Sitting of 28 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in

  781
  the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Caledonian Railway Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Bill; Rotherham Maltby and Laughton Railway Bill Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Great Central Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY BILL. [LORDS] (By ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. MOONEY:I object.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that this Bill was urgently required in the interest of the University of Sheffield and in that of University education in Yorkshire. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would not persist in his objection. There had been an all-round arrangement or understanding on the night on which the Irish Estimates were discussed that this Bill would be allowed to pass, and this having been made between the hon. Member for Down, S. and himself he was sure it would be carried out.
  MR. DILLONsaid that in regard to the appeal of the hon. Member he would not suggest to his hon. friend not to withdraw his objection on account of the understanding referred to. But for that understanding he certainly would have objected to this Bill, or any Bill giving facilities for English University education, being advanced, so long as the House persistently blocked all facilities for proceeding with a measure for University education in Ireland.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that, on behalf of the
  782
  University of Sheffield, he supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Islington that the hon. Member would be so good as to withdraw his objection to this Bill. He had quite hoped that all objection to this Bill had been settled; but the opposition now offered, at the last moment, had come upon him with surprise. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo, he pointed out that the Bill was simply a ministerial one to transfer the property and liabilities of the old University College to the new University. There was no question of granting any privilege to a University in England which had not been granted in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON:You would not grant us in Ireland the University we want.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he really hoped the hon. Member would see his way to withdraw his objection.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that, in view of the appeals that had been made to him, he would withdraw his objection.
  Bill read a third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That, in the case of the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82,211,236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA,
  Copy presented, of Return showing the lives lost by Wreck, Drowning, or other accidents in British seagoing Merchant Ships registered in the United Kingdom daring the years 1891 to 1904, inclusive [by, Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report; No. 452 (Gambia, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OSBORNE (MEDICAL REPORT).
  Copy presented, of the Report of the Medical Officer for the period from 7th April,1904, to 31st March,1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHERS).
  Copy presented, of Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and others concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3463 to 3465 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT, 1904–5.
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of the financial year ended the 31st day of March,1905, the distribution of the proceeds of the Local Taxation Licence Duties, Estate Duty, and Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties paid into The Local Taxation Account, in pursuance of the provisions of The Local Government Act,1888, The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act,1890, and The Finance Act,1894 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 298, of Session 1904)."— [Mr. Jeffreys.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dual Duties in the Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY:To ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider the case of the sixteen clerks at the Central Telegraph Office performing dual duties, who forwarded a petition on July 29th,1904 with regard to their continuous performance of these duties, and a request for a reconsideration of the same, seeing
  784
  that the petitioners were informed, in October,1904, by the Controller of the London Postal Service, that arrangements would be made to gradually relieve them, that they were also informed by the Controller of the Central Telegraph Office on March 20th,1905, that arrangements were pending which, if approved, would relieve them very shortly, and that nevertheless no change has yet been made and no reply been received by the petitioners to further requests sent to the Controller of the London Postal Service on January 7th and March 18th this year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The matter is a somewhat complicated one, involving considerable readjustments of staff. These are under consideration; and I cannot promise that arrangements can be made immediately for relieving the telegraphists of these dual duties, though this object will be kept in view.

  Labourers' Cottages in County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Creaney applied to the Rural District Council of Antrim for a cottage under the Labourers Acts nearly three years ago; that a suitable site was found on the land of Charles Morrison, who was willing to have the cottage built on his land, and that, although nearly three years have elapsed since Creaney's application, the erection of the cottage has not yet been begun; and, if so, what explanation does the rural district council give for the delay in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Waiter Long.) A scheme for upwards of forty cottages, including one for Creaney, was adopted by the council on the 20th July; 1903. A Local Government Board inquiry was held on the 13th September,1904, and the scheme approved of, and a Provisional Order granted on the 30th December. The necessary conveyances have since been in course of preparation and the council have applied for arbitration, which has not yet taken place. The rural district council claim that there has been no unnecessary delay in the matter.

  Inspection of Weights and Measures on British Ships
  MR. NANNETTI:To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state if any inspection is now being made of the weights and measures used on board of British ships for the purpose of weighing out the provisions supplied to the crews.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have ascertained that there is no general or systematic inspection of the weights and measures used on board British ships, and they have decided to issue a notice to ship owners and masters calling attention to their liabilities in the matter under Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act,1894, and suggesting the advisability of having their weights and measures duly verified and stamped from time to time.

  Unlicensed Persons Engaging Crews for British Steamers.
  MR. NANNETTI:To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the conviction of a boarding-house keeper residing in Liverpool, named de la Cruz, for illegally supplying seamen to the British steamer "Indra," and also illegally charging these men £1 each for procuring them the berth; whether he is aware that this boarding-house keeper was employed by one of the shipping clerks of the owners of the "Indra" to engage and supply the crew for the vessel, and that instructions were given that the crew were to be foreigners who could not speak or understand English; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to prosecute the agent of the owners of the "Indra" for employing an unlicensed person to engage and supply a crew for the "Indra."
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir. The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers. Further inquiries are being made with a view to deciding whether any further proceedings should be taken.

  Unpaid Learner in Tipperary Post Office.
  MR. CULLINAN:To. ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware
  786
  that there is a learner at present employed at Tipperary who receives no pay whatever, and who spends a considerable time daily in dealing with public work; and will he see that the learner is given the same remuneration as is paid to his class in other centres, and is paid some compensation for the time he has already given gratuitously to the Department.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Belfast Assizes— Case of Robert M'Whirter
  MR. SLOAN:To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the disclosures made at the trial of Robert M'Whirter, at Belfast Assizes, on the 18th instant, arrangements will be made for the adoption of a proper rotary system of duties, in order to prevent any future possibility for a person with no previous experience and no training to be placed on responsible duty, incurring risk to himself and the public.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I inquired into the arrangements at Belfast in connection with the hon. Member's Question of the 23rd ultimo
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxlvii.,1435
  and I then came to the conclusion, as I informed the hon. Member by letter, that no change seemed necessary. But I will consider whether the circumstances of the special case to which he now refers are such as to modify in any way my conclusion.

  Supply of Cash at Belfast Post Office Money Order Counter.
  MR. SLOAN:To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the arrangements made for the supply of cash at the money order counter, Belfast, when teachers' warrants to the value of £2,000 fell to be paid on the 17th instant, if he is aware that the funds were supplied to the paying officer in small doles while the public waited, and that, at the conclusion of the day's business, the paying officer showed a deficit of £10, and on the following day it was discovered that the cashier had charged the paying officer with £10 more

  787
  than had actually been paid; and will he] state if steps will be taken to prevent these occurrences in future.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have not yet received a report on the subject, but I will make inquiry.

  Army Recruiting
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE:To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the number of recruits for the three months of April, May, and June, for the year 1905, and the normal establishment for the same year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The number of recruits enlisted during April, May, and June,1905, excluding re-enlisted men and those enlisted for colonial corps, is as follows —

  April

  1,553

  May

  1,842

  June

  1,999

  The regimental establishment of noncommissioned officers and men for the current year, excluding Colonial corps and Native Indian troops, is 260,418.

NAVAL WORKS BILL.

  SECOND READINO.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,said that in moving the Second Reading of this Naval Works Bill he thought; it would be convenient to both sides of the House if he made a somewhat full statement explanatory of the Bill and of the works provided by it. In the Committee of Ways and Means, on the preliminary money Resolution, he referred very briefly to the financial proposals of the Bill, and, for the sake of continuity of argument, he would briefly recapitulate them now. The salient feature of the Bill was that it provided for an increase in the total Estimates provided under previous Bills of £566,000. It required that a sum of £7,700,000 on account of works previously sanctioned by the House should be spent during the
  788
  next two years, and as there was a sum of £1,869,000 sanctioned under the 1903 Bill, which had not yet been expended, the net amount required to be voted by the House was £5,835,000. He ventured to say that the proposals in the Bill were of an extremely moderate Character— unexpectedly so indeed. He called attention to the fact that the total increase of about £500,000 was by far the smallest I increase that had ever been put into one of these Bills since the system of Naval Works Loans Bills was introduced. This Bill was only a continuation measure; it introduced no new items; the schedule merely provided for a two years instalment for works that had already been sanctioned by the House. It had been suggested on previous occasions by the hon. Member for Islington that they ought to stop this expenditure altogether—[OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"]— but how could that be done when they had entered into large contracts which had been sanctioned by the House? It was absolutely impossible to suddenly stop that expenditure.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER (:Put it on the Estimates. That was promised last year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that that was a complete misunderstanding, though perhaps a very natural one. There was an unusually large sum unexpended from the provision voted by the House in 1903, an amount which appeared on the face of it to be £1,869,000. The true figure, however, was not £1,869,000, but £1,589,000 because £280,000 was money actually saved upon the superintendence item. They, therefore, deducted that amount from the total sum to be expended.
  MR. LOUGH:But is not the £280,000, if it has not been spent, now available?
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid of course it was available; it was money actually saved, because it had not been expended; and that had entered into the calculation. There had also been a considerably short expenditure at Malta and Bermuda on account of various delays for which the

  789
  Admiralty were not to blame. Many works had had to be hung up owing to the pending changes in the redistribution of the Fleet and the strategic needs of the Navy. They were compelled to ask the House in voting money two years ahead to make ample provision, because they could not be certain when the next Loan Bill would be passed. For example, at the present time they were still living upon money voted in 1903; and it was necessary to make full provision for two years in advance. That did not affect the finances of the country; because the money was not borrowed until it was to be spent. The numerous changes in the "dates for completion" were due in many cases to the delay in the execution of the works, or to additional works necessitated by a particular scheme under consideration; and still more often due to the fact that the works could not be considered to be finished until all the accounts had been closed up. A very striking illustration of that was that Portland Harbour was completed as a harbour, in regard to protection from the sea and against torpedo attack, in 1899; but the work was still unfinished as far as a number of subsidiary services were concerned.
  As to the chief items in the schedule to the Bill, it would be observed that there were several increases in the total estimates and several decreases. The decreases would doubtless be considered thoroughly satisfactory, but, on the other hand, he ventured to claim that the increases were absolutely necessary. The chief items of increase were the Keyham extension and the Hong-Kong Dockyard extension. The large increase in Keyham was due to two causes. In the first place, to unexpected and altogether unforeseen engineering difficulties in the prosecution of the works; and, in the second place, to additional works which were found to be necessary to complete this scheme. Owing to the irregularities of the rook surface below the mud, there had been an immense increase in the cost of dredging and in building the outer walls of the dockyard. It was a scheduled contract, and those items accounted for 7pound; 150,000 of additional expenditure. At Keyham it had also been necessary to provide a long pier in the dock basin, owing to the greatly increased
  790
  length of modern ships, and, what was originally contemplated in the first scheme of the dockyard, to the lengthening of No. 4 dock. That lengthening they proposed to carry out, and it would be a great improvement. In the case of Hong-Kong, there had been engineering difficulties very similar to those encountered at Keyham. The irregularities of the rock surface below the mud had resulted in an unforeseen expenditure for dredging amounting to £150,000. The need for the additional dredging works could not have been foreseen by the engineers, but they would not be a recurring expense. This dredging was required to enable the dockyards to be built, and the charge for subsequent maintenance for dredging would come on the Votes. There was also an increase for electric light and power amounting to £54,000 at Hong-Kong.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the cost of dredging was charged to loan or to the Votes 1
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that at every port the maintenance of dredging was always charged to Votes and not to loans. As to the item for deepening harbours and the approaches thereto, that was required under a scheme for rendering these ports available for ships of deep draught; and next year that expense also would be charged to Votes. The two most interesting items, perhaps, were the Chatham Dockyard extension and the Rosyth item. The broad result of the Admiralty's deliberations in connection with these two services had been to push on the large expenditure foreshadowed at Rosyth, and not to proceed with the Chatham Dockyard extension. This would, perhaps, be a surprise to some Members of the House— [An HON. MEMBER: It is a surprise.]— in view of the. scheme outlined in 1903 for an expenditure of £1,500,000 on the Chatham extension in addition to the large expenditure foreshadowed at Rosyth. The Admiralty, however, had considered that that expenditure at Chatham could be dispensed with, at any rate for the present; and this, he hoped, would be regarded as a great relief to the taxpayer. He wished to say at this point

  791
  that this decision was not the result of a mere change of mind; it was the result of a change of circumstances and conditions. The original need for the Chatham extension was based on the Report of the Berthing and Docking Committee, which showed that the then existing accommodation for the Fleet for berthing and docking was insufficient, and that its extension was imperatively necessary. That decision was altered as one of the results of the new policy of casting ineffective ships from the Navy. These ships required considerable berthing aid docking facilities because of the constant and ever-increasing repairs which they needed; and their removal from the effective list had set free so much berthing and docking accommodation as to render unnecessary the proposed extension at Chatham. It was probable that, in future, warships would be fewer in number, but of greater individual power, and consequently less berthing and decking space would he required; but that berthing and docking space must be of a larger size and suitable for the accommodation of the larger ships. There was a shortage of such accommodation on the East Coast, and therefore it was necessary to provide it either at Rosyth or at Chatham, but not at both.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis):There will be no such shortage at Chatham.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the Admiralty had arrived at the conclusion, on the unanimous recommendation of its naval advisers, that Rosyth possessed greater strategical, economic, and industrial advantages than Chatham. He did not wish to enlarge on the strategic advantages, which were patent to all, but there was greater accessibility at all times of the tide for the largest ships at Rosyth than at Chatham, and that was an enormous advantage.
  He would now give the Committee the information so earnestly desired, by Scotch Members at any rate, as to the extent and the nature of the works at Rosyth. The general scope and the project had been very clearly explained at the time of the introduction of the Naval
  792
  Works and Loans Bill of 1903. As a first-step the site at Rosyth was very carefully studied and examined. Plans were ordered to be prepared on the most comprehensive scale for the provision of a first-class naval port. The Government had found from experience that hitherto dockyards had originally been laid out on too cramped a scale, and that it was extremely difficult and costly to extend them afterwards. It was therefore determined that Rosyth should be so laid out, and the works so constructed, as not to prejudice any extension of the base that might become necessary in the future, so that future generations should not be able to accuse them of want of foresight. The plans that had been prepared were for a dockyard of the most complete description. But it was not the intention of the Admiralty at once to construct the dockyard on so large a scale. Only the immediate needs of the Navy were to be considered. Still the works that were proposed in the present scheme would, in themselves, form a complete naval base. They included a closed basin of the largest size,1,200 by 1,500 feet, with an entrance lock which could be used as a dock itself in case of necessity; a large graving dock; the necessary equipments of a repairing yard; railway connection with most of the railway systems of the country; and a considerable amount of foreshore dredging and reclamation in order to make the place accessible at all stages of the tide. The total cost was £2,500,000, which included the £200,000 that had already been voted for the preliminary works.
  The £70,000 in the Bill for Chatham was in the process of expenditure on the new river wall to the Medway, which was necessary in any case, whether the extension was decided upon or not, for the safety of the West Basin, because the existing wall showed signs of falling in. The new river wall would provide a large amount of additional berthing accommodation along the side of the dockyard, and it was in every way a most necessary work.
  The House would observe that there was a very short expenditure on gunnery schools. The reason of that was

  793
  that there had been a modification of- the original scheme. It was originally intended that gunnery schools were to be constructed entirely separate from naval barracks; but it was now proposed to incorporate the schools with the bar racks; and this modification had led to considerable saving of expense. There was also a considerable saving under the head of superintendence charges. It had been decided, owing to the advanced state of the naval works now in progress, to amalgamate the Works Department and the Works Loan Department, which meant a saving in the cost of the staff while securing the advantage of unity of control. The retiring civil engineer- in-chief, Sir Henry Pilkington, deserved the greatest credit for the unbroken success of his designs and operations during the time he had presided over these works. He had carried out some of the argest engineering works of any period in the world's history without a single failure of any sort or description. He asked those who criticised the increases on certain of the estimates to consider what immense miscalculations had been made by the greatest civil engineers in outside practice. If hen. Members would consider the case of the widening of Kew Bridge, for instance, where the estimated cost was & pound 118,000 and the lowest tender received £169,000, or the case of Manchester Ship Canal, where the estimate for works was £6,000,000, and two of the greatest con tractors tendered for less than that sum, whereas the actual cost was over 7pound; 10,000,000—
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsuggested that the circumstances of that case were peculiar owing to the fact that for many miles of the cutting springs breaking out everywhere necessitated a total change in the work.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the interruption only proved his point, the frequent impossibility of foreseeing what the expense would be. That was exactly what the Government were meeting with at Malta and other places at the present time. Those were matters they were naturally unable to foresee. He merely referred to these matters to show how unfair were the attacks which had been
  794
  made on the officers administering those great works, and because it was the last public opportunity of referring to the services of the civil engineer-in-chief, before he left his office, and he could not allow Sir Henry Pilkington and his staff to retire from their duties without paying a public tribute to the extraordinary and unbroken success of their labours during the past ten or fifteen years.
  Passing to other items, he said Gibraltar Harbour was now practically complete. The moles were finished the harbour itself was in use, and the dockyard was already in partial operation. No. 3 dock had already been opened and the two remaining docks would be opened early next year. This base for a great fleet would soon be in full use and would prove of the greatest assistance to the Navy as it would become the headquarters and chief base of the Atlantic Fleet.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that Gibraltar, with the very restricted area, will suffice for the wants of a large fleet?
  MR. ARTHUR LEE:I certainly anticipate that it will suffice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:I refer to the land accommodation and its use as a repairing arsenal.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE:Yes, Sir, the dock accommodation and the shops in connection with them are on the largest scale, and they are quite sufficient for the needs of the Fleet for a long time ahead.
  On the question of the principle of these Bills, on which the Government had been somewhat ungraciously attacked, he proceeded to point out that the system of Loan Bills had been consistently sanctioned by the House, and there was no reason why the Government should abruptly depart from it in order to satisfy a strained view of national economy. However, the arrears of work were now nearing completion, and, therefore, the need for these Loan Bills was also coming to an end. He had

  795
  never concealed his own desire that they should be brought to an end as soon as that could conveniently be done, but it had not been practicable before now. This Bill marked a great step in that direction. The transference, however, of certain of this expenditure to the Votes, would, he warned the House, involve an increase of £340,000 or £350,000 in next year's Naval Estimates. After the conclusion of this Bill there would still remain £4,000,000 to be provided for works already sanctioned, and that would have to be found by a succeeding Loan Bill. It had been objected that the total expenditure under this series of Bills was enormous, £32,000,000 in fact. He admitted that it was a large sum, and yet it was less than the total for the effective portion of only one year's Naval Estimates. It had further been suggested by some critics that this expenditure was unnecessary and extravagant, but he asked the House to consider what the nation were getting for it in assets of permanent value. There were the great national harbours at Dover, Gibraltar, Malta, and Portland, the great dockyards at Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape of Good Hope, Bermuda, Keyham, Rosyth, and Hong-Kong. Then there I were barracks, hospitals, and various naval extensions throughout the world, all tending to the comfort and efficiency of the Fleet, coaling facilities, which were so much needed, and other magnificent I equipment not surpa sed anywhere in the world. These were great assets which the nation had obtained, and it was because he believed that this expenditure had been of the greatest possible value to the country, and directly contributory to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and its readiness for war, that he confidently appealed to the House to pass this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that on questions of naval policy he did not profess to be qualified to express an opinion, but there were points of policy connected with this measure he could not pass by unnoticed. The chief
  796
  was the question of the Chatham extension and of the proposed dockyard at Rosyth. Two years since, when the Chatham extension was under discussion in this House, the Admiralty authorities, under pressure, stated that, although a token sum of £50,000 alone was asked for, the total estimated cost of the undertaking was £4,500,000. The Admiralty considered themselves at liberty during those two years to make contracts representing a larger sum than the preliminary expenditure authorised, but the Treasury declined to give their assent to the expenditure, and the result was that the hon. Gentle man now came down with a Bill including an item of £50,000 for the fulfilment of contracts entered into beyond the scope of the previous Bill. Now, as a matter of fact, the Admiraltv had abandoned their large scheme for the extension of Chatham Dockyard and had put forward a tentative scheme for starting a dockyard at Rosyth. It struck him very forcibly they could not under these circumstances have any very great confidence in the stability of the policy of the Admiralty. Only two years since both these large new works were advocated as desirable and even essential for the future of our Navy, but in the short space of two years the Admiralty had apparently changed their plans. He did not think, therefore, the House should allow itself at the present moment to be committed to this expenditure of £2,500,000 on the Rosyth scheme. All they were asked to vote to-day was £200,000, and they had been told that that was to be spent on preliminary works.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE:The land alone represents £120,000.
  MR. BUCHANANunderstood that the remainder of the £200,000 would be spent on preliminary works. He thought the House ought not to commit itself and its successors to this Rosyth scheme without further consideration, and certainly not in the dying days of a Parliament and Ministry. He hoped the House would, at any rate, make it clear that it by no means considered that by passing this Bill it committed itself or

