for the Commander-in-Chief. He asked the Government to give further consideration to the matter.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB,while fully appreciating the motives by which the last two speakers were animated, considered it necessary, in the interests of the naval service, that the head of the Navy at a particular port should have a proper residence. This was not merely a private residence; as the Civil Lord had pointed out, it included a suite of offices. The house was furnished and kept in repair by the Government. It should be remembered that the Commander-in-Chief had to take a certain position, and that when foreign officers and our own, with their wives, visited the port, hospitality had to be extended to them. It was not to the interest of the naval service that the Commander-in-Chief should be put into a pokey house. There was really no question of putting any burden on the officer who happened to occupy the position.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the case put by the Civil Lord was that the Admiralty were not purchasing any land for this building; they were knocking down a building on land belonging to the War Office. He had not told them whether the buildings were fit for the purpose to which they were put, and, of course, the buildings must be replaced on some other site. It seemed to him extraordinary to knock down buildings, which, as far as they knew, were perfectly suitable for the purpose. He asked the Civil Lord to tell them plainly whether these buildings were fit for the purpose for which they were erected, whether a site could have been obtained elsewhere, and, if so, whether it would cost more than the site which would be secured by the demolition of these buildings.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the Department searched the whole of Chatham, which was a district in which there was extreme difficulty in getting land, and
  138
  they found it impossible to get any other suitable site at any reasonable price. This particular site was a portion of the old fortifications on Chatham Lines. Formerly it was used for the purposes of a magazine, but it was no longer suitable for that. Of course they had agreed to give the War Office other accommodation in exchange for this, which was being used for the storage of bedding. On the whole he thought they had made the most economical arrangement possible.
  MR. TOULMINthought a little more regard should have been had for the feeling of the taxpayers. They were looking forward to a deficit in the next Budget, and surely this expenditure might at least have been delayed a year or two. It seemed to him that £25,000 was a lot of money to spend on providing a house for the Admiral and his staff. They did not know what the furniture would cost. He did not feel that a case had been made out for this demand, and he thought the Government would be well advised to let the scheme stand over for a year or two until the national finances were in a more satisfactory position.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESasked how many square yards the site comprised, and how many rooms the building would contain. How, too, had the staff been accommodated hitherto? Was it reasonable to provide a house worth£1,250 a year for an officer whose salary was only £3,300?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the area of the site approximated three acres. He had already dealt with the other point.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEasked how much of the building would be set apart for officers.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: At least a quarter of it.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: What is the necessity for taking three acres of land?
  MR. BROADHURSTobserved that the taking of so large a site would involve at least an annual outlay of £200 for

  139
  gardening purposes. He thought it was time to abandon the idea that the country should pay heavy sums to enable Government officials to entertain their friends and neighbours at the public cost.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It is to entertain foreigners.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid they were not always entertaining foreigners. He did not mind so much the grants made to Ambassadors abroad for the purpose, but at home there was far too much in both services of the tendency to create exclusive social circles in the neighbourhood in which Government officials were planted. There was too much extravagant entertaining of certain classes, and
  it was inimical to the best interests of the service.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had been interested in building operation8 for many years, and he should have thought it quite possible to provide a suitable house at Chatham for £15,000. It was time they protested against the expenditure of public, money unless it was absolutely necessary in these lean years. Nothing had yet been said to prove the necessity of moving the Admiral's establishment from Sheerness to Chatham.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 107; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 39.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reddy, M.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Labouchere, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cameron, Robert

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

  Crombie, John William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Murnaghan, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ure, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Broadhurst.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Mara, James

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Renwick, George

  Bigwood, James

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A(Worc

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Spear, John Ward

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stock, James Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doughty, George

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Gardner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Randles, John S.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. RUNCIMANcalled attention to sums in the Estimates in respect of new churches at Eastney and Deal. In the case of Eastney the sum asked was £8,000. The estimated total cost of the church was £11,000. The Vote now proposed in the case of Deal was £1,000, the total estimated cost of the church being £11,000. Whatever might be the necessity for church accommodation at the places named, he was sure it was not the business of the Admiralty to further endow the Established
  142
  Church. He presumed that the churches would be under the control of the Church of England. He protested against this expenditure, especially in the present year, when the Estimates were so large. He moved to reduce the Vote by £2,000 in respect of these new churches.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item F (Marine Barracks) be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the existing accommodation at Eastney was quite unfit for the purpose of Divine service, which

  143
  was attended by a preponderant number of the Marines established there. In regard to the price he did not think the estimate extravagant, though it had been increased by £1,000. That was owing to a slight miscalculation in the first place. In the case of Deal there had been a large increase in the number of men, and there was not sufficient church accommodation for them.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the hon. Gentleman had not stated whether those buildings were to be used exclusively by the Established Church, or whether grants had been given to any other denominations in those two places.
  *MR. HELMEasked how many sittings were to be provided in each, as it was important to see that the churches, while providing the accommodation required, were not so constructed architecturally as to involve needless expenditure.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked what would be done in respect of these churches, if they were to be used as Established Churches, in the event of disestablishment and disendowment. Would they come under any scheme of compensation given for that purpose? The money now proposed to be voted came out of the pockets of people of all religious denominations. He was in favour of providing ample accommodation for religious services for sailors and soldiers, but he would suggest that in future such buildings should be placed at the disposal, at certain times, of ministers of other denominations besides the Church of England, and should be called Gospel halls. Neither the Navy nor the Army consisted of men of one religious denomination.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid it seemed to him that this was rather a large question. He should like to know whether the Marines were obliged to go to church, and for how many it was proposed to provide accommodation in these churches. In London only 18 per cent, of the people went to any church at all, and it might be supposed that only 18 per cent, of the Marines would go to any church. The hon. Gentleman should remember that certainly not
  144
  more than half of the inhabitants of this country belonged to the Church of England. There were a great many Irishmen and Scotsmen in the Navy who did not belong to the Church of England, and the Admiralty had no right to spend such large sums on the Church of England, which was in no way superior to another "church. He asked whether churches would be built equally for Presbyterian; and Roman Catholics and Marines of other denominations. Assuming that they had to build a church for the Church of England, he should say that £2,000 would be an excessive amount to spend upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: What are you?] When Mr. Disraeli was asked what his religion was he said his religion was that of men of common sense, and when he was further asked what that religion was he said that sensible men did not tell other people what their religion was.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: They are all Confucians over there.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid they knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to introduce Chinese in South Africa. The next thing would be to introduce them into this country. The Government must not suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House who did not belong to the Church of England were going to vote money for the building of churches of that denomination. This sort of thing ought to be stopped. There must be religious equality if there was to be expenditure on religious matters. There must be equality between all sects. The Admiralty were acting in this matter most unfairly and imprudently.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he was sorry this question of religion had arisen. They were discussing the Navy and not the question of religion. He objected to the Vote on the ground that the people of Ireland would have to pay their contribution for these churches, though they were mostly Roman Catholics. If the Admiralty were going to provide Church of England services for the Marines, they ought to build other churches for those who did not belong to that Church. He hoped that his friends above the gangway

  145
  would allow the Committee to proceed to the discussion of more important matters.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid there was a very big principle involved in this question. He represented a constituency which was overwhelmingly Catholic in religion. Why should they be called upon to contribute a single farthing towards the erection of a church to which they did not belong? This proposal only illustrated the injustice, in his opinion, of having any established religion at all. He would be the last person in this House to say one word disrespectful of the Established Church of this country, but was it too much to ask that the people he represented should have their feeling respected in this matter? The members of the Established Church in this country included some of the wealthiest people in the land, and surely they might be expected out of their wealth to provide church accommodation for those Marines who held the same religious belief as themselves. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be possible to postpone this Vote and refer the whole question to those highly placed in the Church of England, both ecclesiastics and laymen. He was perfectly certain that there would be found sufficient independence in that Church to supply the £12,000 wanted for this building, and so obviate the necessity of coming to the House and asking Catholics and Nonconformists to vote money for a church in which they did not believe. He had not a single thought against the Church of England, but he claimed that there was a principle involved in this case; and he knew that there would be a feeling of indignation against this Vote amongst the 12,000,000 Catholics scattered throughout the Empire, and also amongst the Nonconformists.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he entirely agreed that it was a very unfortunate thing that on this Vote they should have to discuss the question of various forms of religion. He did not think that hon. Members could be aware of the fact that it had been the practice of the Admiralty
  146
  for many years past to grant financial assistance to all recognised denominations which served the religious needs of men in the naval service. He was himself engaged this moment in negotiations for the purchase of a site at Portland for a Roman Catholic Church for the men at that station; but it was practically an impossibility for the Admiralty to construct churches proportioned to the exact number of individuals belonging to the various denominations. He hoped the Committee would accept that explanation, or take a division, for it would be most unfortunate if the debate developed into a religious controversy which could serve no good purpose.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURsaid that he had heard with great satisfaction that it was the intention of the Admiralty to make no distinction whatever in the treatment of religious denominations. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty say on behalf of the Admiralty that so far as contributions towards church buildings were concerned, these should be in proportion to the number of worshippers, whether members of the Church of England, Nonconformists, or Catholics? If he was told that the Admiralty intended to treat the members of the Nonconformist bodies in exactly the same way as the members of the Church of England then his objection to this particular Vote would largely disappear.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it would be practically impossible to partition the grant available for religious purposes in exact proportion amongst the denominations, and it could not be expected. But the Admiralty did desire to apply the principle of absolute equality in every case where application was made for assistance, whether towards the church structure, or the spiritual needs of the men in the Navy or the Marines.
  MR. BLACKasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether this church was to be vested in the State, or in the hands of the Church of England? If in the latter case, the use of the church would be denied to any other denomination.

