Sitting of 29 June 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County Down (West Down Division) in the room of Captain Arthur Hill (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Bill is rejected the House will, on a Motion moved without notice, be reversing the decision of its own Select Committee, who, after full consideration, have reported unanimously in its favour.
On Question, "Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 35.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Tees Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords; Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments. Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Weaver Navigation Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Barrymore Estate Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
University College, London (Transfer), Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment. Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Whitby Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Closing of Licensed Premises (Christmas Day) (Ireland) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, with an Amendment.
Swansea Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITION.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Principal Chemist upon the work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended March 31st, 1905, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended December 31st, 1904, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on December 31st, 1904, and the nature and amount of the Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented, showing the Interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended December 31st, 1904, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended November 20th, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account presented, showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between April 1st, 1904, and March 31st, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]
  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account presented, of the Receipt and Expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act from January 1st to December 31st, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEER FORESTS (HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered February 28th; Mr. Weir]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. XI. (Edinburgh, No. 4) (Institution of Degrees in Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, and relative Regulations) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218.]
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. XII. (Edinburgh, No. 5) (Inclusion of Geography among the subjects qualifying for Graduation in Arts) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 219.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Fifty-ninth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 220.]

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  Return ordered, "relative to the working of the Wireless Telegraph Act for the first three months of the year from January 1st to March 31st, 1905, viz.:—

  (1) The number of messages, under the terms of the arrangement with the Marconi Company, handed by the general public to the Post Office for transmission to ships at sea;

  526

  (2) The number of these messages that failed to be delivered, showing for how many the senders applied for refund of the charges and the number (if any) for which the refund was refused, with the reasons for such refusal;

  (3) The number of messages received from ships at sea and delivered by the Post Office to the general public;

  (4) The amount of cash received during the three months by the Post Office for such inward and outward messages, and the proportion due to the Post Office and the Marconi Company;

  (5) The cost incurred during the same period by the Post Office in instructing the Postal Telegraph Offices throughout the country in connection with the Marconi service.

  Generally, in regard to the Wireless Telegraph Act, the number of licences to use wireless telegraphic apparatus applied for, with the name and nationality of the applicant, the name of the system, the position of working and radius of action, and the reasons for refusal (if any) of the licence or licences."—(Captain Norton.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  White and Coloured Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what were the numbers of white men, of Kaffirs, and of Chinese employed on the gold mines of the Transvaal on May 31st; and what was the ratio of whites employed for every 1,000 coloured, Kaffirs and Chinese together.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The numbers are:—white, 16,676; coloured, 106,864; Chinese, 38,111. The ratio is 1 white to 8·6 coloured and Chinese.

  Cootehill Union Fever Hospital—Death of a Patient after an Operation.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on or about June 20th, 1904, the medical officer of the Cootehill Union, county Cavan, performed an operation on a patient called Fitzpatrick in the fever hospital, after a local doctor who usually assists at all such operations refused to administer ether because of the low condition of the patient; whether he is aware that the medical officer of the workhouse then called in a doctor from outside the Cootehill district, performed the operation, and the patient died a few hours after; whether the Local Government Board was informed of the facts and the cause of death in this case; and whether there was an inquest held or a sworn inquiry ordered.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Local Government Board are informed by the clerk of the union that the facts are substantially as stated. The local doctor referred to did not, however, refuse to administer ether, but asked to be excused as he was not in good health. The patient died en the day following the operation. No complaint was made to the Board, and no inquest or sworn inquiry was held. The medical officer who performed the operation has the reputation of being a most careful and competent surgeon, and the Board see no reason to presume that there were any circumstances connected with the patient's death which require investigation.

  H.M.S. "Excellent"—Case of Stoker Parnell.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Edward George Henry Parnell, 1st class stoker on H.M.S. "Excellent," who met with an accident at Whale Island, Portsmouth, on January 29th, 1904, was, as a result of the injuries he then received, declared unfit for further service and granted a pension of £28 3s. per annum; that he received notice on April 15th, 1905, to attend on H.M.S. "President," in East India Dock, for re-survey; and that his pension was
  528
  subsequently reduced to £19 for twelve months; and will he explain what special circumstances warranted a reduction in his pension; is it proposed to-continue his present pension or to restore the original amount, or is it the intention, of the Admiralty to call upon this man for further service, notwithstanding that medical authorities have already declared him unfit for naval duty again.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The facts are as stated in the hon. Member's Question. The original award was for one year and was based on the report of the medical authorities that the man was not at all able to contribute to his own support. On re-survey, in April last, Parnell was reported to be able to contribute in a small degree to his own support, and his pension was reduced to 1s. 0½d a day, this being the maximum allowable under Scale III. of Article 2134 of the King's Regulations. He will be re-surveyed before the expiry of his present pension in June, 1906, and the pension then awarded will entirely depend upon the medical report. This man cannot be called upon for further service.

  Threats to Assassinate Scottish Members.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that three Members of this House representing Scotch constituencies have received letters threatening their assassination; and whether he can state what steps have been taken by the police in connection therewith.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am aware that one Member of this House received a threatening letter. The letter, which was anonymous, was in Italian. The police are making inquiries, but have been unable as yet to discover the writer.

  Suggested Railway Station for Kilconnell.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Ballinasloe Rural District Council, in which it is stated that the district of Kilconnell loses nearly £1,000 per annum for want of a railway station; and whether he will take some

  529
  action towards improving the condition of the people of that district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A copy of the resolution was forwarded to the Board of Trade, but so far as the Board are aware the company are under no statutory obligation to build a station at Kilconnell, and the Department have no jurisdiction in the matter.

  Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the proposed reduction of the capital of the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company; and, if so, and having regard to the losses incurred by numbers of the public owing to the dealings of unscrupulous financiers with the affairs of the company, he will undertake next session to introduce a Bill to amend the Companies Acts so as to render a recurrence of such a state of things impossible, or to bring the guilty parties within the reach of the criminal law.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) My attention has not been directed to this matter except by the hon. Member, and I cannot express any opinion upon it. But, as regards the Companies Acts generally, I may remind the hon. Member that a Departmental Committee was appointed by the President of the Board of Trade early in the session to consider Amendments to those Acts. That Committee is still sitting.

  Mohorough School Teacher's Salary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the different items which were taken into consideration in fixing the consolidated salary of the principal teacher of Mohorough, N.S. Roll No. 5,094, and which sum amounted to £85; what were the items in the same case when the salary was fixed at £87; and will he explain how the unit of distribution of annual capitation grant for year 1901 amounted to 5s.1d., whilst the unit for 1902,1903, and 1904 amounted to 5s. only.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The consolidated salary of £85 per annum
  530
  awarded to Mr. P. M'Carthy, teacher of Mohorough National School, was arrived at as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  In respect of class salary rate

  44

  0

  0

  In respect of 20% increase on class salary

  8

  16

  0

  In respect of residual capitation grant

  11

  1

  4

  In respect of results fees

  14

  2

  6

  In respect of Customs and Excise grant

  6

  9

  10

  Total

  84

  9

  10

  When a consolidated salary of £87. per annum was erroneously awarded to Mr. M'Carthy in the first instance, £15 10s. 8d. was allowed in respect of results fees, and £6 18s. 4d. in respect of Customs and Excise grant, instead of the correct sums under these headings as stated above. The residue of the school grant available for distribution as a capitation grant for 1901, when divided by the average attendance of pupils between three and fifteen years of age for that year, was such as to enable payment to be made at the rate of 5s. 1d. per unit on the average attendance.

  Longford Military Manoeuuvres—Damage to Crops.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a number of troops are being manœuvred at different parts in county Longford; whether any steps are being taken to compensate farmers whose crops may be injured in the course of these military manœuvres and will he state to whom claims are to be made in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) Small bodies of troops have lately manoeuvred from Mullingar. Steps are always taken to compensate farmers whose crops may be injured, claims being inquired into on the spot by the officer commanding the troops.

  Canning's Statue.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether consideration has now

  531
  been given to the suggestion that the enclosure round Canning's statue in Parliament Square should be opened to the public, and laid out so as to correspond in appearance and utility with the garden which adjoins it on the South.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give any undertaking with regard to this enclosure.

  Hyde Park Motor-Car Regulations.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, under what authority the First Commissioner of Works has excluded private carriages from Hyde Park; and why it is proposed to admit some private carriages while others are precluded from the use of Hyde Park.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) If the Question refers to the exclusion of motor vehicles between the hours of four and seven p.m. I have in reply to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on June 27th.†
  † See page 257

  Civil Service Pensions.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the practice of the Treasury, even prior to the passing of the Superannuation Act, 1859, to reckon towards pension temporary service followed wilhout interruption by established service, he will explain why the senior assistant clerks are called upon to deduct half their temporary service, amounting in some cases to as much as twelve-sixtieths of their salary; and whether he will revise the rules enforcing such a deduction, to allow them to reckon all their continuous service towards pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) It has not been the invariable practice of the Treasury to reckon temporary service for pension when followed by established service. The practice depends on the circumstances of each class of employment. Registered copyists were not
  †See page 257.
  532
  entitled by the conditions of their employment to reckon for pension any of their service as such. When appointed assistant clerks they are allowed, as a special concession, to reckon half of such service; and I see no reason for carrying this concession any further.

  Infantile Mortality.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what is the death rate per 1,000 births of infants under the age of twelve months in the urban and the rural districts respectively of England and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The best available information on this subject will be found on pages lxxiii. and lxxiv. of the Registrar-General's Sixty-sixth Annual Report, which contains tables showing the infantile mortality—(a) for a group of counties that are mainly urban; and (b) for a group of counties that are mainly rural in character. The following particulars are taken from these tables:—

  Infantile Mortality—Deaths under one year of age per 1,000 births.

  Averages for the years 1898–1902.

  Year 1903.

  Urban Counties

  165

  143

  Rural Counties

  126

  107

  Learners in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state how many fully qualified learners there are in the General Post Office, Dublin, at present with almost two years service, having only 5s. or 6s. per week; how many are there at present employed on relief duty in Ireland at from 10s. to 25s. per week with less qualifications and with shorter service; and will he in future give the learners in Dublin the option of relief duty outside Dublin when their turn comes, according to seniority and qualifications.

  533
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry on the subject and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  The Post Office-Lord Stanley's Revision—Overseers and Re-classification of Offices.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the date upon which he intends to publish his scheme dealing with overseers and re-classification of offices; whether, in view of the fast that many hundreds of men and women at the maximum salary of their respective classes throughout the United Kingdom have not received the smallest benefit from the portions of the scheme already published, he will date any promotions from the 1st April, 1903, that being nearly two years from the date of the, promised appointment of the Bradford Committee.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have sanctioned additional overseer ships for London, and step; are being taken to fill the new appointments. I hope in due course to be able to announce my decision as regards the provincial overseers; but I may at o ice say that the creation of additional overseer ships at many of the smaller offices would not be warranted. I do not think there is any hardship if an officer fails to obtain advancement immediately on reaching the maximum of the scale, and I regret that I am unable to adopt the ho a. Member's suggestion that the promotions should date from the 1st April.

  Town Sub-Postmasters' Salaries
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General what additions, ii any, have been made to town sub-postmasters' salaries during the past twenty years.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having a statement prepared, and I will send it to the hon. Member.

  Factory Inspection in the Potteries—Miss Martindale.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department during what period the services of Miss Martin-dale, His Majesty's woman inspector stationed in the Potteries, have been
  534
  intermitted, and when it is proposed that she should return thither.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Alters-Douglas.) Miss Martindale was stationed temporarily in the Potteries in February, 1904, and spent most of her time there until February of this year. During; that period she visited practically all the potteries under special rules in England. At the end of last year I arranged for the addition to the lady inspector's branch of an inspector who should be allocated chiefly to work in Ireland, and should have her residence there, but one-third of whose time (or the equivalent amount of time of another inspector) should be available, at any rat3 for the present, for special inspection work in the Potteries. Miss Martindale has been selected for this post, but I cannot state the precise dates when she. will be in the Potteries.

  Alien Immigration Return.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he Will consider the desirability of publishing and circulating with the monthly Return of Alien Immigration a monthly Return of the emigrants from the United Kingdom to places out of Europe, giving the same particulars as are now available upon the lithographed form prepared by the Board of Trade but not circulated amongst: Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) This Return shall be circulated in future as desired.

  Industrial Alcohol
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce the Bill embodying the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Industrial Alcohol; and whether he will state whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Bill into law during this session.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Bill was introduced last week. I hope that it will pass into law this session with the general assent of the House.

  Number of Europeans and Natives Employed in Indian War Material Factories.
  MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty: To ask the Secretary of State for) India, having regard to the fact that there are eleven factories in India engaged in the manufacture of war material, will he 3tate the number of Europeans and natives respectively employed in each factory.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am unable to state the number of Europeans and natives respectively employed in each factory, but the total number employed in all the eleven factories is as follows:—Europeans and Eurasians, 389; Natives, 14,152.

  Calcutta High Court—"Imperator v. Rolt."
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received from the Government of India a repot of the proceedings in the case of Imperator v. A. O. Rolt, tried in the Calcutta High Court on the 20th December; and will he lay Papers on the subject upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have not received the Report of the-Government of India on the case.

  Indian Labour for the Soudan.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the scarcity of employment in India, and the recorded disinclination of the Indian Government to countenance coolie importation into the Transvaal, he will consider the expediency of arranging with the Soudan Government for drafting Indian labour into the Soudan for the purpose of cotton culture and for the development of that country generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am not aware that employment is scarce in India; but if the Soudan Government should desire to import Indian labour, and make an application to the Indian Government to that effect it would receive due consideration.

  Promotion in the Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  536
  of Ireland whether he is aware that in connection with the last appointment to the class of clerks or overseers at Belfast the nominee of the postal superintendent was rejected at headquarters; and whether, in view of the statement of the superintendent of the senior sorting clerk that he had been recommended, he will say what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As promotions in the Post Office are made by me, I have been requested by the Chief Secretary to answer this Question. I cannot discuss with the hon. Member the grounds upon which my choice of the officers best qualified for promotion is exercised. I am myself, solely responsible in the matter.

  Forthill Burial Ground, Galway.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that complaints have repeatedly b en made regarding the condition of Forthill burial ground, county Galway; and whether, in view of the fact that desecration of graves in this burying ground has taken, and is frequently taking, place, he will order an inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In April, 1904, the Local Government Board received a complaint that this burial ground was overcrowded, with a request that further interments should be prohibited. The medical officer of health of the Galway Urban District Council thereupon reported that there was still plenty of room for interments in the burial ground. No further complaints have been received by the Board, but they are prepared to consider any facts which may be brought to their notice.

  Constable Lynch, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why Constable Lynch, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Ballygawley, has been promoted over the heads of at least five other constables of unblemished character, senior to him on the lists for promotion,

  537
  and say on whose recommendation the exception was made.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Constable Lynch, who has had nearly twenty-three years service, was recently promoted on the recommendation of his superior officers as being the most eligible for promotion at the time. No exception to the ordinary rule was made in his case. Seniority is but one of several factors which govern promotion.

  Irish Land Commission Rules.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to replace the provisional rule's of the Irish Land Commission of the 4th December, 1903, by rules of a final and complete character; and, if so, at what date will such latter rules be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is intended to replace the provisional rules of the 4th December by rules of a final and complete character, in which will be embodied all rules incorporated in the provisional rules. Owing to pressure of work of a judicial and administrative nature the Commissioners have not as yet been able to complete the new code of rules, but hope to do so by an early date.

  War Stores Scandal—Colonel Morgan's Promotion.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the statement that the Secretary of State for War decided in January, 1905, to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into sales and refunds in South Africa, before which the conduct of certain officers was likely to come under review, can he explain how it was that pending the result of that investigation Colonel Morgan, one of the officers concerned, received promotion on 3rd February, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Lieutenant-Colonel Morgan was selected for promotion to his present rank by the Selection Board on the advice of the Quartermaster-General. As there did not appear to be any sufficient reasons to the contrary his promotion was duly approved.

  South African Field Fores Canteen Accounts.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state if the War Office have published the accounts of the South African Field Force Canteen during the war for the information of the Army, as laid down by military regulations; and, if so, when were they published; and can a copy be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if not, will he explain the reason for his decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There is no military regulation binding the War Office to publish accounts of canteens for the information of the Army. The result of the winding-up of the Field Force Canteens and the disposal of the residual profit of more than a quarter of a million sterling for the benefit of the Army was given in the reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for North Camberwell on the 13th April.†

  Army Promotion Warrant of 1900.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that under Warrant of 1900 officers of the rank of major-general are only promoted on appointment to work carrying the rank of lieutenant general and that several major-generals have been recently promoted without receiving any appointment, he will say what does he propose to do with reference to general officers who have been thus recently superseded.
  (Answered by Mi. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is proposed in future to maintain an establishment of twenty British-service lieutenant-generals, irrespective of whether appointments carrying the rank of lieutenant-general are vacant or not. The system of promoting to the rank of lieutenant-general will be by selection as heretofore, and no change is contemplated beyond the fact that major-generals will be selected to fill an establishment of lieutenant-generals in anticipation of appointments in that rank falling vacant for them. These officers who are not selected for promotion will continue to serve as major-generals.
  † See (4) Debates, cvlv., 58

  Strike of Haversack Makers at Chatham.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a strike among the women employed by Messrs. Hibbert and Company, of Slickett's Hill, Chatham, owing to the pay received by them for the making of haversacks; whether this work, which was paid for by Messrs. Hibbert at the rate of 1s. 3d. a dozen, is similar to that for which 5s. is paid at the Pimlico Army Clothing Factory; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have been informed of the strike mentioned, which is now over. No work on haversacks is performed at the Pimlico Clothing Factory, and, therefore, no comparison in prices can be made.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Keyham Dockyard.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether foreign granite is still being used in the dockyard construction at Keyham; and, if not, where and by whose orders were the conditions as to the use of British granite only enforced upon the contractors.
    THE CIVIL LORD or THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,): Practically the whole of the granite required for Keyham Dockyard extension has already been supplied; a small portion, however, still remains to be fixed. I am not in a position to say how much of the portion not yet fixed is British, but I may say that, taking the contract as a whole, about two-thirds of the granite supplied is British, and one-third foreign. No alteration has been made in the terms of the contract as regards sources of supply of granite.

    The War Stores Scandal—General Lyttelton's Telegrams
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
    540
    War when does he propose to lay upon the Table of the House the telegrams from Lieutenant-General Sir Neville Lyttelton quoted by the Secretary of State for India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): As the telegrams were read out in full to the House by my right hon. friend and will appear in The Parliamentary Debates, it would appear unnecessary to print them as a separate Parliamentary Paper.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the Rule of the House that when a Minister quotes from a telegram the whole telegram should be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: That certainly is the rule. When a quotation is made from a document by a Minister the whole document must be produced.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no objection to going through the form of presenting these Papers.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay them on the Table, and when?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As soon as they are printed.

    Right of Army Officers to Demand a Court-Martial
    LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether paragraph 438 of the King's Regulations for the Army, under which an officer has no right to demand a Court-martial upon himself, precludes the officers who have been relieved from duty in consequence of the Report of the Committee on Sales and Refunds to Contractors in South Africa from making such application; and whether it was intended that such officers should be deprived of corps pay by reason of having been so relieved from duty, although no charge had been made against them and the Public Prosecutor-had reported there were no grounds for making any.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): Paragraph 438 of the King's Regulations applies to all officers alike, and the officers mentioned in the Question have no right to demand a Court-martial. These officers are at present receiving their full pay.

    The Sales of Surplus Stores in South Africa—Details Wanted.
    MR. MCKENNA: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a statement has been made of the total value of surplus stores sold in South Africa after the conclusion of the war, in anticipation of the findings of the Royal Commission, he can give the details which make up the alleged total receipts for such sales amounting to about £6,000,000.
    MR. MCKENNA: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the sums amounting in the aggregate to about £6,000,000, said to have been produced by the sale of surplus stores in South Africa after the conclusion of the war, have been or are about to be credited in any Army Appropriation Accounts; if so, in what year's accounts were they or will they be credited, and what are the amounts respectively for each year.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Sums exceeding £6,000,000, the proceeds of sales in South Africa, have been brought to credit in Army Appropriation Accounts for the years 1902–3 and 1903–4. A Return is being prepared, and will be laid as soon as possible, giving detailed information.
    MAJOR SEELY: Does that include the sales of captured stock?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No; no figures so far given include the price of captured stock.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked whether the sum of £6,000,000 realised was in respect of the £8,000,000 worth of stores in question.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: That is some of the de ailed information which will be given as far as possible in the Return promised by my right hon. friend.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to state the amount realised in respect of the sale of those surplus stores only which were estimated by Lord Kitchener in his cable of 18th June, 1902, to be of the value of some six or seven millions sterling.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: My right hon. friend is not able to state the amount realised by the sales of the particular supplies referred to in Lord Kitchener's telegram, because we have no exact details as to the basis on which the estimate was framed; but I can say that sums in excess of £6,000,000 have been brought to credit in Army accounts for sales for the years 1902–3 and 1903–4.
    MR. MCKENNA: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether one penny of the amount which appears in the account for 1902–3 refers to the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 mentioned by Lord Kitchener? Can the hon. Gentleman not give the House some estimate of what the stores referred to by Lord Kitchener, and those only, realised?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I can certainly say that one penny is included; but I should be very greatly astonished if, a3 a matter of fact, the Return does not include £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. It will be stated in the Return.
    MR. WHITLEY: Will the cost of stores imported into South Africa during the period covered by the Return be included? That is the vital question.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes, Sir.
    MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the promised account of the sale of stores will include a detailed account of the specific stores, mentioned by Lord Kitchener in June, 1902, as being of the value of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000? What we

    543
    desire is an account of these stores separate from that of the stores supplied since.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: As far as is possible, the promised Return as to the stores contracts win be made in the form suggested by the hon. Member.