  797
  its successor to going on with this work. Reference had been made to the increases in total estimated cost of works in the present Bill as compared to their estimated cost in the Bill of 1903. Keyham was an old sinner in this respect. In 1897 the total cost was at £3,175,000; in 1903 it had increased up to £4,175,000; and now it had gone up to £4,500,000, and there was no security whatever that the final estimate had yet been reached. The same criticism held good with regard to Hong-Kong, where the estimated cost had increased from £575,000 in 1897 to £1,250,000 in the present Bill. The electric lighting item showed an increase from £1,250,000 to £1,500,000 as compared with last year, but he understood that the increase was really more than £250,000, because the cost of the electric plant at Hong-Hong had been taken out of this item. That being so, he would ask whether any other such transfers had been made. In any case, he wished to reiterate his protest against the inclusion of this item in the Bill at all. It was absurd that electric lighting plant should be paid for in the manner proposed.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that electric lighting plant represented a comparatively small portion of the Estimate, the main part being for electric power.
  MR. BUCHANANcontended that whether for power or light any large commercial undertaking would pay for it from year to year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEinstanced the case of nearly all the municipal bodies; which did exactly the opposite.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he was dealing with national finance, and he strongly objected to the borrowing of money for this purpose. It was true there were certain decreases in the present Bill, but the only one of any magnitude was in connection with Bermuda, where the Estimate of the total cost was down by £100,000 in consequence of a change in naval policy, the remaining decreases being very small compared with the total cost.
  798
  On the financial side, he had steadfastly opposed these Naval and Military Works Bills from the beginning, believing that they were unsound in principle and almost certain to lead to extravagance. They were unsound in principle because instead of meeting current expenses out of current revenue, they threw upon our successors burdens which we ought to bear. It was only necessary to look at the increase in Naval and Military Estimates during the list ten years to see what extravagance the system had caused both directly and indirectly. There had been created a large naval debt, a large military debt, and large debts for other purposes, which for twenty or thirty years the country would be laboriously engaged in paying off. What the opponents of the system had contended for was now largely acknowledged by the Government. The tu quoque argument had been used. It was true the system was begun in 1895. He was not concerned to defend the principle of the Act of that year, but the Acts of both 1895 and 1896 contained limitations and mitigations of the system which had since completely disappeared. They were annual Acts, stress being laid on the importance of the House of Commons having an annual opportunity of considering the progress of the works, and deciding whether or not they should go on with them. They also proposed to carry out a definite scheme which Members could understand. He did not, however, contend that under no circumstances whatever should money be borrowed for large works of a permanent character. The right principle was, he thought, laid down in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee last year, where the limitations under which such a course might be justifiable were set forth, and a strong desire expressed that the system as a system should be brought to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment.
  Since 1897 these Bills had become a regular established financial practice. In that year the first Military Works Bill was introduced, and from that time onwards every two years fresh Bills had been brought forward, each for a larger

  799
  amount and with, a longer schedule than its predecessor. In the schedule of the Finance Accounts these sums were euphemistically described as "other capital liabilities," and in 1898 they stood at £3,750,000. From that moment they had been advancing, the amounts being, in 1900, £10,000,000; in 1902, £20,000,000; in 1903, £27,500,000; in 1904, £32,000,000; in 1905, £41,500,000; and in 1906, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate was realised, the amount would be £50,000,000. That included borrowing for other purposes than navaland military works, but naval and military works were the principal offenders. That was the system which had been developed in the last ten years by the Government. This financial poison had entered into most other Departments. In the year 1897 the charges under "other capital liabilities" were £5,000,000, but in 1905 these liabilities had gone up to £12,000,000. This showed that if once they lost the reins of financial control in one Department it spread very rapidly in other Departments.
  This Bill proposed to increase the total estimated cost of works by £500,000, and to expend in the next two years £7,700,000; or rather to construct works to cost that sum, borrow the money, and leave the successors of the Government to pay the bill. What he complained of most was that this Bill represented no finality as regarded works. The Civil Lord had stated that the Government had concluded that this system should be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment, but what were the Government doing? They had been assured that this policy would be followed in regard to certain items in the new Bill, but what had happened? The item for dredging was to be put upon the Estimates on April 1st,1906, because the total amount of money in hand would then be exhausted. So far that was an advance. With regard to coaling facilities there was a note which stated that that item would be put upon the Estimates but it, did not say when, and for two years more, if not longer, money was to be borrowed for this purpose. Then there was the new dockyard at Rosyth which was to be put on the Estimates when the House of Commons
  800
  consented to undertake this work. If the Government had really meant business they could have taken a substantial step in the direction of putting an end to this loan system. There was an unexpended balance of £1,869,000, on 31st March last which might have been used for the purposes of this Bill, and the additional sum that would be necessary to carry on the works during the current year could have been placed on the Navy Estimates. That would have been a substantial practical step. The Civil Lord opposite did not deny that he could have done that; in fact, that was what was being done in regard to the Army at the present moment.
  They were told that £7,00. 0,000 was the amount in hand under the Military Works Bill, and this was being spent this year and next year without any fresh authorisation from Parliament at all. That was a grave irregularity which ought to be stopped. The Admiralty had not availed themselves of the opportunity which had occurred of introducing the better practice, and the result was that the obligation of working out what the Civil Lord himself recognised to be the sound financial policy which should govern the administration of the Admiralty, and any unpopularity that would ensue, would fall, not upon him, but upon his successors. The House and the country ought to take particular notice now of the fact that any increase that might take place hereafter upon Vote 10 of the Navy or Vote 8 of the Army was one of the consequences entailed by the extravagant and unsound methods of finance which had been pursued during the last ten years by the present Government both in regard to the Army and the Navy. It was not the Admiralty but the Chancellor of the Exchequer who now and in past years was really responsible for this mischievous system, and, of all the Chancellors of the Exchequer, the man who was really respensible and who was the greatest sinner of all was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol.
  The serious effect of this system of borrowing upon our national credit was reflected in the state of Consols and of other first-class securities. He did not

  801
  intend to suggest that the system was responsible for the whole of the heavy fall in the value of these securities which had taken place since the war; but he did mean to assert that it was a large contributory cause to the continued depreciation, and a continuous impediment in the way of a revival of the national credit. He said that so long as the Sinking Fund for the redemption of public debt was made ineffective by fresh borrowing it was hardly likely that the national credit would resume the position which they all desired, and to which it was entitled. He could quote many financial authorities in support of this statement.
  In the past two years many hon. Members had urged on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor the obligation, when the war was over, of endeavouring to lay before the country some clear and consistent scheme for the reduction of the great additional debt which had thereby been put on its shoulders. The right hon. Gentleman had never made any such proposal. He believed the people of the country would have borne with patience a large amount of war taxation if it had been made clear to them that the heavy taxation would be used to abate the burden of increased debt consequent upon the war. The Sinking Fund, had been re-established, but there was no good in doing that unless the Sinking Fund was to be operative in the way of really paying off debt. What had taken place? While on the face of the accounts we appeared to be paying off six, seven, or eight millions with the one hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ha i with the other hand been borrowing money to an equal, or even a greater, extent. The special debt had already increased since the war ended from £20,000,000 to £41,000,000, and it would amount to something like £50,000,000 at the expiry of the present year. When the Sinking Fund was in active operation they would find Consols rising and the national credit improving. That was obvious to anyone who gave the most elementary consideration to the subject, and that was clearly one of the many reasons why this system of loan expenditure should be brought to an end at
  802
  the earliest possible date. Only in that way should we be able to get a revival of the national credit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department he represented had been exercising pressure on the Government to bring this system to an end at a reasonable date. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his agreement with the substance of their contention he was really doing nothing practical, except preventing the further extension of the scheme by not allowing new items to be inserted in it. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take further and immediate steps. He begged to move.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that what he objected to was the position of the Government in regard to this most important matter. He thought the Prime Minister adopted the attitude towards this very grave subject which the hon. Member opposite had adopted that day. The Government wanted to take credit for abandoning this system of borrowing. They were not abandoning it at all, and this was as bad a Bill as he had ever seen. This was the sort of unintelligible attitude the Government were assuming at present in regard to these grave matters. He thought the description of it as a death-bed repentance was one that was perfectly justified. The Government had for the last ten years steadily pursued the policy which his hon. friend had so ably described, and now they were trying to get credit for abandoning it at a time when they had not the courage to abandon it. Since 1895 he had constantly opposed this policy on the occasion of the introduction of the Naval Works Bills. They had been informed that the Liberals were in power when the first Bill was brought in, and I that therefore the Liberals were to blame for introducing a bad policy. The policy had now been abandoned in principle though not in practice. When the Bill was introduced in 1895 he joined his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in opposing it, and he voted against his own Government on the Bill in the only division that was taken upon it. During the last eleven years they had carried on this dreary campaign against the policy of these Loan'Bills. The Government

  803
  said they had taken steps to bring this policy to an end though not in the Estimates this year. But the life of the Government was hanging on a thread and it might be cut short any week. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember his mortality, and instead of making good resolutions as to what was to be done twelve months hence it would be better to do something now. It appeared from what the hon. Member opposite said that it would be four years hence before any change was made in the direction of adopting the sounder principle which they had taken in hand. When the hon. Member claimed credit for adopting a principle which could not come into operation for four years he was claiming far too much virtue.
  The expenditure estimated in this Bill was not complete, because the whole of the expenditure on Rosyth had not been included. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to tell the Liberal Government or any Government which would succeed the present one to provide for the Rosyth expenditure on their Estimates. They had already borrowed under this policy £27,000,000, and after the passing of this Bill £8,000,000 more would require to be borrowed before the nation could adopt the sounder system. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if it were quite easy to turn over this new leaf, but it would be increasingly difficult to do so. There appeared in the Estimates no less than £1,000,000 for paying interest on the loans already incurred, and next year it would be increased by £400,003. In two or three years the total amount which would have to be provided in Vote 10 would be £2,000,000 for running off these loans. He asked the House to consider the difficulty which future Boards of Admiralty would be placed in. They would be asked to provide for current works out of the expenditure of the year, and at the same time would have to provide £2,001,000 in connection with these loans. It would therefore be exceedingly difficult for the successors of the present Government to turn over a new leaf. The Government thought they were relieving the country by borrowing, but as a matter of fact the country received
  804
  an even greater blow in this way than if the money were paid out of taxes. It would have been a far less evil to the country if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had the courage to put on a tax to pay his way as he went rather than borrow. Of course he would not have been able to produce such a good Budget if he had done that, but taxes should not be taken off unless the finances of the country warranted that being done.
  It had been said that debates on the Estimates never promoted economy. He thought it was the debates which had taken place in that House that had promoted any economy that there had been during the last ten years. Where had the subject of the Loans Bill been discussed except in that House, and in one or two speeches outside the House? The Treasury did nothing to get rid of this capital expenditure. They wanted to have something practical done. He contended that the agitation in that House, which had extended out of doors, had compelled fie Government to make a promise or treaty in regard to these Works Loans Bills. He would quote from a remarkable speech made on this subject on June 7th by Mr. E. Speyer, at a meeting of the Institute of Bankers. That gentleman said—
  "In recent years, the ordinary Budget has been supplemented by an extraordinary Budget, that is, a Budget containing expenditures which are provided for out of capital. In the past year these expenditures have amounted to £8,114,000, and to complete the works an additional sum of over £25,000,000 has yet to be borrowed. This capital expenditure means nothing less than that the sinking funds provided for the redemption of debt have not been used for that purpose at all, but have in reality, in recent years, been used for providing expenditure upon naval and military works, etc. The continuance of these capital outlays, if they are financed by fresh borrowings, will prevent any reduction of the debt of the country for several years."
  And Mr. Speyer concluded by saying that—
  "The practice is altogether indefensible, and no well-managed commercial house would consider itself justified in creating an account of this character. Why should a State act differently from any commercial concern that is conducted on sound lines? If these extra expenditures for unproductive purposes are absolutely necessary, the country should be told, and the Government of the day should come forward boldly and raise taxation accordingly."
  MR. MURPHY(Kerry, E.) drew attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present,
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House for the luncheon hour.
  MR. LOUGH,continuing his speech, said the quotation from Mr. Speyer which he read just before the House adjourned was very extraordinary independent testimony from a man who had no place in the political arena, in favour of the principle which they were now advocating. In his opinion it was a monstrous thing on the part of the Admiralty to compare the expenditure on naval and military works with municipal expenditure, because those works were not of a remunerative character, as were those for which borrowings were made by local authorities. He thought it would be much safer if the Government adopted the principle of providing for this expenditure on the Votes as it came along. The hon. Member representing the Admiralty spoke of Sir William Harcourt, and quoted Sir William's reasons for introducing the Naval Works Bill, which were that many of the works were of a permanent character and that therefore the Government was entitled to borrow for them. But many of these works were not of a permanent character. Encroachments of the sea entailed considerable expense of maintenance of such works, and there was no proof that these works would be always useful. The whole history of these works had been the abandonment of them, and the hon. Gentleman would not deny that even now the Government were withdrawing troops and naval forces from many harbours in the Empire. Therefore these works could not be described as permanent. They now understood that this system of Naval Works Bills was to be brought to an end; that within a certain period all this series of building operations would be brought to a conclusion. This death-bed repentance on the part of the Government was in order that the Government might get some credit for at last adopting the principle which the Opposition had so long advocated. But what he wished to know was
  806
  was this repentance an honest and sincere repentance?
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was net repentance at all, and the Government wished to take no credit whatever.
  MR. LOUGHcontended that the argument that it was necessary to borrow for the last ten years but that it would not be necessary to do so in the coming ten years, ought not to be accepted. The works at Rosyth were quite as large and would be just as costly as any works that had been undertaken under this Bill. The hon. Gentleman contemplated that £2,500,000 would be spent at Rosyth, and if what the hon. Gentleman had said was correct and the Government had arranged for this huge expenditure at Rosyth to come upon the Estimates, why was not the same course adopted in the case of Gibraltar, Dover, and all the other places mentioned in the Bill? The Government borrowed for the works at Dover Harbour, but they were throwing on their successors the burden of providing for the expenditure at Rosyth, which was to come upon Vote 10. It was for these reasons that he contended that the conversion of the Government at. the eleventh hour to this sound principle of providing for the expenditure as they went along was not an honest conversion. They had still their eyes on the flesh-pots. If they had had a new lease of power nothing would have been heard of this proposal, and it was only because the Government had come to the end of their tether, and had become aware of the outcry that was being made upon this matter, that they pretended now to adopt a more sound system of finance. He hoped that those who had fought against this Bill all along would continue the struggle.
  The Civil Lord had stated that the present Government were not responsible for the adoption of this principle. He quite agreed that a Liberal Government brought in the first Naval Works Bill in 1895. Liberal Governments did not always succeed in adopting the wisest course, and though they were far in front of Conservatives in this respect they might occasionally slip into the mistake of adopting an unsound

  807
  policy. The difference in the two Parties lay in the fact that while the rank and file of the Radical Party would soon see that the policy was unsound and would correct it in a very short time, the followers of the Government would never correct it at all. The Liberals introduced a Bill for £8,000,000 in 1895. What did the Conservatives do? They did not, when they came into power, reduce it, they continued the policy and made it first £16,000,000, then £24,000,000, and now it was £32,000,000. In this matter he stood independent of both Parties. He was the preacher of pure principle. He voted against this Bill in 1895, and if the Liberals intended to continue these borrowings in the future he should oppose them as firmly as he had done in the past. His course had been consistent. He had opposed the Bill of 1895, moved the rejection of the Bills of 1897 and 1899, and had supported the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill of 1903, and he would not in future give a vote in favour of these Naval Works Bills. Although he had suffered in the past at the hands of his friends for the course he pursued, and particularly at the hands of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who always supported the Government, even that right hon. Gentleman had now come to his opinion and was now opposing this Bill himself. The right hon. Baronet admitted that he had now got at the root of this matter and had become a convert, and on the Motion that this Bill should go into Committee he told against it. He himself did not believe that because a considerable expenditure was required to be made at a particular time they were justified in putting the burden of payment on posterity, and he thought the new tone which was now adopted outside with regard to this policy was entirely due to those who had fought against it on both sides of the House. A steady resistance had to be offered to this policy because it was not yet concluded. He did not wish hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House to suppose that they could again resort to this principle of expenditure which had been disastrous to national finance and had resulted in great extravagance. Every Government should have forced upon them the
  808
  principle that whatever was wanted for expenditure should be taken out of the provision made for the year.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'this House declines to agree to the Second Reading of a. Bill which, by continuing for a further period the system of loan expenditure for Naval Works, renders the Sinking Fund ineffective, and injures the credit of the country'"—(Mr. Buchanan) instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he congratulated the Civil Lord upon the manner in which he had discharged a task of unusual difficulty. The hon. Gentleman must have realised that circumstances had changed in regard to these matters, and that what used to be an easy thing had become to-day an extremely difficult one— and it was a very difficult thing to-day to pass this Bill through the House. It was no longer the details of the schedules of these Naval Works Bills that were important. It was the financial principle of the measure that was at stake. It was on the Second Reading and not upon the Committee stage that the important discussions took place. He now desired to ask for some information upon three items as to which only token Votes had been taken. The hon. Gentleman had said very little about the coastguards except to give the additional expenditure, were they to look at that item as the result of a change of policy, because he was rather surprised to find this item rather more swollen than any in the Bill. The other two items to which he wished to refer were Rosyth and the Chatham extension. As to Rosyth, he was unable to understand the position of the Admiralty. At this moment the Vote for Rosyth, which was a token Vote of £200,000 in 1903, was now a substantive Vote of the same amount. They were now told that the sum was to be employed in preliminary expenditure. The sum which was to be spent on the works of Rosyth was £2,300,000 in addition to this £200,000, and that amount was to be thrown on the Estimates. He took it,

  809
  therefore, that substantive expenditure on Rosyth was not to begin until the preliminary expenditure had come to an end.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE:At the earliest possible moment.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that this Bill provided for preliminary expenditure only. Therefore, substantive expenditure on Rosyth could not begin till after the money had been voted next year. But the scheme was so vague that, having regard to what had occurred in the case of Chatham, he could not look with any confidence to the future of Rosyth. The great Chatham extension scheme was the principal item of the Loan Bill of 1903. Now the House learned that that scheme had been abandoned. This vast change of policy must affect the other schemes, and, therefore, he could not believe in the future of Rosyth. What confidence could the House of Commons have in an Admiralty that came to the House with vast projects in fulfilment of a certain naval policy and then two years afterwards discarded the projects in obedience to another policy?
  It was not for those who, ten years ago, either as members of the Government or of the predominant Party in the House at that time brought in and supported the first Naval Works Bill, to denounce the principle of borrowing for such works as intolerable. He certainly was not going to make any such recantation, but he held himself no more responsible for borrowing established by the Naval Works Act of 1895 than he now held the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Civil Lord opposite responsible for the financial policy of the present Bill. It was not the Admiralty, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being who was responsible for the way in which the money for naval works was to be raised. The Admiralty knew little and cared less about the matter. What the Admiralty had to do was to advise what works would be necessary. It was then for the Cabinet to decide, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether the money should be directly under the Estimates
  810
  or by Bill, but he thought there was a good deal of force in the argument as to the change of circumstances. Sir William Harcourt based the Bill of 1895 broadly on the ground that the works proposed were not only necessary, but urgently necessary, and that, as the resources of taxation were practically exhausted, the first steps of these works must be aided by the borrowing powers of the Government. Since then, however, the scale of naval works had increased enormously, and they had now two parallel Budgets placed before the House, one dependent on the Estimates, and the other the irregular Budget created by the various Loan Acts. The result was that there was no real paying off of borrowed money, but a gradual increase of debt. The extension of the system, not on naval works alone, but in other directions and on other services, had been so great that he thought the time had come to call a halt.
  His hon. friend who had moved the Amendment that day was met half-way by the Government, but met in such a way that he had been left in some embarrassment as to what their policy really was. He understood from the Answer given to him a few days ago by the Civil Lord that it was the intention of the Government that this should be the last Naval Works Bill. Now, however, he was told that that was not so, and he did not know where they stood. The Prime Minister had taunted them with being ungracious because they offered opposition to the earlier stages of that Bill, which he suggested was conceding for the first time the principle asserted by hon. Members on the Opposition benches. The Civil Lord had repeated that phrase but now it transpired that it was not conceded and that there, were to be more Loan Bills at some future day. What was the financial situation? The amount of the expenditure authorised by the whole series of Bills, including this Bill, and the substantive expenditure at Rosyth, was £34,500,000. The borrowing power already in existence was £21,800,000, leaving at this minute, before this Bill passed, at least £12,700,000 to be provided for. In round figures,