  147
  This question had arisen in India, and had caused a great deal of feeling in Scotland. He supported the Amendment, and he hoped his hon. friend would press it to the division.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was aware that small Votes had been given towards the promotion of religious services to the men who did not belong to the Church of England; but he did not think it could be shown by the Secretary to the Admiralty that so large a sum of money as £10,000 or £12,000 had been voted by the House of Commons for the building of any church except those belonging to the Church of England. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, if an application was made, a Catholic church would be built out of public money in any district where at present the accommodation was insufficient? If the hon. Gentleman did so that would be satisfactory so far as he was concerned.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESsaid that he was a Nonconformist, and the position of Nonconformists in regard to this matter had not been truly stated. They did not believe in State churches, and the vast majority of them would not accept a penny from the State for their churches. Nonconformists did not believe in State endowments, and they objected to the State giving a single penny to any religious body.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that, notwithstanding the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, all denominations had not been treated exactly alike. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that only this year, for the first time, had two large denominations, the Baptists and the Congregationalists, been allowed special ministers, and the men belonging to these denominations been permitted to go to their own churches. There was in Yorkshire a very large secondary school under the Endowed Schools Act. Recently a gentleman named Mr. Morrison built a church there, at a cost of £30,000, and though he was a member of the Church of England he stipulated that the church should
  148
  not be consecrated, but only dedicated, and the bishop of the diocese had to accept these terms. The consequence was that the bishop was unable to prohibit any Nonconformist minister from preaching in that church. Could not the Government see their way to follow that example? At any rate, when money was provided out of the State funds for a church building, it was only reasonable that it should be available for religious services among the Marines belonging to different denominations.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that this was a very serious question, and ought not to be treated with any kind of levity. There were thousands of Marines in this particular place, and these men belonged to different religious denominations, or they would not be like the rest of the community. He did not object to due provision being made for members of the Established Church; but what he wanted to know was whether, if there were no other churches for Marines who were Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, or Congregationalists within a reasonable distance, were the men compelled to attend the Established Church? [Cries of "No."] Then was it not a fact that in garrison towns there were more kinds of religious service than one in military chapels? He happened to be in one a fortnight ago, where there was a Church of England service in the morning, a Catholic service later in the day, and a Methodist service in the evening. All these classes were duly provided for on a footing of perfect equality. What he wanted to know was whether this church, for which they were asked to pay £11,000, was to be used in the way he had described, or exclusively for Church of England services? If it was to be used for all parties he should vote for the grant, but if for one party alone he would vote against it.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that the root, the foundation, of Nonconformity was that they should conduct their religious services for themselves. What he wanted to know was whether the pulpit of this church would be open, say, to a Presbyterian chaplain?
  *ME. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the policy which the Admiralty had adopted in the past had been that when claims or requests were made to them for financial assistance on account of the fact that sufficient church accommodation was not provided for the men under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, those requests were, as far as possible, met by proportionate grants out of the Admiralty fund. As far as possible equality was preserved, and the object of the Admiralty was to treat all denominations Oil a footing of equality. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Clare, he did not positively recall that in any Naval Vote in past years money had been taken for the purpose of erecting a Roman Catholic church. Quite recently, however, the Admiralty had arranged to provide a site for a Roman Catholic church at Portland, in consideration of the considerable number of Catholics in the Home Fleet. In other cases where there were small bodies of men who had received ministrations from the local Catholic priests, when applications were received for financial assistance they were met by grants from the Admiralty fund.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if the building proposed to be erected was to be used exclusively for the purposes of the Church of England?
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid this Vote was for the purpose of carrying out certain improvements at Marine barracks, and it was only fair that every one of those items should be treated on exactly the same lines. The items were for swimming-baths, reading-rooms, and churches, which he took it were intended to promote the intellectual, physical, and moral welfare of the garrison. The swimming-baths and reading-rooms were for the use of the whole garrison, and he wished to know if the churches to be built would remain the property of the Admiralty and be used for the benefit of the whole of the members of the garrison, whatever their religious opinions might be. It was not right to devote a building intended for the religious improvement of the whole garrison to any particular sect.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURasked whether Roman Catholics and Nonconformists got the same proportion as the Church of England. If not, they were not putting all the denominations on a footing of equality. If the Nonconformists and the Catholics, for instance, did not get their fair proportion of the money spent, what became of the argument-put forward by the hon. Member that all bodies were treated upon a footing of absolute equality. If the Nonconformist and Catholic sailors and Marines did not get the same proportion according to their numbers as the sailors and Marines belonging to the Church of England, he submitted that they were not putting all denominations on a footing of equality. He had always been of opinion that although the Admiralty were inclined to make reasonable provisions for the various religious denominations, he had never gathered that they had ever put Roman Catholics and Nonconformists on the same footing as the members of the Church of England.
  *MR. PRETYMANexplained that the question of capitation grants did not arise on this Vote. As, however, the hon. Member had referred to the question, he might explain that capitation grants ware given to the ministers of all de-dominations whenever ministrations were performed to the men belonging to the Fleet, and they were granted upon a footing of absolute equality. As, however, naval chaplains were borne in so many ships of the Fleet, it followed, of course, that the necessity for capitation grants was not frequent in the case of the Established Church.
  MR. WILLIAM McARTHURsaid what they were now considering was whether the same proportion of the money granted was spent upon the Catholic and Nonconformist sailors and Marines as was spent upon the sailors and Marines belonging to the Established Church.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid they had not been told whether this building when erected would be placed entirely in the hands of

  151
  the Church of England or whether it would be available for the use of all denominations. There were cases where the Church of England had accepted those conditions, and, as the Admiralty had to find the money, they could insist upon those conditions if they liked. The Church of England would accept those conditions if the Admiralty insisted upon them. He wished to know definitely whether this building would be available for all denominations or not, and he should like a definite answer to that question.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORasked if the land had already been bought for this church at Deal? If so, when the money was spent would the church remain the property of the nation or would it be handed over to somebody else? If the church was consecrated it would not belong to the nation except in the sense in which the State Church at present belonged to the nation. As a matter of business he thought they ought to have more particulars as to whether accommodation could not be found for the Marines in the existing churches at Deal. If the churches at Deal were so full that no services could be arranged during any portion of the day, he thought before this money was voted the Admiralty should satisfy the Committee that here was no available accommodation at present, and that there was real occasion for the spending of this money. The question whether the churches when built would be available for the services of all denominations was a very important one.
  MR. LOUGHthought it was a very reasonable request that those churches
  152
  should be available for all denominations. He knew that in Deal there was plenty of church and chapel accommodation for Marines of all denominations; and therefore he thought it was extravagant, in these times of depression, to vote £11,000 for a church. They could get out of this difficulty by not building a church at all, and then they would save the money. He suggested, as a compromise, that they should spend half the amount, namely £1,000 for this purpose. The £1,000 for the church at Deal was the first item, and if it was withdrawn there would be no church built. Therefore he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw this proposal to build a church at Dea1 altogether.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to press the point of economy in this matter. The proposal was to provide church buildings for about 1,000 Marines at Eastney and Deal. He felt sure sufficient provision could be made for the men near Eastney, where there were three churches already, one with accommodation for 600 sittings, another with 630 sittings, and a third with 473 sittings. He was confident that provision could be made at those churches, and, on the ground of economy, he objected to spending this £2,000. Until they were told definitely that those churches would not have these Marines, or that there was not room for them, he should be compelled to vote against this proposal purely on the ground of economy.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that Eastney was a considerable distance from Portsmouth, and it was incorrect to say that many churches were immediately at hand.

  153
  Surely for a great service like the British Navy this country could afford to provide proper accommodation for the religious services of the men at the great marine depots such as Eastney and Deal. Moreover, these churches became shrines, where the memorials of officers and men, who died in the service of their country, were put, so that they became centres of national feeling. As to the specific question which had been put, no Admiralty churches, as far as he knew, were ever consecrated. There was no question of land to be transferred; the land was in the precincts of the barracks. The question whether other denominations should be permitted to use these buildings was one worthy of consideration, and he understood it had been done in the case of the Army at Aldershot. No application had ever been received as regarded the naval service, but if applications were made by other denominations for the use of these buildings he did not think they would receive unsympathetic consideration at the hands of the Admiralty. If hon. Members interested cared to get the various denominations to make requests they would be sympathetically considered by the Admiralty authorities. He did not think anything more could be usefully said by him upon this subject, and he hoped the Committee would now come to a decision upon this point.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the hon. Gentleman had started an entirely new defence, for he had told them that these churches were intended to become the shrines where the memorials of officers and men were put. That was not the object of these buildings at all. Considering the vast amount of money they
  154
  were spending upon the Navy this year he did not think they should be called upon to spend an additional amount upon churches. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the suggestion that these two churches should be used by dissenting bodies as well as the Church of England would be considered, but they all knew what was meant when a Government Department said anything would be considered. What they wanted was a pledge from the hon. Gentleman that if these two churches were built out of public money, not only Church of England services, but the services of other religious denominations should be permitted on application. He was surprised at the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for West Islington, and he was afraid that his hon. friend's principles were weakening. He had suggested that they should vote half this money, but he objected to yielding anything upon a question of principle. They were taking this course not merely to save £1,000, but to elevate themselves upon the pinnacle of principle, and his hon. friend the Member for Islington was only prepared to go half-way up the pinnacle. He protested against the marines being obliged to go to church. It was contrary to the most elementary principles of religious equality and the right of conscience to oblige anyone, because he was a paid servant of the State, to go to a place of worship.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that as the Member representing Eastney perhaps the Committee would permit him to say a word or two. He wished to protest against any interference with the church at Eastney for the marines. They might as well take

  155
  away the chapel from Wellington Barracks as remove the church at Eastney. Any proposal of the kind would be strongly resented by the men quartered there, for it would be an outrage upon their feelings. The hon. Member for North Camberwell was quite wrong with regard to the accommodation at Eastney, and if the hon. Member would come and stay with him at Portsmouth he would take J him to church on Sunday at Eastney, and when he had been there he felt sure he would make quite a different speech.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he moved this reduction because he believed it to be an extravagant Vote, and because he objected to any public money being granted for the use of any particular denomination. The Civil Lord had told them that any applications from Nonconformist bodies would be favourably considered by the Admiralty, but they
  would remind the hon. Gentleman that that was the form used by Members of Parliament when they received resolutions from their constituencies with which they did not agree. He asked the Civil Lord whether he would give a pledge that the church at Deal would be available for the use of other denominations beside the Church of England?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he did not think he could go beyond the promise he had already made that any application from other denominations would be carefully considered at the Admiralty.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that, in the absence of a definite pledge, he must press his Motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:-Ayes, 109; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 40.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,)

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Brigg, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kean, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Elibank, Master of

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spear, John Ward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Weir, James Galloway

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Runciman and Mr. Black.