    The Monthly Reports of Sales of Stores—Responsibility for Discontinuance.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority it was that the return of 31st July, 1902, requiring monthly reports of sales in South Africa, was cancelled upon 24th April, 1903.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the gentleman responsible for the order for monthly returns of all sales and repurchases of Government stores in South Africa not having been carried out, and for the cancelling of this order in April, 1903, is at present engaged in military or civil duties; and whether, if so, he is to be relieved of these duties pending the investigation of the Royal Commission appointed to investigate all matters connected with these sales and repurchases.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The responsibility for the action mentioned will form part of the inquiry by the Royal Commission. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. Members any information on the points raised.
    MR. TREVELYAN: May I ask whether the responsibility for the return of 31st July, 1902, is a different responsibility to that by which that return was cancelled? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India took the responsibility for calling for it.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I understood my right hon. friend to say that be was not prepared to state to the House his information as to the responsibility for the reports not having been furnished.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Many of us understood him to decline to take the responsibility of saying who had refused to send the return.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My Question is whether this particular gentleman is to be relieved of his duties pending the decision of the Commission.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can give no undertaking of that kind. Where the responsibility lay will be a matter for the decision of the tribunal.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the Secretary of State for India, who was at the War Office at the time, would be consulted.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Commission were to investigate the responsibility for failures to make the returns as well as the other questions.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is almost inevitable that this question should be discussed by the Commission.
    MR. LOUGH: Could anyone authorise the suppression of an order except the Secretary of State for War?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    General Sir William Butler and the War Stores Commission.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of adding General Sir William Butler to the Commissioners appointed to investigate the sale of stores and refunds in South Africa, in view of the fact that, as the Chairman of a Departmental Committee which has partially investigated some of them, he already has acquired considerable knowledge in regard to them.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Sir William Butler will in all probability be called as a witness by the Commission that has

    545
    been appointed, but I do not think anything would be gained by adding him to the Commission. In fact, the terms of reference almost seem to exclude him.

    Lord Milner and the War Stores.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any correspondence took place between the Colonial Office and the War Office, and between that Office and Lord Milner in regard to the refusal of the latter to take over further stores under the control of the War Office in regard to the requirements for repatriation; if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House; whether he can state what purchases for the requirements of repatriation have been made since this refusal of stores similar to those offered by the War Office; and what has been their cost.
    THE SECRETARYOF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): No such correspondence took place.

    India—Lord Curzon and the Military Command.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy hag unconditionally accepted the proposals contained in the Secretary of State's despatch of 31st May, or whether he has requested that certain modifications shall be made in them before he can accept them; and what is the nature and extent of these suggested modifications.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have nothing to add to what I stated yesterday† on this subject.
    MR. BUCHANAN: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the Question now I shall repeat it next week.

    Odessa Disturbances.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg, in accordance with private notice, to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the large number of British subjects at
    † See page 373.
    546
    Odessa, he can give the House any information as to the position of things there.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The only information we have received is from our Consul at Odessa to the effect that the battleship "Kniaz Potemkin" had arrived in port, that the crew had mutinied and murdered all the officers except three, that harangues were being made to the populace, and that shots were being exchanged between the people and the police; but he does not indicate that he apprehends any special danger to British subjects or property at Odessa.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the telegram indicate whether the battleship has or has not bombarded the town?
    EARL PERCY: It indicates apprehension that a bombardment might take place, but not a bombardment.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any precautionary measures are intended to be taken for the protection of British lives and shipping and other property in the Black Sea?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems difficult to see what precautions can be taken in regard to disorders taking place in a town not under British jurisdiction.

    Motor-Car Speed Limit.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into consideration the expediency of instructing the police that in cases where in their opinion the speed limit is exceeded, or where the cars are driven at a speed inconsistent with the public safety, they should write to the owners of the cars in question, giving them notice of the conduct of their drivers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's);I have considered the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member, but I am not

    547
    prepared to adopt it. Cautions are given in suitable cases, but I could certainly not assent to the view that, where the facts justify a prosecution, a caution should be given instead.

    The Medical Register.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that the General Medical Council state that during the last ten years twenty names have been struck off the Medical Register for infamous conduct in a professional respect, and that of this number four were removed on charges of adultery, will he state how many names have been r moved on this charge during the current year.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Answer to the Question is, three. I must add that the Medical Register is a matter with which I have no concern, and that any other information which the hon. Member may desire would no doubt be furnished to him by the General Medical Council, if he makes application to the Registrar.

    Montgomery Non-Provided Schools.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Montgomeryshire Education Authority passed a resolution on the 20th instant to the effect that the payments of the claims and salaries on account of the non-provided schools for the quarter ending June 30th should be deferred until July 17th, pending the report of the executive committee on the replies from the managers to a letter addressed to them in the matter of the repairs, alterations, and additions to the school buildings, as required by the county surveyor; and will he say what steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that the teachers' salaries may be paid as usual pending the negotiations and settlement of the question of repairs and additions between themselves, on the one hand, and the education authority and the Board of Education on the other.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Board have received no
    548
    intimation from the local education authority of the passing of the resolution referred to, nor have any complaints been received from managers. Until the receipt of complaints, it is impossible to say what steps, if any, it may be necessary to take in the matter; but when any such complaints are received, the Board will at once communicate with the authority on the subject.

    Big Ben.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Lancashire, Chorley, whether he is aware that for the last few days one of the faces of Big Ben has assumed a greenish hue; if so, whether he is responsible for that phenomenon or whether it is due to some occult agency.
    LORD BALCARRES: The occult agency is an attempt on the part of the Office of Works to effect certain economies. The reason why I asked my hon. friend to put a notice on the Paper, which he has not done, was that there are scientific matters involved which I do not understand and a certain number of foreign words which I am unable to pronounce.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: Is the noble Lord aware that the phenomenon has been interpreted as an omen that the Home Rule controversy is entering on an acute phase?
    LORD BALCARRES: Perhaps the hon. Member for the Scotland Division is able to inform my hon. friend about that.

    Lemreway (Stornoway) Schoolmastership.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the Scottish Education Department have received a petition, signed by all the parents of children attending the public school at Lemreway, Stornoway, urging that Mr. John D. Mitchel should be retained in his appointment as master of the school; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow,): The Department have received the petition

    549
    referred to by the hon. Member, and are inquiring into the matter.

    Missing Belfast Children.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, two children, named Flannigan, age five and six years respectively, were reported to the police as being missing from their home at Short Strand, Belfast, since April 24th last, and that the police informed the mother of these children that they had been placed in a home or industrial school by the Rev. Mr. Kerr, C.C., who has refused to give any information about the children; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The mother of these children has complained to the police that they have disappeared, and the Rev. Mr. Kerr has stated to the police that he knows where the children are, and that they are in safe custody. This is all the information the police have, and upon it they cannot take any action.
    MR. SLOAN: Is there no redress for the mother, the children having been taken away against her will, and Mr. Kerr having refused to tell her where they are?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a lawyer, but I believe that the civil law is open to her, by which she can obtain redress, but on the information the police have they can take no action on her behalf.
    MR. SLOAN: In view of the fact that the police have made inquiries as to where the children are, is there any reason why the mother should not be admitted to see them?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think my hon. friend is not quite correct. I do not think the police know where the children Are, though the Rev. Mr. Kerr says that he knows where they are.
    MR. SLOAN: Have they no power to see that this woman is admitted to talk to her own children?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It does not rest with the police to act. If the children were taken away improperly, the police have no power to take action.
    SIR ERNEST FLOWER: Surely, having regard to the fact that the children were taken away without the mother's consent, the police can act without the authority of a justice of the peace?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have given an Answer to my hon. friend containing all the information we have—namely, that these children have been removed, and that the Rev. Mr. Kerr has stated that he knows where they are. The police have no reason to believe that they are in an industrial school—
    MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the children have been kidnapped?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I do not say that. All I know is that the mother says she has lost her children, and that Mr. Kerr says that he knows where they are. The police cannot act unless they have legal power to act. They cannot compel Mr. Kerr to divulge his information. It is, I admit, a very extraordinary case.

    Public Trustee and Executor Bill.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will give any facility for the passing into law this session of the Public Trustee and Executor Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only say that this Bill is on the Government are very desirous of seeing passed, but I can give no pledge on the subject at the present time.

    Electric Carriages in Hyde Park.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUmemberconstituency>: On behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Edinburgh, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will put down for an early date the Vote for the Office of Works, in order to enable the House to discuss the question of the inclusion of electric carriages in the

    551
    Order which excludes motor vehicles from Hyde Park between four p.m. and seven p.m.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This must depend on the other claims on the time of the House, and I suspect that, however important this subject be, it may be crowded out by other subjects more important—or more important, that is to say, in the general view of the House.

    Education (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the Education (Scotland) Bill in Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I have anything to add to the Answer I gave yesterday†, which was to the effect that I cannot fix a day for this Bill, and that we must make some progress first with the Scottish Churches Bill.
    MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to proceed with it, but I cannot promise to do so.

    Musical Copyright.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he intends to deal in the present session with the question of musical copyright, in view of the loss and hardships now caused to musical composers, publishers, and the music trade and profession by musical piracy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been in communication with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who has the matter in hand. If a favourable opportunity occurs I hope something may be done to remedy what is undoubtedly a heavy injustice.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Am I to take it this Answer implies that the right hon. Gentleman will promote a measure if assured that it will be treated as non-
    † See page 384.
    552
    controversial. I have authority to say it would be so treated by the hon. Member for Waterford
    MR. A. J. BALFOURaccepted this statement, but was afraid it could not be assumed that because a Bill met with the approval of the greater part of the House it would prove to be non-controversial generally. There was plenty of experience to the contrary

    SUPPLY [12th ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON(Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
Motion made, and Quest on proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,768,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he presumed they would, as usual, be allowed to take a general discussion on shipbuilding questions on that Vote. The first point he wished to raise was the scheme of discarding certain ships which was announced at the beginning of the session. He made no complaint of the statement of Lord Selborne, but the policy was announced to the country before the opening of Parliament by the Prime Minister in language which ought not to be forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman told a Party meeting at Glasgow that by a "courageous stroke of the pen" the Admiralty had abolished 130 vessels, and by this remarkable achievement the efficiency of the Navy had been increased, and large savings would be effected to the extent of hundreds of thousands, and indeed of millions, annually. He adopted from his audience the words "bad rubbish" as a description of these ships.

553
This was only one of the aspects of this question. It was not merely that the Board of Admiralty had laid down the rule that a ship, however use ul in t me of peace, was not only useless but worse than useless in time of war if it possessed neither fighting power nor speed, but it had gone further and it had with one courageous stroke of the pen abolished 130 ships, with the result that the cost of their maintenance and repair was to be struck on the Estimates while the fighting power of the British. Fleet would simultaneously be increased two or three-fold in the first twenty four hoars of war—a "remarkable achievement," and "the greatest feat in naval policy since the days of Nelson."
Information upon this policy, at first meagre, was supplied by a Return issued by the Admiralty of ships affected by the redistribution of the Fleets. From this it appeared that twenty-seven ships were put into the llama class, retaining their armaments, but laid up in the charge of caretaker, thirty-six vessels were relegated to a class available for subsidiary purposes, eighty obsolete vessels were in a third class, and ten vessels were in a fourth class of guard, receiving and stationary ships. With regard to the llama class, as no expense was to be incurred on these ships for maintenance and repairs there must inevitably be deterioration, and certainly it was not possible to rely on their being made rapidly available in time of emergency. In this Return he could find nothing to justify the grandiloquent language used by the Prime Minister. Of the ninety ships struck off the list or sold a number had long been worthless, and could not be included in last year's policy. For instance, the "Royal Adelaide" was completed in 1828, the "Havannah" in 1811, the "Belvidera" in 1810, and the "Implacable" was so old that the Admiralty had no record of the date of her completion. So far as he could make out, only about half of the ninety vessels struck off could be attributed to the recent policy. Was it not absurd, then, to say that this great Admiralty achievement was without parallel since the days of Nelson. Again, as they knew, a large expenditure was incurred on several of these ships just
554
before they were sent to the scrap-heap. On the "Porpoise" £31,000 was expended only three years before; on another vessel £9,030 was spent two years previously. Upon that policy he need not do more than allude to the statement of Sir W. White, late Chief Constructor to the Navy, and the two points upon which he pressed for explanation were: why so much expenditure was incurred for repairs for ships shortly afterwards removed from the effective list, and, secondly, how a distinction was made between ships of the same apparent class and value, some of which were laid up and others classed as useful for subsidiary purposes.
Let them contrast. the actual results of the policy with the description of it given by the Prime Minister at Glasgow. Lord Lansdowne, speaking in the House of Lords, had stated that the policy of eliminating ships from the active list had produced a saving of £3 500,000. That was an entire delusion. There had been a saving of £3,500,000 on the Navy Estimates this year, but it had been due to reductions on new construction, on armaments, on repairs, and on stores. He was quite sure that Lord Lansdowne spoke in good faith, but it only showed he was under the d fusion, fostered by the Prime Minister's language, that the saving had been effected by the elimination of these ships. But something must have been saved by the elimination of these ships, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would tell them how much had been saved in past years and what saving might be anticipated in future years. They ought to know how much money had been realised by the sale of these old ships. He had hitherto applied unsuccessfully to the Admiralty for information on the point, and ho was driven to the papers for such facts as he had acquired. He would ask whether it was true that the "Warspite," which was only seventeen years old and had cost £700,000, had been sold for £18,000, and that eighteen so-called obsolete ships, which cost £2,250,000 not very long ago, sold at the beginning of April for something less than £100,000. He desired also to know what was the number of men set free by the elimination of these ships. He asked a Question on that point the

555
other day and was told that the complement of these ships' crews totalled 30,748, but it did not necessarily follow that that number of men had been set free. He had not been able to get accurate information on the point, but it seemed to him that one result had been to increase the number of men serving on shore or in harbour ships, and that more men had not been put on sea service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would vouchsafe the Committee some further information on that point.
Did this new scheme offer any hope of their being able to increase the efficiency of the Navy? Sir William White had made a strong point on that, arguing, as he did, that the elimination of these ships meant a reduction of reserve forces which was regarded as dangerous. Some reassurances on that subject would be useful. Many of these small ships, although they would be of no use in the fighting line in a great battle, were useful in peace and war for the protection of British interests locally. What was the policy of the Government and the Admiralty with regard to the protection of commerce in time of war? According to all authorities that he was acquainted with, our commerce in time of war would be protected by this class of small ships. He was aware that the question of the protection of commerce was in a state of flux at the present time. Therefore, it was important to know the reason for the elimination of ships which many high authorities regarded as being especially useful for that purpose. He knew there was high naval authority for the proposition that in time of war in all probability, at any rate at first, our Navy would not trouble itself to defend commerce at all.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk,asked whether the hon. Member was at liberty to give his authority.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not at liberty, but he should not have made the statement without believing that he was justified in doing so. The theory was that the business of the Fleet in time of war was to seek the opposing fleet and knock it out of existence, and after that, but not before, the
556
question of protecting commerce might be considered. He believed that His Majesty's Government were at that moment considering the propriety of going into a conference called by the President of the United States which had for its primary object and purpose the abolition of the capture and destruction of private property at sea. He desired to express his hearty sympathy with that proposal and his desire to believe, though it was impossible to believe, that this elimination of ships might possibly be connected with it. At all events he hoped and trusted that the barbarous rule, as he regarded it, of the destruction of private property at sea of which we were the chief victims would be abolished; but so long as international law permitted it, we ought to consider our position before we sacrificed all these ships, on account of their special value in relation to the protection of commerce. In regard to specific questions, he would like to know from the Secretary to the Admiralty how the sea stores in those foreign stations that were being practically abandoned for the time had been disposed of.
Now he came to the general contents of the Vote. The First Lord, in his Memorandum, stated that the repairs of the Navy had all been overtaken now, and that in consequence it would not be necessary to send this work to private yards. He hoped that statement was well founded; but there were one or two passages in an important article by Sir William White in the July number of the Nineteenth Century on this very question that deserved the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty. Sir William White said that—
"This vigorous effort to effect necessary repairs of the Fleet was undoubtedly praisworthy, but there was a want of thorough consideration and provision in framing the scheme, and no trustworthy estimate was made of the cost involved in its execution. Ships were sent for repairs to private firms which had not built them, and in some cases to firms which had little or no experience of building ships or engines for the Navy; while other and competent firms who had built ships and engines for the Navy, and who were well acquainted with. admiralty work, were left unemployed, and both time and cost were thus increased."
There was another statement in the article on the general subject of repairs

557
which should be brought under the notice of the Committee. The amount put down this year for repairs was something under £3,000,000, a decrease of £500,000 on last year. But this was a delusive estimate. It was under existing conditions difficult to estimate beforehand the cost of repairs. On this point Sir William White wrote—
"The diligent student can ascertain the first cost and date of completion for each existing combatant ship in the Navy and the cost of maintenance for each ship alter completion and so can form an opinion as to a reasonable allowance, in proportion to first cost, for subsequent cost of maintenance. In this manner—having regard to the value of armour, which does not sensibly deteriorate—one can arrive at a figure for the annual minimum amount which ought to be provided for the efficient maintenance of the existing Fleet. This method of investigation leads one to the conclusion that under present circumstances, for efficient maintenance of the Fleet and provision for a certain amount of reconstruction, an annual outlay of at least £4,000,000 sterling is requisite. As the costly battleships and cruisers now building come into service, and the capital" value of the Fleet in commission grows, this amount for maintenance will require a corresponding increase, although more ships may be struck off the effective list during this period."
He thought that was a serious consideration, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give the Committee his views upon it.
As to new construction, he thought the Committee had a right to complain of the silence of the Admiralty on the subject. No information had been vouchsafed to them up to the present, but he thought that now, when the session was nearly over and when steps would shortly be taken to carry into effect the new shipbuilding programme, they were entitled to be told. something about the proposals of the Admiralty. They had been told that a Committee of Designs had been appointed to assist the Director of Naval Construction, and he had asked to be supplied not only with the terms of reference to that Committee, but also with the Reports they sent in from time to time. Neither of his requests had been granted, and he understood the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give the House the information. Well, he appealed to the majority to assist him in obtaining it. Surely there was nothing unreasonable in asking for it.
558
An absolutely new scheme was being put forward this year. Under this Vote they were going to lay down one battleship, four armoured cruisers, five ocean-going destroyers, one ocean-going destroyer of an experimental type, twelve coastal destroyers, and eleven submarines, and in regard to the whole of this scheme they were absolutely without detailed information. They really ought—now the session was nearly over—to be told something about it. Engineering had openly divulged important particulars which had been denied to them by the Government. A month ago this paper gave some leading details about the new battleship, and stated that she was to be of twenty-one knots speed, that she would have an armament of ten 12-inch guns, a displacement of 18,000 tons, and turbine machinery. Was that a correct description of the new type of battleship? The same organ gave the speed of the four new cruisers at twenty-five knots, and that of the ocean-going destroyer as thirty-six knots. He wished to know from the representative of the Government whether these particulars were true or not, and would he supplement them by giving some further information. He noticed that this inspired author of the naval programme of the Government had nothing to say about the design of the submarines. He desired to take this opportunity of expressing his deep regret at the last great disaster on one of their submarines. The new type had been doubly unfortunate, and this was not the first disaster which had shocked the country. He sincerely hoped that would be the last. He thought that was an additional reason why they should be told more about the design of the new submarines, and how far the possibility of accidents would be avoided. He wished to know why this information had been communicated to the editor of Engineering a month before it was communicated to Parliament. Those were all fair Questions, to which he hoped an Answer would be given. It was an ingenious sort of article, because it did not profess to say anything about the principles which animated the Designs Committee, although it claimed an acquaintance with the views of Admiral Fisher and Mr. Watts. But whether the information given to this paper was official or not,

559
they had a right to know why this paper was allowed to have it.
Then there was the question as to whether this large expenditure was justified or not. He wished to point out that the Opposition were not responsible for these colossal Estimates and that they had nothing to do with them. In deciding what the strength of the Navy should be they had to remember that one of the great Powers had now practically ceased to exist as a naval Power. Therefore, they had to count out Russia and count in Japan, and they had also to count in the United States. His point was that in the new state of naval affairs the old formulae had ceased to have any effect. It was useless to talk about a two-Power or a three-Power standard now, and they wanted a now consideration of the whole problem. To replace worn-out ships and keep the Fleet in repair cost about £4,800,000 a year, and his point was that by that expenditure they could keep the Fleet at its present strength. They were spending this year upon new construction alone double that sum. That meant that at present they were not only maintaining the Fleet at its present strength but that they were adding to it year by year. He thought that Lord Lansdowne in what he had said had gone further than anyone in that House in supporting and countenancing the principle of a reduction in naval armaments.
With regard to the Colonies the right hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth and himself had several times urged upon the House the advisability of the Colonies bearing their proper share of the burden of maintaining the Imperial Navy, although they had not obtained much support upon either side of the House. The right hon. and gallant Member the other day led a deputation to the Prime Minister which urged that the Colonial Conference which was going to consider the fiscal question should be asked as a matter of primary consideration to consider the question of contributing towards the Imperial Navy. From the report he had read he was under the impression that the Prime Minister had assented to that demand, but, when he was questioned in the House be appeared to throw over that deputation, and declared that what he
560
had said practically meant nothing at all.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he thought that, in view of the statements which the hon. and learned Member for Dundee had made, it would be convenient to the Committee that he should reply at once upon the general question before the debate proceeded any further. The national and international considerations touched upon by the hon. Gentleman were very much in the minds of the Admiralty, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to go into them in detail. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Navy might be reduced.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONdissented.
MR. PRETYMANsaid if they considered the whole question in its broad aspect they would see that the first thing they had to ask was what was the work the Navy had to do; had they sufficient ships to do it—modern ships such as alone should be supplied to the personnel this country possessed? If those new ships and the personnel were sufficient for the needs of the country, could it be anything but wasteful and bad economy to keep on ships, which, however useful when first built or even two or three years ago, were now superfluous? The policy of laying ships aside as having m great value for the immediate operation of war was not a policy that stood by itself, but was combined with the policy, to which the hon. Gentleman had not referred, of nucleus crews. It was only by taking-from the active list all these ships that it had been possible to provide a personnel for the nucleus crews, and he thought the Committee would see that what had been said by the Prime Minister in that regard could not be taken as exaggerated if they would consider the importance of this great principle of providing nucleus crews. Under the old system ships were in reserve, and lay in the basins at the great ports. They were not manned at all. Crews were provided for them in reserve in war. but the personnel had before mobilisation no connection whatever with the ships. Under the present system these ships were in commission in reserve. That was no form of words.