  811
  £5,800,000 was to be authorised by this Bill, and that left a further balance of £6,900,000, including Rosyth. He had understood it was to be the policy of the Government that the balance outstanding at the end of the two years provided for by this Bill was to be thereafter thrown entirely on the Naval Estimates. But now they were told that that was not so.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he had stated that certain portions of this money would be thrown on the Naval Estimates; but they could not bind their successors beyond the two years of the Act. There would be a certain sum remaining to be found after the two years, and it would remain for their successors to determine how it should be raised.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had thought this was to be the last of the borrowings; he now found it was only the last of the present Government's borrowings. That indeed reduced the scheme of the Government to very small dimensions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES:Do you intend to borrow?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had been completely misled. The Government were simply peeking to pass their obligations on to their successors. He complained of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought they ought to have some estimate of the growing burden that was being created by these loans. He argued that all the circumstances that would justify the stopping of borrowing two years hence would justify it now, and it was obligatory on the Government to make out the case for their failure to stop it now. Now that he saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer present he hoped the House would hear from the lion. Gentleman why it was that the contemplated change of policy with regard to borrowings had not been announced at the time of the Budget No hint was given them at that time that so important a change was to be proposed. Why were they now only seeking to carry it out piecemeal? No great harm would be done if this Bill were rejected, for the Admiralty already had nearly £2,000,000 in
  812
  hand and before anything further was done they ought to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this policy was to be applied also to military and other works.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had listened with unexampled patience and, he hoped, with some profit to the long speech of the hon. Member. But he confessed that it left him sad. He had taken the hon. Gentleman to be one of those able Scotsmen who came South in order to teach an ignorant people how to pay their way without getting into debt. Instead of that, the hon. Gentleman had avowed himself one of the inventors and patentees of this very vicious system of borrowing, and led the House to understand that when he came into office he would continue it. Personally he had always voted against this system.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:Did you vote against the first Bill?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought he did. He certainly had voted against the last Government on questions of that sort, and he was not sure he was not one of the tellers. He had not altered his opinions. The hon. Gentleman had led the House to expect that when he came into office he would continue this system?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:No.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he supposed they were to take it. then, that the hon. Gentleman was not going to borrow and his only fear was that when ignorant people saw the Navy Votes going up they would turn him out of office. The hon. Gentleman also complained, he thought, a little unfairly of the absence of Ministers. In the stress and strain of modern life and the consequent waste of tissue, the week-end holiday had become absolutely necessary to statesmen of eminence, and he for one recognised it was the inevitable for them to give Friday to motoring, Saturday to golf, and Sunday to bridge. He therefore would not complain that he had no audience of Ministers in fact he would be content to make his speech

  813
  to the hon. Gentleman alone. No doubt this was a most important question; it involved a matter which was the very marrow of finance. When they passed this Bill, the expenditure of this £5,800,000 would escape for ever from them, they would never have an opportunity of revising it, and, to adopt Kipling's words, they would only have to "Pay, pay, pay."
  He would for a few moments, with the permission of the House, wander into- the region of strategy. He was an humble student of strategy, which he had always understood to be merely the application of common sense to the problems of naval and military warfare. Never was a country so well placed for naval strategy as this. It divided Europe into two parts, which it prevented from joining forces against us. Yet its own sea approaches were so numerous that they could never be closed by an enemy. In Plymouth it had the finest port for action in southern Europe. Chatham was equally well fitted for naval action in northern Europe; and it possessed most special advantages as a naval port. It was completely defended by the sands and shoals at the mouth of the Thames from anything like torpedo attack. It was I close to our other great naval arsenals, Portsmouth and Plymouth. As com pared with Rosyth it had the incomparably best situation. It would be suggested that the enormous and extravagant expenditure on Dover was intended to make that port replace Chatham. It never could do so, for Dover could be bombarded from halfway across the Channel by movable vessels. Moreover, Dover had no dockyard and could not have any. Then let them compare the value of Chatham and Rosyth as strategical stations. Undoubtedly for the purpose of operations against all the northern coast of Europe, from Calais to the Baltic, Chatham was the better situated. The two were equidistant from the Baltic, but Chatham was a hundred miles nearer the mouth of the Elbe, and 200 nearer the mouth of the Scheldt, either of which we might have to blockade, and therefore nearer the intervening area where naval actions were probable, and it was infinitely
  814
  better situated in the event of action being necessary in the South of Europe. The merits of Chatham were recognised a year or two since, and the Government proposed to spend £4,500,000 there, but that policy had now been abandoned, and £2,500,000 was instead to be spent at Rosyth. The change was immense. It was capital. It was sudden. But if our official strategists thus quickly varied strategy must indeed be an uncertain science, and the strategist a man who could not be relied on to hold the same opinion for sixmonths.
  It was proposed to spend £2,500,000 on Rosyth, but he felt certain that if the vast works that were contemplated were carried out the expenditure would certainly be £5,000,000 and possibly £7,500,000. They had the example of Gibraltar before them. The works there were originallv to cost only £1,500,000. As a "fact they had cost nearly £5,000,000. He had another objection to the attempt to bind the House to an expenditure of £2,500,000 on Rosyth. The demand at present for Rosyth was a modest one, but his hon. friend knew very well that the great outlay that was incurred at Gibraltar was for the purpose of completing much less costly works which had been authorised. When more money was required for Rosyth it would be argued that works which had been commenced must be finished. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Rosyth scheme was complete as it stood. Every scheme was complete as it stood. The Gibraltar scheme was complete as it first stood, and as it first stood he himself had approved of it. But afterwards it was trebled by other schemes complete as they stood, which he held to be not only unnecessary but dangerous, and in the end they had been called upon to spend other £3,500,000 on that scheme.
  Let him call attention to the extreme vice of this method of committing the House to large expenditure by means of a token Vote. The Public Accounts Committee in their Report last year said they were of opinion that Parliament should not be asked on a token Vote of a few thousand pounds to commit itself to the construction of new works, the total cost

  815
  of which might run into millions, and of which not even an approximate estimate was submitted. That was exactly what they were asked to do now. They were asked to Vote £200,000 for Rosyth, as a token Vote, and thereby to commit the House to a large expenditure of which no final or ultimate estimate had been given. Part of the hon. Gentleman's speech dealt with the impossibility of giving final and ultimate estimates for works of this sort.
  The defence of the system of proceeding by loan was that the expenditure represented permanent works. There was nothing in this world that; was permanent unless it was the retention of office by the occupants of the Front Bench, but, of all things, the least permanent were naval works of every description. He did not shrink from using these words. His hon. friend had had the assurance to try to persuade the House that dredging was a permanent work. Nothing was less permanent, not a backetful of mud could be dredged without another bucketful immediately beginning to fill its place. An example of that might be seen in the Thames opposite that House. The river was always occupied by dredgers trying to deepen the channel. An enormous sum had been spent upon Chatham, which was now to be practically abandoned. Where then was the permanence? Might not that happen to any of these works? Chatham was to be abandoned, and in its place was to be put this Scottish upstart of Rosyth. Fortifications, and docks, and repairing shops were all non-permanent. His firm conviction, derived from the experience of Japan, was that the future would not be for the permanent repairing shops in the arsenal nor for the dock to receive the ships. The future would, he believed, belong to the repairing ships to accompany the Navy, and, as far as docks were concerned, the future would belong to the floating dock. Japan had been warring with their navy for two years, and during the whole of that time all the repairs had been carried on either on board the ships or on board repairing ships,
  816
  and if they had gone into dock it had been to clean their bottoms.
  THK CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBEKLAIN,was understood to dissent.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to doubt the assertion. Would the right hon. Gentleman get up and contradict it? He believed his statement would be found entirely accurate. It was undoubted that enormous service had been rendered to the Japanese Navy by their repairing ships, and it was in the direction of providing repairing ships; and not docks, that he should like to see either the Estimates or the Naval Works Bill go. But supposing that these naval arsenals were permanent, why should they be paid for by the system of loans? Formerly such works were paid for out of revenue. These were not the first naval arsenals we had had. One of the items for which it was proposed to borrow was electric plant. No gentleman would borrow to have gas fittings put in his house. But really the most humorous touch of all was that the House was asked to borrow over £1,000,000 for the salaries of those who were to conduct the works, superintendents, and so forth. Whoever heard of borrowing to pay the salaries of your employees? The Public Accounts Committee in one of their Reports for the year 1904 said—
  "Your Committee entertain serious doubts as to the financial method by which naval works are provided for by means of loans. The same remark applies, of course, to military works, and other similar loan services. For special works of permanent character and large cost it may, as an exceptional measure, be desirable to provide by loan repayable within a limited number of years. But the resort to such procedure should be the exception, not the rule, fn recent years, annual or biennial Military and Naval Works Acts have become a regular part of military and naval finance. Your Committee would deprecate the continuance of this practice. They believe it would be more in accordance with sound rules of finance and would tend to simplify the national accounts and maintain an efficient control over expenditure if the bulk of these services were included, as formerly, in the annual Estimates."
  That really represented the arguments he had endeavoured to place before the House. The Government indeed, did

  817
  not dispute that part of the argument. They admitted the system of borrowing to he bad, but, like St. Augustine, "they cried," Oh, Lord, convert me, but not yet. In fact they bettered St. Augustine, because he prayed to be converted during his life, but His Majesty's Government only intended to be converted after their death. They said, "We have been as extravagant and as wicked as we could be; we have wallowed in debt. We have added during our ten years term of office £235,000,000 to the whole liabilities of the country. But when we change ides you shall see what economical persons we are. You shall find us always voting with the Member for King's Lynn and against the Naval Works Bill." He said that all these charges for naval works ought to come on the Estimates, and further, that if they were not going to put them on the Estimates it would be better even to add them to the Funded Debt of the country than to make them out of a special debt of this sort, although it had a sinking fund of its own— a debt which was not subject to the ordinary Tides of the Funded Debt.
  This Bill was to authorise the borrowing of £5,800,000, but the liability to which the House was asked to commit the nation amounted to a great deal more. In the first place, there was the £2,300,000 to which the House would commit the country for Rosyth; then there had to be added— he was not talking now of the Sinking Fund— the interest which would accrue on this loan during thirty years amounting to over £3,000,000. Consequently, what they were asked to charge on the country now was not only £5,800,000 but a total liability of something over £11,000,000. That was what was at stake in this Bill. It would be better and cheaper to put the £5,800,000 on the Estimates. There was an extreme and special laxity in the finance of this Department. They thought nothing of spending half a million before they had the contracts before them, and it was particularly a Department that ought not to be trusted with the expenditure of large sums of money to be raised in this way. He was. strongly opposed to the Bill. He had
  818
  voted against the Resolution in Committee, and he would vote against the Bill now as a matter of duty. They were told by the Prime Minister the other day that the opinion of Parliament was sometimes worth nothing at all, but when that opinion was expressed on the Second Reading of a measure of this kind he thought that it must be considered that here at least the opinion was of some value. Mr. Mantalini was once served with a writ for £100 14s, 0½ d., and on looking at it he said, "Oh, the ha penny be dem'd." The Government might "dem" the £100, of the Land Commission on which they treated their defeat with contempt, but even they could hardly "dem" such a sum as £5,800,000. It was because the sum to be ultimately raised was so much greater than appeared from the Bill, because of the method in which it was proposed to raise the money, because the Admiralty ought not to be trusted, uncontrolled by the review of that House, with the expenditure of such large sums of money, and because of the accumulated vices of this Bill, that he would deem it his duty to vote against the Second Reading.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman on the subject of strategy, which he appeared to put in a most convincing manner. The Admiralty had such weight with the Government, with this House, and with the public at large, that it was perfectly clear any proposals they made were sure to be accepted, and he did not propose to criticise the works in themselves. He proposed te address himself to the question: How should the money be provided? Was it right that the money should be provided by loan or out of the Estimates of the year? He did not think that in the course of the debate it had been mentioned that out of the sum of £5,800,000 to be raised by this Bill only £1,000,000 was needed for spending in the course of the current financial year. In the Navy Estimates for this year there was a reduction of about £3,000,000. It would, therefore, have been perfectly possible for the Government, had they been content to make a reduction of only £2,000,000, to put all the year's expenditure on the

  819
  Estimates instead of including it in this Bill. He asserted that the advantage of paying our way as we went along was overwhelming. Consols at present stood at 90. He admitted the importance of having naval bases for our Empire, but the best naval base it could have was Consols at 100. If we could borrow cheaply we had a better defence than anything that could be put forward at any given moment. We could not carry on war successfully for any length of time unless we could raise money cheaply, and it was of greater importance to restore oar credit to 2½ per cent, than to go on borrowing for the purpose of erecting naval bases.
  At the end of this year the Government would have raised, and still have unpaid off, no less a sum than £49,000,000 in respect of what was called borrowing on capital account. These total borrowings this year, amounting to £9,000,000, would nullify altogether the operation of the Sinking Fund. In this system of borrowing the Navy had been the worst offender, and he blamed the Treasury for permitting the practice to continue. In a speech which he delivered on July 25th,1904, in the debate on the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "He gathered that hon. Gentlemen were rather anxious that the growth of small borrowings should be closely watched, and that they should not be made a permanent annual part of our financial system. In that hope and wish he was very much in accord with the Members opposite, but he was bound to point out that the works already sanctioned by Parliament, and which had been begun, were coming to an end. They had overtaken the arrears out of which they arose, and it would not be necessary to ask Parliament to make provision for them again."
  The only construction he could put on that language was that in 1904 it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to introduce if he were in office this year another Naval Works Bill. He had been subsequently told that the right hon. Gentleman's language did not bear that construction. He was told in the first place that the right hon. Gentleman was referring there to new works which had not been sanctioned, but that he did not pledge himself not to sanction payment in this way for works already undertaken. He did not
  820
  think that the words as they stood would admit of that explanation, but, even if the words were incorrect, he still thought that the right hon: Gentleman's action with regard to Rosyth showed that he had at any rate some intention of not continuing by the Naval Works Bill payment for works already begun. When he raised this question he was told that Rosyth was merely a small affair— £200,000 out of a total Estimate of £2,500,000. But there were exactly parallel cases in regard to the Votes for coastguard stations, and for dock extension at Simon's Bay, and it did appear to him that there was a doubt in the minds of the Government at one time whether there should be another Naval Works Bill introduced this year. These two illustrations showed that there had been some doubt as to what would be the Government's policy in future. He would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an illustration of what he meant. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking this year on the coal tax, said that he deprecated it, that there were many arguments against it, that he thought it was a tax which should be inquired into, and that, if circumstances warranted next year, it should not be continued.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was unwilling to allow words to pass which might be quoted against him afterwards. These words did not quite correctly represent what he said. What he said was that it was a tax of an exceptional character, the effect of which should be watched, but as far as it had gone at present he saw no reason for withdrawing it. If circumstances changed he said that the position should be considered.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it appeared to him that the summary he gave was very similar to what the right hon. Gentleman now said. The language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1905 would leave him free to oppose the coal tax next year tooth and nail. In the same way the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year in regard to these borrowings left him free to oppose any other Bill introduced on the same principle. When

  821
  the right hon. Gentleman uttered that language he expected an early election and that he would be confronted on the Treasury Bench with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were now on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman -wished to be able to say that he made speeches in which he deprecated these borrowings, but it happened that he still found himself on the Treasury Bench, and lie allowed a Naval Works Bill to be introduced with the best grace he could. He thought the Government should make up their minds regardless of a dissolution. The House was entitled to know whether the Government intended to continue this principle of borrowing, even if they were on that bench. He begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, no matter when the dissolution might be, what was the financial policy of the Government.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBEKLAINsaid, that he had taken a perfectly consistent attitude in regard to these borrowings for capital expenditure ever since he had held office. In his Budget statement -this year he said—
  "I have more than once expressed my own view to the Committee that, however necessary it was to have recourse to this method to make good the arrears of past years or to meet circumstances of an exceptional and extra-ordinary kind, it ought not to form part of our permanent financial system. We have, of course, still to complete the works which Parliament has already sanctioned, and to take whatever steps are necessary in order to fulfil the obligations which Parliament has already incurred; but I hope that it will not be necessary to extend the programme which has I already been approved. I hold that this procedure should be reserved for exceptional occasions."
  That was his considered conclusion, and ever since he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer he had striven to conduct financial policy on those lines. Even as Financial Secretary to the Treasury he placed similar opinions on record in regard to the Naval Works Bill.
  These Bills had their origin in two circumstances. In the first place, with the great expansion of the maté riel and personnel of the Navy which went on during the ten years previous to 1895 there had been ho corresponding expansion in the Works Vote, and therefore great arrears had accumulated in the items charged to
  822
  that Vote. At the same time, there had been a great change in the maté riel and the conditions of maritime warfare. The development of torpedo warfare had wholly altered the conditions attaching to the security of certain naval anchorages. One of our great historic anchorages was the Downs. Now it would no longer be possible for a fleet to lie there, and consequently the proposal with respect to Dover Harbour was made. Simultaneously there was a great expansion in the personal of the Fleet. It was not possible provide for all those men in the hulks in the basins as had, been done previously; and, if it had been possible, it would not have been good for discipline or health; and so it was necessary to embark on a considerable programme of barrack extension. It was also imperative, in the interests of decency, that a large sum should be spent in improving the nava hospitals. All these needs came at one time, and it was not possible to meet them out of current revenue without disturbing the whole financial system and placing on the taxpayers an intolerable burden. At the initiation of these works it was extremely difficult to estimate the rate of expenditure. In the first years the Admiralty, having had no previous experience of such works, greatly over-estimated the progress, and if the whole of the cost had been charged on the Votes at that time enormous sums which were not required would have been raised in those earlier years, and they would have had to be paid back into the old Sinking Fund. That would have rendered impossible one of the great securities for sound finance— namely, the principle that unexpended balances should be surrendered to the Exchequer at the. end on the year. In the interests of practical convenience and of necessity it was decided that the cost of a great programme of works of permanent or long-lasting advantages should be defrayed by loan instead of being charged on the annual Votes of the year.
  It had never been the intention of the Government that these works loans should be a permanent part of our financial system. When he assumed his present office he thought

  823
  that the time had come to take steps to bring these Loan Works Bills to an end. The other Loan Bills were framed on principles different from those of the Naval Works Bill. The Military Works Bill included an inclusive total sum which was not to be exceeded. As the House knew, they had not come to the House for any Military Works Bill this year. The case of the Naval Works Bill was different. There, although the total estimated cost of these works was shown, it had been customary to take provision in the Bill for only two years, so that the whole subject might come before the House for revision every two years. His object in regard to the Naval Works Bill— an object in which he had been supported by the Board of AdmiraIty— had been, in the first place, to exclude any new items, and, in the second place, to take certain items already in the schedule which were of a continuing or elastic character and to say that, after a given time, or when a given sum had been expended, no more money should be borrowed on that account, and that, if further expenditure were necessary for the same purpose, that expenditure should appear on the Votes and be voted in the ordinary way.
  The hon. Gentleman quoted a passage from Hansard in a speech of his on the Finance Hill of last year which, he thought, went further, and pointed to the fact that if he were responsible as Chancellor of the Exchequer in future he would not be a party to asking the House to pass another Naval Works Bill. He thought the passage in Hansard might reasonably give rise to that interpretation, but he was unable to reconcile that with what was his intention at the time or with his then knowledge of the possibilities of the situation. The report was not a verbatim one. It was a third-person summary, and he was confident that in the concluding sentence the report did not accurately represent his meaning or the sense of his observations.
  MR. MCKENNA:I entirely accept that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was sure the hon. Gentleman would,
  824
  and he was obliged to him. But let him say that, though the hon. Gentleman accepted that at once on his assurance, he thought it was confirmed by other evidence which he could bring. In the-first place, in his Budget speech of that year, he said, in reference to a suggestion; which had been made that he should meet the deficit by the suspension of the-Sinking Fund—
  "I think it would be doubly bail policy at the present time, with the principal Government securities at the figure at which they now stand, and with the knowledge that, for several years to come, the Government mast he-borrowers in pursuit of their statutory obligations under the Naval and Military Works and Irish Land Purchase Acts and for other purposes."
  It was, therefore, clearly in his contemplation at that time that they had not finished with such Act? as this and that they would have to come for further borrowing powers. And in order to make assurance doubly sure he had looked at The Times report of the passage the hon. Gentleman had quoted. Though that report was, he was bound to confess, also misleading, and made hint appear to have used words which were capable of the same misunderstanding, it differed from the Hansard report it the particular passage that had been; quoted, and showed, he thought, that the Hansard report did not actually represent what he said. The passage in The Times report was—
  "With the works which had been sanctioned by Parliament, and which had been begun, he-hoped they should come to an end with borrowing."
  That was exactly what his hope was, and that sentence, which appeared in The Times and did not appear in Hansard, showed that what he was arguing for was what he thought he was securing as far as one could secure by this Bill, namely, that there should not be inserted in the present Naval Works Bill or in future Naval Works Bills any items for new work.
  What had been done in regard to this matter under the present Bill? What they had arrived at was that, as regarded the continuing service of dredging, they were to provide as much money as was necessary for the employment of the plant and the carrying out of the work in the present year, but