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ure, Alexander

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Purvis, Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Randles, John S.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bigwood, James

  Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Butcher, John George

  Keswick, William

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor,

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stock, James Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Walker, Col. William Hail

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Moore, William

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Forster, Henry William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Alexander Acland-Hood,

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Original Question again proposed:—
  Mr. PRETYMANrose in his place, and
  158
  claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 41.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Randles, John S.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bigwood, James

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Butcher, John George

  Keswick, William

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

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Chapman, Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stock, James Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stroyan, John

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Maxwell, W J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Moore, William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Doughty, George

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fielden; Edward Brocklehurst

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Percy, Earl

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Forster, Henry William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ambrose, Robert

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mooney, John J

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ure, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Field, William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, Samuel

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Black.

  Holme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Jones William(Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in
  Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 184: Noes, 85. (Division List No. 42.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Chapman, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannateny

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon, Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Kenneth, R.(Christch.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry, C.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bignold Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bigwood, James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gretton, John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Caldwell, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morton, Arthur, H. Aylmer

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spear, John Ward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Partington, Oswald

  Stock, James Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stroyan, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Keswick, William

  Hummer, Walter R.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N.R

  Purvis, Robert

  Tuff, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Randles, John S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Walker, Col, William Hall

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Renwick, George

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Russell, T. W.

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Malvain, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Moore, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William, (Cork, N.E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reddy, M.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Ambrose, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Black, Alexander William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Boland, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Levy, Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shipman, Dr. John C.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Murnaghan, George

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Ure, Alexander

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel

  Field, William

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hammond, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Priestley, Arthur

  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Mon-
  164
  day next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Maidenhead Bridge Bill [B.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Southend Water Bill Brought from the Commons; read 1; referred to the Examiners.
Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Lytham Tramways and Tramroad Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
2
Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

E. Verulam,

L. Oranmore and Browne.

E. Stradbroke,

L Kilmarnock (E. Erroll),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman)

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill; Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Fifty-third Report from the Church Estates Commissioners, for the year ended 1st March, 1904.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3123. Sweden (Finances, Trade etc., for the years 1902–1904).
  EDINBURGH MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART.
  Report for the year 1903, by James G. Dobbie, Esq., M.A., D.Sc., the Director.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland, for the year 1903.
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland, for the year 1903.
  Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with appendix, 1903–1904.
  Return showing the expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in Scotland in the year 1903, with statistics.
  Code of regulations for continuation classes providing further instruction for those who have left school.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (EARTHENWARE AND CHINA),
  Amended special rules for the manufacture and decoration of earthenware and china, as established in certain factories and workshops, by the awards of the arbitrator, Chester Jones, Esquire, dated 19th of March, 1902, and 18th of February, 1904. Presented (by Command and pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICT (COUNTY OF DORSET).
  Order made by the county council of the county of Dorset altering certain polling districts in the northern parliamentary division. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 19.)
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negative; and Bills to be read 3a; To-morrow.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: My Lords, this is an extremely short Bill and one which I am sure will commend itself to your Lordships' favourable consideration. It has already passed the House of Commons, and is of so simple a character that it hardly requires any explanation at my hands. The object of the Bill is to render illegal the use of the pole trap, which is a steel spring trap with teeth, generally fastened by a chain to the top of a pole in a clearing of a wood. I do not think the use of this particular trap is of the slightest value with regard to the preservation of game, and it is a kind of trap which it is most desirable should be banned permanently from use. There is only one provision in the Bill to which I personally take some slight exception, and I am authorised to say by those who in the first instance promoted this measure that they are quite willing to eliminate that provision from the Bill when it reaches the Committee stage, should your Lordships see fit to give it a Second Reading. I refer to the advisability of deleting the word "wall." It is necessary very often for farmers and others to get rid of that most pestilent animal the rat; and the only means they have in some places of catching rats is by placing traps on walls or runs over walls. Therefore, if this measure should be fortunate enough to meet with your Lordships' approval, I shall at a future stage move the omission of that word. I bag to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a;.—(The Marquess of Granby.)
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that the

5
old-fashioned pole trap with which this Bill deals is a cruel one, and one the use of which could well be abolished; but I think the Bill goes rather too far. The first clause proposes that from and after the passing of the Bill," every person who, on any pole, tree, wall, fence, or other position elevated from the ground, shall affix, place, or set any spring trap, gin, or other similar instrument calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild bird coming in contact therewith," and so on. I think that is a very large proposal, and I would suggest the omission of the words "wall, fence, or other position elevated from the ground." I think the effect of the provision as it stands would be largely to prohibit trapping altogether, and I hope, when the Bill is in Committee, the noble Marquess will consent to some further Amendment on the lines I have suggested.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I have nothing to say with regard to the principles of this Bill except that it has been under the consideration of the Home Office, and I am desired by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary to say that, as far as the Home Office is concerned, they have no objection to the Bill. Of course, if your Lordships make any Amendments in it, it is possible they may necessitate further consideration; but as at present advised the Home Office have no objection to offer to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a;, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE COLONIES AND PREFERENTIAL TRADE.
EARL BEAUCHAMProse to call attention to the references made to the self-governing Colonies at Birmingham on 15th May and at Glasgow on 6th October of last year, by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies; and to move for Papers. He said: My Lords, it will probably be to the convenience of the noble Duke the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who I suppose will answer this question on
6
behalf of His Majesty's Government, if I state at once which are the passages in the speech of Mr. Chamberlain to which I refer in this Motion. I refer more especially to the phrase which occurred in the speech at Birmingham, as to "an offer of preferential tariffs" on the part of the Colonies. I want to move for Papers which contain that offer, which will tell us where it is, what it means, and what that offer includes; and although the Motion makes some reference to a speech which was subsequently delivered at Glasgow, I do not wish to refer to that except in so far as occasional references serve to illustrate the meaning of the original phrase. At the time when that speech was made Mr. Chamberlain was a leading member of His Majesty's Government, and according to the theory of Cabinet responsibility, Ministers, as I understand it, are responsible for the phrases which he used on that occasion. On the subsequent occasion to which I have already referred — namely, at Glasgow, Mr. Chamberlain went somewhat further than the phrase which I have quoted. He said—
"The Colonies are prepared to meet us. In return for a very modest preference they will give us a substantial advantage."
I think it was on the opening night of the session that the noble Marquess the Leader of this House declared that he was not in favour of banning the principle of a colonial preference or preferential tariff. I should be glad if he would take some opportunity of explaining to the country what kind of preferential tariff he means; whether he means a one-sided preference, or whether he will include in it that schedule of forbidden industries to which Mr. Chamberlain made reference at Glasgow. I think that schedule has been laughed out of court in the Colonies. I will quote what the Premier of Canada said at Montreal last autumn—
"If we are to obtain concessions from Great Britain by a surrender of our political rights, I would say 'go no further'. Even for the maintenance of the British Empire it would be a most evil thing if any of the Colonies were to consent to surrender any of their legislative independence."
We have, therefore, in the words of one of our leading colonial statesmen, his opinion of the schedule of forbidden

7
industries. I imagine that the noble Duke opposite may tell me that in the Blue-book containing an account of the Colonial Premiers' Conference in 1902 is to be found the offer from the Colonies. In referring to that Blue-book, your Lordships will, perhaps, allow me to pay a tribute to a relation of my own to whom was due the first idea of the assembly of the Colonial Premiers of this Empire. It was my uncle, Mr. Edward Stanhope, at that time Secretary of State for the Colonies, who wrote with his own hand the invitation to the Colonial Premiers, and though it fell to the noble Lord, Viscount Knutsford, to receive the Premiers in 1887, I am glad to have had this opportunity of recalling to your Lordships to whom was due the first idea of a Conference. On turning to page I in the Blue-book your Lordships will see that the introductory note states that—
"The various Governments were also invited to furnish a statement of any subjects which they thought might usefully be discussed, and, with a view to facilitate and give a definite direction to the discussion, to furnish the text of any resolutions which they might desire to submit to the Conference."
On reference to page VII we find that the commercial relations of the Empire were submitted for discussion at this Colonial Conference, not by any representative of the Colonies, but by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and although it is true that there follows a Motion from the Government of New Zealand on the subject of preferential tariffs, the concluding words of their Motion are—
"And that in the mother country rebate of duty on colonial products now taxable should be conceded."
We have, therefore, from New Zealand nothing in the nature of an offer, but merely the suggestion of a bargain, which is a very different thing indeed; and it is not from New Zealand that any hint of the kind comes, because it was the Secretary of State for the Colonies who put down the subject for discussion. Still more important really than the attitude of the Colonial Premiers at that Conference, is the attitude of the Colonial Parliaments since Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Birmingham. There are, I think, twenty-one Parliaments in the British Empire, but, with the single
8
exception of Manitoba, not one of them has passed a resolution in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme. That silence in eloquent of the feelings they entertain is the matter.
We see this morning, in the speech which was made by Lord Northcote in opening the Commonwealth Parliament, a reference to this subject, but we may say of that, as we may also say of the invitation which has been extended to the ex-Colonial Secretary, that it was not made on behalf of a united nation, but was a message sent by a political leader who had not met with any particular success at the polls, and who was anxious, if he could, to get the services of a star lecturer who would be willing to go round the Colonies and induce the people to vote for Mr. Deakin himself. I may remind noble Lords opposite that a large number, if not the whole, of the party under Mr. Reid are opposed to the system of preferential tariffs. In the last session of Parliament Mr. Reid pressed the Australian Premiers with regard to the very phrase which is the text on which I am hanging my own speech, the "offer of a preferential tariff," and Mr. Deakin said—
"The Leader of the Opposition doubts the application of the word 'offer' to the resolution at the Colonial Conference, and therefore I tell the hon. Member frankly that I know of nothing that can be so construed."
We have, therefore, from Australia a direct refusal on the part of the Premier to regard what passed as being in any sense an offer. I am able to quote an eloquent extract from a speech by a follower of Mr. Reid, who, in his absence, acts as Leader of the Opposition. I refer to Sir William McMillan, and the extract from his speech may, I think, be compared to Mr. Seddon's immortal phrase that—
"The open door is the open hell to the British Empire."
Sir William McMillan said—
"The whole thing was preposterous nonsense. Further, was Australia going to make enemies of those countries where her future trade lay? It was a mistake, it was un-Christian, it was not an advance of British civilisation, but a decadent thing."
He was followed by Mr. Reid, who spoke of the open-door policy, as apart