561
They were in commission; and every modern efficient ship in the Navy fit to put in the first fighting line except such as were actually under repair in the yard was provided with a nucleus crew and ready to go into action at a few hours notice. That meant an enormous increase of efficiency, because, under the old system, when ships were mobilised for manœuvres, those vessels on which there had been trouble and breakdown had been those which had been in reserve and of which the personnel had no knowledge of the machinery and appliances on board. Under the present system the more important personnel of the ship—those who would be, in prime charge of the appliances—were not only living on board, but taking out the ships frequently and exercising them. There was another incidental advantage in the system. It might very often happen in war that a ship would have to be fought and worked short-handed. They had never had any experience of that particular state of affairs; but now, by working these ships with nucleus crews, a large proportion of the Navy was gaining experience of working ships short-handed both in the matter of gun practice and machinery. All this involved an enormous gain in efficiency.
The hon. Gentleman had asked where was the increase of efficiency. There could be no comparison as to efficiency between the old system and the new, either in peace or war. Efficiency in this case could not be separated from economy. What possible relation could there be between the figures as to the cost now and last year? The real comparison must be between the expenditure of to-day, together with the efficiency of to-day, and what the expenditure and efficiency would have been to-day under the old conditions. It was quite clear that comparison could not be made in actual figures. No amount of expenditure within one year could have produced the same efficiency. Unless those vessels had been taken out of the first fighting line there would be no crews at all for carrying out the nucleus system. There was a great economy, but greater still was the efficiency. He could indicate many ways
562
in which there had been actual economy. There was a very large saving of the expense of refitting these vessels. Had these vessels, which were now known as llamas, been refitted, modernised, and rearmed—and the hon. Gentleman was well aware the "Admiral' class could not have been considered efficient otherwise—the cost would have worked out to about £2,500,000. Had there been no reconstruction and rearmament, but simply necessary repairs and refitting, the cost would have been somewhere about £500,000. In addition to that there was the saving of the stores and coal which these ships would have required, of personnel, subsidiary expense, upkeep, etc There had been a very large saving indeed compared to any sum which the House would have been asked to spend had; they attempted to provide the nucleus crews in any other way. Those crews were a necessity if that great scheme was to be carried out; and he believed he was right in saving that the Committee approved of that scheme. Economy could not be divorced from efficiency. Either they might have kept things as they were and abandoned that valuable scheme or they might have kept the old ships and had nucleus crews to a certain extent. In that case there would have been an enormous additional expenditure. The hon. Member suggested that these vessels would have been of great value for the protection of commerce. So far as he was aware any proposals which might exist for attacks on our commerce would be by modern armoured cruisers, against which these vessels, would be absolutely valueless. The result of employing those ships would simply be to lock up in them valuable personnel, which would not be available for more modern ships.
The hon. Member raised a very important point as to the protection of our commerce in war, and asked whether it was not the opinion of a high naval authority, which he did not specify, that in war our first policy would be to destroy the enemy's fleets, and only after that had been done to protect our commerce. Although he did not know who his high naval authority was, he could say that was not the view the Admiralty took.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he referred to Captain Mahan.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he thought the hon. Member was confusing the relative importance and the question of time. No one would deny, if there was an alternative, and if the question arose whether they were to destroy the enemy's fleets or protect their commerce and attack his, there could only be one answer. That was what Captain Mahan said. If the question was, "Am I to destroy the enemy's fleet, or am I to protect my commerce," there could be only one answer, and that was that the enemy's fleet must be destroyed. The hon. Member was referring to a volume on a great French war in which Captain Mahan pointed out that the enormous losses suffered by the French were caused by the diversion to the protection of commerce of power that would have been" better employed in fighting the enemy's fleet. No one who had studied naval strategy would agree that because there were two objects, one of which was infinitely the more important, therefore the other should be neglected and postponed. It happened that the protection of commerce was an interest infinitely more vital to us than it was to any other country; and, therefore, from the strategic point of view, our first object was so to dispose our forces as to destroy an enemy's fleet. But it did not follow that we should neglect the second object, which was to protect our commerce. The method in which the Admiralty had dealt with this problem was not to ignore the value of strategic policy, but to provide sufficient ships to do both these things. Last year he had said that the Admiralty had over and over again stated that the two-Power standard was not applicable to cruisers, for the simple reason that it had been recognised that we required this large additional number of armoured cruisers in order to supply the strategic requirements of the Fleet for seeking out the vessels of an enemy and to protect our commerce. That was the whole point; and he was sure that the Committee would accept it from him, without desiring that he should suggest the nature of the considerations and plans which dealt with this matter
564
of commerce protection, that it had had and was having the very closest attention of the Admiralty.
The hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to the statement of the Prime Minister that the elimination of obsolete ships was "a courageous stroke of the pen." These words referred to the policy as a whole. He was perfectly prepared to give to any hon. Member who desired it the fullest figures and facts as to what any particular ship had fetched; but he felt that the Committee would rather that he should come down to the House prepared to defend the policy of the Admiralty and to deal with questions which had been raised upon it than that he should come prepared with sheets of figures which could perfectly easily be supplied to anyone who wished for them in answer to Questions.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that his Question was what was the cost of the ships sold, including the amount spent in repairs, and the amount realised by the sales.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he was perfectly prepared to give all those figures, but could not do so offhand; but he would point out that the cost of a ship when new bore no relation whatever to her value when sold. A ship when she was built was a fighting unit When sold she was old iron, and what value remained in the ship as a fightirg unit, the machinery and armament, had to be destroyed.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the point of his Question was how much the ships originally cost and how much they realised.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he would take care to furnish the hon. Member With the figures. But the hon. Member appeared to think that the disparity between the cost of a ship and the amount for which it sold indicated some kind of laches on the part of the Admiralty. The hon. Member referred to the case of the stores in South Africa as if there were some parallel. He was quite sure that hon. Members did not wish that these matters of naval debate should be made the subject of

565
Party recrimination. Their one desire was to secure the efficiency of the Navy, and to secure it as cheaply as possible, and not to find fault with one another except when efficiency and economy failed.
Reference had been made to an article by Sir William White, the late Director of Naval Construction. He yielded to no one in his admiration for Sir William White, whose work as a designer was known throughout the world; but when he was quoted as an unrivalled authority, not only on questions of design, but on the question of the value of ships as fighting units and on questions affecting the naval policy of the Admiralty, he could only say that he believed the superior officers in the Navy, who now occupied posts at the Admiralty, were as high, or even higher, authorities on questions of that kind. When Sir William White gave it as his opinion that the ships which had been laid aside might be of great value in time of war, he might say that the opinion of the high authorities he had referred to and the heads of the Navy was that these ships would not in normal circumstances have any value in war at all. It was conceivable that there might be a condition of affairs in which we arrived at the point when there would be no ship of the enemy's abroad from which these ships would incur danger. They might then attack commerce; but was it seriously suggested that the equipment of these ships should be maintained when they were only available for that particular purpose? He was quite sure that if Sir William White had been at the Admiralty and had had these considerations in his mind, he would have been of the same mind as those at the Admiralty.
He had been asked why, not only the reference to, but the Reports of the Designs Committee had not been laid before the House. He submitted that to attempt to treat the question of designs as a purely academic one and as one which could be discussed apart from those of strategy and policy and naval requirements was an entire misapprehension, and if mistakes had been made in the past, he believed it had been due to that misapprehension. Hon. Members In that House, and among them the hon. Gentleman who used to represent Gateshead,
566
had over and over again laid down that our ships were under-gunned. If some were, he believed the reason was that in some of these ships the question of design had not been considered sufficiently from the point of view of naval strategy; and he ventured to suggest that the proper process of designing a ship was, in. the first place, that the heads of the Navy, the Commanders-in-Chief, and the Lords of the Admiralty should be called together and should consider from their standpoint what was required for the purposes of war, and when that had been done as a first step, then the matter should be referred to a Designs Committee or to the Director of Naval Construction. If the Admiralty now recognised the closeness of relationship between design and strategy, it followed that the details of design could no longer be brought down from year to year and laid before the Committee. The hon. Member appealed to Members on the Ministerial side in the name of the ancient rights of the House. With equal confidence he would appeal to hon. Members on the Opposition side, putting it to them whether they would insist on their ancient rights if it were shown to them that they were against the interests of the nation. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen to allow him to refrain from giving the particulars asked, because these questions of design were so intimately connected with strategy. Although statements which were unauthorised statements, which were correct in some particulars and were incorrect in others, had appeared in print, the Committee would agree that a statement appearing in any newspaper, however important, was totally different from a statement made on behalf of the Admiralty across the floor of the House. He reminded the-Committee of another fact too often forgotten—that they were now building ships in competition, not with the ships they knew of to-day, but with the ships that would be their contemporaries, which were not only not completed but not on the stocks, but whose designs were in the drawers of foreign nations. This being so, clearly that nation had the advantage which was first able to obtain the designs and the plans of other nations in competition with which they were building. We had, perhaps, been

567
too often in the habit of giving that advantage away, and he would ask the Committee to believe that he was not withholding anything that ought not to be withheld. The designs were ready, and there must be a moment when these designs would become known, but perhaps never a moment when they-would all become known. He hoped he would have the acquiescence in the view of the Board of Admiralty of the hon. Member for Dundee himself.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONwas understood to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the reports in the engineering papers were correct. The Admiralty, he added, always laid a statement before the House.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that, was exactly what he had stated and what he was asking the Committee to allow him to pass over for the reasons he had given. He relied on the Committee's support. He assured the Committee it would be as great a pleasure for him to state the particulars as it would be to them to hear them, but it was better in the interests of the nation to leave them unstated.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought it was not possible for any Member to resist the reason given for not making the usual statement with regard to designs, but he hoped they were not going to have another case of making mystery where it was impossible to be p things secret. A general statement to that Committee was of slight importance by the side of the technical details which appeared in the engineering newspapers and those which had already appeared in regard to new vessels, and which had been sent round to all the countries in the world and had been seen by naval attaches. These would be assumed to be correct, and it soon leaked out from the dockyards whether they were substantially accurate in their main lines. He should have thought that information as to the large item of general cost might have been safely given to the Committee.
MR. PRETYMANsaid the cost of the new battleship would be about £1,500,000.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the figure named was less than the figure quoted in the engineering newspapers, and showed that there had been some exaggeration in regard to the size and character of the new ship. He thought there was no doubt that the number of 12-inch guns would be enormously increased; and he was glad to hear that the Admiralty anticipated that in this new battleship and in the new cruisers we might be leading rather than following the naval world, as had been too often the case in the past. While congratulating the Board of Admiralty on their spokesman in this House, he condemned the suddenness of the carves which the Board had executed, and said the Prime Minister's speech regarding the courageous stroke of the pen was one of which the Minister ought to be a little ashamed. Lord Lansdowne repeated the epithet "courageous" in the statement that the Naval Estimates showed a saving of £3,500,000 owing to the courageous scheme of Lord Selborne relating to the obsolete warships, which were costing the nation a great deal of money and doing nothing to promote efficiency. It was a pity that the Prime Minister at Glasgow and the Leader of the House of Lords should make a statement so flashy and misleading. The Government used the figures as to the character of the ships in divers fashions according to the reasons for using them. In one list fifty-three first-class battleships appeared two of which appeared in the Return of ships not effective for fighting purposes. That Return had been largely used for argument which could not be justified. He was not satisfied that farseeing wisdom had been evinced by the sudden changes of the last two years, and he understood the views of the hon. Member for Dundee as to commercial protection. With regard to the third-class cruisers, some of which were brand-new ships, he reminded the Committee that at present there was a powerful Commission to which the consideration of the food supply of the people had been referred. It did not seem to him wise, having built ships of this class within the last two or three years and spent enormous sums of money in repairing them, to suddenly strike them off the effective list before the

569
Report of the Royal Commission had been received. The policy adopted might be perfectly sound; but the suddenness of the change without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission had thrown a certain amount of doubt on the continuity of he policy of the Admiralty.
Then as regarded construction, for instance, the boilerings of the Fleet showed a lack of wisdom on the part of the Admiralty. The American and German Governments had used both the cylinder boilers and the water tank boilers together. The American Government abandoned the mixed system as a failure, and this country then adopted it. The mixed system was of doubtful value; and its adoption showed that this country was following other countries, whereas it should be at the top of the tree in the application of science to Navy matters. Then as regarded submarines, the deplorable accidents were more numerous in proportion to numbers than in France. They must expect accidents in such a service, but there should not be such a large proportion. The Admiralty had refused to give the Committee information on the subject; indeed, the Engineering Supplement of The Times contained more information than was given by the Admiralty. It would have been better if the Admiralty had reassured the service and the public and had given a larger amount of information on the question of submarines. In the course of the present year a new policy had been adopted which bore on the question of submarine construction. The Admiralty took over from the Army the water defence of certain ports such as Berehaven. He would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty intended to defend these ports by means of submarines. If so, it was clear from the information published in France and also by Sir William White, that a new class of submarine would have to be constructed for that purpose. The tendency was to make the submarine larger and larger for defensive purposes; but that was not the view taken by the French, who were masters of the art. The Admiralty attempted to combine sea-going pro-
570
perties and defensive properties in the same boat; but if the submarines were to be used by the Admiralty to defend ports, smaller ships would have to be built. He considered it would be well for the Admiralty to take the House of Commons more into their confidence in this matter. It was not a matter in which secrecy could be kept from the world as regarded the size of the vessels and their number; although there might be secrets-when they were submerged. The Admiralty should state whether they considered that the larger boats were capable of a double use. The new departure was so great that it deserved the careful consideration of the House of Commons.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid it was essential that the naval policy of the country should be persistent and consistent. That was apparent to every person who had a reasonable conception of the requirements for the defence of the Empire. He deprecated exaggerated or flowery language in dealing with the actions of the Admiralty. In regard to submarines, it should be remembered that they could not attack a port; and the Admiralty should be extremely cautious in respect of the work, formerly discharged by the Army, they had undertaken in connection with the defence of places. If there were no ships in a port, why should submarines enter it? They could not attack works or docks; and he desired to protest against any hasty action of the Admiralty in the development of this submarine policy. The Prime Minister in his recent speech could only touch the fringe of the question. The papers appeared to be under the impression that he meant that there was no danger of invasion if only there were a sufficient number of submarines and torpedo-boats. Submarines were, however, primarily necessary to a weak naval Power, they being purely defensive weapons. When any new great invention was brought into being and caught the public enthusiasm, experiments had to be tried. Therefore the Admiralty picked out the best coming officers, the young men with the ablest brain they could find, to man, and experiment with these vessels, and those

571
men really became a cult. Their enthusiasm for the submarine became such an influence as to affect the policy of the Admiralty. He therefore ventured to warn the hon. Gentleman and the representative of the Admiralty that this thing might be pushed too far. The true naval policy should be the line-of-battle power, and by the amount that was spent upon submarines to that extent was the battle power limited. Nobody could deny that the experience of the Japanese War had shown most emphatically, what all naval history taught, that it was the line-of-battle ships which determined maritime wars and that the torpedo-boats, which were at one time supposed to have superseded the battleships, were a very necessary but subsidiary instrument to the line-of-battle power.
He did not agree with the hon. Member for Dundee that the time had come for the reduction of naval armaments owing to the disappearance of the Russian Fleet. On the contrary, he saw everything warning this nation and our Empire to keep its naval strength up to a standard sufficient to meet all reasonable possible contingencies. He had always protested against that rule-of-thumb standard, the two-Power standard. A maritime Power in another hemisphere had had a great trial and had given an illustration of what awaited unprepared naval nations. There was no such thing now as a temporary defeat at sea of a nation's fleet. The defeat was final; there was no recovery; no means of remedying a reverse. The real question, and it was coming very near, was who was going to be master in the Pacific? The United States intended that she should be, and she had given every sign of it by the extraordinary increase of naval power in which she was engaged. Then there was Japan, both Powers having arsenals and power of naval production and maintenance in that hemisphere. In the not distant future we might have questions arising in the Pacific, the policies of Japan, the United States, and Great Britain coming in to conflict. Were we sufficiently prepared for such questions? Could we, by applying this rule-of-thumb standard at home, keep pace with what was going
572
on in another hemisphere, with our power of production and maintenance of ships only in this hemisphere? He did not think so, and that being so, what were we doing to prepare for that time, when our interest and those of either or both of these other Powers in the Pacific did not accord? All welcomed the Japanese alliance, but nobody could believe that that alliance would last for ever. We all dreaded a rupture with the United States, but ruptures did take place and we must be prepared for them. Therefore, the real question was who was going to rule the Pacific, because whoever ruled the Pacific one day would rule the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic the next. He saw with regret that no preparation on our part had been begun to strengthen our power of construction and maintenance in the Pacific.
With regard to the nucleus crews, he had understood his hon. friend to say that unless we had sold these ships and expunged a large part of what were called the Llama class, we could not have the nucleus crews. He understood that that was the root of the nucleus - crew system, and it therefore came to this, that there was not enough personnel to keep afloat as the Fleet was then. Another reason the hon. Gentleman gave was economy. If the barracks were full, if nucleus crews were wanted, why were they not taken from the barracks? The main point was that it was not considered by the Admiralty that these vessels could be useful in time of war, and that the money could perhaps be applied more usefully. That being so had the Admiralty abandoned their policy of subsidising the mercantile marine? Vessels built for war, armed for war, and prepared for war, were sold off because they could not stand against armoured cruisers, whilst the Estimates still bore a charge of thousands of pounds for subsidies to certain companies in order that we might have a call on their ships, which could not stand up against the armoured cruiser.
MR. PRETYMANsaid it was an old agreement.
SIR JOHN COLOMBasked was that policy abandoned, and, if so, why was it there was such a heavy charge on the Estimates?
MR. PRETYMANsaid the agreement had to continue till it expired.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid there was one word he would like to say with regard to the Colonies. Was anything being done to bring home to the minds of our fellow-subjects in Canada and Australia the fact that this country could not go on protecting the whole of the British interests in both hemispheres. The interest of the Colonies was greater in the other hemisphere than that of the mother country. Was anything being done to wake up those colonies in the Pacific with large seaboards to their danger, and to their duty and responsibility to co-operate and to share the burdens of preparations, so as to secure the Empire in war a free sea?
MR. KEARLEYsaid the last Question put by the hon. and gallant Member as to contributions from the Colonies was certainly a live one, although he did not attach much importance to that put previously, as to who was going to rule the Pacific. The hon. and gallant Member had told them the time might come when we should fall out with the United States, but he thought the country was not at the present time in a condition of mind to regard such a statement with much alarm. They were told that a new policy was being pursued now, and the retort could be made that so long as they continued to pursue the old policy money was, on the admission of the Admiralty to-day, being wasted. Some of them belonged to the school of economy, but they all, he hoped, worked harmoniously as regarded the naval programme. They accepted the new ideas of the Admiralty, and, as far as he had been able to give them consideration, he believed they would be advantageous, leading not only to the saving of money but to increased efficiency.
He commented upon the inconsistency of the Admiralty in the fact that whereas last year they spoke of the necessity of
574
sending ships to private yards for repair, this year they said the necessity no longer remained; that the first business of the Royal Dockyards was to keep the Fleet in repair, and that they had a magnificent asset in the private yards, where new construction could certainly be as cheaply executed as in the Royal Dockyards. The hon. Member disputed this contention. He pointed out that a distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty in the past, the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, said it had never been shown that construction could be carried on more cheaply in private yards than in Government establishments, and that the existing Director of Dockyards, in the course of an interesting speech recently, repudiated altogether the suggestion that ships built in Government yards, were more expensive than those built in private yards. All the figures that appeared with regard to this matter in the official publications were founded on the estimated cost, but that was no guide. What they wanted to know was the actual cost, and that could only be ascertained when the ship had been built and paid for. He had the prices of the ships of one class, the "Duncan" class, some of which were built in Government, and some in private dockyards, and he found from them that in the case of the "Montagu" which was built at Devon-port, the estimate was £46,000 more than that ship actually cost, the actual amount being £979,530; whereas the "Cornwallis," built in a private yard, cost £1,029,000, or £46,000 more than the estimate. That was the case all through. In the Government dockyards the vessels were produced at less than the estimate, whilst in private yards the estimates were always exceeded. He contended that construction was not more cheap in private yards than in Government yards, and asked the hon. Gentleman to consent to a Return being made of all the ships built during the last ten years, with the actual cost and the estimated cost.
MR. PRETYMANsaid he saw no objection.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he also thought the hon. Gentleman had made a mistake