  825
  that, as from April 1st next, any further works in dredging would be charged on the Votes; that as regarded the coastguard, where there was also a token sum, they would provide for the purchase or erection of houses which were already in progress or in regard to which negotiations had either been completed or had reached an advanced stage, but would go no further; and that, as soon as this sum of money was exhausted, if the policy of making themselves owners of coastguard stations instead of hiring houses were pursued, it should be pursued on the Navy Votes from time to time. Then there came before him the question as to how Rosyth was to be dealt with. In the Act of two years ago sufficient money was taken for preliminary expenses for works at Chatham and Rosyth. The Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion that, in consequence of the changes which his hon. friend the Civil Lord had already explained, it was unnecessary to proceed with both of these schemes, and they elected to proceed with Rosyth. There was certain preliminary work which must still be done before the contract for the larger works could be executed or any further expenditure than the £200,000 included in the present Bill incurred.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if they were to understand that Parliament would not be bound to any substantive proposals, and that no contracts would be given out, in connection with Rosyth, until the proposals were submitted on the Estimates of next year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was informed by his hon. friend the Civil Lord that that was so, and that tin contract for the large scheme he had adumbrated would not be made
  826
  until after the Vote was passed by the House. Except in very exceptional circumstances, when Treasury sanction was obtained for special reasons, no new work would be begun until Vote 10 was passed by the House.
  MR. BUCHANAN:It will be treated as a new work?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied in the affirmative. He was absolutely convinced by the reasons given to him by the Board of Admiralty that it was necessary to carry out the works at Rosyth. But he was unwilling to give the extension of time and money which would have bean involved by including the works in the present Bill; and he arranged that while the preliminary work contemplated by the £200,000 should be paid for under this Act, as was always intended, the subsequent work to be done should revert as a charge on the Votes. He thought no Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to pledge himself two years in advance as to the exact course of procedure which he would adopt; and, if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer two years hence, the hon. Gentleman must not quote this as a pledge, though he would be entitled to quote it as evidence of his present intention, and if he departed from it, to ask him what circumstances there were that justified him in changing his view. His present intention was that two years hence there should be introduced another Naval Works Act containing no new item by way of loan, but providing the balance of the money, or as much of it as was required under this Act, as could be expended in a further period of two year. That was to say, that the

  827
  programme as nowarranged— which it was intended to charge to loan until it was completed— would continue to be paid for by way of loan, but any new works not connected with those now in progress should be paid for by Vote. He loped and believed that the total estimates in the first column of the schedule were sufficient now in each case for the works opposite which the sums appeared. There might be savings on some unforeseen items that would compensate for any unforeseen excesses: but though that was the belief of the Admiralty neither the Department nor he could undertake to say that in no circumstances would any of these estimates need revision
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he thought the statement that the Government intended to go on with their scheme at Rosyth would come as a great surprise to a good many people in Scotland. The universal feeling in Scotland was that Rosyth, like Wei-hai-wei, was acquired in a moment of rather sudden determination, and that the question ought to be put on one side for further consideration. They were pleased to hear that any further plans for Rosyth would come before the House next year and that the whole of the charges for this purpose in the future were to be placed upon the Estimates. Two years ago the officials of the Admiralty thought the preliminary expenditure upon Rosyth would amount to £200,000 and it had only cost £150,000, and he wished to know why were they bound to spend the £50,000 balance, and charge it to the National Debt, when they were going to place the cost of the complete scheme upon the Estimates.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid they quite accepted what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and they felt grateful to him for having explained that he did not intend exactly what was put into the reports either of The Times or of the Official Debates. They were grateful to him for having explained what his opinions and views were. What they had good cause, however, to complain of was that the Government led them to suppose that this system was coming to an end. They had been led to this conclusion not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words, but by the general statements made by the Government over and over again upon this subject. The House had been repeatedly led to suppose that the Government were doing all they could to bring this system to an end. They now understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been doing his best almost alone in the Government to bring the system to an end, and he had managed to curtail it to a small extent, although he thought it could have been done to a greater extent. They did not complain in the least of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that day, but they did complain that not only had the reporter been misled but the whole House had been misled upon this question by the. by the Front Bench opposite. The whole House had been led to think that fie system was coming to an end. They had now the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge which to a certain extent was satisfactory. It did not go so far as they could have wished, but, at any rite, it was a step in the light direction

  829
  There were, however, other item; that ought to be struck out. The charge for dredging was one that would go on year after year, and ought therefore to be charged on the annual Estimates. He thought some explanation ought to be given of why when it was known that this Bill would be introduced, the Admiralty chose to reduce their Estimates by nearly £3,000,000. The more correct course from the point of view of finance would have been for the Admiralty to include these regular charges in the ordinary Estimates, instead of which they had reduced the Estimates and claimed to have effected great economies. Then had made what was really a false statement of accounts, and against such i system it was necessary to enter a protest. It was said that the Bill was brought forward because it was inconvenient to make the alteration this year But what better time could there be for transferring the items to the annual Estimates than a year when the Admiralty had a surplus in their accounts 'The representatives of the Admiralty had missed the chance of putting their accounts into proper order, and they had not given the Chancellor of the Exchequer tie opportunity of doing it, because the} did not tell him that they were going to borrow this money until some months after the Estimates were framed.
  MR. FLYNNthought that is an Irish Member he was entitled to speak on this measure inasmuch as Ireland would have to pay more than her fair share of the bill. Dredging was
  obviously a work which would be continuous from year to year, and therefore it ought not to appear in the schedule of a Bill of this kind. When these Military and Naval Works Bills were first presented to the House, he and others protested against them on the ground that they had an inevitable tendency to confuse the minds-of Members as to what the actual expenditure on the Army and Navy was. After nearly eleven years that view had been accepted as orthodox, and it was-some consolation to know that even the present reckless and spendthrift Government were beginning to recognise that this system of finance was intrinsically bad. It could not be denied that this House was deprived of its rightful power of supervising the Estimates if under Bills of this kind it was pledged in-advance, not only to capital expenditure, but also to considerable sums which, ought properly to be met out of annual income. The discussion of particular items would come better on the schedule in Committee than on Second Reading but as to the principle it was essentially vicious, since it concealed from the House huge expenditure to which it was-being committed, and simultaneously reduced its power of supervision. It was-true that the Government now admitted that it was a bad system, but the matter had gone so far that he agreed there ought to be a division, and therefore he should support the hon. Member for Perthshire in the lobby.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes,203; Noes,129. (Division List No. 315.)

  AYES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhops

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Aubrey-Fletcher-Rt. Hn. Sir H. -

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John George Alexander-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Benn, John Williams

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bigwood, James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bingham, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond, Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'donderry)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Helder, Sir Augustus

  Robinson, Brooke

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hornby, Sir William Hemy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John(Kent, F'versham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Sandys, Lt. -Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jameson. Major J. Eustace

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas

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

  Kerr, John

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker (Lanarks

  Coddington, Sir William

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Spear, John Ward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stroyan, John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Liddell, Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long. Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Douglas, Rt, Hn. A. Akers

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Turnour, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir W. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Fellowes, RtHn. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wills, Sir Fredk. (Bristol, N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Finlay, RtHnSirR. B. (Inv'rn'ss

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

  Marks, Harry Hananel

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgemon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  NOES

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Atherley-Jones, L

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Allen, Charles P

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Black, Alexander William

  832

  833

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Perks, Robert William

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Burns, John

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Russell, T. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehy, David

  Dolany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack. John Bamford

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dunn, Sir William

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ellice, CaptEC. (S. AndrwsBghs

  Murnaghan, Georgs

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Tully, Jasper

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P

  Wallace, Robert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Fuller, J. M. F

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Huddersf'd

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Young, Samuel

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Warner

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Harwood, George

  O'Shee, James John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  Main Question put, and agreed to:—Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MILITARY MANOEUVRES BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS].
  Order or Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [30th March] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn,
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SCOTTISH TRAWLERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARRIAGES) BILL

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY 0F STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said the measure was intended to relieve a difficulty which constantly arose through marriages being regarded as of doubtful validity in consequence of some informality. It affected all denominations, and Members on both sides were agreed that the Bill ought to pass.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed for Monday nest.

  IRISH EDUCATION (AFFLICTED CHIL-DREN) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for Public Education in Ireland, of the Expenses of Education given to Afflicted Children, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to make better provision for the Elementary Education of Afflicted Children in Ireland."

  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Lords Amendments be now; onsidered."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  MR. TULLY)said he presented the Bill from passing last year, and he wished to renew his objection on; he present occasion The measure was piece of class legislation, directed against; he poorer classes of the community. It night be all very well in industrial centres, but it was absolutely unnecessary and almost an insult that it should be proposed for Ireland. Those who knew how Courts of summary jurisdiction were constituted in Ireland would immediately recognise the danger of such a Bill, and; he probability that instead of being used or legitimate purposes it would be directed against political opponents.
  And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to— Coal Mines Weighing of Minerals) Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to— Hessle Gas Bill Lords]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the louse without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at twenty - nine minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Heckmondwicke Improvement Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Bolton Corporation Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
North Eastern Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1) Bill [H. L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment. The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H. L.].; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H. L.]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [H. L.]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H. L.]; Formby Township Bill [H. L.]; Sheffield University Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Midland Railway Bill; Bootle Corporation Bill; London Gas Bill; Caledonian Railway Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Bill; Rhondda Urban District Council Bill; Rotherham, Maltby, and Laughton Railway Bill; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill; Woolwich Borough Council Bill; Skegness Water Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill;
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill; Dublin United Tramways Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Wemyss Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act), deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read 3a(according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Suggestions for the consideration of teachers and others concerned in the work of public elementary schools.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 452. Gambia (Report for 1904).

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3463. Netherlands (Dutch Guiana).
  No. 3464. Siam (Chiengmai).
  No. 3465. Chile.

  ARMY
  1. Abstract of recommendations of the Royal Commission on the care and treatment of the sick and wounded during the

  719
  South African Campaign, together with the action taken.
  2. Sum of money granted as compensation to the son of an officer killed at the battle of Abu Klea.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOSS OF LIFE).
  Return showing the lives lost by wreck, drowning, or other accident in British seagoing merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom, during the years 1891 to 1904, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2232]).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Rules of the Supreme Court (July) 1905. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AGRICULTURAL PROSPECTS IN INDIA.
  In reply to Lord SANDHURST,
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH)said: The latest information we have with regard to agricultural prospects in India is contained in the following telegram—
  "Monsoon commenced late, but recent rain generally sufficient and well distributed. Prospects favourable in Eastern, Central, and Northern India, and fair elsewhere, except in part of Madras, South Bombay, and North Rajputana, where rainfall deficient still. Grain stocks sufficient everywhere and prices generally about normal. Total number now on relief: 1,500 in Bombay, and on test works 2,100 in Bombay and Merwara. There is at present no cause for anxiety."

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (LOCAL MARINE BOARDS
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that at many important shipping centres no local marine boards exist, and to move to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Board of Trade should, without delay, appoint local marine boards at these ports in accordance with Section 244 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and that steps should be taken to secure the due
  720
  representation of captains and engineers upon both existing and future local marine boards." Also to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Trade have appointed as their nominees upon such boards trade union officials, including some who have been convicted of infractions of the Merchant Shipping; Act and of other offences; and, if so, whether the Board of Trade will consider the propriety of cancelling such nominations and substituting there for the nominations of captains and engineers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a deputation which recently waited upon him at Bristol on the subject of the granting of certificates to alien pilots, said that the Board of Trade had no option but to administer the law as they found it. That has been the refrain of many replies to many such deputations by many previous Presidents. The object of the Motion which I have the honour to submit to your Lordships' notice to-day is to urge the Board of Trade to give effect, in the case of local marine boards, to its own oft-repeated dictum.
  In order that your Lordships may understand the importance of the question and its bearing upon the well-being of the mercantile marine, I will ask you to bear with me while I refer briefly to the origin, purpose, and constitution of local marine Boards. Local marine boards are provided for by the Act of 1894, but for their origin we have to go back to the year 1850. The Act of Parliament by which they were constituted was designed to achieve three great objects, and I cannot do better than quote to your Lordships an extract from a speech made by the then President of the Board of Trade in another place in introducing the Bill which afterwards became law, because every word has an intimate bearing. upon the subject of this Motion. The President said—
  "One of its principal provisions was that which would establish a system of compulsory examination of masters and mates in the merchant service, and would provide that which he held to be an object of the greatest importance, the power of cashiering a master or mate for incapacity or delinquency proved before a competent tribunal. That was the-first great.

  721
  principle embodied in the Bill. The second was that which would put a stop to that system of 'crimpage' which brutified and oppressed the seafaring population of this country, and which did not prevail in a similar degree in any other country in the world. With a view to put a stop to that system the Bill would provide for the establishment of responsible public officers who would undertake the duty of engaging crews and of dismissing crews on the return of a vessel from its voyage. That was the second great object of the Bill. The third was to be found in those provisions which were directed to the important purposes of improving the discipline of our merchant navy, of putting a stop to that desertion which prevailed to so great an extent in the merchant service, and of tightening the reins of discipline, which he held to be an object not less important for the welfare of the sailor than for the protection of the rights of the shipowner. Those were the great objects of the Bill, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the great body of shipping interest not only approved of those objects, but believed that the proposed mode of carrying them into effect would be unobjectionable."
  Proceeding to deal with the machinery for giving effect to the provisions of the Bill the President said—
  "He found that the principal objection entertained to the measure, and especially in the great outports, was that it would enforce a system of excessive centralisation, and would bring the shipping interest too much under the control of the Board of Trade sitting in London. Now he had felt that to be a question of great difficulty. He had no abstract reverence for a system of centralisation upon that or any other subject; on the contrary, he was anxious to avoid it as much as possible; and still less was he anxious for the patronage which the Bill would vest in the Board of Trade. He believed the shipping masters would have a most difficult duty to discharge; and he should be most happy to get rid of the appointment of those officers if he thought he could do so without leaving local bodies destitute of any proper check, and without allowing them to become centres of abuse and agitation. He thought that after a good deal of discussion with parties interested in the matter he had fallen on a plan which would prevent any system of centralisation, and would at the same time ensure an effectual check against local abuses. He proposed to institute local marine boards in all ports having more than 30,000 tons of shipping engaged in the foreign trade; and he further proposed that each of those local boards should be composed of twelve members, six of whom should be elected by the shipowners of the port four out of the resident shipowners of the port to be nominated by the Board of Trade, together with the mayor, or provost, as the case might be, and the stipendiary magistrate, to make up the board of twelve. He proposed that those local boards should carry on a good deal of the business and regulate many of the appointments which had before been entrusted to the Board of Trade. He proposed that those boards should have a concurrent
  722
  power with the Board of Trade of appointing examiners, while the Board of Trade should have the right of fixing the plan of examination, and of assisting by its officers at the examinations. The next point to which he should advert was the appointment of shipping officers. He believed there would be no danger in allowing the local boards to nominate shipping officers, and in making the necessary arrangements for the establishment of shipping offices. It had been represented to him, and with great force, as he thought that those officers would be placed in a very difficult and embarrassing position unless they could preserve the most cordial good understanding with the shipowners. He would, therefore, give the local boards the power of nominating the shipping officers; but he would take the precaution against any abuse of that concession by requiring that no salary could be given to those officers without the express sanction of the Board of Trade, which would be responsible for the expense of that portion of the proposed system. He would also give the local boards a concurrent power with the Board of Trade of instituting investigations into the conduct of all masters of ships against whom there was prima facie evidence that they had abused their powers."
  These proposals became law in the Act of 13 and 14 Vic, c. 23, and local marine boards were appointed on the basis therein defined. As your Lordships are aware, mercantile marine legislation was afterwards consolidated in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and later by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Both these Acts provide for the continuance of existing local marine boards, and the appointment of others by the Board of Trade. These Acts do not contain a word which implies an alteration in the status of ports which are to be provided with local marine boards. Section 244 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that—
  "There shall be local marine boards for carrying into effect this Act under the superintendence of the Board of Trade at those ports of the United Kingdom at which local marine boards are now established, and at such other ports as the Board of Trade appoint for the purpose."
  The obvious intention of Parliament was to allow sufficient elasticity in the law to enable the Board of Trade to meet the growing needs of the shipping community arising from the development and progress of the industry at various ports by appointing local marine boards as these ports should attain dimensions equal to those at which such boards were already in existence.
  Now I submit to your Lordships that the Board of Trade have lamentably

  723
  failed to give effect to the plain intention of the Act. At present there are in existence seventeen local marine boards, tie most recently appointed being that at Cardiff in 1893. Since then not a single further board has been appointed by the Board of Trade. But, my Lords, if the Board of Trade has stood still, the shipping industry of this country has continued to progress. The qualification for the institution of a local marine board was the registration of 30,000 tons of foreign going tonnage at the port to which the board is attached. This qualification is represented to-day by the entrance and clearance of 200,000 tons of British foreign going tonnage, that is to say, that 200,000 tons stand in the same relation to our tonnage today as 30,000 did to the tonnage of 1850. Taking, therefore, the basis of 200,000 tons as a proper one to be at present adopted by the Board of Trade, if effect is consistently to be given to the desires of the Legislature, we find that no less than sixteen ports are unprovided with local marine boards which on that basis are entitled to such institutions. While in some of these ports, such as Harwich, the tonnage entered and cleared may be swelled by the cross-Channel vessels which trade to these ports, but do not appreciably increase the volume of mercantile marine work, it cannot be denied that many other ports, both on the basis of tonnage and on the basis of seamen engaged and discharged, have long passed the stage when they should have been provided with the proper machinery designed by Parliament for the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act.
  Let me draw your Lordships' attention to some of the more striking anomalies of the present position. It would be ridiculous to assume that Parliament intended that the Merchant Shipping Act should be carried out by local marine boards at certain ports, and that at other ports of equal or greater importance it should be carried out directly by the Board of Trade. Yet that is how matters stand to day. For example, Aberdeen, with a tonnage of 100,849 tons entered and cleared, and no record of the number of men shipped annually, presumably because it is so small, is provided with a local marine board. Southampton,
  724
  with a tonnage entered and cleared of 2,308,069 tons, and 24,188 men shipped, has no such institution, the Board of Trade having thrown cold water on a proposal for the establishment of a board which emanated from the local chamber of commerce. Plymouth, with a tonnage entered and cleared of 251,006 tons, and no record of men shipped, possesses a board; Swansea, with a tonnage of 1,324,852 tons entered and cleared, and 6,465 men shipped, has none. The mercantile marine business of Greenock, with a tonnage of 150,211 tons entered and cleared, and no record of men shipped, is under the supervision of a local marine board; the same business at Newport, with 1,596,551 tons entered and cleared, and 9,514 men shipped, is under the direct supervision of the Board of Trade, notwithstanding a resolution of the local chamber of commerce requesting the appointment of a board. At Dublin, where the tonnage entered and cleared is 361,808 tons, and the number of men shipped is 1,561, there is a local marine board; at Middlesbrough, where the tonnage entered and cleared is 748,369 tons, and the number of men shipped 2,261, there is none. Sunderland, with 756,378 tons entered and cleared, and 4,648 men shipped, rejoices in a local marine board; Manchester, with 1,483,799 tons entered and cleared, and presumably a much larger number of men shipped, laments the absence of such an institution.
  Again, I submit to your Lordships that it was never the intention of Parliament that such an anomalous and confused state of affairs as this should be allowed to arise, and that Section 244 of the Merchant Shipping Act was intended to be administered rationally and not simply at the caprice of the Board of Trade officials. As to the desire on the part of shipowners and shipmasters for local marine boards, there can be no question. At the last annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom a resolution was unanimously passed urging the President of the Board of Trade to give the matter his immediate attention. The Executive Council of