9
from the preferential tariff policy advocated by Mr. Chamberlain, as being—
"absolutely essential to the security of the whole Empire."
Not even the last Premier of the Australian Commonwealth has ever said anything which could possibly be construed as an offer from Australia. In 1902, Sir B. Barton made one or two speeches at Montreal and Toronto on his way back to Australia; and, while he said that Australia would not be likely to reduce her tariff in favour of British goods, he admitted it was possible they might raise it against the foreigner. If the tariff wall against us is already high, it will be difficult for us to take much advantage if it is raised still higher against the foreigner. That, I think, is sufficiently obvious, at any rate to the manufacturers in this country. I should like to quote to your Lordships the figures of Australian trade, which go to show what advantage a preferential tariff would be likely to be to British trade in the Commonwealth. The Australian import trade at this moment is of the value of £25,500,000, of which foreign countries import £7,000,000. Of this £7,000,000, £3,000,000 is made up of sugar, oil, and other products which are not to be found within the British possessions. There remain non-British patented articles and "specialities" from various foreign countries, which come to another £3,000,000. The balance which is offered to us as the result is, therefore, no more than £1,000,000, and that, I imagine, we should be able to capture with a little more energy on the part of our manufacturers.
I hope your Lordships will allow me to turn for a moment to the Colony of New South Wales, of which I had the honour to be Governor for some years. I do not know a stronger argument in favour of the free-trade policy than is to be supplied by the increase of the imports, exports, and the general trade of New South Wales and Victoria. Your Lordships know that these two colonies are coterminous, that the climate is very similar, that the agricultural industry is the chief industry in both, that with the exception, perhaps, of the fact that New South Wales is far larger and that it has a large drought-stricken area, the two colonies are almost exactly alike. The
10
difference between them is that while New South Wales is a free-trade colony, Victoria is a protectionist colony; and there is the most remarkable difference in the trade of these colonies between 1890 and 1900. During those ten years the imports of the free-trade colony increased no less than 22 per cent.; while in the same period, under the same circumstances, the imports of the protectionist colony decreased 27 per cent. The exports of the free-trade colony increased during the same period 27 per cent., while the exports of the protectionist colony decreased 11 per cent. But the most remarkable figures of all are these, that during the same period the revenue of the free-trade colony increased 147 per cent., while the revenue of the protectionist colony decreased 3 per cent. If I were willing to worry your Lordships I could bring figures quite as remarkable bearing upon the immigration statistics of those two colonies.
Having mentioned Australia, I wish to refer now to another great colony—to Canada. I think there are a good many misconceptions abroad with regard to Canada. There is a purple patch which adorns the perorations of noble Lords on the opposite Benches with regard to the treatment which Germany has meted out to Canada. On 28th May, in another place, Mr. Chamberlain said—
"Germany alone has penalised Canada to the extent of a very large additional duty. Canada gave us this preference five years ago, and for five years she has been penalised. We have been bearing hot resentment in our bosoms."
Perhaps a lotion of cold fact may do something to relieve the hot resentment of which the ex-Colonial Secretary spoke. The facts are these, that until 1897 Great Britain enjoyed the most-favoured-nation treatment from Germany. At the same time Canada enjoyed an equal advantage. In 1897 it occurred to Canada that she would like to have a preferential tariff with our own country, and accordingly, in 1898, when notice had been given, the preferential treatment of Canada ceased, and Canada was put upon the normal tariff of Germany. Germany has two tariffs, one which is accorded to nations which do not discriminate against that country, and the normal tariff, upon which

11
Canada came, for nations which had discriminated against Germany. In those circumstances it seems to me that the action of Germany was a perfectly commonplace business transaction, and the result of it has not been to penalise Canada to any great extent. In the year 1897 the exports of Canada to the United Kingdom were £15,900,000 in value, in 1901 they had gone up to £21,600,000. While the exports to the United Kingdom had gone up 35 per cent., we find that the exports to Germany, in spite of the fact that Germany had penalised Canada to an extent which created hot resentment in the bosom of Mr. Chamberlain, went up no less than 109 per cent.
What is the object with which foreign countries, or, indeed, our own colonies, put on tariffs? It is surely not so much with a view to protecting their own manufacturer against the foreign manufacturer as it is to protect him against whatever quarter he may find opposition strongest; and therefore it comes about that as a matter of fact these tariffs are directed rather against the British manufacturer than against the manufacturer of foreign countries. The policy of Canada is well expressed in a resolution which was passed by the Manufacturers' Association in Toronto in September, 1903. This was their resolution—
"That the changed conditions which now obtain in Canada demand the immediate and thorough revision of the tariff upon lines which will more effectually transfer to our workshops the manufacture of many of our goods which we now import from other countries. That while such a tariff should be primarily framed for Canadian interests, it should nevertheless give a substantial preference to the mother country. … recognising always that under any condition the minimum tariff must afford adequate protection to all Canadian producers."
I think it was at the same time that Mr. Drummond, the president of the Association, said, in the course of a speech, that—
"Canada must necessarily provide under all conditions that the minimum tariff should afford fair protection to Canadian producers."
That is the policy of Canada. Let me now turn to the results of that policy. The noble Duke will find, on page 84 of the Blue-book, some startling figures which bear upon this. It is there stated that—
"The total annual imports into Canada have grown roughly by £14,500,000 in the five years
12
1896–97 to 1900–01. Of this total growth £6,250,000 are accounted for by goods still subject to the general tariff (i.e. goods from countries not entitled to preferential treatment, or of a class excluded from the benefit of that tariff), and £6,250,000 by free goods; while goods admitted under the preferential tariff have grown by £2,000,000 sterling."
And, again, in the following paragraph appear these figures—
"Nor are the conclusions altered if we consider the rate rather than the total of increase. Thus, imports of all kinds have increased by over 62 per cent., in value, 'general tariff' goods by about 62 per cent., free goods 67 per cent., and 'preferential tariff' goods under 55 per cent."
There, again, goods coming in under the preferential tariff have not increased to the same extent as the goods coming in under the normal tariff of Canada. I would next refer the noble Duke to paragraph 11 on the same page, in which it is stated that—
"The result (of these figures) is to show that the continuous decrease which has been taking place in recent years in the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into Canada has not been arrested by the operation of the tariff."
It is interesting to turn to the actual figures. The imports into Canada from the United Kingdom under the preferential tariff have increased under 70 per cent., but the goods from the United States, which are not under a preferential tariff, have increased over 100 per cent; so that, in spite of the preferential tariff, the goods from this country have not increased at anything like the same rate as the goods from the United States. The reason for that is quite obvious. It will be found on page 85 of the Blue-book—
"Although, therefore, British goods enjoy a preference compared with the same goods imported from other countries, the average ad valorem rate of duty on British imports taken as a whole is still higher than the average duty levied on all imports, and much higher than the average duty levied on imports from the United States."
So it comes about that, while goods sent from this country into Canada are subject to an ad va'orem duty of 18 per cent., goods from the United States only have to pay 12 per cent., and imports from all the rest of the world pay a total of only 16 per cent. Therefore, in spite of this so-called preferential tariff, British goods are, all the same, penalised when they are I sent into Canada. The unfortunate thing