575
as to the time expended in building. He (Mr. Kearley) contended that the rate of construction was more expeditious in the Royal than in the private dockyards.
This brought him to the effect this policy had produced upon the various dockyards, not merely in Devonport but in other parts of the country. Of course a large number of discharges had been necessitated in consequence of a reduction in the Navy Estimates. Nobody could argue that if there was a reduction of expenditure the personnel could be maintained at its former high standard. They were entitled to ask that some consideration should be shown to the circumstances in which these employees now found themselves. He emphasised this by a local reference. Plymouth, he said, brought forward a scheme for the development of the mercantile interest of the Catwater, and it would have been of the greatest possible benefit, but the Admiralty killed it, refusing to give it recognition, and the scheme was abandoned. These people were dependent upon Government employment, which was the only employment available in the neighbourhood, and the methods which had been adopted lately in regard to the discharging of the men was contrary to a definite pledge given by the Secretary to the Admiralty in the House, and they were very hard and harsh. The hon. Gentleman gave an absolute pledge that the situation should be eased as much as possible by limiting the number of weekly discharges to twenty-five. To his surprise the number of discharges had gone on increasing every week, and last week it reached ninety-two. What was to become of those workmen who had been in the employ of the Government for twelve or fourteen years? Did the Government contemplate with satisfaction the fact that they were emigrating? No less than forty-three went last week to the United States. It appeared that the Admiralty had a very proper contract with apprentices under which they were guaranteed two years work at the end of their apprenticeship. Nobody would object to that. To ensure the fulfilment of that contract very harsh methods had been adopted. Some of the gangs of
576
men were highly specialised on account of their skill. Naturally these men were entrusted with the education and instruction of the apprentices. Under a recent order matured experienced workmen had to go in order to fulfil this contract with the apprentices. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would inquire whether some improvement could not be immediately made in regard to the method of discharging these men. He also hoped that this policy of taking away work from the Government dockyards would not be persisted in.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he associated himself with what the hon. Member for Devonport had said in regard to the Government dockyards. He was afraid it would not be much use detaining the Committee with an appeal upon this subject, because the First Lord of the Admiralty had recently received a deputation on the subject and had been good enough to hear the views on this question, therefore it would not perhaps be fair to repeat what was said upon that occasion. He could not help, however, taking this opportunity of pointing out what a very serious matter this was, because steps had been taken which amounted to a public calamity in a place like Portsmouth. In Portsmouth there were no flourishing industries, and, rightly or wrongly, the inhabitants considered that it was partly due to the Admiralty that they were limited in their opportunities of developing their local resources. The workers in the dockyards formed a considerable proportion of the population, and when they were out of work it put them into a very grave position because they had very limited alternatives and very few resources to fall back upon. The situation was made rather worse by the fact that of late years the present Secretary of State for War on more than one occasion had stated that there was no prospect of this falling off of work. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for saying that, but it had turned out to be a false security and it had come all the more as a shock to those who had to suffer. He knew that the answer of the Admiralty was that they were only responsible for the administration of the naval policy and for the expenditure of

577
public money, and if a policy was approved by Parliament which Necessitated a reduction of work in the Government dockyards they had no alternative but to reduce the number of those employed. If it was decided to do this from motives of economy the Government would not be justified in the circumstances in considering the claims of any particular town. From a public point of view that was so, "but this policy fell with singular hardship on towns like Portsmouth. He wished to make a protest against this," because the Board of Admiralty had gone on increasing employment in Portsmouth dockyard and had held out lopes that such employment would continue, and now, unfortunately, they found themselves in the position of having to reduce the number of persons employed. It would surely have been wiser to have kept employment there as far as possible in such moderation that the probability would have been in the direction of increasing instead of reducing it. This was also an argument for making the establishments of those dockyards as far as possible permanent in the sense that they should have more men on the establishment and fewer hired men. It was the large number of hired men who were likely to suffer at a time like this.
He should be glad if his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would say exactly what was the policy with regard to pensioners in the dockyards. He did not say that the policy now being adopted was wrong, because he did not quite understand what it was, but it seemed rather curious that the Government were dismissing their pensioners whilst private firms were being urged to employ them. He also wished to know why the "Metropolitan Police were employed in the Government dockyards, because he should have thought it would have been more economical to do without them. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty could also tell them what was happening in Regard to Wei-hai-Wei, where he noticed that this year there was a small increase in the expenditure. As to the question of boilers, he did not know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty would think it wise or necessary to tell the
578
Committee what was the intention of the Admiralty in future. He himself was of opinion that the Belleville boilers were the best. If the figures which he had were correct, it appeared that on the trials the consumption of coal was less on vessels fitted with the Belleville boilers than on those fitted with the Babcock and Yarrow boilers. With the Belleville boilers it was 1·95 lbs. per 1 h.p. per hour; with the Babcock boilers 2· 02 lbs. and the Yarrow boilers 2·04 lbs. This, supposing ships to steam at 10,000 h.p. for a week, meant a saving of 84 tons of coal with a Belleville—a matter of the utmost importance. The real point, however, was that whereas Bellevilles, if damaged in action, could be easily repaired by screwing in new tubes, the Babcock and Yarrow boilers could not, but had practically to be taken to pieces in a dockyard. It was a great advantage to have ships fitted with boilers which, in the event of a breakdown, could be easily repaired.
Referring to the policy of striking ships off the active list he said that many of those who had not the advantage of expert advice were inclined to hesitate in expressing an opinion as to whether this was a wise policy. There were some ships which he imagined were still of some use and could be utilised for certain purposes in time of war. He had recently seen a number of ships lying off Spithead, and he confessed that they did not make a very glorious show. One was more inclined to think that they were fit for the scrap-heap. When he compared the ships which had been struck off the list this year to similar ships in foreign navies he thought some reason should be stated for the action of the Admiralty in this connection. He instanced the "Arethusa" as having been struck off our list while French, German, Italian, and Japanese ships, similar in size, speed, tonnage, and guns were retained in the active lists. He always thought it important on these occasions to elicit as much information as possible, because there was a tendency now a days to trust to the Press for naval news. A great portion of the Press catered for the hysterical public, and therefore these papers continued to wash our dirty linen in public, quite regardless whether our linen wanted washing or not.

579
He had sometimes seen statements about the Navy in the Press which were calculated to cause a very unpleasant impression at home, and an entirely erroneous impression abroad, and if they could get these allegations confirmed or refuted it would be satisfactory, and therefore he was sure that his hon. friend would not complain that these Questions were either unnecessary or irrelevant. He had seen it stated in a naval paper that the nucleus crews who were lately sent out for trial gave unsatisfactory results. It was stated that they were inefficient. It would be satisfactory if the hon. Gentleman would state what he knew about this matter. He ended, as he began, by making as strong an appeal as a representative of a dockyard town could do to the Admiralty not to undo what had been done, for it was too late to ask that, but to make every effort to avoid the recurrence of the hardship to workpeople which recent changes had involved.
MR. PHILIPPSwished to press upon the Secretary of the Admiralty the necessity of hesitating to give work to private yards in preference to their own yards. Very severe hardship had been occasioned by the dismissals that had been going on. They disorganised the labour market in a wide district and caused trouble to other classes as well. He did not intend to deplore the fact that the Government were able to make a reduction in the Shipbuilding Vote. He thought they should all rejoice at it, and that thereby the Admiralty were doing their best to assist in the peace of the world. He did feel strongly that when the Government took men into their employ they should, whenever they had work to do, give it to the towns where there were dockyards and not to private yards which could get plenty of work from other people. Probably when the present war between Russia and Japan was over both these nations would give out fresh orders which would come to yards in this country. If the orders went to Germany other orders which would have gone to Germany would come here. It was not at all likely that private yards would suffer from want of work for many years to come. Pembroke was a little town
580
almost absolutely dependent on Government work, and burdens had been put-on it by the Government. The local authority had been absolutely forced to provide an expensive water supply which would have been absolutely unnecessary but for the existence of the Government dockyard. He associated himself with the hon. Members who had asked the Government to do all they possibly could to provide employment for the people in their own dockyards
MR. DUKEsaid he did not think that anyone who knew the dockyard towns would dispute that the Government dockyard administration had been characterised in connection with recent discharges by want of method and forethought. No private employer who had great establishments such as those the Admiralty had, would have felt himself morally justified in treating the people under his control in the manner that the Admiralty had treated the dockyard population. He failed to comprehend the meaning of such an absolute breach of the understanding that was arrived at when this question was before the House two or three months ago. They were then assured that there would be a regular and moderate discharge until the necessity for the discharges—which they all recognised—had been satisfied. No one representing a dockyard constituency could expect the affairs of this country to be regulated solely in the dockyard interests, but the dockyard communities were entitled to expect that the Admiralty wrould behave with the same consideration that was expected from private employers. At the present time a state of panic was being created among the dockyard population. There were recent discharges—which must have been perfectly well foreseen—of men of good character and skill, and who had been a long time in the dockyard, at a week's notice to make room for a great batch of apprentices, who had completed their service as apprentices, and at the same time new apprentices had been taken on to the extent of between 125 or 150. No doubt it was necessary under the old system that a great batch of apprentices should be periodically taken on, but while the Admiralty was carrying out this new

581
policy of wholesale discharges it was at the same time continuing the old policy of taking on new apprentices by wholesale. Men were being displaced without any possibility of finding employment in the West of England, or even in this country.
The community, part of which he represented, wanted to know the meaning of what was being done, and how far it was to go. He submitted that such a community was entitled to know what the department of the Admiralty which controlled the dockyards had in view. What would be the extent of the discharges? By what instalments would they be carried out, and what would be the strength of the establishment when they ceased? He did not lose sight of the fact that at Devonport, at the present time, twice as many men were employed as were there under the old administration, but it was no satisfaction to the great body of people gathered together there, to be told that they were twice as many as the numbers of ten or twelve years ago, and to live in the daily expectation of the increasing batches of discharges, which destroyed the ordinary balance of civil life in the community. There was no sort of intimation as to how far the discharges were to go and what was to be the end of it. Great alarm was accordingly caused, and he therefore hoped his hon. friend would state to what extent the discharges were to go. The responsibility rested upon the Admiralty, as it rested upon all employers, of having consideration to the population they gathered together.
This business had been complicated—almost wantonly complicated—by the circulation of statements which purported to show that the Government were embarking on a policy not only of reducing the establishment but also of reducing the class of employment in the dockyards. Had the Government any intention of that sort? The Government had spent £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 upon new dockyard works at Devonport. Was it intended to use the docks, and slips, and basins there? It was rumoured that this expenditure was a great mistake, and that the Government might cease to
582
use their dockyards for the construction of new ships. Having regard to the fact that the Government had spent millions on the dockyards, which had been a great source of security in time of war, and of efficiency in time of peace, and that the Government had restricted the development of dockyard towns in other directions, it was a matter of importance to have some definite information as to their intentions. The community which he represented viewed with great concern the want of method in the course which the Admiralty had taken, and the absence of a clear statement of settled policy. If that state of things continued much longer the doubt would arise whether some reformer from the War Office had not strayed into the Admiralty,
MR. BUCHANANsaid that he had intended to say something in behalf of economy, but he was bound to say, in fai ness, that the tendency of recent speeches, on both sides of the House, was not in the direction of economy. He quite sympathised with those who expressed the feeling of the men who were under discharge. But, on behalf of the general taxpayers of the country, he would put in a single word that the administrative powers at the Admiralty should do their work efficiently and with economy. The Secretary to the Admiralty had, in his speech, used a phrase which he had employed before, about the necessity of a wide horizon; but that day he coupled it with the saying that he wanted to have a wide horizon and full information. What the Committee wanted was to get some fuller information as to the policy and the details of the new administration at the Admiralty. He joined with his hon. friends in, protesting at the way in which this new Admiralty scheme was laid before the country in November last, and the way in which it had been put before the country since. He objected to the ecstatic and extravagant language used by the Prime Minister in his speech at Glasgow in January. He thought that language was not substantiated by the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty. But it was used in almost exactly the same form by the Leader of the Government in the House

583
of Lords. The Government claimed for themselves that by this new scheme, published on November 7th, they were introducing a new reform of a wide-reaching character which was to entail, as one of its consequences, a large and permanent reduction in the expenditure on the Navy. He ventured to say that, in so far as he had been able to examine into the matter, he questioned whether there would really be any real reduction in the expenditure on the Navy of a permanent character.
Earlier in the session the Secretary to the Admiralty spoke of the number of ships which had been knocked oft the effective list, or what was also called the fighting line. They had some reason to complain that in the Prime Minister's speech at Glasgow, in other speeches, and in Lord Selborne's Memorandum, great point was made of striking out a large number of ships from the fighting line, and that a great variety of figures had been given. They were told that the number of ships so struck off was 130, then 117, then 60, then 88, and then 72. The effect of that great variety of figures again showed how unsubstantial was the real foundation for the plea put forward that this measure was great and far-reaching. If the Admiralty really believed that this striking off of ships from the effective list was a novel and far-reaching reform, it was their duty to lay before the House of Commons the details of the ships, in their various categories, struck oft from the effective list. But that was what they did not do. When the hon. Member for Dundee asked for a Return, and when a Return was given and they complained that that Return was not complete, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty turned round and said that the Admiralty gave the Return asked for. That was not fair. If this scheme was brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, and if they took credit for it in the country and in the House, they ought to see that the House was fully informed on the subject. He could understand the striking oft of the intermediate or llama class of comparatively small fighting power. He might say in passing that the list purposed to be the same as in the Dockyard Expense
584
Account; but there were certain ships included in that account which were not included in the Return in the White Paper. The House and those who heard or read the Prime Minister's speech at Glasgow, undoubtedly understood, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the "courageous stroke of the pen," that they were to remove from the effective list of the ships of the Navy those which were no longer of use for the purposes of war. But they did not expect to find in this long list a number of antiquated ships, coal hulks, and a variety of vessels which had already been condemned in ordinary course to go to the scrap-heap. In class 2 A, ships available for the purposes of war, there were no less than seven which the hon. Gentleman himself, in answer to a Question put to him on March 13th, characterised as ships unsuited for service and which had been ordered to be sold. These ships were in two different categories and there ought to be a clear statement on the subject in order that the Committee might know where they stood.
Two points were raised in the discussion. One was whether it was wise to suddenly give the Admiralty such a free hand to cut out such a number of third-class cruisers. His own opinion on the subject would be of small value; but there was considerable difference of opinion both inside and outside the House among those whose opinion was of value. In adopting that policy the Admiralty were running counter to the policy of France, of Germany, and of Japan and other Powers who retained on their active lists vessels not on the active list of this country. Only a few years ago money was being spent on these very ships: and the Committee ought to be given some further information as to the ground on which the decision of the Admiralty was arrived at. Then there was the question of the-middle class—I. B. The Secretary to the Admiralty did not give any reason for including the ships which were put into that class. They were supposed to be still possibly available for combatant purposes in time of war; yet they were sent to the Forth and the

585
Tyne, and put into the hands of caretakers, where it was admitted they would deteriorate. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated in March last that they could be put into an effective state of repair in three months. This policy was quite inconsistent with the policy enunciated in Lord Selborne's Memorandum, and would not result in diminishing the number of men if nucleus crews were retained. He ventured to state that this scheme did not point to any permanent economy. The Secretary to the Admiralty did not answer the Question of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, who asked what number of men would be made available for the ships in class I. B. Surely that was a Question which should be answered. The figures in the White Paper did not answer that Question, because they were only an estimate of the number that might be required under certain conditions.
As regarded construction and repairs, it was impossible not to see that the new programme this year did not represent what would be the permanent average in future years. Only one battleship was included this year, and it was obvious that the programme was an exceptional one. He agreed with the Secretary to the Admiralty that it would be imprudent to give the character of the new ships; but he might tell the Committee something regarding their cost. They were informed by his hon. friend the Member for Dundee and other hon. Members that the new armoured cruisers were to be of a new and more powerful type. That would in all probability mean increased cost; and he should like to know what the expenditure on these cruisers would probably be. The House of Commons would not properly discharge its duty unless it pressed Ministers for information on these subjects. They did not want to interfere with the Admiralty regarding the character of the ships; but they should be informed regarding the general lines of policy, and particularly in reference to the financial policy that would be adopted. Then as to repairs, the figures were again exceptional. They were not, however, put before the House of Commons or the Public Accounts Committee as exceptional.
586
With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Dundee, what Answer was there to that? The hon. Gentleman had quoted authority on this subject as to the capital value of the Navy at the present moment, and as to what had been the annual amount in past years required for repairs. That amount was something like £4,000,000 per annum. This year it was a little over £2,000,000, and yet our Fleet was still growing in numbers and cost. How could they possibly say, therefore, that an annual expenditure of £2,000,000 would be sufficient both this year and in the future for repairs, when in the past it had averaged £4,000,000? They were entitled to have some information on this point. His last Question to the hon. Gentleman was, could he now tell the Committee what he was going to spend in the coming year on naval works so that the Committee might know what the total amount was that we were spending on our naval policy? The information had hitherto been given at an earlier date and they were, he submitted, entitled to have it now, as this was the last opportunity they would have for discussing the general naval expenditure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this Vote dictated the amount and importance of every other Vote in the Naval Estimates, and it disclosed to a large extent the naval policy adopted by the Government. He agreed that the disquiet in the public mind arose not so much from the change in naval policy as from the indication of what appeared to be an entire breach of continuity adopted with extraordinary suddenness and without full consideration. The Board of Admiralty was a very strange body, and in the past had resisted everything in the way of progress. It resisted, steam; it resisted the screw; it resisted the adopt on of breach-loading guns; and it resisted new pattern boilers. It always gave way in the end and then usually launched into violent change and very large expenditure. In this instance of the wholesale condemnation of ships, the change in the Admiralty seemed not only sudden but intemperate. By many persons the change had been attributed to the influence of the First Sea Lord, who, indeed, if he read aright