  725
  the Shipping Federation, which represents approximately nine-tenths of the foreign-going vessels of our mercantile marine, and whose function is principally to deal with the personnel of the service, are also unanimously in favour of the appointment of further boards. The Merchant Service Guild, representing over 12,000 captains and officers, is of the same opinion. What excuse has the Board of Trade to offer for neglecting the duty imposed upon it by statute and for flouting the wishes of these great and representative bodies? It cannot be on the ground of expense, because the cost of a local marine board is but little more than the price of the stationery and the secretary's salary, say £50 a year, the board having power to arrange that one examiner shall act jointly for various ports.
  That these boards are necessary and valuable institutions cannot be denied. The shipping industry is of a most complex and varied character in all its details. None other is subject in the same degree to State regulation, and regarding it, as I do, as the paramount national industry of this country, I should be the last to say it should be otherwise. On the the other hand, there is no trade which is less understood by those who are without practical experience than the shipping trade, and in none consequently is it of more importance that the control of the State should be of a judicious and elastic character, if it is not to be fraught with disastrous results. This was recognised by the Legislature when it provided that its intervention in what I may term the domestic relations between shipowners and their crews should be made through the medium of shipowners themselves as represented upon these boards. As I have already pointed out to your Lordships, it was considered to be in the interests of the seaman, in order to save him from the crimps and other harpies by whom he is regarded as legitimate prey, that the whole of the formalities in connection with his engagement and discharge should take place in the presence of State officials. It was wisely recognised that this method of State regulation might take the form of intolerable
  726
  interference unless it were sympathetically administered;
  It is difficult for an employer of shore labour to realise the extent to which that interference is carried. It is open to any of your Lordships to engage a servant by the day, week, month, or year without reference to any Department of State. But the Cunard Company cannot carry a seaman on a five days trip across the Atlantic without a solemn contract entered into before a mercantile marine superintendent, hedged with formalities and restrictions of every kind. Whatever there may have been to be said for such procedure in the days of sailing ships, when voyages lasted for years which now occupy weeks only, there can be no doubt that it is rapidly becoming archaic and oppressive. It is therefore doubly important to ship owners that their legal rights to representative control of these details of their business should not be filched from them. Can any one doubt that a local marine board composed of the six leading ship owners of a port, of four captains and engineers, and of the mayor and stipendiary magistrate of the port, is likely to act otherwise than in the most upright manner? My Lords, I have not hesitated, in season and out of season, to denounce what I consider to be evils in the conduct of the shipping business of this country, but I have never formed so low an estimate of the character of ship owners as the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, who are apparently afraid to confide to them the administration under the Board's own superintendence, and in conjunction with the Board's own nominees, of those statutory provisions which it was always intended should be so administered.
  As one illustration out of many of the evils which arise from the absence of expert local supervision of mercantile marine business, and of the utter incapacity of a Government Department to appreciate the practical issues between ship owners and seaman and the difficulties of maintaining discipline at sea, I will refer your Lordships to the case of the port of Middlesbrough— that port which has recently been refused a local marine board by the Board of Trade in spite of a

  727
  memorial praying for the establishment of such a board, unanimously signed by the ship owners resident in the port, by the owners of vessels trading to the port, by the masters of such vessels, and by the great societies of ship owners; shipmasters, and officers to which I have previously referred. In the absence of a local marine board it has devolved upon the Board of Trade to perform the functions which, under the Act of Parliament, should have been undertaken by a local marine board.
  Let me mention some of these functions to your Lordships, and then let us see how they have been carried out by the Board of Trade. These functions are to be found enumerated in Sections 244– 5– 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act,1894. One of the duties of the local marine board is to appoint and remove the necessary mercantile marine officers, whose business it is to superintend the engagement and discharge of seamen. The post of mercantile marine superintendent is, I need hardly say, one involving an intimate knowledge of the mercantile marine, and especially of the practical and everyday relations between shipmasters and their crews. How was the appointment of superintendent of mercantile marine filled up by the Board of Trade at Middlesbrough? Did they appoint a shipmaster of experience and sound attainments, a man whose practical knowledge of the service would be helpful and valuable in every way in connection with the duties of his post? Or did they promote some official who, although without sea experience, had by virtue of long service in a subordinate capacity gained such a knowledge as would fit him for the position? No, my Lords, the Board of Trade were not trammelled by any such considerations. The gentleman they saw fit to appoint to the important and responsible position of mercantile marine superintendent was a chemist— a laboratory chemist, and although at the time a Question was put to the then President of the Board of Trade on the subject in another place, on behalf of the shipping interest, and although I myself drew the attention of your Lordships' House to it, the appointment was persisted in by the Board of Trade.
  728
  I ask your Lordships is it conceivable that any local marine board, with an adequate representation of ship owners and shipmasters upon it, would have made such an appointment as that? I have not a word to say against the gentleman personally. For aught I know he may be imbued with a strong sense of duty, and in course of time he may even make an excellent superintendent of mercantile marine; but, my Lords, he is getting his education at the expense of the best interests of the merchant service. For what are the results that one would expect to flow from such an appointment? They are the results which are almost inevitable where a chief official has to rely entirely upon his subordinate for the practical knowledge of the business of which he is in charge, and where, in addition, those subordinates are men who, however well qualified they may be for an inferior position, have neither the capacity nor the character to fit them to deal with the higher and more responsible duties of their profession.
  In the case of the port of Middles-brough, it was the expected which happened. Very numerous complaints have been made by captains concerning the manner in which mercantile marine business is transacted at this port. Some of these masters were members of the Merchant Service Guild and complained bitterly to that body. Others complained to their owners, who in turn passed on their complaints to the Shipping Federation by whom they were laid before the Board of Trade. These complaints, which have been submitted to me by the guild, were to the effect that the shipmasters in question had received degrading treatment at the hands of the mercantile marine officials in the presence of their crews. The reading of the articles of agreement was accompanied by a running commentary by these officials, which I can describe as nothing less than an incitement to the men to insubordination. The men were advised to take no notice of certain clauses in their agreements, to see that they were not tricked in connection with the scale of provisions by the substitution of margarine for butter, and so forth. These remarks were made to the seamen in the presence

  729
  of their captains, and were sometimes received with applause by the men. My Lords, I do not envy the lot of the shipmaster who is called upon to command a British crew after such a preparation for the voyage as this.
  In one case, that of the steamer "Dews-land," a seaman was so wrought upon by the admonitions of the mercantile marine officials that, after the signing of the articles, he returned to the vessel, and striking the master in the face declared he would not proceed to sea in her. The master of the "Harbyn" writes as follows—
  "On paying off at Middlesbrough, on the 29th of January last, I was treated by the shipping master in a scandalous manner. There were two men I gave a passage home to from Bilbao to Middlesborough. I was in error in not reporting these men immediately as aliens; I was and had been ill at the time, and that is how this error was made. Well, some of my crew were not what I would have liked them to be, and I gave them" Good "instead of" Very good "discharges; the men complained and the shipping master dictated to me in a very improper manner. The men informed the shipping master I had brought two foreigners into the country, and that I had /passed a ship in distress in the Bay of Biscay and would not stop to attend to her. The shipping master, Mr. Hart, took up this question and carried on very much, bullying me before the men like a pickpocket, which was too much for me to stand, with the result that I retaliated, so what was actually said I cannot say, but he was most insulting to me. We did pass a vessel in the Bay of Biscay stopped under ordinary conditions which often happens at sea, but she had not any lights asking for assistance, but only showed the usual regulation lights, masthead and side lights. I threatened at the time to write to the superintendent of the Board of Trade but did not, as I was too busy. I may add that I shipped these men whom I brought from Bilbao, so that they were not left in this country. My chief mate, who was present at the time, confirms this statement, and appends his name thereto."
  Do your Lordships suppose for a moment that if a local marine board had been in existence such a state of affairs as is represented by these complaints would not have been instantly nipped in the bud? The ship owners and shipmasters requested the appointment of a local marine board at Middles-brough and an inquiry into the conduct of the officials, the latter request being, after considerable delay, granted by the Board of Trade. To their surprise when the inquiry was opened at Middles-brough they found themselves confronted by the secretary
  730
  of a so-called Seamen's Union— which is unknown to the Registrar of Friendly Societies— who had been invited to take part in the inquiry by the Board of Trade, apparently for no other purpose than to heckle the witnesses with, impudent questioning. As if this gratuitous insult were not sufficient, the ship owners who had stipulated for, and been promised, legal representation at the inquiry, were informed that the charges against the officials would be heard in camera.
  My Lords, I do not know of what sort of stuff ship owners are made which enables them to acquiesce in this sort of treatment without protest to His Majesty's Government. As it was, those present took the only step compatible with dignity or even decency, and withdrew from the so-called inquiry, leaving it to be finished by the Board of Trade and its trade-union advisers. I have referred to this so-called inquiry for the purpose of showing the utter inability of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to appreciate the very real difficulties which exist between masters and crews. I would draw your Lordships' attention to a passage in the inquiry in connection with the examination of Captain Green, a member of the Merchant Service Guild, who had travelled from Genoa for the purpose of giving his evidence. I take the passage verbatim from the shorthand note of the proceedings which has been supplied to me by the Merchant Service Guild. The president of the committee of inquiry, addressing the secretary of the Seamen's Union referred to, upon whom he (the president)— and the president, I may mention, was the Professional Adviser of the Board of Trade— appeared principally to lean for advice in the conduct of the proceedings, said—
  "The personal matters are the matters which can only be spoken to by the persons concerned. What I am talking about are the trivial charges such as that when a man read out from the scales of provisions, he paused at the word 'butter,' and said, 'Take care to get butter, men, and not margarine.' That is a charge which I do not think you, or anyone else, would be interested in sifting."
  My Lords, more complete incapacity to grasp the delicacy of the relations between shipmasters and their crews it would be hard to imagine. On the one

  731
  hand, you have a captain who, with two or three mates, is responsible for the control of his crew. On the other hand, you have the crew, a body of men inflamed with the teachings of agitators, taught to take advantage of every loophole for indiscipline. Between the two is the Government official, who by manner, word, and deed, is inciting those men to discontent. Your Lordships do not need to be informed how quickly the seeds of discontent when sown in such soil germinate and blossom into insubordination.
  My Lords, I could multiply instances in which the interests of the mercantile marine are suffering for the want of that local and immediate control over their own business under the supervision of Government which the Legislature wisely ordained it was to have in certain matters. But I will now pass to another point, viz., the character of the representation upon the local marine boards so far as that representation is in the hands of the Board of Trade. As your Lordships are aware, the boards consist usually of twelve members. Of these, six are elected by the ship owners, and naturally enough are members of the trade; four fall to be nominated by the Board of Trade, and the remainder, which may be one, two, or three, are the mayor and stipendiary magistrate or magistrates of the port. It is in respect of the Board of Trade nominees that I wish to urge upon His Majesty's Government that full representation should be given to captains and engineers upon these boards. I freely admit that this principle has already been partially adopted, and that representatives of the cloth are to be found among the nominees of the Board of Trade upon many local marine boards. But I say it should be more widely adopted still by the exclusion of the trade-union officials which the Board of Trade have seen fit to put upon some of these boards and the substitution in their place of captains and engineers.
  Take the local marine board of the port of London. Not one single representative of merchant captains is to be found upon that board. Yet one of the nominees of the Board of Trade is Mr. Joseph H. Wilson, who on more than one occasion has been convicted and
  732
  fined for persuading seamen to desert from their vessels and has been imprisoned for riotous assembly, and who, I am informed, abuses his position upon the local marine board by using it to gain access to the shipping office in connection with the soliciting of seamen to join his so-called union, and for other purposes in connection with that organisation. There is a saying, my Lords, that—
  "An old poacher makes the best gamekeeper,"
  but I submit that that would be a dangerous principle for adoption by the Government of this country in the selection of its nominees for public offices, and that the interests of public morality are badly served by such an appointment as that to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention, and upon which I do not propose to dwell at greater length.
  Since first I occupied myself with this question I observe that the triennial elections of local marine boards have taken place, and I have noted with some satisfaction that the Board of Trade, in deference no doubt to the strong local feeling which was evoked by the appointment, have refrained from re-nominating another trade-union official who had also been convicted of the offence of persuading seamen to desert. I trust we may take this as an earnest of their intention to abandon this pernicious policy, if only by degrees. On the general question of the right of seamen to due representation in any legitimate sphere no one feels more strongly than I do. Seamen are entitled to combine, or, as unfortunately seems to happen in their case, to allow themselves to be combined by some manipulator, if they choose, but in no sense can it be said that they have any title to representation upon local marine boards, which are the tribunals before whom their captains and officers are brought upon charges of misconduct.
  The British Navy exhibits the highest standard of discipline in the world. It also offers the finest example of a healthy and contented personnel in spite of food and pay which are as a rule inferior to those obtainable in the mercantile marine, though the food in merchant

  733
  ships is too often ruined by bad cooking. I wonder how your Lordships, or the Lords of the Admiralty, would receive a proposal that the men of that service should be represented upon Courts-martial sitting in judgment on their officers? Could any proposal be imagined more derogatory to, or subversive of, discipline? Yet the principle is the same in both cases. I, therefore, invite your Lordships to join with me in urging His Majesty's Government to increase the number of local marine boards till it is commensurate with the maritime needs of the country, to strengthen and purify the representation upon these boards by purging them from those elements which, at the best, are "matter in the wrong place," and, in short, to impress upon the Board of Trade the duty of administering the law as it finds it, not only in the letter, but honestly in accordance with its spirit and the intention of the Legislature.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Board of Trade should, without delay, appoint Local Marine Boards at these ports in accordance with Section 244 of the Merchant Shipping Act,1894, and that steps should be taken to secure the due representation of captains and engineers upon both existing and future Local Marine Boards.—(Lord Musketry.)
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH):My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has gone into many matters concerning this subject. I do not propose to follow him in the numerous points he has raised. Sufficient for me to say is this, that I feel sure that if the Lord Privy Seal had been here this afternoon he would have taken exception to many of the comments which fell from the noble Lord, and I am inclined to think that he would have stigmatised many of his statements as by no means accurate as regards their facts.
  What is it that the noble Lord is anxious to have information upon? He told your Lordships that at the important shipping centres there are not a
  734
  sufficient number of local marine boards. I might remind the noble Lord that at nearly all the most important seaport towns in the Kingdom— Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Greenock, Hull, Liverpool, and so on— marine boards exist, and where they do not exist machinery has been set up by means of which the duties which would otherwise be administered by local marine boards are carried out. As at present advised, the Board of Trade do not consider it necessary to add to the number of local marine boards, but applications to that end have always received, and will always receive, their most careful attention.
  As to the representation of captains and engineers upon the boards, I would remind the noble Lord that under the Act of 1894 six of the members of the local marine boards are elected by ship owners and four are appointed by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have always endeavoured in appointing these representatives to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Labour, and have appointed as far as possible persons who are not interested as ship owners or in shipping property. The members of local marine boards appointed by the Board of Trade number sixty-eight in all, and I will tell the noble Lord how they are classified. Twenty - six of them are representative of deck officers, twenty-four of whom are retired master mariners; sixteen are representative of engineers, and eleven of seamen; and fifteen other members are unclassified, most of whom were appointed before the Report of the Labour Commission. I only mention these figures to show that great care has been taken that both masters and engineers are represented on the local marine boards; indeed, from these figures it seems to me they have more representation almost than their proper share.
  Finally, the noble Lord was anxious to ascertain whether trades-union officials had been appointed on these boards. I am informed by the Board of Trade that some of the present representatives of seamen appointed by the Board of Trade have been, or are at the present time, trades-union officials; but the Board of Trade consider these gentlemen

  735
  suitable and representative of their class. The Board of Trade are not aware that any of them have been convicted of any offence under the Merchant Shipping Act during the period they have served in their respective offices. Nor did the Board of Trade see any reason at all to question these appointments, and they are certainly not prepared, as the noble Lord would wish, to cancel them in order to make way for engineers and masters who are already, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, more represented than probably they are entitled to be. I regret that I cannot go more fully into the other points which the noble Lord raised.
  LORD MUSKERRYAS the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade is unable to be in his place, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Motion for the present. I shall bring it before your Lordships again next year.
  Motion, by leave of the House, with drawn.

  ORGANISATION FOR WAR.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to call attention to the Under-Secretary of State for War's answer to direct inquiries as to the preparedness of the different commands to move to any point on the East Coast at short notice fully equipped and organised in all respects for war. The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recollect that about a fortnight ago a Resolution was accepted by His Majesty's Government and by your Lordships' House without a division, the effect of which was that it would be unwise and contrary to the interests of the Empire to trust only to the Navy for our defence, and that it was essential that at all times we should be in all respects on land so strong that no nation would in any form attempt a hostile landing on our shores.
  Soon after that was carried I received a letter from a dear old friend of mine, a colonel of the Hampshire Horse, who forty years ago solved the problem of mounted infantry in much too perfect a way for the War Office, who allowed
  736
  this force to die out, but now ask us to spend £3,000,000 on a new arm for the cavalry, when the infantry arm already in existence, if carried on the Bower plan, would have met all requirements and been absolute perfection. He wrote congratulating me on my success in getting this Resolution carried, and added—
  "Be sure and keep the tambourine a-rolling."
  It was to keep the tambourine a-rolling that I asked the noble Earl the other day the Question referred to in my notice. What is the use of passing such a Resolution unless you know whether or not you have the means to carry out that Resolution? I therefore asked for information from the noble Earl; but how was it met? The noble Earl threw the monthly Army List at my head. He told me I should get all the information I wanted from that book. I have looked at the Army List. It tells you nothing as to your state of organisation, as to your armaments, as to your transport, and all that is necessary to make your different commands a fighting unit capable of going anywhere. It tells you nothing. The noble Earl raised as much official dust as any motor ever did on the road— dust to throw in the eyes of your Lordships and the public as to the state of what you call your preparedness. His Answer took the form that it would not only be unwise but wrong on the part of the War Office to let your Lordships and the public behind the scenes, and to tell the world what the secret strategic plans of the War Office are. Now I asked for no information on that point. I do not care what your strategic plans are. I do not want to know them. I want to know whether you have the means of carrying them out, whether the commands, as you call them, are capable of moving and within what time. That is all, and to say that that information is a strategic secret is absurd, for it is known to every military attaché in London; it is known to every man who goes about with his eyes open at Alder-shot and elsewhere.
  Having been snubbed in this way by my noble friend, I thought the best thing to do would be to try and get information for myself, and that I have endeavoured to do. I happened by chance to meet an

  737
  Aldershot friend— a man of some importance at Aldershot—and I asked him—
  "How long would it take you to organise in all ways as a fighting unit, ready at short notice to go anywhere?"
  He at once said it would take ten days, afterwards modifying that by saying it would take from seven to ten days. The Aldershot command differs from all the others inasmuch as it is composed purely of regulars. There are no Auxiliary Forces— no Militia, no Yeomanry, no Volunteers. But there are other commands in which they have these different; forces and I asked a brigadier of one of these forces how long it would take his mixed command to move. He replied, "Seven days." But he made this mistake. He thought I meant his own brigade. I said "No; I mean what you call the command, the whole Army complete in all its parts." The reply was "I cannot tell you." That is the information I received.
  I am a kindly disposed person, and would rather return good for evil. I have therefore endeavoured to get information which at any rate your Lordships have not got, and I think the House will be much interested in some of the figures I am going to give you as to the preparedness in every way of foreign forces. This is an absolutely reliable list. Much of it is in print, for abroad these strategic secrets which my noble friend will not give me are in print in many cases that the people may know where they are to go to when they are wanted. I find that in the smallest and poorest of these States— Switzerland— they have got 200,000 men in the 1st Elite. All these men can be ready in from twenty-four to forty-eight hours, completely fitted with everything for war, to move in any direction they are ordered. There are 200,000 more in the Landsturm. They can be ready in a week as supports, complete in armaments, ammunition, guns, horses, transports, ambulance, commissariat— as fighting units. Italy has twelve army corps. The railway system is bad for speedy mobilisation, but Italy can concentrate the whole of the twelve army corps in the Po Valley in eight days.
  738
  Now I come to Germany. The first army mobilisation is 1,300,000 men, and they are mobilised in seven days, the lowest time given for Aldershot, where the number of men concerned is, as we know, considerably below 1,300,000. Then behind that force there is another million in the Landsturm. Both can be brought in the field in this short time complete in all things. Lastly, I turn to Prance, and I find that they can put 900,000 men in the field in a week, and 1,000,000 in the second line in another week. Here too is a very remarkable thing which I would press on the attention of my noble friend, that not only are they prepared to have these armies ready in the time stated, but for every horse serving in the field France and Germany could instantly lay their hands on a reserve of five horses. These figures are very telling and very instructive, and I hope the War Office are imitative enough to follow so good an example. I have here a letter which I have received from a great military instructor, Dr. Miller Maguire, who has now a Professor and two Officers from Germany attending his lectures. This is what he says on the state of our Army—
  "I do not believe you could have our so-called commands ready in a month. But in point of fact there would be no use in their trying to be ready. It would be only readiness for ruin. There are no guns for either Regulars or Auxiliaries, no system of commissariat for any mobile Army, no staff, no organised methods of any kind, and half of the Regulars are quite unfit for even a fortnight's war in our own isles. Much better test and reject one-third of these paid men at once, and then worry Volunteers next. As against our present so-called Army, any army half as good as Napoleon's at Boulogne in 1804, could, by the admission of eight-ninths of our officers, do as they pleased in our country."
  He goes on to say—
  "Our military force could not be organised in a month, and if mobilised one-third of the Regulars could not keep the field for even a fortnight. Our Army organisation, officers, staff, guns, and rifles would be absolutely, and relatively to possible rivals, in a worse case than Gambetta's in 1870– 71. We have no Army fit to cope with any civilised adversary."
  Your Lordships heard what Lord Roberts had to say in this House the other day as to the state of our Army. Lord