13
is that we can hardly turn to any figures of British trade with Canada without finding the same result. I will content myself with giving your Lordships one more instance, namely, the imports of Canada. I take the average of five years from 1893 to 1897, and compare that with the figures of the imports into Canada in 1901. These are the increases. The increase of Belgian imports is 421 per cent., the increase of French imports 102 per cent, the increase of imports from the United States 93 per I ct nt., the increase of German imports 31 per cent., while the increase in the imports from the United Kingdom, under a preferential duty, is only 23 per cent. That, my Lords, is, I think, eloquent of the value of preferential treatment to our British manufacturers.
I wish to refer to the evolution of the resolution which is frequently referred to in these discussions as being the offer from Canada. It appears on page 10 of the Blue-book. There is there set out the preferential treatment of British goods which the representatives of the Colonies are prepared to recommend to their respective Parliaments; but when we turn from page 10, where this appears boldly and without comment, to page 35, we find that this is only what the Board of Trade "understood" to be the Canadian offer; and on page 37 we find that that offer was subject to this drawback, that they would only make it on condition that the Imperial Government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and—
"Particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed."
Therefore I hope the noble Duke will not fall into the error of looking upon that resolution as being an offer, since it is, after all, nothing more than a bargain proposed by Canada in this matter.
I now come to a colony which has attained especial importance because it was referred to in the course of His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne—the Colony of New Zealand. This colony has lately passed a Preferential Trade Act, but it was not passed unanimously. The Third Reading took no less than twenty-five hours; and the
14
principal feature of the Act is that there is not very much preferential tariff about it. It provides, not that there shall be any reduction in respect of British goods going into New Zealand, but that there shall be a surtax on foreign goods going in; and it has been calculated by speakers in the New Zealand House of Assembly that, while British manufacturers may possibly succeed in capturing the profits on £500,000 worth of manufactured goods, New Zealand stands to gain no less than £725,000 in hard cash. But there is another part of this famous Act, to which I would call attention—the part which refers to reciprocal trade with foreign countries. Under that Mr. Seddon took power for the Government to abolish all duties on goods which come from countries "not being part of the British dominions." Therefore, under this Act which has been mentioned as being so patriotic, we find that British goods cannot possibly receive that advantage which is offered to foreign countries, for the words are explicit—"not being part of the British dominions." I think we are entitled to ask His Majesty's Government if that is the kind of preferential tariff which they are prepared to recommend this country to accept.
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with regard to South Africa at any length. In South Africa, as in New Zealand, the principle has not been accepted unanimously. Before he went to the Bloemfontein Conference, Sir Gordon Sprigg told the House of Assembly that he could give the House an assurance that the question of preferential tariff would not be an article of the Convention; and when it came on for discussion in the Cape Assembly it was only carried by the casting vote of the Speaker. It is noticeable that for the first time in the British Empire, the Crown Colonies have adopted the system of protection, and that has only been done under the overwhelming influence of the representatives of the Crown Colonies at the Bloemfontein Conference.
There are two or three other matters to which I wish to refer. One is with regard to the Colony of Manitoba, the only colony whose Parliament has passed a

15
resolution in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme. That colony chiefly sends to this country wheat, which, under the Glasgow scheme, is to receive an advantage of 5 per cent. No wonder, therefore, that Manitoba accepts that joyfully. But quite near to Manitoba is another province, which chiefly imports lumber to this country. Under the Glasgow scheme the lumber from Ontario is to have a duty placed upon it of 10 per cent., and, therefore, while Manitoba is to gain an advantage of 5 per cent., the neighbouring colony is to be penalised to the extent of 10 per cent. I know His Majesty's Government have dissociated themselves from Mr. Chamberlain's policy, but that seems to me so remarkable a feature in a scheme which is by way of benefiting our colonies that I venture to hope noble Lords opposite will be able to give us some explanation regarding it. One matter which ought properly to be considered is the question of how these colonies propose to make up the deficit which will arise if a real preferential duty is given to this country. It is impossible for them to approximate their fiscal system to the fiscal system of the mother country, and therefore it is a most serious matter for consideration from what source they will be able to draw enough funds to make up the deficit.
With regard to the Australian Commonwealth, Section 99 of the Commonwealth Act contains a provision that—
"The Commonwealth shall not by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof."
Imagine that we impose a duty against, say, bananas, which come from other parts of the world. Queensland would then gain the advantage of that duty on the bananas which they send to this country; but the people of Western Australia, who do not produce bananas, may object to this advantage to Queensland. Any individual in Australia is able to bring the matter before the Federal High Court, and if that Court decided that this is—as undoubtedly it would be—a preference giving an advantage to one State or a part thereof, over another State, the Federal Government would find itself
16
obliged to protest to this country on the subject.
I hope the noble Duke will be able to give us some enlightenment on these three special points. I do not think they have attracted the attention they deserve. It seems to me that, in common with many other parts of this scheme, they have been thrust upon the country without due consideration, and they are the more dangerous in consequence. There are many in this country who think that a policy of preferential tariffs, in the present position of the world's commerce, would be a dangerous policy; thrice dangerous would it be if we were to thrust it upon the Colonies against their wish or inclination. I myself had the good fortune to see the enthusiasm and loyalty of the Colonies at the time when the South African War broke out. The movement was not one which was forced upon Australia from above; it was not led by Press or by Parliament; it had its origin in the heart of the people, and it was the people themselves who swept away all the opposition to it. I think, indeed, it would be dangerous to this country if we were to try to substitute the brittle ties of gold and of interest for the ties of enthusiasm, loyalty, and love which at present do bind the Colonies to the mother country.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to offers said to have been made by the self-governing Colonies for mutual trade relations with the United Kingdom. (The Earl Beauchamp.)
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I have listened with great care and attention to all that has been said by the noble Earl opposite, and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not absolutely reply to many of those Questions which he has put to me. They were of a variety and character complicated in themselves, and when combined together are almost beyond the capacity of an Under-Secretary to deal with in the short time that I shall venture to address your Lordships this evening. I gather from the remarks of the noble Earl that his chief desire is to have an explanation of the late Colonial

17
Secretary's speech at Birmingham in May last. I understood that the noble Earl did not desire any explanation of any portion of the speech delivered by Mr. Chamberlain in Glasgow in October. He confined himself to the speech delivered in May, and I think the particular passage of which he desires an explanation is the passage in which the late Colonial Secretary says that the Canadian Ministers, when they were over here, made a definite offer.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The phrase which I quoted in my speech referred to the whole of the Colonies, and not only to Canada. There was a reference to an "offer from the Colonies."
*THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I would ask the noble Earl to refer to the Blue-book for a moment. On page 36 there is the resolution of the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Colonies, in which appear these words—
"That with a view, however, to promoting the increase of trade within the Empire, it is desirable that those colonies which have not already adopted such a policy" (i.e., a preferential policy) "should, as far as their circumstances permit, give substantial preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom."
We believe that that resolution expresses the opinions and desires of the self-governing Colonies to come into closer commercial relations with the mother country. The Canadian Ministers went a step further. As the noble Earl has pointed out, there is a Memorandum in the Blue-book by those Ministers, in which the following passage occurs—
"From the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian Ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom from the duties recently imposed. Representations to this effect previously made through the High Commissioner for Canada, were supplemented by the Ministers both in writing and in the personal interviews with the Imperial Ministers."
Those representations were necessarily of a semi-official nature, and are not shown in the Blue-book presented to Parliament, but I think that that passage is sufficient justification for the contention of the late Colonial Secretary, when he said that the Colonies had made a further definite
18
offer. I could not quite gather what the view of the noble Earl was upon the Colonial Conference, but I am afraid that his view and mine somewhat differ. The Colonies in general have not made us a definite offer in the sense that they will give us something if we give them something in return, excepting the case of Canada; but they have in a practical manner invited us to enter into reciprocal relations by giving us, as a token and pledge of their goodwill and desire in this matter, preferential treatment which is neither inconsiderable nor by any means valueless. The noble Earl had a great deal to say with regard to the Dominion of Canada, and I think he quoted a passage from a speech by the present Prime Minister in which he disclaimed the great desire for closer commercial relations. I am not aware of that passage—it may exist—but let us examine for one moment the views and the wishes of the Canadian people with regard to this matter as far as we are able to ascertain them. So far back as 1891 the Canadian Parliament unanimously passed an address asking the Imperial Government to renounce the Belgian and the German treaties on the ground that these treaties prevented preferential trade arrangements between the various parts of the Empire. Then, again, in 1892 a resolution was I passed in the Canadian Parliament expressing the desire that preferential tariffs should be granted to the mother country; and in 1897 we find that the Canadian Parliament, with the approval of both sides of the House, brought in a Bill granting Great Britain a preferential treatment of 25 per cent., in the first instance, which was subsequently raised to 33 per cent. In addition to that we have the expression of opinion of the Canadian Ministers themselves at the Colonial Conference in 1902, and I am informed that at the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce held last year in Montreal the delegates I were unanimous in their desire to come into closer commercial relationship with the mother country. Finally, there have been many resolutions passed in Canada, by the Canadian Mining Association, by the Boards of Trade of Toronto, of Montreal, of London and St. John, and many other important cities in Canada,