587
the definition of his duties, seemed to have superseded and destroyed the Board of Admiralty itself. He did not question the principle that the Navy should consist of efficient ships; the principle was sound hut it had been carried so far, and adopted so suddenly, that it was to be feared that efficient ships had been "scrapped" with non-efficients, and that there had been too much suddenness and thoroughness in the adoption of this policy. Some information was required as to the operation of the principle in regard to steamship subsidies. The Admiralty themselves might have noticed that as to these there were ships for which they still paid a large sum of money; he alluded to the Cunarders, which ought to be "scrapped" with the others. V\ e financed the Cunard Company to the extent of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 for liners and subsidies, and he was convinced that the idea which led the Government to adopt this policy was a mistaken one, and that if the Government had had the same control of these ships as they had of their own they, too, would have gone to the scrap-heap.
Naval construction depended largely on the general policy of the country, because this being a naval nation any policy which had to be carried out must be carried out by the Navy. There were evidences that a change had come over that policy. For centuries it had been the maintenance of a strong Navy for the protection of our trade and of our Colonies for the sake of trade. All our great wars, from those of Marlborough to those of Napoleon, were fought for no other cause than the protection of our trade. But it now almost seemed that our notion was to fight not for trade but for conquest. If that was so, no bounds could be put to our expenditure. For the conqueror, however modestly he began, always at last sought universal conquest. That was true of every conqueror from Cryus to Napoleon. There was at anyrate a great change in naval strategical dispositions, which seemed to imply much. By the practical abandonment of stations in the North Atlantic and the Pacific he surmised that the Government were relying upon a good understanding with the United States and upon our alliance with Japan, and he would not say they were
588
wrong, and certainly he could not complain of steps taken to strengthen our position in the North Sea; it was the immediate point to which the naval eye should be directed and we might, at no distant time, have to fight there for an ally. With regard to the character of our ships the lessons of history taught that fighting at sea must be determined by line-of-battle ships—that was to say, the strongest and stoutest ships that could hit the hardest and take the hardest hitting themselves that the wit of man could devise. That was the ship which in the past and in the present determined the battle and which would determine it in time to come. Ships and guns were the important things, and yet it seemed to him that the Admiralty were always going mad over something else. Every day the possibility of using the ram was diminished, because the distance at which an action was begun would be greatly increased, yet this useless weapon was fitted to every new ship by the Admiralty. He hoped that the ram, which experience had proved was a danger to our own vessels, would be abolished. Torpedo boat destroyers might be of considerable use, but they had great limitations. The conditions were extremely favourable for them in the battle of Tsu-shima, but we did not know whether they were of much use to the Japanese. The battleships practically decided the action. They were told that when the Japanese had their enemy beaten, and not till then, they let loose their torpedo craft to destroy the enemy's ships. If Admiral Togo did that he ventured to think that that was one point upon which criticism might be directed against him, because when once he had got the enemy beaten his object should have been rather to capture the enemy's ships than to destroy them. Such a course gave the victor a double advantage; in the first place it gave him a large number of officers and men for the purposes of exchange, and secondly it gave him the ships; and if it turned out that Admiral Togo did take the course which it was said he did, then it might have to be held that even that great captain had been guilty of an error of judgment.
He thought the Admiralty had made a serious mistake in largely increasing the

589
number of submarines. They were engines which had to be used in conditions that made their effective action most difficult, and they were dangerous to those who used them. Moreover, they were the weapons of a Power on the defensive, and their sphere of action was far more limited than the other torpedo destroyers. When once submerged they were in the most difficult position in which a vessel could be, in a perpetual fog, and when they put up their periscopes could only see a very little way. They could not be used at night. They could not be used at any distance from their own port. In short, they could scarce be used at all for purposes of attack, and he hoped we should never be in the position of using them for defence. What was said by a great man 300 years ago was true to-day, "that he who would be master at sea must always attack," and he hoped we should always attack and never be in that position in which the submarine was of any considerable use. It was the weapon of the people that we should attack. Under those circumstances it was perhaps reasonable that we should have a few of these ships to see what would be the best way of dealing with them. He could approve of our having five or six, but when he found that there were already twenty-eight in existence, and that ten others were to be added to that number, he thought the Admiralty was making a great mistake and pursuing an altogether false policy. His own view was that the submarine was not our weapon, and that in the second place it was a dangerous weapon to those who used it. It was very doubtful whether it would be of any use in war, either for defence or offence, and he regretted that our sailors, who should be afloat in ships, should be put into these horrible engines. He doubted whether they could ever be developed in such a way as to make them safe, and he objected to the large expenditure that was being made upon them.
SIR JOHN LENGsaid a submarine was really a mechanical fish, with this difference, that they could not put into it the eyes of a fish to show where it was going. The periscope was a most ineffective instrument, and he doubted
590
whether the Admiralty's steam fish would be really serviceable for naval purposes. Anyone accustomed to go under water or who had gone down in a diving bell knew how difficult it was to see any great distance under water, and he entirely concurred in thinking that the Admiralty had made a great mistake in multiplying the number of submarines without having more knowledge and experience as to their utility. Had the Admiralty any definite and positive information that the submarine had been of any practical utility in actual warfare? Did they know whether it had been employed to any purpose in the war between Russia and Japan? If they had no such information, why did they go on building these craft? They were told that nearly a million had already been spent on them. That was a large sum to spend for merely experimental purposes, and he hoped the Admiralty would not go on experimenting until they had better evidence than, so far as he knew, they now possessed that the submarine would be of any use whatever in actual warfare.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that in listening to the criticism of the Admiralty by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to the advice he gave, he was rather encouraged by the fact that the Admiralty were criticised in good company, because when the hon. Member came to find fault with Admiral Togo, the criticism rather suggested that if the management of affairs in the Japan Sea had been in other hands the result might have been even more satisfactory. He thought the Admiralty need not accept all the criticism of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as necessarily more valuable than that of British officers.
Some very weighty words had fallen from the right hon. Baronet below the gangway, who was a keen student on all naval matters. He had not a word of complaint to make of the matter or the form of these criticisms. He could fully understand that changes such as had been made this year might bear the impression of being rather sudden. Whenever Changes did come, especially in naval affairs, which had not been preceded by exposition, it naturally

591
followed that those who had not studied the subject deeply did think them rather more sudden than they appeared to those who were in the sphere of the Admiralty work, and had followed up all the stages by which those changes had been brought about. He thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the value of continuity of policy; but they must not attach too much value to that factor, especially in view of the rapid changes in naval affairs in the past two or three years, not only in the matter of construction, as, for instance, in the introduction of submarines, but also in the fact that, for the first time for a very long period of years, we had some real results to go by of a conflict in which modern ships of equal value had been pitted against each other. It was obviously undesirable to discuss that branch of the subject on the floor of the House; but he could assure the right hon. Baronet and the Committee that many of the changes which had been discussed that afternoon were mainly, if not wholly, due to the lessons they were endeavouring to learn from what had occurred in actual practice in the Far East. He could thoroughly understand that when changes, such as these which had been introduced, were brought before the public for the first time they were likely to strike people who were not in the inner circle of the Admiralty as rather more sudden and flashy than they really were.
Then the right hon. Baronet suggested—and he thoroughly agreed with him—that it ought not to be the policy of the British Admiralty to follow other nations, but that we ought to lead. Other speakers who followed apparently criticised this policy of the Admiralty on the ground that we were not following the practice of other nations. They had been told that we ought not to have discarded certain third-class cruisers, because other nations were keeping that class and were building similar ships. He claimed that the Admiralty had not followed but had led other nations, except in one point, and that was in respect to the size of our armaments. Our naval policy was not one of embarking in large schemes of construction which were not necessitated by the schemes of foreign Powers.
592
The hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to a subject of great importance, that of submarines, and to the unfortunate accidents which had happened to three of that class of boats. He thought it would be recognised that when the actual character of what had occuired in those accidents was known, it would be perfectly clear that they were not due to any defect in the submarines themselves. The fact was that, in so far as our experience went, the submarine-was no more liable to accident than any other class of vessel. But when accidents did occur the consequences were infinitely more disastrous, and that showed that special precautions ought to be taken to avoid accidents. In these accidents men had been sacrificed whose services the country could ill afford to lose. They had gladly laid down their lives for their country just as much as those who had. fallen in action. That was a risk which they had gladly taken—and the Admiralty recognised that devotion to patriotic duty—but others had come-forward, ready and willing to take the same risk to-morrow. He could assure the Committee that the effect of these accidents had not been to decrease the number of those sailors, engineers, and stokers who were willing to volunteer for this service. That only increased the responsibility of the Admiralty. They accepted that responsibility. The submarine was the weapon of the weaker Power, but we were bound to answer these weaker Powers and build submarines. The Admiralty and the Navy were of opinion that the only answer to the submarine was the submarine. It would have been well for this country if the submarine had never been invented. The Admiralty would have been truly thankful if no such thing as a submarine had been invented; but, having been invented, and having come into actual operation, and the Admiralty having satisfied themselves that it was a force to be reckoned with, surely they would be guilty of something worse than negligence if they did not make the only reply that could be made. The Admiralty did not originate the policy of submarines. It was originated by what he hoped he might call without offence weaker Powers, and we had

593
followed the submarine with the submarine. The Admiralty were convinced that the submarine was a necessary adjunct of modern naval warfare, and that in this, as in other matters, they were obliged to take the lead. Although the French submarines were more numerous than ours, he did not think that even a Frenchman would suggest that they were better or more efficient. As a matter of fact, in regard to speed and in other particulars, he thought he might safely say that our submarines were much more efficient.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked for information with regard to the defence of Bantry and Berehaven.
MR. PRBTYMANsaid that by submarines a question of principle was involved. The right hon. Member for Yarmouth appeared to consider that the submarine might under certain circumstances be used for offence against land defence. He did not know where that idea originated; certainly not at the Admiralty. With regard to the defence of ports, that defence involved the destruction of any vessels that attempted to attack them, and that destruction should be carried out as far from the ports as possible. It was natural to think that for the defence of a port there should be a smaller submarine, and a larger one for work outside. But that view reminded him of the man with two cats, a big cat and a little one, for whose exit he made both a big and a little hole.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had no opinion on the point himself; he had called attention to the fact that it was the universally accepted French view, and was adopted by Admiral Fournier when he took the chair the other day at Cherbourg at a lecture on the submarine.
MR. PRKTYMANsaid he had merely stated the conclusion the Admiralty had arrived at. It was possible that other authorities took a different view, and the authority of the French Admiralty was a high one. The view of the British Admiralty, however, was that the larger submarine could do all the work of the smaller one, and more besides. With regard to the replacing by sub-
594
marines of what had been known as submarine mine defence, after careful consideration, not only by the Navy, but the Army and the Committee of Defence also, it was decided that under modern conditions the policy of stationary mine defence was the wrong policy for this country. It had, therefore, been desided to abolish submarine mine defence both in the naval and mercantile ports; and that defence would be replaced mainly and primarily by gun power, and also, as far as was necessary, as fast as vessels were available, and the conditions were suitable, by submarines. It was not correct, therefore, to make the statement that submarine mines would be abandoned in order definitely and solely to replace them by submarines. He assured the Committee that the Admiralty were proceeding cautiously in the rate of construction; they had no desire to build one submarine more than was necessary, or to expose officers and men of the Navy to any more risk than was necessary.
With regard to what had been called the command of the Pacific, upon which he need not dwell at length, the expression, was used rather loosely. The Pacific was a considerable area, and to speak of its mastery was a term which should hardly be used. As a matter of fact we had on the Pacific a considerable Fleet, on the China Station, and on the Australian side, where there were ships of no inconsiderable value. Those were the two points in the Pacific where there were British interests which might require defence; but he could hardly think that it would be seriously suggested that beyond that it would be necessary for us to keep a large force on the Pacific, in order to attempt to obtain what was called the mastery of the Pacific. He did not think this country desired the mastery of any sea beyond this—that British commerce and interests should go there-without fear or favour and have equal opportunity with those of other nations. To suggest in that House that we desired to obtain the mastery of the Pacific or any other sea might give a false impression, which he desired to remove. The ships we had on the China and Australian Stations, however, were sufficient not only for British trade and interests

595
to-day, but, as far as could be foreseen, for a very long to-morrow.
Turning to the very important question of dockyard labour, and the construction and repairs as between dockyards and private yards, he had no cause for complaint in the criticisms, and recognised the moderation with which hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies had dealt with the question. He agreed with every word that had been said in regard to the unfortunate position in which the discharged men found themselves. It was perfectly true that this large army of labour had been collected at points where there was no alternative employment of the character the men required. But that was not the fault of the Admiralty; the dockyards were stationed on the narrow seas at a time when ships were built of wood, and they had grown gradually. The result was that now-a-days the dockyards were at a great distance from any other centre where employment could be obtained. It was, unfortunately, unavoidable and inevitable. Yet the House could not be asked to vote money for the Navy, not because that money was required for naval purposes, but in order to give employment to a special class of men in the dockyards. That being recognised, it only remained to say that the Admiralty should do everything in their power to carry out the redustion, which was admitted to be necessary, with as little inconvenience and distress as possible to the men who unfortunately had to be discharged. Everything possible in that direction had been and was being done.
He would point out that hon. Members who had carefully studied the question from their point of view, just as the Admiralty had from theirs, had not made any suggestion as to how this difficulty might be avoided. He was quite sure that if there were any short and easy mode of obviating the difficulty it would have been suggested. There had been minor suggestions. It was suggested that the Admiralty might carry out these discharges in a different manner, that the right sort of men were not being discharged, but he could assure hon. Members that no such action had been taken by the Admiralty. All that the
596
Admiralty had done was to regulate the discharges as far as they possibly could so as to make them gradual, to spread them over the best time, and so to avoid discharges in the winter. As to the particular men who were to be discharged, that had been left entirely in the hands, in each case, of the admiral superintendent in the yard; and the general principle adopted was that men with the least service were the first to be discharged. As between trades, obviously reference must be had to the requirements of work in the particular trade, so that of two men discharged in two different trades one might have had more service than the other. But the general policy was as he had stated. He knew that the admiral superintendents felt most deeply on the matter, knowing that many of the men discharged were admirable workmen. Still the discharges had to be carried out, and it was inevitable that those who were discharged should feel that perhaps somebody else should have been selected. He deeply regretted the necessity for these discharges, and any Member who at any time could make a practical suggestion by which, without increasing the burden upon the taxpayers, those discharges could be lessened, would receive the careful attention of the Admiralty.
MR. DUKEasked what was the extent to which these discharges were going.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was a reasonable request, but the final policy could not be stated until the Dockyard Committee, now sitting, reported, but the number of discharges which would be necessary during the present financial year, 1905–6, including those discharges already made-during that year, was:—Portsmouth, 2,270; Chatham, 2,300; Devonport, 1,6,59; Sheerness, 800. That was as far as the calculations of the Admiralty enabled them to judge at present.
As to construction in dockyards and private yards, it was perfectly clear if owing to the naval position of the day and the increased power of the individual units there were considerably less ships to be built during the year, a general reduction must take place. The matter was

597
receiving most careful consideration by the Dockyard Committee; but he would venture to say, so far as he could indicate any probable policy not yet decided upon, that construction in the dockyards would not cease, nor would that in the private yards cease, but there would continue to be a division of construction, although what exactly that would be he could not indicate until the Report of the Dockyard Committee was received. As to repairs, two considerations must be borne in mind—the very large excess of repairs owing to the repairs to boilers in the last two or three years, and the effect of the nucleus crews upon repairs. In each of those ships now in commission there was a large staff, part of whose duty was to keep in constant repair the machinery and interior of the ship. That saved work in the yards and affected great economy to the taxpayer, whilst thoroughly familiarising the personnel with the entire construction of the machines and engines which they would have to use. Therefore, they might expect that the cost of repairs in the future would be less.
MR. KEARLEYasked whether the question of cost would be taken into consideration in giving construction to dockyards and private yards.
MR. PRETYMANsaid that was another point. HIS opinion was, after considering the question of cost carefully, that there was very little difference between private and Government yards. A good private yard would build at about the same cost as Government dockyards. A list of the completed cost of ten vessels of the "County" type showed that the cheapest was the "Monmouth," which was built by the London and Glasgow Company on the Clyde; the second was the "Kent" built at Portsmouth; and the third the "Bedford," built by the Fairfield Yard. The most expensive cost £759,000, and was built at Pembroke, and the cheapest cost £684,000.
MR. KEARLEY: Is it not notorious that Pembroke has no equipment to finish the building of a ship?
MR. PRETYMAN: No, I think Pembroke is very fair. I believe they are
598
building more cheaply than they have in the past.
SIR ELLIOTT LEESsincerely trusted, as Member for a constituency which contained a famous private yard, that the Government would not accept the advice of the dockyard Members and give all the work to the dockyards. From the point of view of the men employed at Government and private yards, he could not see any difference as to the results of unemployment.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,768,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES, continuing his speech, said that in his own constituency there was at one time a considerable amount of Government work in Messrs. Baird's yard, but when the series of battleships which they were building came to-an end there was a considerable reduction of hands. Hon. Members must remember that, after all, all shipbuilding was specialised work. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had said that the dockyards had all been placed in districts that would not now have been

  599
  selected, and that men thrown out of work had little chance of finding other employment and had to be provided for, but the same remark applied to private dockyards. The only other industries at Birkenhead were dock-labouring and slaughtering foreign cattle shipped alive to this country, and it was idle to suppose that if an expert man in the shipbuilding yard was discharged through dearth of employment he could turn his hand at once to those other occupations. It seemed to him that from the workmen's point of view there was no difference in the hardship of a man being thrown out of work whether he was employed in a Government or a private yard. And when hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies pointed out the hardship of these discharges from Government yards, he could only state that his constituents suffered in precisely the same way.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth said that the dockyards had been of enormous service to the country. That was true, but so also had the private yards. In his opinion the sound policy of the Admiralty was to help the private yards and enable them to continue to exist, so that in time of war the Government yards might be devoted to repairs, and the private yards to construction to reinforce our Navy. He might also point out that the private yards also built ships for foreign Powers, and in the event of war we should have, in the ships in course of construction in private yards, a large reserve to go on with, because the Government could commandeer all the vessels which were being built for foreign nations and indemnify the builders against any loss through non-delivery. Foreign countries had a great respect for the judgment of our Admiralty, and when they wanted battleships or ships of war of any kind they ascertained in what yards the Admiralty placed their orders, and placed their own orders with the same yards. The result was that to the private yards the Government work was of great advantage from that point of view, as in that way private yards got many orders that would otherwise go to other countries. It had been said that private yards
  600
  could look for many orders after the war, but he did not remember to have heard that Russia had ever given many orders for shipbuilding in this country, and he did not think she was likely to now. Japan in the past had had ships built in this country, but the cause which demanded a great naval effort had for the moment passed away, and it was more than likely that in the future Japan would build her ships herself. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his policy with regard to construction, and reminded him that whatever pressure might be put upon him by those representing dockyard constituencies to deviate from the course he proposed to pursue, there would always be available, on the other hand, sufficient pressure from those representing private yards to enable the hon. Gentleman to keep his equilibrium.
  MR. BENNthanked the hon. Gentleman for the kind words he had uttered with regard to the very sad submarine disaster. He said some months had passed since he drew the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to words in the Memorandum of the First Lord which caused him considerable anxiety. In fact, there was real cause for alarm in the considerable alteration made in the policy of the Admiralty, because, looking at it in the light of the observations made just before the dinner hour by the hon. Gentleman, it appeared that, in the future construction would take a second place in the Royal dockyards. It would be a case of repairs first and construction afterwards. The First Lord said in his Memorandum that it was the first business of the dockyards to keep the Fleet in repair and therefore the amount of new construction should be subordinate to this consideration. He desired to enter a most powerful and emphatic protest against that view, for the reason that if that policy were to be continued the discharges would also continue. The nation had paid millions of money in establishing these dockyards and fitting them with appliances, and it would be a disastrous policy to turn them into mere repairing shops and to allow the construction machinery to fall in to desuetude. He respectfully submitted that it was the first duty of the Government of the

  601
  day to fill up, as far as possible, the Royal dockyards. They were the nation's workshops, and it would be the worst of all policies to starve them. To do so would be to deprive men of work and render them both hopeless and helpless, whereas in private yards there were opportunities to secure work from abroad, and if a workman failed to secure employment at one establishment, he could go on to another. He therefore suggested that it was within the power of the Government to stop straight away a great part of the discharges. Under the new naval policy they should first of all give out sufficient work to keep the Government establishments going, and then divide the remainder among the private yards. He was sure that any proposal to mitigate the present mischief would receive the sympathetic consideration of the hon. Gentleman. If the new policy of repairs first and construction afterwards obtained, the Government dockyards would be in a large measure destroyed as establishments for the production of ships. At present they employed two classes of competent men—one for construction and the other for repairs, but if the new policy were persisted in there would be found in the near future a scarcity of constructors.
  There was another point of view. These Government establishments were founded first of all that the nation should produce in its own workshops and from its own designs its battleships. The time might arise when it would be important to construct with secrecy certain vessels according to the ideas of our own advisers, and it was possible that we might find it convenient and wise to keep to ourselves certain appliances for our instruments of war. In that case the dockyards would be an absolute necessity. Then there was the financial consideration, and although he was glad to see that the Government recognised the necessity for economy, retrenchment, and reform in certain directions, he could with confidence assert that once they disqualified themselves from producing with facility the finest of battleships in the Government yards, they would offer a premium to private yards—he would not say to form a ring against the Government, but at any rate there would be the temptation
  602
  to charge higher prices. He submitted that the present policy should be reversed at the earliest possible moment in order to keep this most important department of national defence in our own hands, and to enable the Government yards to be the first and best sources for the supply of our battleships.
  With regard to the question of wages, the Government were at present far behind private employers, and certainly were not the "model employers" they ought to be. In Devonport the environment of a labourer was very similar to that of a labourer in London, and he had in his hand the family budget of one of the men who served the Government for £1 a week. The family consisted of the man, his wife, and three children, and out of the £1 a week 5s. 5d. went in rent, Is. 9d. in rates, 2s. 5d. for fire and light, 7d. for club-money, and 4d. for soap and sundries, leaving 9s. 6d. to feed five persons, to say nothing of beer, tobacco, holidays, and other matters. Three pence farthing per head per day! Moreover, fifty per cent, of these men were frequently called upon to do more or less skilled work for their £1 a week, and yet under the borough councils in London the minimum wage for scavengers was 27s. He submitted that the time had come for a reconsideration of the position of these labourers. The increase in the cost of food alone during the last two years was represented by at least 1s. 6d. a week to such a family as that to which he had referred. There was also the question of the discrepancy which existed between the wages paid in Government yards and those paid by private firms. The money value of the privileges granted to Government employees did not exceed 6d., or, at the outside, 1s. a week.
  MR. PRETYMAN: A shilling a week.
  MR. BENNwas glad, to have that confirmation of his figure. But even taking it at Is., the discrepancy was far from being met. The average wages of joiners, for instance, in the shipbuilding yards of the Thames, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Clyde, and Belfast, were £2 a week, and their hours 51½, whereas in the Government yards the wages were only 32s. 6d. and the hours 48.