  739
  Wolseley in a letter to me some time ago said—
  "It is no use having an Army List; we have no Army."
  You, therefore, have the opinions of these two great generals with reference to the present state of our Army. Do not forget the condition the Army was in which we sent out to South Africa. In 1860 we had the biggest field guns in the world, but these big guns became obsolete through the improvement of the ordinary field gun, and they were never replaced, with the result that if it had not been for the Navy's guns we should have been driven into the sea in South Africa. Lord Roberts is to speak on Tuesday next at a great meeting at the Mansion House, and I have received a circular letter inviting me to attend, at the conclusion of which Lord Roberts says—
  "I propose to deliver a short address in furtherance of the remarks made in my speech in the House of Lords on July 10th on the inadequacy of our present means for the defence of the Empire."
  Nothing is being done that is really satisfactory to better this state of things. An excellent letter appeared in The Times on July 20th last, written by their military correspondent, in which he says—
  "It is difficult to credit that Mr. Arnold-Forster's colleagues can feel or express anything but formal sympathy with a plan which aims at the conversion of eight good into eight inferior battalions; which leads nowhere and proves nothing which is not already known; which imposes fresh burdens on the taxpayer, and offers results inferior to the system it displaces, and finally helps to render the provision of the necessary drafts impracticable."
  So much for the Army I cannot understand how my noble friend Lord Lansdowne and the Cabinet allowed the present Secretary of State for War to play with the Army as if they were tin soldiers in a nursery. He tried to do away with the Militia absolutely. We beat him there. This year he has tried to alter entirely the terms of service and to make it compulsory for them to serve abroad. But this Bill will not pass.
  The Volunteers are a force of Englishmen who prefer serving the King as Volunteers at home to taking their chance of ballot for the Militia, and these men Mr. Arnold - Forster is having measured and examined— for home defence?
  740
  No, for foreign service. I read that three regiments have declined to be examined for foreign service. They are quite right. There is no breach of discipline in declining to do what you did not undertake to do. It seems to me it is a great pity that Mr. Arnold-Forster did not stick to what he said at a dinner at which I was present at the Royal Academy in May,1904. He told the Company—
  "I am attending zealously to the intellectual equipment of the British Army."
  It is to be regretted that he did not stick to this and leave their corporeal entities alone. It is admitted that you have a shortage of 10,000 officers. You have on the one hand the suggestion of the Duke of Bedford that lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants should become recruiting officers. Then Lord Lovat suggests that the Universities and seats of learning should be used as recruiting grounds. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs knows perfectly well that there is one simple way of dealing with the whole thing. Our Secretaries of State for War break down because they attempt to be original and are not content with what satisfied the Duke of Wellington and has satisfied this country hitherto. At a dinner which I attended this summer my host said—
  "Wemyss, will you undertake to be Secretarv of State for War?"
  I replied—.
  "Certainly, if I am allowed to do what I want, and am not expected to be original."
  It is this attempt at originality that is breaking down things. All the administrators and writers go in for something different from that which has existed hitherto. The other point on which they break down is that of moral courage. This I am sorry to say is not confined to Secretaries of State, but extends to the whole Cabinet. If you would enforce the existing law which you annually suspend, all your difficulties would disappear and you would have a cheap Army.
  What would be a perfect state in this country? It would be this, that every Englishman, Scotsman, and Irishman should be trained as a youth in gymnastics, drill, and sword-play, which I thank my parents for having made me go through, and should be trained to shoot also, and

  741
  that process of training should extend up to and through the Universities. And, as regards the question of shooting, you do not want a large sum of money. I tried an interesting experiment as to this. At my home in Scotland, where there is a Volunteer company and a drill hall, I got the drill sergeant to take two recruits, neither of whom had ever had a gun in his hands. They were trained with the Morris tube in the drill hall, and when their instruction was perfected they were taken to the butts to see how they could shoot there. The result was that they actually shot better than men whose whole training had been at the butts. Instruction in rifle shooting could be easily and cheaply given at Morris tube ranges. I think the matter is certainly worthy of consideration. Do not imagine that it is a bad thing for a youth to be drilled. A distinguished engineer, Sir Joseph Whitworth, many years ago told me that it is the best thing possible for working men to be drilled. He said they learnt to work together, to be obedient and orderly, and he added that he would give 1s. 6d. a week to any workman who had been drilled over the wages he would give to one who had not been drilled. Therefore, nothing can be better for the nation than such a system as I have ventured to describe.
  Nineteen would be the age when in the mildest possible form you would apply the existing law, which is simply the embodiment of the liability of every Briton to pay for his privilege of being born a Briton by serving his country. When a youth reaches nineteen years of age I would have him this once— though you would, of course, keep the power, in case of national emergency, of extending the period— run the chance of being balloted for the Militia. Can anything be simpler than that? Yet we hear from the occupants of the two Front Benches that the British nation will never stand this. How dare you libel the nation in that way? Have they ever shown that they will not stand it? Have you ever asked them? I do not think either Front Bench has. I have spoken in this sense for forty years, and I have never heard, whenever I
  742
  have ventured to voice these feelings, a single objection raised.
  I tested it in a practical way by sending a circular round to all the county and town authorities, chairmen of quarter sessions, chairmen of county councils, mayors, provosts, and others. I put two questions to them. The first was, "Are you satisfied with the present state of things as regards the Army and home defence?" Four hundred circulars were sent out, and over 200 answers were received, and to this question 75 per cent, of those who replied returned the answer "No." The second question was, "Do you suppose that the nation would accept a modified form of compulsory service for home defence, and home defence only?" The replies were two to one, "Yes." And yet you go about libelling the British race and assuming that they have less patriotism than the little Jap, our ally, when you have never dared, for fear of votes— and this is the only thing that rules now-a-days— to ask them. And yet what an example of the patriotic spirit of our nation you had, when, on an appeal from the War Minister, General Peel, my noble friend Lord Spencer, the then Lord Lome, and so many of your Lordships, rushed to arms, and within twelve months over 40,000 Volunteers marched past their great Queen in Hyde and Holyrood Parks.
  And now I venture to think that if the Government would have the courage to again make an appeal to the nation, they would meet with a like patriotic response, and could apply in the modified form I have suggested the existing law of ballot for the Militia, and then all difficulties would vanish and you would get, as I have said, a cheap Army for in that case Volunteers would have to do as we did. We. paid all our own expenses when we began. I hold, then, that patriotism is not dead, and if the Government would only appeal to the people they would have such a response as I am sure would surprise them. Depend upon it, no nation that wishes to come here will give you any warning. In twenty-four hours, if your Fleet does not prevent them, they will have landed, on our shores, at any rate for a raid.

  743
  My Lords, let me in conclusion say that for home defence no more is needed than the application of the modified form of compulsory service to which I have referred. No more, I say, is needed; to do less is treason to the State.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY):My Lords, before the noble Earl the Under-Secretary replies, I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the rules of debate in this House. No one, I think, would desire to interrupt the noble Earl who has just spoken. We are all, I am sure, glad to have instruction from him; but I think it is irregular and inconvenient to raise the whole question of compulsory service and home defence on a Question of this kind. The noble Earl's notice on the Paper reads as follows—
  "To call attention to the Under-Secretary for War's answer to direct inquiries as to the preparedness of the different commands to move to any point on the East Coast, at short notice, fully equipped and organised in all respects for war."
  If that sort of Question is allowed to be debated in this way, I venture to think it will be very difficult to arrange the business of the House. There is an important Bill waiting to be discussed on Second Reading, and I put it to the noble Earl who leads the Opposition and to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether in some way or other something could not be done in this matter.
  THE EARL OP WEMYSS:My Lords, the last thing in the world I wish to be is disorderly. So great is my desire not to be disorderly that instead of speaking from the front cross bench I have come here close to the Lord Chancellor, so that if I am irregular in any matter he can call me to order. I certainly did not imagine for a moment that I was exceeding my legitimate right in saying what I believe to be the truth, and in stating how, in my opinion, our Army can be placed in a better state than it is in at the present moment.
  EARL SPENCER:My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, my impression is that my noble friend Lord
  744
  Wemyss is not out of order in. having made the speech to which we have just listened. I think, if we look back, there have been some of the longest debates in this House on a mere Question. I admit the Lord Chancellor is right, that sometimes it is not very convenient to have a long speech when you are not quite prepared for it; but on this occasion, according to the Orders of the House, Questions have precedence of Bills. That is sometimes an inconvenient course. I do not know what other Members of the House may think, but I think the difficulty would be got over if at this period of the session the Government obtained power to put their Bills down before Questions. I admit the inconvenience sometimes of a debate like this arising on a Question, but I am afraid I must differ from the noble and learned Earl as to my noble friend being irregular in what he has said.
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE POR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE):My Lords, I venture to think there is more to be said in defence of the view expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack than the noble Earl who has just sat down quite realises. There is nothing further from our thoughts than to deprive this House of the fullest opportunity of discussing any of the important military questions to which the noble Earl referred in the course of his lengthy remarks, but the notice which he put on the Paper had reference to a very different subject. It had reference to a statement, made upon a particular point by my noble friend behind me on the occasion of a recent debate in this House, a statement which was concerned with the military arrangements designed for the purpose of dealing with sudden raids upon different parts of our coast. The noble Earl was not satisfied with my noble friend's explanation, and had a perfect right to comment upon it to night; but what he did in effect do was to discuss at great length the question of compulsory service, to say nothing of a few other extraneous matters, such as the use of the Morris Tube and the need of gymnastic and other physical education being given to the youth of this country. I do say, in the first

  745
  place, that that is somewhat an abuse of the Rules of this House; but I say more than that, that it is scarcely fair to those who on behalf of the Government have to reply to the statements made by our critics in this House. It was absolutely impossible that my noble friend the Under-Secretary should have known that subjects covering such an immense extent of ground were going to be discussed to-night merely by seeing the notice which my noble friend had put on the Paper. I therefore trust that the appeal of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack will not be disregarded, and that we shall at any rate come to an understanding amongst ourselves as to the rules, whether written or unwritten, by which our debates are governed.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DON-OUGHMORE):My Lords, the noble Earl at the commencement of his speech: aid that in the debate on July 17th I administered to him a snub. I absolutely repudiate that suggestion.
  THE EAEL OF WEMYSS:It did not hurt me.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:I am very glad to hear it. The statement I made to your Lordships was that it was not in the public interest for the details of our mobilisation arrangements to be made public; that is to say, it was not in the public interest to state, to use the words of the noble Earl in his question, how long it would take any particular unit to reach the East Coast. I mad that statement fully understanding the responsibility. I had been advised by those responsible at the War Office that it would not be advisable in the public interest that this information should be given. The noble Earl said I gave that Answer with the object of throwing dust in your Lordships' eyes. I absolutely deny that, and I claim that we have the right to state definitely that in our judgment a certain thing is not in the public interest to be published, and we have a right to be believed when we make that statement. I do not wish to
  746
  follow the noble Earl as to the figures he gave, which were based on the authority of anonymous correspondents. I have seen the true figures. These figures exist, of course, in the War Office, and I utterly fail to appreciate the accuracy of the noble Earl's figures in view of the facts that have been placed before us. I can only repeat that those who are responsible for these matters at the War Office have again today told me that it would not be in the public interest that these facts, which are obviously intimate facts in our scheme for the defence of this country, should be published, and I hope your Lordships will not press for this information.

  WAR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHrose to call attention to the fact that, on the 3rd of March last, Lord Selborne whilst First Lord of the Admiralty expressed the following opinion as regards the dissemination of news in war time—
  "The position of the law as it at present stands is one with which no body of public men of this country can be content;"
  and to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty if during the recess it is intended to publish a Blue-book containing documents which would have the effect of preparing the public mind for legislation in 1906; and whether some of his naval advisers are not of opinion that such laws, if well considered and drawn up so as not to interfere with full freedom of criticism, would do more to strengthen our maritime position than the addition of some millions to the Naval Estimates.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, After the discussion that has just taken place I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to hear that my speech will not take more than four minutes. After what Lord Selborne had said in this House on the 3rd of March when replying to a Question that I had asked him, I had fully expected the Admiralty to take some steps towards enabling the public to study the questions connected with dissemination of news in war time. Though I have no doubt that the Admiralty and the Naval Intelligence Department have given much thought to

  747
  this subject, still it is not in their power to solve these problems unaided. If that had been the case I should have refrained from asking this Question. But the Admiralty have only power to make regulations, and this is a case in which the laws of the country require to be changed. This cannot be effected without the assistance of the Press and the public.
  Nearly five months have now elapsed since Lord Selborne spoke. Whatever may have been done by the Admiralty, in the interval, there is as yet no outward and visible sign of progress. It is, of course, too late to expect that anything can be done this session, but I hope that in February the matter will be found ripe for legislation. Whatever Government may be in office, some measure should be brought forward in 1906, as this ought not to be looked upon as a Party question, or as one that can be indefinitely postponed. It is the unanimous opinion of all the naval officers whom I have consulted that if we found ourselves at war before such a Bill is passed we should be placed at a serious disadvantage; a disadvantage whose equivalent it would be difficult to estimate in millions of money. If the dealer at bridge had to place his cards on the table as well as dummy's, the odds in his favour would be greatly diminished.
  The idea of the necessity of secrecy is not a new one in naval strategy. In October,1745, Admiral Vernon, the hero of Portobello, wrote to the Admiralty—
  "When an enemy doss not know where you are he is under apprehension of you everywhere."
  Many of our leading journals are quite prepared to support a reasonable Bill. As for those who may oppose it for the sake of what they may consider to be their pecuniary interests, I can only tell them that if they are successful the profits arising from that success will be very small, as it is perfectly certain that some measure effecting telegrams and war news would be passed before war had lasted a month, though possibly too late to save us from the loss of the initiative and a consequential disaster. I doubt if any form of censorship previous to publication would be of any use. In
  748
  the first place, we have too many newspapers; and, in the second place, nearly all the soldiers, and sailors fit to act as censors would be required for active service, To prevent misapprehension I shall conclude by saying that I have no wish to see any interference with full freedom of criticism of the conduct of individuals, or of past events, provided that by so doing no information is given that might be of use to an enemy. The new legislation should lie dormant until we are in imminent danger of war. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW):My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty has desired me to express his regret that he is prevented from being in his place to reply to the Question of the noble Lord. The noble Lord has alluded to the danger arising from the indiscriminate publication of news in time of crisis or actual hostilities. The view expressed by Lord Selborne in the speech quoted by my noble friend has the full adherence of His Majesty's Government. It is perfectly true that the present position of affairs in regard to the publication of information which ought in the interests of the country to be kept secret is certainly not satisfactory, but, as I am sure the noble Lord must realise, it is not an easy matter to deal with by legislation. There is no reason at all to suppose that the Press in this country is unpatriotic or unworthy of confidence. But, in spite of an honest desire on the part of editors to avoid embarrassing the public interests, under present conditions the evil to which the noble Lord called attention is very often the result of a keen competition for news and some uncertainty as to the measure of secrecy which is necessary in regard to particular items of service intelligence. The First Lord hopes to have an early opportunity of making some private representations in responsible quarters with a view to arriving at an understanding by which the difficulties which surround the problem may be removed. If it is found possible to attain the desired end in this way, the need for the legislation suggested by the noble Lord will be obviated. If, however, such methods should unfortunately

  749
  fail, it may well be that legislation in the last resort will in the interests of the country become inevitable.

ALIENS BILI.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Readying read.
  LORD BELPEK:My Lords, the subject with which this Bill deals has attracted great attention in the country for a considerable number of years. I think it was in the year 1888 that a Committee of the House of Commons first; sat to consider the serious increase in the number of destitute aliens coming into this country, and although their consideration did not lead them to recommend any legislation, yet it was clear from their Report that they looked forward to the time when this increase would necessitate legislation. To come to a. later period, in 1896 a measure was mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, and two years later a Bill dealing with the immigration of undesirable aliens was brought forward and passed through its different stages in this House, but did not proceed further. Finally, in 1902, a Royal Commission, of which my noble and learned friend Lord James was Chairman, made a full and complete inquiry into the whole question. They also inquired into the laws which had been passed with regard to aliens in other countries, and the majority of that Commission recommended that effective measures should be taken to check the wholesale immigration of destitute aliens into this country.
  I think, perhaps, I ought to acknowledge that there were two members of the Commission who, although they signed the Report, took a somewhat different view from that of the majority as to the particular proposals which should be adopted. They added a Memorandum stating their objections to some of the proposals made by the majority of the Commission. In 1904 a Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament to carry out the recommendations of the Majority
  750
  Report. It is needless for me to comment on the fate of that Bill It met with almost microscopic criticism, and it never reached its later stages in the other House. This session a Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move was in traduced, and it has passed through the House of Commons. It differs in some respects with regard to the machinery from the Bill of last year, and I think it will be generally admitted that, so far as many of the points go, it is an improvement on that Bill.
  Now, my Lords, what is the case for the Bill I now ask your Lordships to read a second time. The facts are these. It is acknowledged that a whole sale immigration from the eastern part of Europe has been going on for some time, and is taking place now. Many of these immigrants are quite destitute and without any trade by which they can earn a living. They are of a low type of civilisation; and they lower the standard of living among our own working classes. In the East End of London especially and in other crowded centres they work for very low wages. It is stated in the Report of the Royal Commission that there is no great amount of disease among these aliens when they first come into this country, but it is a fact that the insanitary conditions under which some of them live have introduced new diseases of a very disagreeable character. The local government authorities have had great difficulty with them under the existing law. Further than this, they have in some parts of London displaced the occupants of a large number of dwellings, by the fact that landlords who are unscrupulous and anxious to make as much money as they can out of their poor dwellings find that they can obtain more by taking foreigners, as a very large number are willing to live in the same house.
  The statistics with regard to alien immigration have been before the country for some time, and I am well aware that there has been considerable discussion with regard to what is the actual number of alien immigrants coming into this country. I therefore intend to avoid such immigration figures as are controversial. It is recognised that there

  751
  is a very large number of alien immigrants year by year and that a large proportion of them go out of the country again, some of them immediately and some at a later period. There is considerable difficulty, therefore, in checking the number of aliens who remain in this country. But there are statistics which are conclusive as to the conditions of the aliens in this country. To these I attach the utmost importance in proving the necessity for legislation. They show that there has been an enormous increase in the number of criminal aliens convicted in this country. In 1897 the number was 2,572; three years later it was 3,130; and last year it was 4,774. Their percentage to the total criminal population has risen in the same time from 1. 12 to 1. 7 or half as much again. I think this rapid rise in the number of criminals of the alien class shows, at all events, the necessity of some attention being paid to this very serious and important point.
  Let me now take the question of Poor Law relief. My figures also show an increase in the number receiving poor relief. In London, in 1902, the number was 3,234; and in 1904 it had risen to 4,162. Lest it be supposed that this is peculiar to London, let me add that in some of the chief provincial centres from which statistics have been collected the number receiving relief was 1,381 in 1902, and in 1904 it had risen to 1,685. With regard to my statement that a large number of the poorer classes were practically turned out of their houses to accommodate newly-arrived aliens, I may point out that last year in Stepney alone 380 houses were occupied by aliens, the former occupants having been turned out. What is, therefore, the present position? The increased steamship facilities for coming to this country at low fares and the fact that nearly every country in Europe, and also the United States, have passed laws regulating the admission of aliens, has made the necessity of some action in this country more urgent.
  I find that in 1900 nearly 1,200 foreigners were rejected by the United States and sent back to this country, and 1,700 foreigners who had come to this country and tried to go on to the
  752
  United States were refused passages on the ground that they would be rejected when they were taken there. We had information that foreigners who tried to go into the United States and failed were frequently taken back to Europe and then shipped off again to this country as the easiest means of getting; rid of them. I am told that there-is one special passage broker in Bremen who makes a trade of dealing in this, way with emigrants who have been refused admission in the United States What is the result? I do not want to use what is a fashionable slang expression now and say that this country is the dumping ground of the destitute and most undesirable aliens, but I think I can use a word which is quite as expressive and more applicable to the occasion. This country is rapidly becoming the sink of the most undesirable class of aliens on the Continent. They come here because they cannot get into any other country, and of those who come to this country with the intention of going on to America it is clear that the least desirable ones remain here because they know that if they go to the United States they will not be permitted to land.
  I do not wish to worry your Lordships by statistics nor by long argument, but I think the necessity is proved for the State having some control over alien immigration. If that fact is granted, let me say one word now as to the machinery of this Bill. The proposals are practically divided into two parts. The first part deals with the regulation of alien immigrants and takes power of refusing them at the port of entry; and the second part deals with the exclusion of those who are undesirable when they are a heady in. With regard to exclusion— and this, I take it, is perhaps the most contested portion of the Bill, for there has been more general assent given to the power of refusing admission to aliens than to their exclusion— let me explain the machinery of the Bill. The Bill proposes that aliens should only be excluded who come into particular ports-It has been shown that out of about 207,000 aliens who came into this country in 1904,201,000 came in at eight particular ports. It is proposed, therefore, to