19
all advocating a closer commercial union with Great Britain. I think the noble Earl quoted opposite expressions of opinion. That may be so, but I think that the instances which I have ventured to bring before the notice of your Lord-ships are sufficient justification of the statement that there is a distinct desire on the part of the Canadian people to come into as close commercial relationship as possible with us, compatible with the interests of their own country.
I pass from these considerations for a moment to examine the practical result of the preference which Canada has given to us. I understood from the noble Earl's speech that he thought the preference was of no considerable importance or value. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with figures, but I cannot help referring, on that point, to the trade relations between England and Canada, and between Germany and Canada for the last ten years. The statistics show that Germany exported to Canada, in 1886, £440,000 worth of material, and 1897, the year of the preference, it had increased to £838,000. Now, in 1886, Great Britain exported to Canada £8,000,000 worth of material, and in 1897 this had sunk to £5,000,000 worth; that is to say, before the reduction in the tariff took place our trade with Canada was decreasing, whilst Germany's trade was increasing. Let us see what the figures have been since the preference has been granted. Germany's export trade to Canada had increased in 1902 to £1,900,000. That is a distinct rise; but to what extent has our trade risen? Whereas in 1897 our trade stood at £5,000,000, last year it has risen to no less than £11,000,000. Subsequent to the reduction of the tariff, therefore, Germany's trade and ours increased, but the trade between this country and Canada increased at a greater rate than that between Germany and Canada.
I should like to turn from Canada to the consideration of South Africa, and the result of the South African Customs Union upon trade in this country. As your Lordships are aware, the South African Customs Union has granted a preferential treatment on articles grown, produced, and manufactured in Great Britain. The preference does not include British possessions, but is exclusively
20
for Great Britain. The noble Earl seemed to think that these preferences were of little value, but I hope I shall be able to prove that in the case of the South African Customs Union the preference has been of distinct advantage to this country. South Africa gives a preference of 25 per cent, to goods exported from Great Britain; that is to say, when the foreigner pays 10 per cent, to get goods admitted, we pay 7½ per cent., and goods, in respect of which the foreigner has to pay 2½ per cent., go in from this country free; and under that particular schedule all machinery goes into South Africa free of import duty. What is the effect of this tariff on our trade? It is perhaps somewhat early to judge, but I will take as an illustration the year 1902. The total trade of South Africa in that year was worth £49,750,000, of which £30,000,000 was trade between Great Britain and South Africa, and £8,750,000 trade between British possessions and South Africa. Therefore three-fifths of the total trade of South Africa is between Great Britain and that country. It is estimated that the value of the articles from Great Britain which would be favourably affected as the result of the tariff regulation is £17,000,000; so that more than half of our trade will be favourably affected by the operation of the tariff, and the volume of trade between South Africa and Great Britain will in consequence be augmented.
I pass from the consideration o^ South Africa to dwell for a moment on the new tariff regulations in New Zealand. The noble Earl suggested that the New Zealand Preferential and Reciprocal Trade Act is in the nature of a bargain, and he doubted very much whether we should benefit at all from this tariff. I do not think that his anticipations will prove to be correct. Under the first schedule of this Act foreign goods pay double the ordinary duty; under the second schedule they pay the ordinary duty plus a half; and under the third schedule the foreigner pays twenty per cent, when our goods go in free. The total imports into New Zealand in 1902 amounted to £11,000,000, of which £6,750,000 were from Great Britain. Our total trade with New Zealand amounts to nearly £7,000,000, and as it is

21
calculated that£l,500,000ofthattrade will be favourably affected by the operation of, the new Tariff Act, it follows that something less than a quarter of our total trade with New Zealand will receive benefit under that measure. The third schedule, as I have said, admits British goods free when the foreigner has to pay 25 per cent. It is estimated that in 1902, under this schedule, no less than £350,000 worth of British goods would have gone into New Zealand free. I have been told further, by an authority who is not often wrong in these matters, that, whereas before this Act was brought into operation there was only one fleet of steamers running between London and New Zealand, already, as a result of this Act, a fresh line of steamers has been started from Glasgow to New Zealand in anticipation of an increased volume of trade.
Then the noble Earl went on to discuss Australia. He was inclined to think that Australians were to a large extent opposed to any closer commercial union with this country. The noble Earl is perfectly entitled to his own view, and as he has resided in Australia for several years in a most distinguished capacity, he is in a position to gauge fairly accurately the opinion of the Australian people on this matter. But I would remind him that the present Ministry have expressed their desire to deal with this question, and that they are anxious to offer some system of preference to this country. It is true that the Opposition are opposed to a reduction of the tariff with a view to granting this country any preference. We have an indication of the view of Australia at the present time from what the Governor-General said in his remarks yesterday in opening the Commonwealth Parliament. Lord Northcote said —
"His advisers had been pleased to note the cordiality with which the proposals for a preferential tariff were regarded in Australia. He was confident that this feeling would be strengthened when their author, Mr. Chamberlain, was able to visit Australia."
The noble Earl quoted the statements of distinguished citizens in Australia in support of his view. I would like, since he has done so, to quote the remarks of the present Prime Minister, Mr. Deakin.
22
Speaking at Melbourne on 30th October, Mr. Deakin said—
"A protectionist tariff is essential for Australia, but nothing in that fact is antagonistic to closer trade relations."
And on 24th December, after the elections had taken place, he said that—
"He observed that the statements of the anti-Chamberlain Press were either their own Party interpretations of the results, or were due to the biassed opinions telegraphed from Australia. It was, for example, entirely erroneous for one London paper to say that it was dead against Mr. Chamberlain's policy. That policy was supported by the whole Ministerial party and by an influential minority of the Opposition."
That is the view of the Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth. I do not wish to press the point. I am perfectly prepared to admit that there is a distinct difference of opinion in Australia, but I do not think the noble Earl is justified in claiming that the opinions of the Australian people is entirely on his side and entirely opposed to a closer commercial union.
I have tried to confine myself to a simple, plain statement of the case. I hope that nobody will draw any wrong conclusions or inferences from what I have ventured to say. Some noble Lords might be tempted to draw this inference, that, as I have tried to point out the value to this country of the preference that our colonies have granted us, therefore I am urging to-night the policy known as Imperial preference. Nothing is further from my intention. My desire has simply been to show that the late Colonial Secretary, when he spoke in Birmingham in May last, was perfectly correct in stating that the Colonies wished to come into closer commercial relations with us, and that Canada had, under certain conditions, made a further definite offer to us. When we consider the terms of the resolution passed at this Conference, the fact that these resolutions have been put into practical and concrete form by three of the self-governing colonies themselves, that the advantages to our trade in consequence can be absolutely ascertained by reference to facts and figures, I am somewhat bewildered by the noble Earl's saying that, because only one of the colonial Parliaments has passed a resolution in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, therefore the Colonies are not in

23
favour of coming into closer commercial relations with this country, as far as is compatible with their prosperity. I submit, although I cannot attempt to prove it this evening, that there is something more in the narrative of the Colonial Conference than a bald recital of it may convey. The spirit of the British Empire is not to be gauged by the guarded utterances of statesmen who know how jealously and carefully their words are scrutinised and examined by those they represent; nor can it be estimated by the somewhat sordid process of trying to add up the profit and loss account of trade re-adjustment. I think the problem lies deeper than this. We might as well assert that the armies which are sent from this country can be calculated by the Estimates which the War Office make, or measure the value of the Victoria Cross by calculating the cost of a piece of bronze of a similar size and shape. To assert that the minimum perceptible is the limit of the inter-active influence between ourselves and our colonial kinsmen is likely to lead us into estimates which are untrue and conclusions which are totally inaccurate. There is more in the narrative in this Blue-book than a mere cursory glance would lead one to suppose. How much more, I desire not to dwell upon this evening; but the narrative, stated simply, plainly, almost baldly, suggests conclusions to which I think your Lordships are not wholly indifferent or wholly insensible.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, one or two remarks are suggested by the speech of the noble Duke to which we have listened with so much interest. I do not at all quarrel with the metaphors with which the noble Duke's peroration was adorned, and I will say at once, and frankly, that I very much prefer the analogy he has drawn from the British Army to that which was drawn in another place with regard to Chinese labour by the Secretary of State for India. But, after all, that is only a matter of temperament and taste. What is really the point which is brought to my mind by the noble Duke's speech is one that has been most prominently before me throughout the whole of the present session of Parliament. There is something which lends a flavour of unreality to our debates, and it
24
is this—that, while we have excellent representatives of the Government in this House, and excellent representatives of the Opposition, what we really require and have not got is a representatives of Mr. Chamberlain. I am not at all sure that Lord Cadogan in the recent debate-in this House on the fiscal question did not to some extent make a bid for that position; but he is unfortunately absent, and we, therefore, are reduced to discussing with great unreality in this House the policy in which the country is really interested, and which overlays and screens whatever may be the policy of the Government themselves.
I did hope, for I have been engaged ever since the speech of 15th May, in endeavouring to discover where the offer of the Colonies was to be found, that I might have heard something to verify and substantiate that offer from the noble Duke to-night. He was for a short time Under-Secretary to Mr. Chamberlain, and I could not help believing that at last we might be in sight of the secret which has eluded us so long; that possibly in some sequestered corner of the Colonial Office there might be lurking some precious fragments of this austerely guarded secret; and we should at last be face to face with what you must remember is the cardinal spirit, origin, and base of the whole of this policy—the offer which was made to us by the Colonies, which it would be criminal and dangerous for us to neglect. In the speech of the noble Duke, admirable as I thought it from several points of view, he was reduced to the same shifts as his great ex-chief in attempting to explain this mystic phrase. He brought us back once more to the resolution of the Colonial Premiers at the Colonial Conference, but no amount of dialectic and no efforts of eloquence will make out of that resolution anything but a pious opinion of the Colonial Prime Ministers—a pious, patriotic, and Imperial opinion, if you will, but in no sense an opinion that can be described as an offer which it would be criminal and dangerous to neglect.
I am not going through the various details of tariff, but the noble Duke brought forward figures to prove that the Canadian preference had been a great success. I have a great regard for the