  603
  There was no satisfaction or economy in cheap and nasty labour. To get good labour a fair price must be paid. According to the hon, Gentleman's own figures the private yards were able to build as cheaply as the Government, so that there was no economy in sweating or starvation wages.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Does the hon. Member intend to insinuate that there is sweating in the dockyards?
  MR. BENNsaid he did not mince matters; he would say without any insinuation that £1 a week for such work as he had seen in the dockyards partook of the nature of sweating. Then taking the average of the wages paid to men engaged in what he might term the "hardware" side of shipbuilding, there was a difference between the inside and the outside wages of 6s. 6d. per week. The pigeon-holes at the Admiralty were doubtless stuffed with the petitions of the men, and he suggested that the matter should be referred to a Committee consisting of officials and representatives of the men, so that justice might be done. If higher wages were paid the Admiralty would command a better class of men, but the result of the present policy was that the private yards got the pick of the workmen, and the highest quality of British skilled labour was engaged in the building of foreign ships. He also asked whether these labour questions came within the purview of the Committee referred to in the First Lord's Memorandum. If not, it was a great pity, and he would suggest that the reference should be enlarged so that the Committee might review the labour conditions at present obtaining in the dockyards.
  MR. SPEARjoined in the protest against the action of the Government in reference to discharges. On a former occasion it was stated that the number of discharges should not, if it could be avoided, exceed twenty-five in any one week. It was not a definite promise, but the way in which that number had been exceeded had excited considerable surprise and disappointment. The position had been aggravated to tome extent by the mistaken policy
  604
  of the Government in reducing the work in the dockyards rather than. in private yards. If the Government were satisfied that the efficiency of the Navy could be maintained at less cost, and that in justice to the taxpayer reductions should be made, he submitted that those reductions should be made in such a way as to be the least injurious to the men affected. He altogether disputed the argument that a reduction in the amount of Government work would affect men in private yards as seriously as men in Government yards. The latter had no other work to which they could turn, whereas private firms would at once look round for more private work, and it did not at all follow that a reduction in Government work would entail the dismissal of men. The Government had shown their interest for the welfare of the unemployed, but by their dockyard policy they were undoing in one direction the good they were endeavouring to do in another. He hoped the Admiralty would consider the importance of giving the bulk of their work to the dockyards. No doubt it was important to keep in touch with the private yards; they had a right to a share in the work, but the dockyards must always be regarded as the first source of supply, both for new construction and for repairs. The possible danger of relying too greatly upon private yards had not been exaggerated by the hon. Member for Devonport. In any case, in view of the great expenditure that had been made in the provision of plant for all classes of work, it would be detrimental to the interests of the country if the present policy were continued.
  He regretted the action of the Government in increasing the number of their submarines. He would far rather that they approached other nations through the Hague Tribunal with a view to seeing whether the nations of the world would not set their faces against what appeared to him to be an unmanly and un-English method of warfare. He had perfect confidence in the naval policy of the Government, but he thought the Admiralty were inclined to neglect the dockyards in the interest of private firms, and, therefore, he hoped the

  605
  Secretary to the Admiralty would consider whether the policy they were pursuing in this respect was not likely to be detrimental to the best interests of the Navy and of the country.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that Labour representatives had to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded by this Vote to bring before the public the grievances of the men for the simple reason that the Government, unlike private firms, refused to allow the principle of collective bargaining which had proved so great an advantage in negotiations between private employers and their workmen. The only means Government workers had of making their grievances known was to go individually to their superiors, and everybody of experience knew the dangers which beset a man who was at all keen in pressing his grievances, no matter how just his complaints might be. The grievances in the dockyards were considerable, and the complaints, he believed, well founded. The Government was far from being a "model employer." One of the grounds of complaint was the method of the discharges, altogether apart from the general policy. Discharges had taken place, not merely in pursuance of the policy of cutting down the Navy Estimates, but because of an old-standing order under which apprentices had to be guaranteed a two years engagement at the termination of their apprenticeship, and as a result of which a considerable number of men, who had been in the service many years, and against whom there was not the shadow of complaint—in fact, they were often the best men in the yards—had been dismissed, and forced to start life anew. He appealed to the Secretary to the Admiralty to look into this matter, and suggested that if a Committee were appointed some of the Labour Members should be taken into consultation. The private employer brought the workmen into consultation when he wanted to alter the whole conditions of employment, but the Government did not adopt this course.
  The grievance was felt to be more acute because of the want of any proper effort to remedy the evil. The question
  606
  of the division of work between the private and the Government yards was a most important one, upon which he knew there was a sharp division of opinion in the House. Some hon. Members suggested that private yards should receive the first consideration, but he thought their first duty was towards their own yards. He had recently been over the Government works at Devonport, where they had spent over £5,000,000 of the nation's money, and notwithstanding this fact hon. Gentlemen opposite were urging that private dockyards should receive that further consideration which, if acceded to, would still further reduce the number of hands in the Government service. They ought not to proceed on those lines, because, if they did, employment in their own dockyards would be brought to a standstill. It had been demonstrated in this debate that it was possible to build ships in Government dockyards, if not cheaper, certainly as cheap as in some of the private yards. If they would only apply business methods to the conducting of the Royal dockyards he thought it would be possible to build in them cheaper than in private yards. It was well known that for a large percentage of the material used in their own dockyards they had to go to private firms. In his opinion the Government ought to have gone further than they had done and arranged things so that they could have undertaken more constructive work without depending so much upon private firms. Very little of the real constructive work of a ship was created in their own dockyards, and therefore the proportion of the labour employed by the Government in the construction of a ship was comparatively small. Frequently work required in one department instead of being sent to another Government department was put out to contract. If the various departments worked together more harmoniously, and if they were allowed to do work for each other at cost price, the volume of work done in the Government dockyards would be considerably increased. The policy adopted by the Government was one which ought not to be continued, and they would only be doing the right thing by the taxpayer if they kept all these dockyards going at the fullest pace by providing them with

  607
  work which was now given to private firms.
  He wished also to say a few words in regard to the three years system of employment in the dockyards, which he did not think tended either to economy or efficiency. They sometimes appointed as a chief superintendent a gentleman who had doubtless occupied a high position in connection with the Admiralty, and ho would take charge of the works. He might discover that certain things ought to be altered. Months would pass and then he would probably try to put those changes into operation with a view to improving the system. By that time probably his three years appointment would be well nigh gone and he would be moved up. He would very likely be sent to sea to take charge of another department, and somebody else would be sent to take his place as chief superintendent. Who suffered by this system? The taxpayers, because the new man had to go through the whole process again, and endeavour to find out where he could make improvements. There were in the House of Commons hon. Members who were connected with some of our leading manufactures, including great engineers and colliery proprietors. He ventured to say that not one of them would ever dream of conducting his business on those lines. If a business man got the man he had set his heart upon, who was capable of economising and effecting improvements, who could turn out better work more rapidly, he would not be anxious for him to be moved somewhere else at the end of three years. As long as a man could turn out rapid and efficient work that was the man an employer would desire to keep in his employment. They had no right to deal with the money of the taxpayer in a different way to that which they would adopt if they were spending their own. If the Government got a good manager they ought to endeavour to keep him, and the sooner this triennial system was abolished the better.
  SIR WALTER PLUMMERsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down spoke so strongly in favour of employment in Government dockyards that he appeared to forget
  608
  the great mass of workmen on Tyneside who were engaged in private dockyards. It was on this account that he could not help saying a few words on this occasion with regard to that most important and valuable national asset, the private dockyards of this country. It was not the first time they had had a discussion as to how far the Government was justified in their division of work between the Government and private dockyards; the subject, indeed, was practically a hardy annual. He represented a constituency where there was a private dockyard, and he declared that in such private yards they possessed a national asset. These establishments had been of great service to the nation in times of stress in the past, and if they were properly cultivated they would continue to be so. He spoke on behalf of a constituency greatly interested in private dockyards, and he trusted the Government would continue to hold the balance fairly between the two interests, and that they would not make the great mistake of putting all their eggs in be one basket. It had been urged that there had been a large amount of national money sunk in the Government dockyards, but owing to the support given by the Government to private yards hundreds of thousands of private capital had been invested in those yards, and it would be grossly unfair if the Government were to reverse the policy hitherto pursued of giving a fair and just share of the national work to them. The people living in non-dockyard towns were after all taxpayers and were entitled to receive a fair share of the work of the country. He did not speak on behalf of the private employer, but on behalf of the thousands employed in these private yards at Newcastle and elsewhere who had a right to ask the Government to continue the policy of giving them a fair share of their work. The moral of the debate was that in times of stress such as we had passed through a few years ago, the Government should not allow the Royal dockyards to be swollen to undue and artificial dimensions. It was because these establishments had been doubled in such years that the Government found themselves in the present difficulty. They ought at such times to maintain the establishments in

  609
  full work and give the surplus work to the private yards. Then the position of dockyard Members would be more pleasant.
  MR. RUNCIMANurged the Government to avoid allowing the dockyard work to become spasmodic and fluctuating. He knew of cases where men trained in the dockyards had, in consequence of this policy, to seek employment in the United States dockyards.
  SIR WALTER PLUMMER: Surely that is free trade in labour.
  MR. RUNCIMANdid not object to it on that ground. He believed in free trade, but not in free gifts of skill to America. The Admiralty had now reverted to the better system of conducting repairs in their own dockyards, but they had pushed ahead their repairs with feverish haste, as shown by the fact that some of the vessels repaired were now struck off the list, that the men could not now be fully employed, and they had not a regular supply of work for them.
  There was one point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and it was in regard to the new vessels under construction. It was a point which might re-open some of the very grave questions which were discussed a few years ago, and which to-day had been singularly absent from their deliberations. For some years past they had been constructing battleships of enormous tonnage, and if the information which had leaked out was correct the newest type of battleship was to exceed the largest of its predecessors by 2,000 tons, and they were now going to embark upon 18,000 ton battleships. He did not wish to criticise the conclusions of the Designs Committee, but perhaps ho might be allowed to suggest that there were considerations which were strongly in favour of not building battleships of excessive size. The cost of the new battleships worked out at about £1,500,000 each and that compared with the "Swiftsure" class was 50 per cent, more expensive. Certainly
  610
  they would do as good work as vessels of the "King Edward" type. In large vessels also they had a very great draught of water, and that was a consideration in respect to which, perhaps he might be allowed to make a comparison. It was a consideration which would in future become more and more valuable to the Admiralty. Of the recent vessels added to our Fleet, some were of comparatively greater draught than those which had been added to the German fleet. The "Majestic," for example, drew 27 feet 6 inches, whereas the "Kaiser Frederick III." drew 25 feet 6 inches, the "Canopus" 26 feet, and the "Formidable" 23 feet 9 inches, while he believed the "King Edward VII." drew 26 feet 8 inches. There was no battleship in the German navy which drew more than "Kaiser Frederick," and they were designed for the very work which the Admiralty intended for those he had mentioned. For shallow-water work a difference of one foot was a great consideration. When they remembered that the North Sea might some day or other be the battleground on which our vessels would be tested, he thought we should be extremely cautious in adding vessels to the Fleet of more than 26 feet draught.
  There were two considerations—one was the draught and the other the expense—which argued in favour of not proceeding to excessive size. They had to consider also the easy way in which a large vessel could be lost. He thought that all the arguments were in favour of not putting all the eggs in one basket. He was not sure that there was not a great deal to be said for having three battleships costing about £1,000,000 each of smaller size, rather than two costing £1,500,000 apiece. He knew that the argument against that was that they could not have the same class of armaments on the smaller vessels as on the larger ones. He knew that most naval authorities were in favour of the larger vessels, but there was a consideration which weighed largely with the naval authorities when they were making up their programme for the year, and when they had to lay their proposals before the Treasury, which said to them that they could only have four instead of five, or three instead of four vessels.

  611
  The Admiralty said if they were only to have three they would have three of the largest. He hoped that consideration did not weigh too strongly with the hon. Gentleman. The considerations in favour of the smaller sized battleships were not discarded so largely in other navies. Not only did they adopt smaller battleships in Germany and the United States, but somehow or other they had succeeded in getting into the smaller ships the armaments which we put into the larger ones. They might quite possibly reduce their engine power, or diminish their space or bunker capacity. He trusted that the subject was not being too lightly dismissed by the Committee with which the hon. Gentleman was connected. He threw out these suggestions as an amateur, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some of his personal attention to them.
  Another point to be remembered in connection with the increasing draught was that it became more and more difficult to find dock accommodation for these ships. He also asked what improvements had been made during the last three or four years in the coal consumption of the vessels we had recently been building. His late friend Sir W. Allan used to bring this matter forward year after year, and he could not pretend to have anything like his technical knowledge of the subject. It was really very alarming to find that in some of our vessels in recent years the consumption of coal per indicated horse power per hour was extraordinarily heavy. In the case of the "King Edward," with a speed of 11½ knots, the consumption was 2·63 lbs. per indicated horse power. Compared with the consumption in an ordinary cargo steamer, which was now approximately just over 1 lb. per indicated horse power, he thought this consumption really alarming. At 17 knots the "King Edward" reached her most economical consumption on this basis. It worked out at 1· 06 lbs., and at 19 knots it worked out at 2·17 lbs. In the case of the "Dominion" the lowest consumption, was 1·68 of indicated horse power per hour. In the case of cruisers the consumption was even higher.
  612
  The smallest consumption on a twenty-knot basis was 2·02 lbs. When they came to the third class of cruisers the consumption was more alarming, for vessels with reciprocating engines burned 2·52 lbs. These were very large figures indeed. Two years ago hopes were expressed that the vessels under construction would have a very much smaller consumption than those which he then quoted. The "Sapphire" figures had not gone down but actually up. The only reduction so far as he could see was in the case of the turbine boat, "Amethyst," which with a 20-knot speed burned 2½ lbs. This was so far above the standard in the merchant service that he suggested there must be a great discrepancy somewhere. It was not merely a matter of design, but of the boilers and engines put into the vessels.
  He thought he might say that, as far as the discussion of naval matters went, they were at all events free in the House from any unnecessary partisanship in the criticism offered. Their criticism was not in the interest of Party but of the British Navy itself. He though they might express some satisfaction that in the recent naval victory of Japan in the Far East the whole of the guns which brought about the victory were of British design and manufacture, and that almost the whole of the vessels were built in this country. He hoped this would give some reason for believing that the vessels of our Fleet were of an equally high standard, so that if the time should ever come for action—which God forbid—they might be equally successful.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that if he had to choose between speaking on behalf of his constitutents or of a particular firm he thought he should speak on behalf of his constituents. Hon. Members who represented dockyard towns were absolutely jeered at when they spoke on behalf of those whose interests they were there to look after, but the House cheered when hon. Members got up and asked what their firms were to do if this particular municipality or that particular Government dockyard was allowed to interfere in the businessin which

  613
  they were concerned. Surely hon. Members could speak not only in the interest of their constituents but the ratepayers at large. He offered no apology for intervening in the debate in order to ask the Government one or two plain Questions. According to the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle it would be to the advantage of the whole community that the Government should give all the extra work to the private yards because the owners had invested hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital in the concerns. He wished to point out that Government dockyards were not in the same position as private yards inasmuch as they could only do work for our Government while private firms could compete for the building of ironclads for foreign Governments. There was a case in his recollection where one of the departments of the Admiralty took up the position of manufacturers when private firms had locked out their men. He hoped they would not attempt to repeat that.
  He asked why dockyard work should not be conducted on the business lines of a private firm, and why when all the machinery of the dockyards was not employed work should be given to private firms. All he asked was that the Government dockyards should be put on exactly the same footing as those run by the Elswick firm and the Barrow-in-Furness firm. The owners of these yards would not give work to anybody else in the way the Government did. Why should the Government let their machinery go to rust because they wished to give work to private yards? There might be something to be said for that if private firms were willing in times of emergency to serve the Government at peace prices, but everybody knew that they did not. They had only to cast their minds back to the recent war to remember what was done by the patriotic ship owners. It required no stretch of imagination to see that they were only patriotic for as much as they could get out of it. He thought the Admiralty might have found useful work for most of the 7,000 men who had been discharged from the dockyards, and the machinery might have, been kept going. Were they always going
  614
  to depend on private employers? It was sometimes said that Government employment was permanent. It was not so. It was only permanent so long as it lasted. The man who thought he had a permanent job must be an extraordinary man; he must be related to a duke. The sensible and business method was to keep men in steady work at the dockyards, and to make them feel that while the nation expected from them the best service they could give, their own interests were not neglected by the Government.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the labour question was confined solely to construction. It could not apply to repairs, because the whole of that work went to the dockyards. With regard to construction, he would point out, while admitting that every consideration should be given the workmen, that there was one interest which had not been referred to at all, but which outweighed and over-rode all others—the interest of the Navy as a whole. In the matter of new construction it was clearly the preeminent interest of the country that there should be a building power not only in the dockyards, but also in the private yards, capable of expansion in times of emergency; and, if all the work was given to the dockyards, where would that power of expansion and capacity come from. The Admiralty could not afford to neglect the national asset which they had in the private building yards.
  In regard to dockyard wages it was the policy of the Admiralty to pay unskilled labour at least as high a wage as that paid to unskilled labour in the district. There was no such test as that to apply in regard to skilled trades in the dockyards, and they approached the wages paid to those trades from the standpoint of the general average rate throughout the country. The most careful comparisons were constantly made, and the result was to show that the standard of wage in the Government dockyards compared favourably with that in the private yards. The junior Member for Devonport cited figures which seemed to show that, in certain trades at all events, that was

  615
  not so, and if the hon. Member would send him those figures they should have the most earnest attention of the Admiralty. It had been the practice of the First Lord to receive the representatives of organised labour to confer with them once a year. They had consulted the representatives of trades unions who visited the Admiralty in February last. What they had to say had received the most careful attention.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury had raised two important questions. With regard to the first one, that of the size of battleships, he could assure the hon. Member that not one of the factors he had mentioned had been neglected. They had all been taken into consideration. The hon. Member asked that this question should be taken into consideration. He could assure the hon, Gentleman that that was one of the factors of naval policy which had always been taken into consideration. A large battleship was clearly in itself an evil. It was subject to all the disabilities the hon. Gentleman had enumerated; but, notwithstanding all these disabilities, they were driven by the necessities of the case to build big battleships. One of the principal lessons of the present war was to show the value of the battleship, though there was something that came even before that, and that was the value of a highly-trained personnel. He fully admitted that the battleship had vindicated herself most thoroughly.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Togo used his larger cruisers in the same line, and in the same way, along with the battleships.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that probably Admiral Togo would before the battle, have felt more certain of the result if he had had battleships in the place of those cruisers. They could not afford to take risks except when obliged. We must recognise that the battleship was not for restricted but for general service; and, once they began a policy of specialising and building a small ship for one purpose and a large one for another, they would be landed in interminable difficulties and expense, and when the
  616
  time came perhaps, the ships would not be of the very best service in the place where they were wanted. In their position, he believed the hon. Gentleman would adopt the same policy of building battleships of the large size. They wanted battleships, moreover, not "almost" but quite of the first class, and another lesson of the war was in favour of the 12-inch guns.
  The hon. Member asked a very pertinent question as to coal consumption, but there was a very great difference between a battleship and a merchantman. The former had a very large number of auxiliary engines which had to do a great deal of work in connection with the ship, and which were entirely absent in the case of the Atlantic liner. There was also the question of room, to which something had to be sacrificed in the case of a cruiser.
  The hon. Member for Barnard Castle raised two important points, both covered by the Dockyard Committee. In connection with the apprentice matter, it was not a question of an old order, but of contract, and the hon. Member for Plymouth had recognised that the contract could not be broken. The hon. Member had made his criticisms from a business standpoint, and he was perfectly prepared to accept that standpoint, with this reservation that the business the Admiralty were carrying on was not the business of private shipbuilding, but the business of running the British Navy. They must therefore widen their horizon. They had to deal with this question of dockyards, not as a private firm dealt with it, not as a question merely of profit and loss on that particular business, but as a branch of the administration of the British Navy as a whole. And if there was one more valuable rule than another in the whole gamut of the rules, regulations, and traditions of the British Navy it was what was known as the sea-time rule. It was absolutely necessary that the administrative and executive work and the personnel should be intimately connected; and, although they were properly kept as separate as possible in regard to the work at any moment, it was necessary to avoid any cleavage. There was no principle more important