  753
  deal with the ports at which aliens are principally introduced, and that at those ports there should be power of inspection of ships bringing in aliens.
  In the Bill inspection is only proposed where a ship is bringing in more than thirty steerage passengers. The Secretary of State, however, has taken power to alter this number if he thinks it necessary. If is obvious that without some such power an attempt might be made to evade the law by bringing in a smaller number than thirty in order to escape inspection at the port. To meet this the Secretary of State has taken power to alter the number if he thinks it necessary, and to have ships inspected even though the steerage passengers might not number thirty. The inspection will be carried on by an immigration officer and a medical inspector on ship-board or on shore, whichever is most suitable, and if any alien objects to the decision given, there will be power of appeal to an immigration board, who will decide whether the alien is to be rejected or not.
  The reasons for which immigrants may be refused admission into this country are contained in Clause 1, Sub-section -3. This section provides that an immigrant snail be considered an undesirable immigrant if he cannot show that he has in his possession, or is in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself aid his dependents, if any; if he is a lunatic or an idiot, or owing to any disease or infirmity appears likely to become a charge upon the rates or otherwise a detriment to the public; or if he has been sentenced in a foreign country with which there is an extradition treaty for a crime not being an offence of a political character which is, as respects that country, an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Act,1870; or if an expulsion order under this Bill has been made in his case.
  With regard to expulsion, an alien in this country may be expelled if it is certified by a Court that he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanour or other offence for which the Court has power to impose imprisonment without the option of a fine, and if the Court recommend his expulsion. There are other important conditions under which an alien may be expelled. He may be expelled if he has
  754
  within three months from the time at which proceedings for the certificate are commenced been in receipt of parochial relief, or been found wandering without ostensible means of subsistence, or been living under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding.
  Having explained the provisions of the Bill let me now deal with some of the objections that have been raised against it. I do not understand that the Second Reading will be opposed in your Lordships' House, but I noticed that in the other House it was objected to the Bill that it made a difference between the very poor person and the man who had means. That is a perfectly fair cliticism, but I do not think that any alien would necessarily be excluded under the Bill because he was poor. The fact is, he will have to show that he is likely to have the means of keeping himself and his family. That is a very great distinction. It is notorious that the Jews have organisations in this country which prevent any Jew coming in from becoming a charge on the rates, and maintain him until he can find employment. Under this Bill there would be no chance of a Jew being excluded as long as one of those organisations wished to find means for him and made it clear to the officer at the port of entry that provision would be made for keeping him off the rates. I do not think it is unreasonable that an alien who cannot show that he has a prospect of earning his living and is likely to become a charge on the rates should be debarred from coming into the country.
  It has been objected in the House of Commons that the Bill interferes with what is called the right of asylum; but I submit that the provisions inserted in the House of Commons make it perfectly clear that no man would be excluded who was flying from political or religious persecution. Then it is argued that the effect of the Bill will be very small, but that argument coming from those who object to the Bill shows that there cannot be a very great belief on their part that the Bill will do the harm they profess to think it will. I believe that when it becomes known that regulations for dealing with undesirable aliens are in force, a large number will be deterred from coming over. I do not think

  755
  I need detain your Lordships further. I will only say, in conclusion, that in my view the Bill attempts to deal fairly and morally with the question, and I hope your Lordships will not only give it a Second Reading, but will also show by your general support your desire to see it put upon the Statute-book.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL SPENCER:My Lords, I admit that on the speech of the noble Lord a ease has been made out for some legislation. The noble Lord said there was a wholesale immigration of aliens from the astern part of Europe. I cannot help thinking that there has been a considerable amount of exaggeration in that matter. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, but for the purpose of making a protest in reference to one or two points. Notwithstanding the safeguards that have been introduced, I fear there is considerable danger in the Bill of wrecking that right of asylum, or perhaps I ought to say custom of asylum, which has existed for so many years in this country, and under which those who suffer from political or religious persecution abroad have always found safety in this country.
  I also object to the Bill because I consider that the evils complained of are really much smaller than they are represented to be. The principal object of the Bill is to deal with aliens who remain in this country, and the aliens who so remain are much fewer than the numbers that are often quoted. The noble Lord has avoided giving any figures with regard to the number of aliens who are supposed to settle in this country. It may have been wise on his part. I quite admit that there is a difficulty in arriving at any figures which both sides in this controversy agree upon. Very large figures were given last year in the other House, and it was afterwards found that the Secretary of State had forgotten to substract sailors who were enumerated in the figures. Many persons who have studied the matter put down the number of aliens who settle in this country at from 7,000 to 8,000 annually. That
  756
  may be an under - statement, but I believe the figures are taken to a great extent from the census and from figures that were admitted by the Commission over which my noble and learned friend Lord James presided.
  I would refer for a moment to the supposed dangers arising in consequence of the presence of these aliens. There are the criminals. We are all ready to declare that we should not object to those who are convicted of crime being in some cases expelled from this country, and in others prevented from entering it, if it were worth while to take these steps and if the privilege of asylum was preserved. The noble Lord quoted some figures as to the increase of crime. But are the aliens referred to aliens who have just arrived, or have numbers of them been settled here for some time? The number of Russian Jews convicted is very small in comparison with Germans, Italians, or French. Therefore, those figures do not relate to the case of those who are principally affected by the Bill— namely, the Russian Jews.
  It is interesting to note that in 1903– 4 the number of alien inmates in penal and reformatory institutions in the United States who had been convicted of crime was 9,825, whilst the number of persons debarred from landing on similar grounds in five years only reached a total of 106. Therefore, though they did prevent during those five years 106 aliens who were supposed to be criminals from arriving in the country, there were, notwithstanding, 9,825 alien inmates in penal and reformatory institutions. Is that a very satisfactory state of things? If there are all these convicted aliens in penal and reformatory institutions, can it be said that the laws of the United States have had much effect in diminishing the number of criminal aliens in that country? I doubt very much whether you would be able to largely diminish the number of convicted aliens. A great many would come into the country and remain some time before becoming criminals. The noble Lord gave some figures with regard to pauperism; but unless an increase in the proportion of alien pauperism to the total pauperism in each year can be shown, they cannot

  757
  be regarded as constituting a very strong argument.
  LORD BELPER:Perhaps I ought to mention that there might be added to the list a very large number if you I were to include the Jews who are sup-ported by the Jewish organisations.
  EARL SPENCER: Figures have been given officially with regard to paupers which certainly strike me as not proving that an enormous number of aliens come on the poor rate. On July 17th Mr. Gerald Balfour stated in the House of Commons that—
  "The latest figures in my possession as to alien paupers relate to the 1st of July,1903 The ratio of alien paupers to the total number of paupers in England and Wales on that date was about 0. 22 per cent. The total cost of the Poor Law relief in the year 1903– 4 in round numbers was £13,369,500, and the cost of relief to alien paupers calculated on the above ratio, would be about 7pound; 29,000."
  When we look at these figures and compare them with the total, this seems to me a very small sum indeed. The noble Lord referred to the question of health. He said that as a rule the health of these immigrants was good, but that certain bad diseases had appeared from time to time and had been spread among the population.
  LORD BELPER:The evidence before i the Commission was that those who examined these aliens did not say that there was a very large amount of disease among them, but there were some horrible diseases introduced owing to the insanitary conditions under which they lived.
  EARL SPENCER:If they were diseased when they arrived no one would object to dealing with them; but I have seen figures which show that the infant mortality in districts where there are a large number of aliens is really lower than in other districts. In White-chapel, with 24. 11 percentage of foreigners to population in 1891, deaths of children under one year per 1,000 births in 1886– 90 was 170. Whereas in Southwark, with a. 7 percentage of foreigners to population, the corresponding deaths of children under one
  758
  year per 1,000 was 172. These facts strike me as rather disproving the general assertion that the immigration of these aliens increases ill-health and disease in the particular districts to which they come. The noble Lord referred to aliens as being often the means of displacing the present occupiers of houses. But how does that arise? It arises through their being able to pay more in rent than the people in the district, and, therefore, they are not very poor.
  LORD BELPER:They are able to pay more because more live in the houses. They pay considerably less per head.
  EARL SPENCER:That may be a serious matter, but at the same time overcrowding is a thing which ought to be dealt with under the present law. There is a law to prevent overcrowding just as there is to prevent sweating. I think these laws ought to be strengthened, and that that is the way in which these matters should be dealt with. Then we hear that the competition in trade is very serious, but there are some very curious facts with regard to that. I have in my hand an extract showing what happened in a particular district through a firm— Messrs. Hitchcock, Williams, & Co.—transferring their German industry to England by employing Jewish labour. The following is their account of the results achieved—
  "In 1899 we decided to introduce foreign Jewish tailors into a new factory that we had recently built. Their work has been excellent. British material has been used instead of German, and a large part of the money sent formerly to Berlin has been distributed among British manufacturers and in wages. The quality of the work has improved year by year, and the garments made in our factory are better than those previously imported. Other English firms have followed our lead, and to day the German Press admits the loss of her trade in these goods. Our experience shows that these foreign Jewish tailors do a class of work which our workers cannot undertake with success, and that they earn a high rate of pay."
  In that way trade in this district was stimulated by the demand for material, and so forth; therefore you cannot say that they did harm to the trade of that particular district. I admit that occasionally there have been cases in which harm has been done. There is*a trade with which I am very familiar, viz., the

  759
  shoe trade, which I believe the immigration of aliens did hurt to some extent. But it must be remembered that when that occurred the shoe trade was undergoing almost a complete change, the factory system being in process of substitution for that under which the workmen did the work at home. I do not know, therefore, that that argument holds good.
  Then my noble friend referred to another argument, for which, I think, there is a good deal to be said, namely, that the Bill applies to the poor and not to the rich. I certainly agree with that. We object to the Bill because we believe that it will apply almost entirely to undesirable aliens who come in as steerage passengers, and not to those who may travel in first or second-class cabins. I do not know what answer there is to that objection, but I certainly think it is one of considerable gravity. The test of poverty is one of the most difficult to apply. The authorities have attempted to apply it in America, but it has been almost entirely broken down by the devices of those who wish to obtain cheap labour. When a ship comes in on which it is known there are a certain number of poor people, agents go down and claim relationship with them, or adopt some other device of that description, with the result that the people get through, and the law is entirely evaded.
  I referred just now to the figures given by the Local Government Board as to the cost of pauper aliens to the rates. The amount was £29,000 a year. But what will be the cost of maintaining all these stations on the coast? It is calculated that the stations and the necessary machinery for carrying out the inspection will cost £24,000 a year. I maintain that this machinery, which may break down and affect classes which you do not want to touch at all, is really unnecessary to deal with an evil which is not so serious as I think the noble Lord by his speech would lead the House to believe. I know that this is considered by some people to be a very important political operation; it is believed that there is considerable political feeling in certain parts of London, that this Bill is introduced to a certain extent to satisfy that feeling, and that to prevent
  760
  its passing would entail the loss of a great many votes at an election. I have a great contempt for any operation of that sort. If, as the noble Lord tried to make out, there is a great necessity for this measure, if there is a great need to keep out criminals and others and if it can be done with safety, well and good; let it be done. But do not let it be done merely for a political cry. I do not think the noble Lord wishes to do it for that purpose; I say that at once; but I would point out that there was a measure of this sort passed some years ago, and it is instructive to see what the result of that Act has been. The Foreign Prison-made Goods Bill was brought in from a purely political motive— or, at any rate, it certainly appeared to be so— and we who opposed the Bill said that the matter was of such infinitesimal dimensions that the measure ought not to have been introduced at all. What has been the result of the Act? A few days ago a Question was asked in another place to the following effect— What is the value of the foreign prison-made goods excluded up to the latest available date by the action of the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act? The Secretary to the Treasury answered the Question, and what do you think the amount was? £183 4s. Everybody will admit that those figures show that the Act, which was supposed to be going to relieve an enormous number of people from the competition of publicly-assisted, prison-made goods, has completely broken down. I sincerely trust that that may not be the case with this Bill. At the same time. I believe that there will be enormous difficulties in the working of the Bill. It is open to very great objections. It will apply to persons to whom you do not wish it to apply; it will be very costly; and it is brought in to meet a very small necessity indeed.
  There is one other point I ought to mention, because I have received communications in reference to it, and that is the hardship this Bill will involve upon shipowners. Shipowners, if they have any undesirable aliens on board, will be compelled at their own expense to take them back whence they came. I think I am right in saying that the shipowners will have to bear the cost both of carriage and of food. They complain very much

  761
  against that, and I think with some justice. If this is a national necessity, it is rather hard on them to disturb their trade in this way. They will certainly suffer a good deal if this Bill passes, because it will affect very considerably the over-sea trade, which is a very important item in the profits of the merchant service.
  I am sorry to have detained your Lordships at such length on this matter, but I have considerable objection to the Bill, and, though I do not intend to move its rejection to night, I give notice that when the Committee stage is reached we on this side will probably have some Amendments to propose.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE):My Lords, the attitude of the noble Earl opposite seems to some of us not a little puzzling. He began and ended his speech with the announcement that he did not intend to object to the Second Reading of the measure.
  EARL SPENCER:What would be the use of doing so in this House?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:And that he would not even record an adverse vote in regard to it. But in the speech that followed that announcement, he went on to whittle away the figures produced by my noble friend behind me, to challenge my noble friend's statement that these undesirable aliens were the means of introducing disease into this country, to point out that their destitution was greatly exaggerated, to contend that our Bill would be unavailing for the purpose for which it was intended, and to suggest that the cost of administering it would be altogether out of proportion to any results that we were likely to achieve. If ever a speech against the Second Reading of a Bill was delivered, I think the speech of the noble Earl deserves that description.
  EARL SPENCER:I admit that.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:Not content with that, he went on to suggest that the Bill had
  762
  been taken up by us, not because of any sincere conviction as to its merits but for political considerations. The thought must have crossed the minds of some of your Lordships that the decision of the noble Earl not to oppose the Second Reading may also to some extent have been inspired by political considerations.
  EARL SPENCER:By political considerations in the sense that it is hopeless to oppose your majority in this House on the Second Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:However, we will pass that by. Let us assume that though the noble Earl is not perhaps committed to the details of the measure, he is committed at any rate to its main principle. Now, what is the main principle of the Bill— because I think the measure does contain a very clear and easily defined principle. That principle is not that we desire to depart from the honourable tradition of this country, which has never been in the habit of closing its doors to persons of all kinds seeking refuge in these islands, but that we desire to prevent the abuse of that hospitality. The question we have to consider is whether in fact that hospitality has been abused and I think the clear statement of my noble friend should have been sufficient to convince anyone who listened to it that that abuse has existed. It is true that the noble Earl taxed him with having laid before the House figures which were exaggerated.
  EARL SPENCER:Statements, not figures. He did not use any figures.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My noble friend refrained from laying figures before the House because we freely admit that it is easy to challenge those figures in matters of detail. But I have here a figure which, perhaps with certain reservations, I will venture to lay before the House. We are told that in 1904 no less than 75,000 of these aliens came into this country. I will be perfectly frank. I am not here to say that all these

  763
  people settled in the United Kingdom; some of them may have been transmigrants, but we have no doubt whatever that a very large number of them did remain. We are sure of that for the very best of reasons, that these people are to be seen in Stepney and the neighbourhood, where the accumulation of aliens of this class has been going on apace during the last few years. My noble friend Lord Belper tells me that the figure of 75,000 was arrived at after the deduction of a certain number of aliens who were known to have left the shores of this country. But let us assume that that figure of 75,000 is to be even more liberally discounted. Let us suppose that only 50,000 remained in this country. Can we afford to treat as negligible a yearly drifting of that number, or of any number approaching it, of such persons into our great cities?
  My noble friend referred with great force to the fact that the presence of those people is revealed in a most inconvenient manner by the perceptible increase of alien pauperism and by an increase in the number of alien criminals. But what else is to be expected? What are the facts? Other countries do not allow alien immigrants of this kind to establish themselves within their limits; they are careful to turn them back. We, on the contrary, receive them without question, and not only that, but when they have established themselves in our midst we allow them to be supported out of the rates. Is it not obvious that an arrangement of that kind must have the result of causing what without any abuse of language may be called the scum of this stream of human population to collect in the backwaters of London and other great cities? I have no desire to be thought wanting in compassion for these people; they deserve our compassion and our sympathy. But surely we have a right to think of our own people also and of the effects of allowing a population of that class to establish itself here and to extrude our own people from quarters in which they have been in the habit of living.
  Then the noble Earl told us that he detected in the Bill the principle that poverty was to be recognised as a crime.
  EARL SPENCER:I think that is-going rather beyond what I said. I said that the Bill in its working would attack poverty more than riches. I did not use the words"crime" or "criminal'' in. that connection.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:I will withdraw the word "crime," but I think he implied that mere poverty was to be considered as a bar disqualifying a person for admission to this country. If the noble Earl will look at the wording; of the section, he will see that there is. nothing in the Bill to exclude a man, simply because he is poor. The language is extremely careful. The would-be immigrant is required to show that he is—
  "in possession of, or in a position to obtain, the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents."
  A man may be a poor man, he may have only a couple of shillings in his pocket, but if he is a perfectly able-bodied, healthy man who will without doubt be able to take his place amongst our labouring population, I take it that the-immigration officer will raise no difficulty to such a man landing in this country. The noble Earl pointed to the fact that the provisions of this Bill would only catch the steerage passenger, and that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent undesirable aliens arriving on board vessels affording accommodation which would cost them a larger sum of money. I do not think it is very probable that a person who is destitute within the meaning of the words I have just quoted would be found except amongst the steerage passengers But I pass that by. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Bill stops short of affording absolute and complete protection to us against the arrival of these people. Are we to repudiate it simply because, although it affords us protection, that protection is not absolutely perfect at all points? The Bill is a palliative, and as such we believe it will have good effects. It does, not seem to me to be an argument that can be legitimately used as against it that, although the Bill may arrest the main stream of immigration of this kind, the flow may still continue to trickle through some less visible and better concealed channels.