25
noble Duke's opinion, more especially as he Represents the Colonial Office in this matter; but I still think that the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain carries more weight on that subject than the noble Duke's, and I will read a sentence of what Mr. Chamberlain said at the Colonial Conference—
"I have to say to you that while I cannot but gratefully acknowledge the intention of this proposal and its sentimental value as a proof of goodwill and affection, yet its substantial results have been altogether disappointing to us, and I think they must have been equally disappointing to its promoters."
Then, in the following paragraph, Mr. Chamberlain goes chapter and verse through the various figures relating to that proposal to show how it has been so disappointing. I am glad that a more sanguine spirit has animated the Colonial Office since Mr. Chamberlain left it, but I cannot take that as a positive opinion counterbalancing the authoritative statement of Mr. Chamberlain. The noble Duke states again that the Australian Government are extremely favourable to the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain; and he quoted a passage which says that the Australian Ministers hope that when Mr. Chamberlain shall visit the Colonies, and stump them on their behalf, he will produce a state of opinion still more favourable to colonial preference than that which now exists. I have great faith in the magic of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence, and what it may effect in Australia I do not I know. But I would point out that the opinion of the Australian Prime Minister would be of more value if he had not just gone through a general election, or if, having gone through that general election, he had returned with a majority at his back. That election has been fought since the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain were before the country. It took place in the autumn, and Mr. Chamberlain's proposals were thundered into the ears of the Australian public by the Ministers who thought they gave to them a chance of a majority. But they have come back not with a majority, but with less than a third of the Commons House in the Commonwealth Legislature. Therefore, whatever may be the opinion of Mr. Deakin and his colleagues as to the advisability of Imperial preference, it
26
cannot be said to carry the authority of the Australian people behind it. The noble Duke concluded by showing a sagacity beyond his years when he said that he wished to guard himself against being supposed to follow the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. I wish that all His Majesty's Ministers were equally discreet.
I wish to guard myself against being supposed in any way to disparage the efforts and good wishes and good intentions of the Colonies in regard to this question of preferential tariffs. We have all freely acknowledged what has been done by Canada. We freely acknowledge what has been recently done in South Africa. We have hopes of Australia, and we hope that what has been done in New Zealand will be fruitful. But I should be curious to learn whether the noble Duke would care to take shares in the new line of steamers between Glasgow and New Zealand to which he referred. We have all felt sensible of these efforts. But is that a reason for dislocating our whole fiscal system in order to meet these preferences in the Colonies? My contention is this, and it is supported by the language of the Canadian Prime Minister. The Canadian preference was given, not as a matter of bargain—the Canadian Prime Minister was very explicit as to that—but as a matter of favour and good will and loyalty and affection to the mother country. However fruitful these preferences may be—even if they realise all the golden dreams of the noble Duke and disappoint the more gloomy forebodings of the late Colonial Secretary—they are no more than a sign of the Imperial loyalty which is due from and is given by the Colonies to the mother country, and which in no respect counterbalances the contribution of the mother country to the Colonies, given equally with freedom and with generosity, in bearing the whole burden of the naval, military, and diplomatic services. Whatever the Colonies give in this respect is no more than counterbalancing, or is less than counterbalancing, the mother country's contribution to those services. I believe it is so regarded by the Colonies themselves; and I am certain that, in the opinion of the wisest statesmen among them, it would be considered a

27
calamity if these preferences were adduced as a reason for the people of Great Britain abandoning the path on which they have been long embarked—of what we call free trade, though I am told that that is a misnomer—for abandoning the path on which this country has prospered, unless it were for reasons particular to these islands; and because it was thought that their prosperity could be better advanced under another system.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Earl expressed regret that there was not in this House any representative of Mr. Chamberlain to express his views. I join with the noble Earl in that regret. Although I am not here to give expression to the views which Mr. Chamberlain holds, and which he has put before the country, I may perhaps be allowed to take part in this discussion, inasmuch as I had the honour and the advantage of being associated with Mr. Chamberlain at the Colonial Office at the time when the Colonial Conference of 1902 took place. In the first place, let me say that it was not at that Conference that the question of preferential trade was first brought forward. A Conference was held in 1900, and the "pious opinion," as the noble Earl calls it, was then expressed that preferential trade between the Colonies and the mother country would tend to bind the Empire more closely together. Since that time the Colonies have developed the preferences which they now grant to the mother country, and it was in 1901 and 1902 that the question of inviting the mother country to give reciprocal preferences to the Colonies was brought forward actively by the representatives of the Colonies.
Your Lordships will remember that an import duty was placed upon wheat here; and although there is not in the archives of the Colonial Office the record which the noble Earl hoped my noble friend the Under-Secretary might produce, I know, as a matter of fact, that the high Commissioner of Canada, Lord Strathcona, was at that time incessant in his pressure upon the Home Government that they should give
28
some preference to Canada, and in this assurance Canada would be willing to increase her preference in return. I can not for the life of me understand how noble Lords opposite have got it into their heads that the Colonies have never asked for a preference from the mother country and have never offered any advantages to the mother country in return. The fact is patent in the proceedings of the Conference which took place before 1902, and is a matter of common knowledge in the Colonies. I do not want to dwell upon that any further, except to say that to my mind it is as plain and as clear as daylight.
The noble Earl has made a great deal of the speech of Mr. Chamberlain at the Colonial Conference, in which he pointed out the small effect that the preference granted by Canada had had upon the trade between the two countries. Mr. Chamberlain, at that time, was very anxious to obtain from the Colonies some sort of undertaking, not only for a preference, but that they would adopt as a policy the ideal of free trade within the Empire. I know that that is impracticable in the immediate future, but I cannot help hoping that it is an ideal which some of the younger Members of your Lordships' House may live to see realised. The preference which Canada gave to this country, although it may not have fulfilled all that was expected of it, has at any rate made a very material difference in our trade with Canada. In the first place, your Lordships are well aware that the prosperity of Canada has been unexampled in recent years, and therefore it is not unnatural that its trade, not only with the mother country, but with the United States of America and Continental countries, should have alike materially increased. As Mr. Chamberlain himself pointed out, in a later speech than that referred to by the noble Earl, before granting us a preference our trade with Canada had practically fallen from 40 per cent, to 23½ per cent., in the last two years that trade has been gradually climbing up again and reached in 1902, 26½ per cent. In other words, before the preference was granted the trade between the United Kingdom and Canada was steadily going down, but the moment preference was granted it

29
began to climb up until it is now £11,000,000.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length, but I must be permitted to refer to the observations that fell from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches to the effect that the opinion of Australians was not to be measured by the utterances of Mr. Deakin, the Prime Minister. Well, my Lords, one naturally looks to the utterances of the Prime Minister of a country as an indication of the views of those who support him. The noble Earl read an extract from a speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I suppose we may, at any rate, take it that an expression of opinion of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Prime Minister taken together may very fairly be regarded as representing the views of any particular country. Although the Australian Prime Minister was not prepared to do more than give a certain amount of preference to this country by raising the duties on imports from foreign countries, the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to go a great deal further and to lower the duties on imports into Australia from this country while maintaining them at their present level against foreign countries. I think the opinion of those two gentlemen may fairly be held to represent the opinion of Australia as a whole. Although His Majesty's Government are not inviting the country to carry out the proposals which Mr. Chamberlain has placed before it, this I do say, that when the Colonies have solemnly and formally brought under the notice of the Government a policy which, in their opinion, will tend to bind together the different parts of the Empire, that proposal ought not to be treated, as I am afraid it has been treated in some quarters, with contempt and ridicule.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No, no!
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I said in some quarters. I do not say it has been treated in that way by the noble Earl. I think proposals of that kind deserve the most careful and earnest consideration of all Parties in this country, and I sincerely
30
hope that your Lordships, whatever view you may take of it, will at any rate make up your minds to give it careful and respectful consideration and will not reject the proposals as something wholly impracticable.
LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, having served five years in Australia as a colleague of my noble friend Lord Beau-champ, and having taken part in the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire, held in Montreal last August, I am able to give to your Lordships some further information, at first hand, as to the views held by responsible Ministers in the Colonies. When I went out to Australia I knew that Mr. Chamberlain had in his view the policy of preferential tariffs. I took every opportunity of discussing the question with Sir George Turner, then the Premier of Victoria, and now the Finance Minister of the Commonwealth. I consulted with the Ministers of other Australian Governments. The protectionist colonies were not prepared to lower their duties on British goods. Preference could only be given by increasing the duties on foreign goods. Australian opinion remains unchanged under the Commonwealth. In the recent elections the Labour party have gained. They insist on protection for home industries. The speeches made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce, held last August in Montreal, are perhaps the most important declarations by colonial Ministers in Canada since our fiscal policy has been under discussion. No reductions of tariffs are proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; he said it would take him too far into politics. Reductions are strongly opposed by Canadian manufacturers. They were represented at Montreal by Mr. Ellis, ex-president of their association, who said—
"I wish to say that, as far as the manufacturers are concerned, we believe we have gone far enough; and we will oppose strenuously any reduction in the present duties, or any increase in the preference, unless there is a corresponding increase in the duties."
In justice to Canadian Ministers, it should be said that they did not press the mother country to make sacrifices for which no compensation could be given.

31
At Montreal, Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, made an important speech, in which he said—
"Let me say one more thing, and I say it to the guests from the motherland. The sum of agricultural success in Canada is the purchasing power of the masses of the old land. It is to your markets that we send our surplus. It is through the money received from you that we are prosperous beyond the aspirations of our people a few years ago. Anything you do to interfere with the purchasing power of your people would be the deadliest blow at Canada that you could strike. No preference that you could give in your market would make up to us for the decrease in the purchasing power of your people."
While Australia and Canada remain protectionist, a bargain with the mother country on terms of mutual advantage is impossible. The case was plainly put in my hearing by Lord Salisbury some years ago. In reply to a deputation from the Empire Trade League, Lord Salisbury said—
"If you give preferential treatment to your colonies, it must be that you tax the similar goods from the rest of the world; and that the Colonies are to command a better price for their goods than they would obtain under unrestrained competition. A better price for the vendor means a more disagreeable price for the consumer; and we have yet to receive proof of this country being in favour of a policy of preferential taxes on wheat, on corn, and on wool."
We have had no such proof at the late elections. In some degree the mutual obligations of the mother country I and her colonies depend on their relative resources and burdens. The proceedings of the Conference at Montreal were recorded in a Blue-book. On the outer page there was the advertisement of the Canadian Commissioner for Emigration, The headlines stated—
"Plenty of room in Canada for the workers. One hundred and sixty acres of the best land in the world given free. A greater available food-producing area than in any other country. Farming in Canada pays. Trade more than doubled in seven years."
Can we say that it is as well with us as with Canada? And we are generous to our colonies. We are beyond comparison their largest customers, and we impose no duties. The self-governing Colonies put high duties on imports from the mother country. If we look to the varying conditions—position, climate, products, population—unrestricted freedom for all the self-governing States must be our wisest fiscal policy. The difficulties
32
of tariff-making for the Australian Commonwealth should be a warning against more ambitious endeavours. The main stream of our colonial trade sets towards India, where no protective duties are imposed, and to other possessions where no manufactures are established. With our self-governing Colonies of Canada and Australia, in which industries similar to our own, and necessarily competitors, are coming into existence, and where we already have the lion's share of their external trade in goods which we are able to supply, the true bonds are the racial sympathies, felt most strongly in the hour of stress and strain. There are, I submit, better methods of attaining the object we all have at heart. Let us be helpful to our colonies on every suitable opportunity. Swift communications are a bond of Empire. We might be more liberal in subsidies to ocean telegraphs and mail services. We might give aid, by Imperial guarantees, to the construction of main lines of railway, which would open up new territories for settlement, and accelerate the transit of mails. And among the means by which the unity of the Empire can be strengthened, no methods perhaps are more telling than those acts of public and private recognition which Mr. Chamberlain has never neglected.
*VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I desire to say one or two words with reference to some observations which fell from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. He spoke of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia as, naturally from the position that he occupied, being the proper mouthpiece of the majority of the people of Australia. But, as I think my noble friend Lord Rosebery remarked, there are three Parties in the Commonwealth Parliament, and not one of those Parties is in a majority. Roughly speaking the Ministerialists are one-third, the Opposition are one-third, and the Labour Members make up the other third, so that really there is no majority of which the Prime Minister is the respesentative. That is the information which has reached me. Then with reference to Mr. Reid, he is undoubtedly in favour of a certain preference to the mother country, but what he would infinitely prefer is free trade within the