  617
  than that, and there must be alternation. The admiral-superintendent, a naval officer, must have a restricted term of service under the sea-time rule. Not long since a civil assistant had been appointed under him who was a permanent officer, and the whole matter of dockyard reorganisation from the admiral-superintendent down to the unskilled-labourer would, be under the purview of the Dockyard Committee. He appealed to the Committee to give the Vote.
  MR. POWERsaid that Ireland received little or no benefit from this great naval expenditure, and as they contributed more than their just share there should be more money spent in Ireland than at present. Wales got a considerable proportion of the expenditure on the Navy; England had all the great dockyards; and in Scotland they had a big share of the shipbuilding, so that in Ireland they had grave cause of complaint. The wages earned in England and Scotland from Government work were so large that the towns derived great advantage. He understood that the money spent on works at Haulbowline was of a very trivial kind compared with that spent in England, Wales, and Scotland. He would, be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he could give the Irish Members any idea of how much Ireland derived from this great naval expenditure.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE, said he desired to express his disappointment that no definite understanding had been given as to the dismissals or rates of wages of dockyard men. The hon. Gentleman had given great expression of sympathy but nothing practical had resulted. There was no justification for the dismissals from Government dockyards. In the case of Government yards, with any sort of decent management, the business should be nearly a constant quantity. They ought to have some assurance that this method of employing men for two or three months and then dismissing them should be discontinued. As to wages, he contended that 21s. a week was not a rate of wages that should be paid to a Government employee. The
  618
  demand of the men was most moderate—namely, that the minimum should be raised to 23s. 6d. a week, and the higher order of labourers to 24s. a week. He understood that the Government, through the Civil Lord, would not take these claims into consideration, but he insisted that they should be conceded, especially when it was remembered that, in the case of the specially skilled labourers, the rate of pay had been fixed so long ago as 1890. Only 2,000 men out of the 27,000 employed would be affected, and the cost would not be very great.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that in answer to the hon. Member for Waterford he was afraid he could not give off-hand the figures relating to capital expenditure in Ireland.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished again to draw attention to the overcrowding at Devonport. The Home Office had adopted the view that on account of the abnormal rate of rent the police there were entitled to special consideration. He asked that the Admiralty should inquire into the matter from their side also.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he was quite prepared to consider any figures which the hon. Gentleman would submit to him. But there was a considerable difference between the case of the dockyard labourers and the police. The latter were required to be within a certain distance of the yard because of the special character of their duty. The dockyard labourer was not under the same obligation to live in the immediate vicinity of the yard. He hoped that the congestion at Devonport would presently be relieved, and that a fall of rents would follow.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that in view of the fact that he had had no reply from the Government to the point raised by him, he would move to reduce the vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,768,200,

  619
  be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that he thought he had given an Answer. The principle applied in these cases was one laid down by the House itself—namely, that the same wages were to be paid to Government employees as were paid in similar trades in the district. The whole of the employment in the dockyards was graded,
  and if they raised the wages of one class of men they would have to raise wages throughout all the grades. It was a matter which required to be looked into very carefully.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 221.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Ure, Alexander

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ffreneh, Peter

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Henderson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildarc, N.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, John (Kent. Faverslam

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Keswick, William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fellowes, RtHn. Ailywyn Edw.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bond, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, Rt. Hon, George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Leveson-Gower. Frederick N. S.

  Bull, William James

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milvain, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hain, Edward

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Montagu. Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker (Lanarks

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Spear, John Ward

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Robertson, Herbert Hackney

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour),—put, and agreed to.

  2. £4,816,900, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Matériel.
  3. £7,827,800, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Contract Work
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,256,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
  22ND JUNE, AFTERNOON SITTING.
  Resolution reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,633, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment
  622
  during the year ending on March 31st, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under The Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was understood that if they allowed the three Navy Votes to go through no other business would be taken, and a good many Scotch Members had left the House upon that understanding.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As far as I am aware there never was any suggestion that we should not go on with Supply, nor would such a course be in accordance with the ordinary practice. I think we ought to proceed with the Supply Votes on the Paper.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was in consequence of the understanding to which he alluded that they did not challenge three divisions which would have taken all the time up to midnight.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think any harm can be done by discussing this Vote now.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was clearly understood that the discussion was to proceed until midnight, and as many hon. Members interested in the Vote now before them had gone away it was futile to say that they could conveniently discuss this matter now, because those who wished to discuss it were not present. The Opposition had kept their pledge to allow these Votes to get through before twelve o'clock, and he hoped the Government would not press this Vote now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not suggest that hon. Members opposite had any ulterior motives. There are however, two non-contentious measures on the Order Paper which perhaps we might be permitted to take now. I refer to Mr. Speaker's Retirement Bill and the War Stores (Commission) Bill.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that his understanding of the arrangement come to was that the hon. Gentleman opposite, representing the Government, undertook that if the Opposition allowed him to have this Vote he would not press for a division at 7.30, and after he had got the three Votes necessary to make up Vote 8 he would not press any further business. He admitted that there was some doubt as to the questions which
  624
  would crop up after that business was disposed of, but, on the Opposition side of the House, many hon. Members were under the impression that no further Votes in Supply would be taken. On that understanding many Scotch Members had left the House. He did not suppose that anyone would take exception to Mr. Speaker's Retirement Bill, but the other measure alluded to by the Prime Minister was of great importance, and a large number of hon. Members who took a great interest in it were not present.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he was in the House when the arrangement referred to by the hon. Member was made, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow that arrangement to be carried out.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be quite prepared to accede to that request, but I must express a certain measure of surprise that a Bill which has been introduced by arrangement with hon. Members opposite, the very terms of which have been agreed upon, should now be regarded as being of such a character that we cannot discuss it now. Having expressed that view, I will not press the matter further to-night, and I move that the debate be adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] (Aberavon Tramways Order). A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [H.L.] Midland Railway Bill; Bootle Corporation Bill. Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Great Western Railway (New Railways) Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Rathmines and Rathgar Extension and Improvement Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Dover Harbour. Moved, That the order made on the 16th March last, "That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Thursday the 11th day of May next," be dispensed with, and that leave be given to the Dover Harbour Board to present a petition praying for leave to introduce a Bill "to alter the constitution of the Dover Harbour Board, and for other purposes;" agreed to; petition, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read, and referred to the Examiners.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

PETITIONS.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I beg to present a petition against the Sunday Closing (Shops) Bill from a meeting of Christian Sabbath keepers held at Exeter Hall, Strand, on May 25th.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I also have petitions to present, but they are all in favour of the Bill. The first petition is from the Corporation of Glasgow, the second from the Presbytery of Glasgow, the third from the Free Church in Glasgow, and the fourth is a large petition from the traders in Glasgow.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of Christian, Sabbath keepers; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petitions in favour of; of City of Glasgow; Presbytery of Glasgow (2); Wood Green Presbyterian Christian Endeavour Society; Glasgow Traders. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3422. Portugal (Biera);
  No. 3423. Colombia (Barranquilla);
  No. 3424. Russia (St. Petersburg);
  No. 3425. Norway;
  No. 3426. Morocco (Tangier);
  No. 3427. Italy (Brindisi and Province of Lecce).

  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY.
  Report of the principal chemist upon the work of the Government laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1905; with appendices.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Fifty-ninth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account showing the receipt and expenditure of naval prize, bounty, salvage, and other moneys between 1st April, 1904, and 31st March, 1905.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Treasury Minute, dated 23rd June, 1905, declaring that Alfred William Cousins, Royal Laboratory, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade on an application made during the year 1904 under the Act, and of the proceedings of the Board of-Trade with respect thereto.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade on an application made during the year 1904 under the Act, and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  (Post Office Savings Banks Fund).—Account for the year ended 31st December, 1904.
  (Savings Banks Fund) (Friendly Societies Fund).—Accounts for the year ended 20th November, 1904.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1904; together with a statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1904, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those liabilities at that date.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account of the receipt and expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-Up Act, from 1st January to 31st December, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  University Court Ordinance No. XI. (Edinburgh, No. 4).—Institution of degrees in veterinary medicine and surgery, and relative regulations.
  University Court Ordinance No. XII. (Edinburgh, No. 5).—Inclusion of geography among the subjects qualifying for graduation in arts.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to-Act), and to be printed. (No. 111.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Order for the consideration of Standing Order No. XXXIX. in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting, read, and discharged.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
  LORD BURGHCLERE.My Lords, before we go into Committee on this Bill, I hope I shall be in order if I venture to put a Question to the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. As your Lordships will remember, on the Second Reading I was fortunate enough to receive the assent of His Majesty's Government to the principle of this Bill, but the noble Marquess then intimated that there were some details of the Bill, and possibly some matters of drafting, with which he could not wholly agree. I then stated that I should welcome any Amendments that might be brought forward by His Majesty's Government or the Board of Education which did not affect the principle of the Bill and which were reasonable and just with regard to the details. Your Lordships will observe that there are no Amendments on the Order Paper to-day in the name of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. I therefore venture to ask the noble Marquess to state the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. It may

  481
  be that the noble Marquess, after re-consideration, has been impressed with the perfection of the Bill and its clauses, and does not wish in any way to amend it. I would also like to ask the noble Marquess, as there are no Amendments on the Paper in his name, whether the Amendments standing in the name of the most rev. Primate have been put down with the assistance of the Board of Education and the assent of His Majesty's Government; and whether we may consider those Amendments official. The noble Marquess at the former stage gave his assent to the principle of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the absence of any Amendments in his name may mean that on the whole he is content with the Bill as it stands.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I was on the point of rising to say a few words as to the position of His Majesty's Government towards this Bill when the noble Lord rose. I do not at all regret the fact that he forestalled me and put to me certain Questions, for that naturally makes my task easier than it otherwise would have been. I intended rising to explain the position of His Majesty's Government or two grounds. In the first place, I considered it would be convenient that the House should be informed, before your Lordships went into Committee and discussed the Amendments that are to be submitted, as to the line His Majesty's Government propose to take on this question; and, in the second place, I thought it would be only courteous on my part to the noble Lord opposite, and other noble Lords who have put Amendments on the Paper, to explain the course I proposed to pursue when those Amendments were discussed. The noble Lord has truly said that on the ocassion of the Second Reading His Majesty's Government did not object to the principle of the measure. On the contrary, I myself expressed sympathy with certain of the details of the Bill and with its principle; but I think if the noble Lord will carry his memory back he will remember that I said at the same time
  482
  that there were certain details embodied in the Bill which would not only require most careful consideration, but which I thought might be considered of a somewhat controversial character, and as such could not expect to receive the support of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I did not understand that the Amendments the noble Marquess was going to put down were to be of a controversial character, but rather Amendments dealing with points of detail, which I was perfectly willing to accept.
  The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think I stated that I would put down any Amendments at all; and, in reply to the Question put to me by the noble Lord, I may say that His Majesty's Government have not put down Amendments because it has been decided, after carefully considering the Bill and the debate that took place upon the Second Reading, to retain for His Majesty's Government an absolutely independent position. His Majesty's Government will take no part whatever in the Committee stage of this Bill. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly, but I thought I was careful in stating that while His Majesty's Government concurred in the principle of the Bill, they at the same time reserved to themselves the right of carefully considering all its details as well as the Amendments that would be put forward in the Committee stage. We have to consider how far the application of the main principle of the Bill is surrounded by proper safeguards, so as to secure the rights of those who are entitled to use the buildings, whether under trusts or otherwise, at times when they are not in use as public elementary schools; and it is important to ascertain how far the measure is workable from practicable and legal points of view, and how far it is accurate in its structure.
  At this point I do not propose to refer to any of the safeguards or to the machinery for the carrying out of this Bill, but I would ask your Lordships carefully to consider the drafting of the measure as it stands, its legal accuracy, and also its intelligibility. The principle itself, which the noble Lord wishes now

  483
  to make generally applicable, is operative at the present time in a partial degree, and there are precedents as to many of the details which might have been followed by the noble Lord; but, without wishing to say anything in the least offensive with regard to the noble Lord's draftsmanship, I think I shall be able to prove that Clause 1, on which the principle of the Bill hangs, is full of difficulties and ambiguities, and in more than one place is meaningless. At least we at the Board of Education are unable to understand the noble Lord's meaning; but as we proceed he will, perhaps, more clearly define it. For example, it is proposed to restrict the right to use the building in pursuance of this Act to the electors and inhabitants of any district served by the public elementary school in question. I do not offer any opinion as to whether this restriction is reasonable, but if a restriction is necessary these words do not serve; nor does the noble Lord's Amendment improve the case. In the first place I would ask, Who is to determine what is the area served by the particular public elementary school; and, when this is done, who is to see that persons who are not electors or residents in that area are excluded from the meeting? It seems to me it might be an open question whether the political candidate himself, in the event of his being what is called a "carpet bagger," would be permitted to enter the building at all, still less to address it.
  In lines 13 and 14, on page 1, a reference is made to—
  "A member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated."
  The members of public bodies are elected by electors; no public body is elected by the ratepayers of the area as such. Therefore the language in the clause is inaccurate and would be very difficult to construe.
  Another important point arises in Clause 2 in regard to the question of the regulations for the working of this Bill. The object of having these regulations is, no doubt, to regulate the power which this Bill proposes to create and to safeguard the rights of those who are at present entitled to use the building
  484
  outside school hours, but the safeguards which should surround the application of the Bill ought, to my mind, to be dealt with in the Bill itself. This is the only way in which, in my opinion, it would be possible to provide adequate safeguards and to apply them uniformly. There is another important provision in the Bill as to the use of buildings during election times, and here again the definition is incomplete.
  I have endeavoured to point out to the noble Lord who is responsible for this measure some of the difficulties that have arisen through the inaccurate drafting of the various clauses. The noble Lord indicated during the Second Reading, and he has repeated the statement to-day, that he would be glad if the Government could see their way to introduce Amendments remedying the defects I have pointed out; but I have to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we could not for a moment consider even the desirability of entering on this course. Undoubtedly alterations in the Bill are required, not only as to substance but also from the point of view of phraseology and drafting, and this being a measure introduced by a private Member I cannot recognise that it is the duty of the Government to amend or rectify any shortcomings or mistakes in it.
  We have not put down any Amendments because we did not consider it was our duty to amend a Bill which we could not regard as possible of being made perfect; for had we done so, and had it gone down to the other. House with Amendments in it which had been introduced by His Majesty's Government, we would have been considered more or less responsible for the Bill. If the Government had chosen, so to speak, to "cut about" the Bill to a great extent, and if the noble Lord in charge of it had been courteous enough to accept those Amendments, even then, as this Bill is at present drawn, it would be impossible for it to be regarded as absolutely satisfactory. To my mind there are two courses open to the noble Lord. He has it in his power to withdraw the present Bill and submit