  765
  What I think we have to consider is the argument used with so much effect by my noble friend, namely, that the results of this Bill will have to be measured, not by the number of aliens who are interfered with when on the point of landing, but by the number of aliens who will be deterred by the provisions of this Bill from, attempting to come here. It is the deterrent effect of the Bill upon the immigrants and upon the shipowners to which we look rather than to the operative effect of the provisions of the Bill.
  The noble Earl made some reference to the prejudice which this Bill was likely to cause to shipowners. That, no doubt, is a question that we shall have to discuss in Committee; but I think I am right in saying that the ship owners' point of view was fully considered in Committee in the House of Commons, and that Amendments were introduced in the Bill which, to a very considerable extent at all events, were successful in meeting the criticisms of the shipowners.
  With regard to religious and political refugees, the Bill is so drawn as to make it clear that where an immigrant desires to obtain asylum in this country for the bona fide reason that he is escaping from persecution or any kind of molestation due to his religious or political tenets, the provisions of the Bill will be relaxed in his favour. We believe that as the Bill stands it deals with that difficult problem in a most liberal and considerate manner. We are, at any rate, convinced that there is a grievance and an abuse which for public reasons we cannot afford to leave unredressed, and we believe that his Bill meets that abuse in a reasonable and, we hope, effectual manner.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD:My Lords, in view of the precarious hour at which we have arrived I will occupy the time of your Lordships for only a very few minutes, but I think that in the course of two years patient study of questions affecting alien immigration I have learnt something which perhaps places me in a position between those who support the Bill and those who oppose it, and possibly enables me to say something which may add to your Lordships' information. This Bill ought not to be looked at wholly from the standpoint
  766
  either of those who say that the alien immigrants who come into this country form an evil that ought to be put an end to for reasons which they give, or of those who speak enthusiastically of the great traditions of this country, who wish it always to be a place of safety for the oppressed, and who say that aliens ought to be allowed to come in freely. We must try to find a medium between those two points of view, and endeavour to discover a method of dealing with what is an evil without inflicting a wrong upon anyone.
  In the first place, what is the evil we have to meet? If my noble friend the Leader of the House will allow me to say so, I think he has greatly overstated the number of aliens who come to this country. Great deductions have to be made from the figures he gave, because they include all persons who come as transmigrants, sailors, persons who come here to see friends, persons who come and go, a large number who are sent back immediately by charitable agencies or friends, and various other classes of persons. The best information you can get on the point is from the Census Returns. It is not absolutely accurate, and in former years it was not in so good a form as it is now, but it is the most re liable figure we can get. According to the Census Returns we have this fact— that in 1881 there were 135,000 aliens residing in this country, while in 1901, twenty years later, there were 286,000, an increase-of 151,000. That increase was mainly to be found in London County because it includes the East End of London, where the increase was from 60,000 to 135,000. The most serious increase was from Russia and Russian Poland. The question of how this matter should be dealt with is then well worthy of consideration.
  But it is not only a numerical increase it is a local increase. When we on the Royal Commission were approaching the termination of our labours, some of us said the inquiry had reduced itself to a Stepney inquiry, because the evil existed mainly in the borough of Stepney and in the neighbourhood of that borough. In the borough of Stepney there are 54 000 of these Russians and Poles out of a population of about 300,000. It is that localisation which causes the great

  767
  evil, and it is an evil that will not diminish. Take the question of language alone. These people speak what is sometimes called "Yiddish." They will not go where they cannot make themselves understood. But in Stepney they can be understood, not only by their friends and relatives, but by tradesmen in the shops where they make their purchases. Thus they find themselves in the midst of those with whom they can associate, and, that being so, you cannot alter their destination. We felt this so strongly that the bulk of our Report went strongly to show that this country had certain rights which it might well exercise. Of course we wish to be hospitable to everyone who comes to these shores. We owe a, great deal to these alien immigrants. A great student of them has said that there is not a single great trade in this country our superiority in which we do not owe to the alien. When they came over here in such large numbers at the time of the Inquisition, during the reign of Henry VIII., one-third of those who paid subsidy to the King in the City of London were aliens, and. they were all teaching our people trades. They were driven here for the sake of their religion. In the early days of the Reformation they built churches representing the Protestant religion throughout the country, and when the second great wave, the Huguenots, came they found these churches in existence, with settlers around them. We must never forget the services they rendered to us by their trades, or the great strength the Protestant tendency of the aliens gave to this country.
  But whilst we have that debt to pay, we must see to it that we pay it to the right people. I quite recognise what we owe, but I am not quite sure that when we give to the unskilled agriculturist from Russian Poland great indulgence or superior opportunity we are paying to the right persons the debt which we owe to the immigrants of former times. Certainly when this country grants its hospitality it has the right to impose the terms on which that hospitality should be granted.
  Therefore, if this great evil which is inflicted upon the borough of Stepney and neighbourhood is to be dealt with, there
  768
  is no reason, either from a desire to retain the hospitable character of this country 01 from an economic point of view, why we should not impose such conditions as we think fit upon the entrance of aliens into the United Kingdom. It was our duty as Commissioners to take what evidence we could. But we found that there was one class of witness that could not attend upon us, and so we attended upon them. We visited Stepney, and devoted two long days to hearing evidence there. We were told by those who could not deceive us the state of things which there existed, and we were also told, "If you do not take care there will be bloodshed here, for it is an intolerable condition of things." We were told of families sleeping out on staircases because there was no room for them inside the tenements; we were told of the in sanitary conditions which obtained under such a state of things; the details were sickening. Morality was gone and health was gone—all in consequence of this overcrowding. Moreover, the danger, instead of being lessened in its intensity, is likely to increase year by year in consequence of the demolition of houses. House accommodation is failing in this borough; it is becoming less while the population is increasing. Alien immigration is increasing, and yet nothing has been done.
  Although I support this Bill for the value of what is contained in it, yet I do note with regret that the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this part of the question has no place in the Bill. I am not blaming the Government, because I believe that in the Bill of last year they did make an attempt to deal with this subject, but the opposition was so strong that they were unable to carry through the machinery. However, I do deeply regret that that which formed the main result of our deliberations has been for some reason or other passed by. The ordinary machinery against overcrowding may be sufficient in districts that exist under normal conditions, but it is not sufficient to deal with the abnormal conditions which obtain in this borough in the East End, and for the sake of decent life within our own centre of existence something will have to be done.

  769
  My noble friend dealt with the case of pauperism and the charge on the rates. I do not think he can make anything out of alien pauperism. The comparison is largely in favour of the alien. He is not so poor as he is supposed so be, and he has got friends to help him. The members of the Hebrew faith treat men of this class who belong to their persuasion with singular liberality. I agree that my noble friend has the right to say that we have these poor people amongst us and that they have to be relieved in their poverty, but, at the same time, they are not a charge upon the rates. In the borough of Stepney the proportion of paupers among natural-born subjects is as seven, whereas among the alien population of 54,000 it is as 2. 5, or about one to three in favour of the alien.
  In the matter of crime my noble friend has a slightly stronger case, but I doubt very much whether the crime is amongst the class with which we are dealing. You get your criminals from the French, Swiss, and Italians who go to Soho and other districts; they are not the immigrants against whom this Bill is directed. The immigrant under this Bill is a man who comes as one of twenty or more passengers in the steerage portion of the ship. That is not the way the criminal comes over. He comes to rob, to forge, not from Bremen or Rotterdam, but from Prussia, France, or Italy, wherever it may be, and he is often an educated man, and not by any means the pauper this Bill deals with. I do not think there is much in the case either for crime or for pauperism. The rates are not suffering; they are burdened less by these men than by British subjects.
  I wish to refer briefly to one view that has been put forward, I will not say by whom, but by some people who take an entirely political view of the situation which has been created by this alien immigration. They say, "We, the Government, or we who favour a certain policy, are going to protect the English working man; we are going to protect the British skilled workmen against the invasion of the foreigner or the alien," and anyone who refuses to give full effect to the protection
  770
  against that invasion is, I do not know what they call him, a Little Englander, or whatever it may be. Such a use of this Bill, which is to deal with that most difficult problem t which I have referred, is an error that ought not to be lightly committed. I believe I am right in saying that those who had charge of this Bill in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary, and, I think, the Prime Minister, refused to accept that view of the Bill; they have very properly said that that is not the purpose of the Bill, and that they have not introduced it for that purpose. But the statement has been made, and I protest against so great an evil being used for a political purpose, and such a statement being addressed to people who do not know better. In the course of our investigation we did not find that the trade unionists came and complained of alien competition with skilled labour. There are no better trade unionists in the world than aliens: they are industrious to a degree; they keep op their wages, and they turn against the employers as quickly as any class. After making the fullest inquiry on the point— because, although trade unionists generally did not make the complaint, the miners of Lanarkshire objected to foreigners working amongst them— this is the result at which we on the Commission arrived—
  "On the whole we arrive at the conclusion, after weighing the evidence on both sides, that it has not been proved that there is
  any serious direct displacement of skilled English labour."
  That was our unanimous conclusion; there was no dissension on that point; it was agreed to by Mr. Alfred Lyttelton and by that most able and active member of the Commission, Major Evans Gordon, who represents Stepney and, if I may use the term, conducted the case against the aliens. And yet men of the Party to which both those Gentleman belong are announcing in the country that a triumph has been won, and that the Government deserve all praise because the battle of the English skilled artisan is being fought by virtue of this Bill. That was not the object with which the attention of the Home Secretary and the Government was called to this evil, and, as I understand, it was not the object

  771
  with which they took the matter up. I think my noble friend will agree as to that, but I think it would be worth while, in case such a statement is repeated, that there should be a denial, and, if possible, a denial on the part of the Government, that that is the object of the Bill.
  One word more. In one sense there has been a certain displacement of labour, and it arises in this way. The men who come here are mostly agriculturists, but they do not become agriculturists here. They seek to learn a trade, and they select the trade which can be most easily learnt. When they come over here they are what are called "greeners," and, like apprentices, they have to be taught their trade. While they are being taught they receive very little wages. They learn by degrees, and as they go on— the transition cannot be defined— they go on from the state of "greeners" until they become as skilled in their trades as any persons in this country. It is strange that even during this last wave, which has been going on now for over fifteen years, the men who came in unskilled have in some way or other learnt almost by instinct their trades, and have introduced a new system of working which has produced most beneficial effects. They have established a system of the sub-division of trades, in which, instead of one man taking a coat away and making it from beginning to end, a subdivision of labour is effected by which one man cuts out, another does the sewing, another the buttons, and so on, so that every coat has about five trades at work upon it, each one trained to perfection. The men have little to learn, and they arrive at a state of perfection in their particular sub-divisions of the labour. This sub-division also involves the whole of the work being done in one house, and under one supervision instead of being taken from house to house, with the result that they are now producing goods better made in these trades, I believe, and certainly much cheaper than they ever were before. If that is competition with skilled workmen— which they themselves do not say it is— no doubt it has been effected b/ this learning of trades, and the carrying on of trades in this way. But I say that to my mind that is a
  772
  benefit to the consumers of this country, and is not a reason for condemning these men.
  Do not suppose that these men are less worthy of consideration than men who are natural - born subjects. They are singularly sober; they are singularly industrious; they are singularly careful; and it is a remarkable fact that, in the East End of London in the school competitions the great majority of the prizes are now being taken by children of these immigrants, on account of their possessing greater intelligence— I am sorry to say it— than the children of natural-born parents. We are told by the schoolmasters that they set an. example to the other children, and as. they grow up, becoming industrious and learning much, as I have said, I believe we shall have no cause to regret their having been received amongst us and Welcomed to the hospitality of this country.
  Still, I do recognise this evil; it does exist; and I think we have a right to say that if these men come here we are entitled to endeavour to obtain those who are desirable, and to exclude the undesirable. Therefore, with the qualifications I have stated, I shall certainly give a full support to this Bill.
  LORD COLERIDGE:My Lords, I should like to ask, after the speech to which we have just listened, what is the object of bringing in this Bill? The noble and learned Lord opposite, who knows more about this matter than any other Member of this House, has by his-speech destroyed all the reasons that have been given by the Government for introducing this measure. The Bill involves a totally new principle. I do not say that we have not a right to-exclude persons from our shores, but it is a right that we have never exercised, and it is a right that we have always been proud not to exercise. I can understand two grounds for the exclusion of aliens from these shores. I could understand it if foreigners came in in such numbers as to swamp our civilisation. I can conceive an inroad of yellow men by the million, which would absoutely destroy our civilisation and turn it into other channels. I can also

  773
  conceive our right to exclude undesirable aliens, and these undesirable aliens have been described by two Committees as follows—criminals other than political, anarchists, prostitutes, persons infected by dangerous disease, lunatics, and idiots. The Commission of which the noble Lord opposite was the head recommended that the persons to be excluded should be criminals, prostitutes, and persons who might be a charge on the public funds. I regret that one category that of persons living on the proceeds of prostitution is not mentioned. But any criminals, any persons infected with dangerous disease, any persons of whatever kind of character, can come into this country under this Bill to any number they please so long as they come as cabin passengers. Therefore, it is right to describe this Bill as one for excluding the poor, because if he is a cabin passenger the alien may be as bad as you please; he will come within the scope of the Bill only if he is a steerage passenger. That is discrimination, however you may try to explain it, and it is discrimination between the rich and poor. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the Bill is aimed at the poor, in contradistinction to embracing both rich and poor alike.
  Then, my Lords, I could understand -the Bill being aimed at poverty if the poverty involved a burden to the country of invasion. But, as the noble and learned Lord has just told us, there is no case for poverty. There is very little case for crime, and none at all for poverty. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord has pronounced an eulogium upon the business qualities and aptitudes of the alien population that might very well be applied to those aliens whom he described in the earlier portion of his speech as having been the founders of all our main industries.
  In regard to the machinery of the Bill, I do not like this secret investigation— for it is a secret investigation— by the immigration officer at the particular port. As far as I can understand, it is a secret investigation subject to no appeal, except to three nominees, a tribunal set up for the purposes of this Bill, without anything in the nature of judicial qualifications. In this country if you want to attack a person, to call him a
  774
  criminal or an undesirable alien, or to bring him into a category which is an un pleasant one, it is generally held that the onus of proof rests upon the person making the charge, but, as far as I can gather, under this Bill the poor alien is to prove his own innocence. If he comes in under certain categories he is an undesirable alien unless he can show reason why the immigration officer should permit him to land, and when the immigration officer has given his decision the only appeal is to the immigration board. If I recollect aright, there is a subsequent appeal to the Home Secretary, which I do not think is at all a good mixture of the judicial and the executive. From first to last, the alien is not given the protection of a judicial tribunal to decide upon his case.
  These are grave objections which I see to the machinery of the Bill. For my part, I should be perfectly willing to support any proposal for excluding the classes of persons enumerated in the earlier Report, viz., prostitutes and persons living upon prostitution, criminals, anarchists, lunatics, and idiots, hut I would not make the measure applicable to one class of lunatic and not to another. If I excluded any I would exclude all. I would not permit a distinction to be drawn between persons who travelled in one part of the ship and persons who travelled in another. Under these circumstances, as I am told a division will not be taken against the Second Reading I shall certainly reserve to myself the right to raise some of these points in Committee, when I hope they will receive the serious consideration of the Government.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH:My Lords, I think the noble Marquess who leads this House must be rather sorry he spoke so quickly after my noble friend Lord Spencer, for the speech delivered from the other side of the House by one who knows more about this subject than probably anybody else in the House supported in the most complete way the facts and figures brought forward by Lord Spencer, and, in my humble judgment, constituted a strong argument against this Bill having been introduced at all. I think the noble and learned Lord

  775
  opposite made it perfectly clear that this question of alien immigration was confined to a very small district, and that it existed in great urgency only in certain districts in London. If that be the case, surely it was not necessary to bring in a Bill applying to the whole of the country. It is a case for the application of local remedies to meet local requirements.
  The noble and learned Lord opposite, Ly his description of his visit to Stepney, showed exactly what is the position of affairs there He said that he found great congestion, great overcrowding, but that the poor people who caused the congestion and overcrowding were not specially criminal or specially poor, that they were excellent workmen, that they turned out excellent work, and that they were doing excellent service to the country of which they had become the guests. It seems to me that that does not make a case for a general measure applying to the whole of the country such as is now brought before us, and I hope that when we get into Committee something may be done to alter or modify same of the provisions in the Bill. Like my noble friend behind me, I would gladly support any proposals for keeping oat the classes of aliens referred to in the Report of Lord James Commission. We none of us want to see the criminal and the diseased permitted to enter.
  But, my Lords, there is one remark of the noble Marquess which I wish to emphasise for one moment. I think it was a remarkable statement. He declared distinctly and without modification that under this Bill poverty alone would not keep an alien out. He said that supposing a man was healthy and able-bodied, then Sub-section (a) of Section 3 of Clause 1 would not apply. I welcome that declaration, and I hope that in Committee we shall make that point clearer than it is at present in the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  THE VOLUNTEERS.
  THE EAKL OF ALBEMARLEin asking the Under-Secretary of State for War, "how soon any, and what, steps will be
  776
  taken to remedy the shortage of officers in the Volunteer force; and for what I purpose the medical examination of members of the Volunteer force has been instituted, seeing that such men have already been admitted to the force by reason of their fitness; and further, what grant he proposes to make towards the development of Volunteer transport," said: I will state very briefly to your Lordships my reasons for asking this Question. For some few years past the Volunteers have been in a state of great uncertainty as to what was to be done with them by the War Office, and I thought that this would be a good opportunity to ask for some statement from the Under-Secretary of State, especially in view of the constant resignation in large numbers of officers of the Volunteer force. I say nothing on this occasion about the resignations of I the rank and file. That is the first part of the Question.
  In the second part of the Question I ask for some information as to the reasons for the medical examination, instituted quite recently, of the men in the Volunteer force. I have seen something of the way in which this examination has been carried out, having recently been out for the annual training, and I can assure the noble Earl that the staff at our disposal, at any rate in my own case, is utterly inadequate to carry out such a medical examination of the men as would enable a satisfactory conclusion to be arrived at. I want to know from the Under-Secretary of State why this medical inspection has been instituted. It has produced something like consternation throughout the Volunteer force, and I should be glad if the noble Earl would give a definite Answer on the point. As some of your Lordships know, I have been intimately connected with the raising of a certain Volunteer regiment for service abroad, so that I know a. little about what is required of men in respect of physique, and I know what men should look like and be like for serving abroad. But I will not detain your Lordships by enlarging upon this question, though it really deserves to be dealt with at greater length than is possible to-night. I think the Question

  777
  is a Very important one, and I invite the noble Earl to give it a definite Answer.
  The last part of the Question is in reference to Volunteer transport. At the present time, Volunteer transport is absolutely inadequate to any requirements except those of a standing camp, and even then it is not sufficient, and, in the present condition of the allowances at the disposal of officers commanding regiments and brigades, it would be absolutely impossible adequately to equip a brigade or other large body for mobilisation. I will not detain your Lordships longer, and I hope the Under-Secretary will not regard my Questions as unreasonable.
  LORD MONKSWELL:I should like to ask a Question which is, I think, germane to the issue raised by the noble Earl opposite, and that is, what percentage of the men in the Volunteer force who have been examined have been passed.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE):I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite is aware that we have asked for these returns to be furnished to us by October 31st. I need hardly say, therefore, that the returns are not yet in otherwise I should have been glad to answer the Question. If it meets his convenience I will let him know immediately we get the information.
  LORD MONKSWELL:I only asked the Question because I was speaking to a Volunteer the other day, and he told me that in his corps nine out of ten men had not been passed.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:The noble Lord will understand that as we have not yet got the returns in I am not in a position to give any figures. As regards the first part of the Question addressed to me by the Earl of Albemarle, I am afraid I have very little to add to what I said on Tuesday last in the debate raised by the noble Lord opposite. As regards the general question, we have certain proposals under consideration which I hope may mature into something that will help us to solve the general
  778
  difficulty of providing officers for the Auxiliary Forces.
  I would like, if your Lordships will allow me, to mention one point which I am afraid I did not make quite clear in the debate of Tuesday last. It does not affect the main question as to the necessity of a power of expansion in His Majesty's forces, as to which I know we are all agreed. But as regards the actual position of the officering of the Volunteers, I think the position is not quite so serious at the present moment as might appear at first sight, and for this reason. We have a large deficiency of officers, but at the same time we have a large deficiency of men. We have amply sufficient officers at the present moment to officer the men that we now have. I have worked out the approximate percentage, and I find that we have 74 per cent, of our establishment of men whilst we have 77 per cent, of our establishment of officers, or, deducting officers seconded, we have 71 per cent, of our establishment of officers, so that the discrepancy between the number of officers and the number of men is not so great. Your Lordships are aware that we consider that the 241,500 men that we have are considerably in advance of the requirements of the general staff. Of course, if a reduction to an establishment of 200,000 takes place, with the number of officers we now have we would have a considerably greater number— I do not say than we would require, but than would be necessary for the ordinary proportion of one to thirty, so that we should have a balance of officers in our favour for staff purposes, for purposes of transport, and for other very important miscellaneous requirements.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE:they spread throughout the force?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:I do not deny that there are certain regiments which are very short of officers. I am merely pointing out the total number that we have. With reference to the medical examination, the noble Earl asks why it has been necessary to have a special medical examination now, in view of the fact that every Volunteer in the force has been inspected as a recruit. I

  779
  think that is the noble Earl's point. I would point out that we are now examining for a different purpose from that for which the recruit is examined when he enters the force. When he enters the force he is examined with a view to ascertaining his fitness for service at home as a Volunteer The examination outlined in the Circular which has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House is for the purpose of ascertaining something different, though of course the greater includes the less. It includes the conditions laid down by the recently-issued Appendix 13 to the Volunteer Regulations, which is now the standard required for every recruit who enters the Volunteer force, and there are further qualifications of health necessary, which are enumerated in the Circular, which would not have been ascertained on the original attestation of the Volunteer when he first entered the force. That is the reason for our asking for this further examination with a view to ascertaining the information, and with the motives which I have already explained to your Lordships in answer to the Question of the noble Earl opposite.
  As regards the grant for the development of Volunteer transport, I would refer the noble Earl to the Memorandum on the Army Estimates presented to Parliament by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War at the commencement of the session. My right hon. friend has there made it clear that he wishes to make a grant for Volunteer transport as soon as the funds in his hands permit him to do so. I am afraid I cannot give any definite pledge as to what amount we should be able to allot for this purpose until we know how much we have at our disposal. But I can assure the noble Earl that we do recognise the very great necessity for the development of transport for the Volunteer force, and, as is shown in this document, it is one of the first objects to which my right hon. friend hopes to be able to allot funds.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH:I am afraid the consolation offered to us by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State that the shortage of officers in the Volunteer force may be practically disregarded
  780
  because of the deficiency of men is rather in the nature of Job's comfort.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE:It was not given in the way of consolation.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH:Should the time of emergency or crisis arise, plenty of men would come forward. The rank and file can be trained in a few weeks to be of some service, and in six months to be of great service, but it takes much longer to train an officer. You must have plenty of officers to lead your men; therefore, it is necessary to have a good supply of officers even if you have not the men at present.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.