33
Empire. He is a distinct free-trader, and therefore, if preference is to be given at all, he would prefer a preference by lowering the tariff, and keeping it as it is against the foreigners rather than by raising the tariff against the foreigners, and keeping it as it is against British maufacturers. He is not in favour of the preferential system, because that system would block what is his aspiration, namely, free trade within the Empire. Mr. Reid is an opponent of the preferential system, and he has expressed himself most apprehensive lest the present movement in favour of protection in this country should have a damaging effect upon the efforts of the free-trade Party in Australia, and who look to the free-trade Party in this country as their allies, towards whom they may ultimately gravitate, when they can make more impression on the people in Australia.
But I am ready to admit that there is a distinct leaning in Canada towards preference; and I should think there is a majority in favour of preference in Australia. That I think we may admit; and I entirely subscribe to what fell from my noble friend Lord Onslow in his concluding observations, that this is certainly not a matter which can be brushed aside with contempt in this country. Any approaches by the Colonies in this direction ought to be treated by all Parties with the greatest respect and consideration. It would be deplorable if by the heat of Party strife in this country the Colonies should get the impression that this country was deaf and blind to any desire they might express. If it be true at all that the advances of the Colonies have been treated with scorn in this country, that feeling must be confined to a very small section of the population, and certainly it has not been expressed by any responsible statesman. One of the things which many of us have deplored is that this question of fiscal policy should have drifted into the sphere of Party; and that, therefore, expressions should have been used which are open to misconstruction. But I think the great bulk of the people of this country—divided as we are upon the subject of preference—wish to approach the question with the desire solely to adopt the best system for strengthening the bonds
34
I that exist between the Colonies and ourselves. What we differ upon is this—whether preference might not have an effect very different from that which its authors desire. It has been said over and over again by men who have been connected with the Colonies, and therefore: competent to judge, that preference, would lead rather to friction than to a closer union, and that the bonds which bind us together are strong enough now, and do not need the support of a system of preference.
The impression conveyed to the public by the speeches of Mr. Chamberlain was that definite offers had been made by the Colonies. It is now clear that no definite offers have been made by the Colonies, except perhaps in the case of Canada, which has expressed the opinion that it was desirable that a system of preference should be established. But, be that as it may, we now know from the utterances of the leading men of Canada and Australia I that it was not in accordance with fact to say that we were at the parting of the I ways, that the moment had come when we must either accept or reject the advances of the Colonies, and that if we rejected them the union of the Empire was doomed. Mr. Chamberlain did not put the position less strongly than that. The statement was resented by a large portion of the British public, who regarded it as a slur upon the Colonies. Now we gather from the speeches of Ministers and from the attitude of the Government, that they dissent from that proposition of Mr. Chamberlain. They have not adopted his policy. They may possibly submit it to the country at some future time; but at present it is not their policy. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to say that the advances made by the Colonies have put us in the position that we must either accept them, or reject them at the risk of the unity of the Empire.
*THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, if we who sit on this Bench were not a long-suffering people, we might be almost entitled to protest against being, night after night

35
called upon to defend a policy of colonial preference which we have been at great pains to explain to your Lordships that we did not intend to offer to Parliament, and which, indeed, we have said we would go the length of opposing if at this moment it were proposed to us. The two speeches of the late Colonial Secretary which have been referred to in this debate were said, and said with perfect accuracy, to have referred to an offer advanced by the Colonies; and the question which we are now asked to debate is whether there was such an offer, and, if so, what was its nature. After considering the different passages in this Blue-book which have been quoted at length during this discussion, it seems to me impossible to arrive at any conclusion but that something which may not be unfairly described in general terms as an offer, has been made by the Colonies. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches said that those expressions meant nothing more than a pious and patriotic opinion; but I am bound to say that, if the language of the representatives of the Colonies is to be interpreted in the ordinary manner, we must find in them a good deal more than a pious and patriotic opinion. I do not by that mean for a moment to suggest that the Colonies have collectively made to us the offer of a specific and detailed proposal for an arrangement of tariffs concerning the whole of the Empire. It is quite obvious that they are not in a position at present to make such a proposal, any more than we are in a position to entertain such a proposal. But when you find that the leading men in those great Colonies have time after time expressed a distinct desire that commercial arrangements of this kind should be brought into existence between the mother country and the Colonies, and when, in addition to that, you find them actually giving to us, as an earnest of their intentions, substantial and valuable preferences, I think we may fairly say, without being accused of misdescription, that the Colonies have made to us an offer of preferential treatment. That is an offer which I am bound to say— as I believe Mr. Chamberlain stated—it would be criminal altogether to neglect.
There is one passage in the Blue-book which seems to me so distinct that I will venture to quote it. The Canadian
36
Ministers stated that if they could be assured that—
"The Imperial Government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada exemption from duties now levied or hereafter imposed, they would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada."
If that proposal is not worthy of being described as an offer, I do not know what an offer is. We on this Bench are not, and have never pretended to be, supporters of Mr. Chamberlain's policy, nor can we be made responsible for utterances of his, particularly those which he has delivered since he has ceased to be a member of the Government. But it is, on the other hand, due to him that he should not be misrepresented if we are able to correct the misrepresentation. We hold that an offer, or call it, if you please, an overture, has certainly been made to us by the Colonies; and all of us who, like the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, desire that the Empire should be preserved, and that its constituent parts should be drawn more closely together, all of us who are ready, as he is, to make sacrifices for the sake of that great object, desire that that overture should be treated respectfully. But we certainly realise that it is necessary that this great and far-reaching question should be dealt with, as Lord Goschen suggested, with the utmost deliberation; nor do we for a moment believe that because it is treated with deliberation and in a leisurely manner there is any prospect of the loyalty and allegiance of the Colonies being shaken or undergoing any change. When Mr. Chamberlain used the words which the noble Lord quoted I imagine that what he had in his mind was the effect which would be produced on the Colonies if this offer, as I desire to call it, were to be hurriedly and disrespectfully put on one side. I do believe that if that had been our attitude towards it the effect produced on the minds of the Colonies would have been a most disastrous one. I therefore very much associate myself with what fell from Lord Goschen, I desire as much as he does that this question should be carefully examined—and obviously it needs examination, not only with reference to its bearings on the Colonies, but with

37
reference to its bearings on our own commercial interests. It is clear that both those aspects of the case stand in need of thorough examination, and it is because we realise that that examination must take time, and that it is absolutely impossible to say at this moment what the result of such examination may ultimately be—it is for that reason that we have declined as a Government to incorporate in our commercial policy those particular proposals which are associated with the name of Mr. Chamberlain.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not desire to enter at any length into the interesting discussion which has taken place. I entirely sympathise with what was said by the noble Viscount opposite. Lord Goschen drew attention to the very remarkable words of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to this matter, and particularly to his statement that if regard was not paid to the distinct desire of the Colonies for a preference the result would be serious—that, in fact, it would be criminal to neglect the offer. The noble Marquess, though he says that at the present moment His Majesty's Government do not accept the policy of preference, admits that it would be criminal to neglect the offer which was made.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: To treat it otherwise than respectfully.
EARL SPENCER: I certainly think it would be extremely wrong to disregard a desire on the part of the Colonies, and none of my noble friends have treated such a matter with scorn, as Lord Onslow, I think, seemed to suggest. But this question has to be considered not only from the point of view of the Colonies, but of this country, and there are great interests at stake. With regard to the Colonies themselves, their view as expressed at the Conference was that in the present circumstances it was not practicable to adopt a general system of free trade as between them and the mother country. The noble Marquess considers that a definite offer had been made.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I did not use the word "definite."
EARL SPENCER: If he did not use the word definite, the noble Marquess said there was a distinct offer, but as far as I can see there has been nothing but the expression of a pious opinion on the part of the Conference. The proposals made were entirely conditional on this country making some offer, of advantage to the Colonies, which the Government could not make under the present fiscal system. I have always held that this question of preference raises the whole question of a tariff, for without a general tariff it would be impossible to make an offer to the Colonies. In view of the Canadian expression of opinion cited by Lord Brassey, it is clear that it would be extremely improbable that a definite offer could be made by the Canadians. I regret that the Government have not stated their views more definitely, for if the system of preferences were carried out we should fall into direct protection, which would result in deplorable disaster to our commerce.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.