  485
  to your Lordships a Bill de nove, correcting the shortcomings in the present Bill and making it of a character more satisfactory to the Government. That is, of course, for him to decide. On the other hand, he has the right of going on with this measure in its present condition; but he must recognise that if he proceeds with it, and it goes down to another place unsupported by His Majesty's Government, it has very little, if any, chance of becoming law at this comparatively late period of the session. Consequently the discussions which take place on the Amendments to-day must be of more or less academic character. I do not say I should regret such a discussion. I have no doubt it would enlighten us as to the way in which a measure of this kind might be improved. We, the members of His Majesty's Government, can, however, take no part in any discussion that may ensue, nor shall I, individually, vote in any divisions upon it. I hope I shall not be considered wanting in courtesy in taking no further part in the discussion of this Bill, and I am glad your Lordships have allowed me an opportunity of stating, I hope clearly, the line His Majesty's Government propose to take—that while concurring in the principle of the Bill they cannot, in its present condition, give it their support.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the noble Marquess has made one of the most extraordinary statements I have even heard from a member of His Majesty's Government. He has declared that he is in favour of the principle of the Bill, but that there are some difficulties with regard to details. We naturally expected that, if the Government were in favour of the principle of the Bill, they would have put down Amendments in regard to its details. The noble Marquess says that because this is a Bill introduced by a private Member it is not necessary for the Government to deal with it. I cannot for a moment accept that. Private Members have not infrequently introduced Bills affecting great Departments of the State, and the member's of the Government representing those Departments have always given their opinions upon those measures and dealt with
  486
  them in the fullest possible way. I venture to say that the noble Marquess, after what he has said, ought either to have refused to accept the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading or he ought to have put down Amendments with regard to the matters of detail to which he has called attention.
  Now, what is the position? The noble Marquess suggests that my noble friend should withdraw his Bill. Why is it that my noble friend is pressed to drop the Bill? The Government themselves, though loth to appeal to the country, admit that before very long there will be a dissolution. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that this extremely useful and necessary Bill should be passed promptly, and before an appeal to the country takes place. My noble friend is not prepared to withdraw his Bill. I should like to ask what will happen if the Amendments standing in the name of the most rev. Primate are accepted. Will that satisfy His Majesty's Government? It is extremely difficult to follow exactly the position in which the noble Marquess wishes to place the Government. Even if those Amendments are adopted by the House the Bill will not, I understand, satisfy the noble Marquess, and he will take no further part in the proceedings. I cannot understand the position which the noble Marquess has taken up. He either ought to have opposed the Bill on Second Reading or dealt with it by putting down Amendments, if other Peers have not Amendments already on the Paper which meet his view, or he might have given notice to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. It would have been far more straightforward and regular to have opposed the Bill than to decide to take no further part in the discussion of the measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, should have accused me of not acting in a straightforward manner. I stated—
  EARL SPENCER: Order, order! We are not in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am fully aware that I am not entitled to speak again, but the noble Earl having attacked me, I thought I should have been allowed to reply. I consider that I have acted in a perfectly straightforward manner. I stated in the debate on the Second Reading that we did not object to the principle of the Bill, and that I myself sympathised with the noble Lord, but I have yet to learn that it has beer the custom for a private Member introducing a measure to have it amended by the Government and sent down to another place. I have beer privileged, in Opposition, to introduce measures, but I have never had them corrected by the Government and sent down to another place.
  EARL SPENCER: I again submit that the noble Marquess is out of order in speaking a second time. We are not in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: As I am not in order and am refused an opportunity of defending myself against the charge of not acting in a straightforward manner, I resume my seat.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, when this Bill came up for Second Reading His Majesty's Government approved of its principle, and the only objection which they made—if it could be called an objection at all—was that it was of such a complicated nature that the House could not adequately grapple with it in Committee. Now the noble Marquess says the Bill is so much nonsense. The question I should like to ask is, if the Bill is nonsense, why was that not stated At the former stage?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I must say this is rather a remarkable proceeding. I do not think the course which the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education has taken is respectful to this House. The noble Marquess on the Second Reading gave us no reason to suppose that he was going to take a course at this stage which would be fatal to the principle of the Bill. He had not that courage. He told us, on the contrary, that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. So far as I
  488
  know, the noble Marquess has not given to this House until the present moment the slightest intimation of the line which he was going to take.
  You may look at the benches of this House and see that this is a subject in which the House takes a great deal of interest. The House is rather full. Noble Lords have come down to be told by His Majesty's Government that whereas on the Second Reading they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, it is now their intention to adopt a totally novel proceeding and decline to take any part whatever in the discussion of the details of the measure. I can suppose it possible that it may be beyond the powers of the Board of Education to propose any Amendments to the first clause of the Bill which the noble Marquess criticised just now, and which I respectfully venture to say I do not think he himself understood. But I do think we have a right to complain that we should have been brought down to the House to-day with the belief and in the expectation that this important measure would be considered, and that we should be met by a statement that His Majesty's Government will have nothing whatever to do with the discussion.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, on behalf of the Local Government Board I regret to say I cannot afford the noble Marquess any better satisfaction than he has received at the hands of the Board of Education. There is no reason, set far as I know, why the Bill cannot be discussed now, as we have no Government whip against it. Although it might not get the same chance of passing the other House as it would if it were endorsed by His Majesty's Government, still there is no reason why the Bill should not go to the other House with the endorsement of this House. You have heard the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education state that he approves of the principle of the Bill. As to the drafting of it, I presume the House will pass some Amendments; but, on behalf of the Local Government Board, I have to say that they cannot suggest the Amendments which, no doubt, noble Lords sitting opposite would wish them to do.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, we are placed in a very grotesque position by the action of His Majesty's Government. I was not present on the former occasion, but I understand from the universal acknowledgement of every nobleman who has spoken that the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education expressed himself in favour of the principle of this Bill. The Local Government Board, I am glad to hear, is also in favour of the principle of the Bill. But the noble Marquess, being in favour of the principle, suddenly comes forward and makes a long speech in which he announces that there are difficulties of detail in the Bill with which he and the Government are wholly unable to grapple. I endeavoured to find out what those difficulties were. The noble Marquess asked, Who is to decide what is the district that a school is intended to serve? I think the intelligence of this House might grapple with that difficulty. Then he said that ratepayers are mentioned where no elections are conducted by ratepayers; they are conducted by electors. That, again, seems to me to be a rock on which this House ought not to split altogether. But, as the result of these two petty, minute, I might use the word peddling, difficulties which the noble Marquess has found in the Bill, he suddenly envelopes himself in his own virtue, wraps himself in his own dignity, resumes his seat, and says he can take no further part in the discussion. Is this treating your Lordships' House with that respect to which it is entitled? Or is it not rather treating it as an assembly below the average of intellect as compared with the rest of mankind. It is true that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board has risen to apply a soothing plaster to our souls. He also admits the total incapacity of the Local Government Board to deal with the complicated details of this Bill, but reasserts the passionate attachment of the Government to the Bill. I hope we shall have further comfort from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think my noble friend, Lord Londonderry, was amply justified in protesting against a charge
  490
  made on the other side of want of straightforwardness in his conduct. If his conduct is open to any criticism I should have said that its extreme straightforwardness and candour exposed a somewhat needlessly large target to the criticisms of the other side. Nor was my noble friend guilty of disrespect to your Lordships' House. Our position remains exactly where it was when this Bill was before your Lordships on a previous occasion. We are in favour of the principle of the Bill as we were then, but the Bill having been examined, the Departments most interested have come to the conclusion that it would require so much recasting and so many alteration that, considering the stage of the session at which we have arrived, they do not think it desirable that they should be called upon to undertake the task of remodelling the measure. The action of my noble friend beside me will not, after all, make the slightest difference to the fate of the Bill. We must all be aware that, supposing we were to pass this Bill now, it stands no chance of becoming law this session. Is it not, therefore, perfectly legitimate that we should invite your Lordships to debate it, that we should learn what we can from the debate, but that we should not undertake the responsibility of making what we conceive to be a badly-drawn measure into one fit to take its place on the Statute-book?
  LORD BURGHCLERE: As I have already spoken I will so as to put myself in order, move the adjournment of the debate. I wish to reiterate what has been said on this side as to the House being placed in a most extraordinary position by the action of noble Lords opposite. With regard to what has been said in this debate about Bills introduced by private Members, I may say that since I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships House I have myself brought in a Bill on the important subject of open spaces which was referred to the Department interested, and that Department gave me its advice on the subject and the Bill was passed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDEPRY: I should like to ask whether the noble Lord is in order.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I am moving the adjournment of the debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Is that in order?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): It is not.
  EARL CARRINGTON: To put my noble friend in order, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I merely wished to point out, with regard to Bills brought in by private Members being referred to the Departments interested and subsequently becoming the law of the land, that when I myself had the honour of introducing into this House a Bill on the important question of open spaces the Bill was referred to the Board of Agriculture; I received the Amendments of that Department and the Bill obtained the sanction of the Government, was referred to the House of Commons and is now on the Statute-book. Therefore, I think I have given the noble Marquess opposite a concrete precedent which might have been followed in a Bill of this description. The noble Marquess speaks of this Bill as if it was a complicated measure like the Local Government Bill of 1894. Why, it is a Bill of only three clauses to meet a matter of extreme simplicity, and I submit—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind the noble Lord that the Motion is the adjournment of the debate.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: If, in addition to wishing me to withdraw the Bill, the Government wish to silence me, I can do nothing but resume my seat.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  Original Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "if there be no other public building available which shall be suitable and convenient for the purpose," He said that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposed to give electoral bodies throughout the kingdom, without exception, in districts where there were public elementary schools, a right of using those schools for public meetings; but the restrictive words which he (the Marquess of Bristol) now proposed to omit would he thought, if left in the clause, entirely cut away the privileges given by the Bill from urban districts. He thought feelings of envy and jealousy would be aroused if rural districts were allowed the use of the schools free of charge while the electors and inhabitants of urban districts had to seek for rooms for their public meetings in other buildings, at the same time being compelled to pay such sums as the avarice of the owners might demand. He appealed to Lord Burghclere, in his endeavour to remove what was an undoubted grievance, to take care not to create another grievance which would be equally irritating.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the second word 'the' in line 7."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the noble Marquess's Amendment would greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, and though he might entertain considerable sympathy for it he felt that he would not be acting up to the pledges he had given to the right rev. Bench and their Lordships on the Second Reading if he were now to support it. If there was no other suitable or convenient building in urban districts, then the schoolroom would be at the disposal of the electors under this Bill; but his (Lord Burghclere's) chief object was to meet the cases of rural villages where there were no other places in which the electors could meet, except perhaps a public-house or the Nonconformist chapel.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: Will my noble friend agree to leave out the word "other"?
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I am perfectly willing to agree to that.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsuggested that the noble Marquess should postpone the moving of this Amendment until the next stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLagreed to do so.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the Amendment standing in his name was placed on the Paper in the hope that it would meet the views of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education. The words in the Bill were taken from the Local Government Act of 1894, of which the Bill was merely an enlargement; but as municipal and Parliamentary electors were now included as well as parochial electors, he moved to leave out "electors and inhabitants" as those entitled to the use of the school, and to insert in their place the words "parochial municipal, or Parliamentary electors." If, however, the Amendment did not meet the wishes of the noble Marquess, he would not press it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the second word 'the' to insert the words 'parochial, municipal, or Parliamentary,' and to leave out the word 'and inhabitants.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the Government would take no action one way or the other, and therefore he did not propose to bind himself. The Amendment would to a certain extent more closely define those who might attend the meetings; but for himself he thought it would be better to follow the precedent in the Allotments Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid the meetings would be public meetings and anybody might attend them. The real point was, who was to have the right of making application for the use of the school building for a meeting.
  EARL CARRINGTONheld that the clause was perfectly clear. The noble Marquess the President of the Board of Education had said that it was full of
  494
  difficulties and ambiguities, but it clearly stated that the persons who should be entitled to the use of the buildings were the—
  "Electors and inhabitants of any district served by a public elementary school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  The Noble Marquess had also asked who were to exclude persons not entitled to attend the meetings. There would be no exclusion at all. There was no power under the Bill to exclude a "carpet bagger" from the meeting. It was purely a question as to who should be entitled to have the use of the schoolroom for the purpose of convening a meeting.
  LORD HENEAGEhoped the noble Lord would persist in his Amendment. It was a distinct improvement of the drafting, and he did not see why they should not do all they could to improve the Bill even if His Majesty's Government were unwilling to do so.
  On Question, Amendment agreed too.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to omit the words "free of charge," on the ground that it was a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons for their Lordships' House to insert any such provision.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'free of charge.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD HENEAGEsupported the deletion of the words "free of charge" in order that the House might be at liberty subsequently to pass an Amendment standing in his name, providing that the school managers should make a fixed charge, which should be payable in advance, for the reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with the necessary preparation of the room or rooms for the purpose of any meeting, including coals, lighting, and cleaning. He thought this would be far preferable to the cumbrous provisions of Clause 2.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he did not understand that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of lessening the expense of Parliamentary

  495
  elections, and in those circumstances he saw no reason why school buildings should be let free of charge. Some charge, should be made, but it should be a reasonable one. He supported the Amendment.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that in introducing the words "free of charge" he followed the example of the Conservative Government of 1892, who brought in a Bill to effect absolutely the same object as the one now before their Lordships, and which contained a provision that the buildings should be let free of charge. The question of a fixed charge, not for the rent of the building, but for the expenses incurred in preparing the room and for lighting and other matters, was already fully covered by the Bill, which gave the local education authority a right to make rules with regard to the user of the schools; and it was also laid down in Clause 2, Section (a), that any expenses incurred—such as for gas and other matters—could be charged by the managers, and would be payable by the person convening the meeting. If noble Lords thought that the leaving in of the words "free of charge" would prevent the insertion of a provision in that direction, he would suggest that after the words "free of charge" the words "in respect of rent" should be inserted. Free of charge in this Bill and in the Local Government Act of 1894 meant free of charge in respect of rent for the user of the school. The insertion of the words "in respect of rent," as he suggested, would leave open the question of making a fixed charge for gas, firing, and other incidental expenses. If his noble friend would move an Amendment in the form he (Lord Burghclere) now suggested, he would have no objection to it, although he did not think it necessary.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHhoped the House would accept the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Bristol. He did not see why a rental, so long as it was not an excessive one, should not be charged in respect of the use of the school buildings for these meetings. There had never been any grievance on the ground of having to pay for a room in which to hold an election meeting, and, if there was no other suitable room, he did not see why a small charge should not be made for the use of the schoolroom.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought there was very good reason why no charge should be made in the shape of rent for the use of schoolrooms. These schools were in receipt of a very large amount of public money, and he did think that buildings of that kind might reasonably be expected to discharge a public duty of this sort. He himself had always acted upon that principle and given to candidates of both Parties, without the slightest hesitation or charge, the use of schools over which he had control. The addition of the words "in respect of rent," as suggested by his noble friend, should meet all reasonable objections.
  LORD HENEAGEintimated that for himself he would be quite willing to accept the compromise suggested by Lord Burghclere, as he had no wish that any charge should be made for the use of the school.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided. Contents, 23; Not contents, 45.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Apb.

  Spencer. E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  London, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Manchester D.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, I. [Teller.]

  Northumberland, D.

  shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Balfour, L.

  Shuttle orth, L.

  Ripon M

  Belper, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L

  Brassey, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Welby, L.

  Carrington, E. [Teller.]

  Leigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Heneage, L

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Mansfield, E.

  Herries, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Morton, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Ludlow, L.

  Bristol, M. [Teller.]

  Cross, V.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Napier, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Newton, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Allerton, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Averbury, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Egerton, K

  Calthorpe, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L

  Sinclair, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Crofton, L,

  Harewood, E.

  Digby, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L. (Teller.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to delete the words—
  "Any Member of Parliament, county councillor, or member of any public body elected by the ratepayers of the area in which such district is situated."
  He thought there was an excess of persons allowed to give notice under this clause. For himself, he would have preferred that the permission should only be given to the candidates or their agents. As he understood the clause, all Members of Parliament could give the notice as well as all county councillors and a vast number of members of miscellaneous bodies. He thought the clause ought to be recast. As a member of the managing body of a small school he was in a state of abject terror when he saw the large number of persons who were to be entitled to demand the use of the school.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'by' to the word 'any' in line 14."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the noble Marquess was mistaken. It was not meant that any Member of Parliament or any county councillor could call for the use of the school; but if there was any doubt on the point it could be removed by the insertion, after "Member of Parliament," the words "representing the district or area in which such school is situated." And the same words could be inserted after "county councillor."
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpointed out that the clause as the Mar-
  498
  quess of Bristol proposed to amend it would limit the use of the schools to the Parliamentary candidate. When the candidate got elected he would be debarred from addressing a meeting of his constituents in the school.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn.
  LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE moved to leave out the words "any of their agents" and to insert "the responsible and duly appointed election agent of such candidate." As the clause at present stood, not only were any of these gentlemen allowed to have the use of the schools on their own application, but the use had to be granted on the application of any of their agents. He thought that was giving a very wide permission, and he hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words 'any of their agents' and insert the words 'the responsible and duly appointed election agent of such candidate.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLdid not know whether the Amendment standing in his name was in order, but he wished to secure that the same fee should be charged for the use of the rooms in the school in the case of public meetings as was charged in the case of other social gatherings or meetings.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'given' to insert the words 'and who, if required to do so, shall pay such accustomed charges as are payable by other persons using the rooms in the school.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREdid not think that the noble Marquess's Amendment would quite carry out his intention. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should read—
  "and, who, if required to do so, shall pay in respect of rent and other charges an amount not exceeding the amount usually paid in respect of such charges by persons using the same room for the purpose of public meetings."
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLwas quite willing to accept the suggested Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the line taken by Lord Heneage in the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 2 was preferable to that contained in the Amendment now before the House. He took it that the House did not wish the managers of the schools to beat any loss, but they did not want the charge to be an unreasonable or prohibitive one. If the Amendment were adopted, persons who did not want their schools used at all had only to fix an unreasonable charge and everyone was shut out. Parishioners in a village should be entitled to make the fullest use, on reasonable terms, of the school building, which was probably the only suitable building in the village. The Amendment which Lord Heneage proposed to move at a later stage provided that the charge should be merely sufficient to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Lord Burghclere, in his desire to get his Bill through, had offered the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Bristol) an Amendment which in a substantial number of places would be injurious to the object he had in view.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsuggested that perhaps noble Lords would be prepared to accept an Amendment providing that the charges to be made for the use of such rooms should be according to a fixed scale graduated in proportion to the number of persons which the school would accommodate, but that in no case
  500
  should the maximum charge exceed 20s. for each meeting of not more than, three hours duration.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid he infinitely-preferred the proviso to Clause 2 standing in his name. He believed the desire of most of the school managers was that the schools should be used as far as possible for all proper purposes, but they did desire that they might be entitled to charge a fixed sum such as was paid by other people, and that the sum should be paid beforehand so as to avoid the-chance of its being disputed afterwards. The managers would not be likely to fix an unfair sum because they would require the use of the school for persons of their own religious or political persuasion. They should be allowed to have a scale of charges which they could impose upon everybody alike, and he thought that his proviso would carry that out better than any of the suggested Amendments.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought that an Amendment on this point would be more appropriate in Clause 2.
  VISCOUNT CROSSagreed, and expressed the hope that the stipulation, would be made that the charge should be paid beforehand.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYproposed the insertion of words providing that meetings should not be held on Sundays, on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, or Christmas Day.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'held to insert the words' on Sundays, nor on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Christmas Day, nor.'"—(The Lord Archbishop-of Canterbury.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREaccepted the Amendment.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved a further Amendment

  501
  for the purpose of preventing meetings infringing on the hours set apart for religious instruction in school, the clause as drafted only providing this safeguard in the case of secular instruction. He explained that the proviso, as amended, would read—
  "Provided that such public meeting shall not be held on Sundays, nor on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Christmas day, nor at such times or in such manner as to interfere with the hours set apart for the religious or secular instruction of day or evening scholars, etc."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'religious or.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREaccepted the Amendment.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that the words contained in his next Amendment were taken from a similar provision in the Local Government Act of 1894.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 23, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'or with such other lawful use of the building as has under proper authority been customary, or if the use of the schoolrooms on the said day and at the said time has previously to the receipt of the notice of the meeting been granted for some other purpose.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREaccepted the Amendment.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,who had given notice of an Amendment in page 1, line 27, after "provide," to insert—
  "(a) That the person on whose behalf the notice is given shall pay to the managers of the school a reasonable sum byway of hire of the room,"
  said the sole object of his Amendment was to enable the managers to make a reasonable charge for the use of the
  502
  school. He was conscious of the difficulty there was in ensuring that the charge should be a reasonable one. His Amendment left it to the local education authority to decide what should be a reasonable sum for the use of the schoolroom, but he was not so wedded to the actual words of his Amendment as not to be prepared to accept the Amendment down in the name of Lord Heneage, which would carry out the object he had in view. He, therefore, would not move the Amendment standing in his name.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid he understood the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept his Amendment. He would, therefore, formally move it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word 'and' and insert the words 'provided that nothing contained in this. Act shall prevent any school managers from making a fixed charge for the reasonable expenses incurred by them in connection with the necessary preparation of the room or rooms for the purposes of any meeting, including coals, lighting, and cleaning; and provided also.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREaccepted the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL moved to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert the new paragraph in his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 2, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert the following new paragraph:
  "(b) That (except during such times as an election is actually in progress) the right to use such rooms shall not be exercised by or on behalf of any particular candidate more than once in reference to the same candidature.'"—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREwas not prepared to accept the Amendment, as it would prevent the use of the rooms on more than one occasion during the whole period of a person's candidature. The sub-section which the noble Marquess proposed to leave out was as follows.
  "(b) That (except during such times as an election is actually in progress) no room shall I be used for the purposes of this Act by, or on

  503
  behalf of, any particular person on more than two occasions during the same year."
  He (Lord Burghclere) was willing to meet the noble Marquess by substituting "one occasion" for "two occasions" in the last line of this subsection.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLaccepted this Amendment and withdrew, by leave of the Committee, the one he had already moved.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 14 to leave out the words 'two occasions' and insert the words 'one occasion.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved the insertion of a new Subsection to secure that the managers of each school should be made aware, when the year began, whether their school came within the category of schools likely to be so demanded. He did not think managers ought to be subjected to this inconvenience without knowing beforehand, in making their arrangements, whether their school rooms were liable during the ensuing twelve months to be used for public meetings by virtue of this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'year' to insert the words:
  "(c) That a day be appointed in each year on or before which the local education authority shall publish a schedule showing what schoolrooms within such district are liable during the ensuing twelve months to be used for public meetings by virtue of this Act."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREdrew attention to an Amendment standing in his name to Clause 3 which had for its object the substitution of the local education authority for the Board of Education as the authority under the Bill. The local education authority would be able very easily to determine the proper rooms which were to be used, and the Amendment was really unnecessary; but if the most rev. Primate really
  504
  wished to press his Amendment he would suggested that he should substitute the word "may" for "shall," so as to make it permissive instead of compulsory. There were many districts in which it would be absolutely unnecessary to prepare a schedule.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he was prepared, at the moment, to accept the suggestion subject to the right to reconsider the point at a later stage. There were, he said, some districts where the local education authority were doing their best to hamper certain schools, and it was possible that in those areas the local education authority would not act with complete fairness.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYspoke of the serious inconvenience which would be caused to the local education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire and other large areas if the Amendment were adopted. He thought it would be better not to require a schedule to be published, but that managers of schools who thought their schools unsuitable and inconvenient should represent their view to the local education authority.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid it was desirable that the local education authority should consider the question beforehand. If the matter was to be considered after the notice of the meeting was given, he thought the difficulties would be very much greater.
  LORD HERRIEShoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would retain the words. at present in the clause. He was anxious that the interests of non-provided schools should be safeguarded, but thought it would be impossible for the local education authority to send all over the county to find what schoolrooms within their area would be liable to be used under the Act.
  LORD BURCHCLEREsaid it was not his duty to defend the Amendment which had been moved by the most rev. Primate, but the local education authorities to which he referred were

  505
  the local education committees—the district committees, as they practically were—which in a vast number of cases had been appointed. Those were the persons he wished to make the authority under this Bill, and they would certainly know which schools were available and which were not. At the same time, he was not responsible for the Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that if the education authority for the county had divided its area into districts the district authorities were subordinate committees-working under the education authority, and were not the education authority.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Yes, but they can report to the education authority.
  LORD HENEAGEcontended that if the Amendment was inserted difficulties would arise on every side. It would be cumbrous and create a great deal of confusion as to how it was to be carried out.
  EARL SPENCERappealed to the most rev. Primate not to press his Amendment. He assured him that the drawing up of schedules in the way proposed for the whole of a county would be a most complicated and difficult matter. He thought it would be better that each case should be dealt with as it arose.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he would withdraw the Amendment after the appeal of the noble Earl, and consider the matter between this and the next stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  LORD BURGHCLERE LORD BURGHCLERE moved to substitute the local education authority for the Board of Education as the authority under the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 17, to leave out the words 'Board of Education' and insert the words
  506
  'local education authority for the district provided always that no room or building registered for divine worship, nor any room connected with or attached to any place licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be deemed a suitable room for the purposes of this Act.'"—(Lord Burghclere.)
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLsuggested the advisability of inserting some definition of the word "candidate." He thought that if the provision was left in the Bill as it stood, the mere holding of a meeting in a schoolroom would constitute a person a candidate in the sense that the expenses of the meeting would have to be entered as part of his election expenses. It seemed hardly desirable that this should be the case, especially as the person might not have been actually selected as the candidate, and he should not include in his election expenses the cost of meetings before his candidature was endorsed.
  LORD BURGHCLEREdid not think the Bill would have the effect which Lord Monkswell feared, but said that if the noble Lord had any doubts on the subject and would draft an Amendment he would consider it at the next stage.
  Clause 4 agreed to. Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 112.)

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords having given notice to move an Amendment to exclude the Province of Ulster from the operation of this Bill, I should like to say a few words upon it. When I first saw that my noble-friend Lord Avebury, who is so active in matters of legislation, had taken up the subject of Christmas Day, it

  507
  appeared to me that he was poaching on the manor of the right rev. Prelates opposite. My noble friend Lord Avebury occupies an unique position. He is the only man who has been canonised during his lifetime, and not only has he one Saint's Day but four, for each of the four Bank Holidays is called St. Lubbock's Day. Whether, when this Bill passes, another name will be given to Christmas Day in Ireland do not know. I happened to be spending a holiday recently in Ireland, and I thought it right to endeavour to find out what the feelings of the people there were with reference to this Bill. Knowing what the Presbyterian feeling in Scotland was, I thought that the Presbyterian feeling in Ulster was the same. I found, however, that that was not so. The people of Ulster are not hostile to the Bill. As a matter of fact, it rather surprised me to find that the Irish are so distrustful of their powers of resistance and so anxious for coercion in this matter. As, however, they accept the Bill of my noble friend, I congratulate him upon that fact, and shall certainly not move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read for the House going into Committee.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Avebury.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, our experience earlier in the evening of the result of Ministerial statements on going to Committee is, perhaps, not. entirely encouraging, but I am, nevertheless, impelled to say a few words to your Lordships on the position in which the House finds itself with reference to this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that when it last came before us my noble friend Lord Belper, on behalf of the Home Office, moved an Amendment to the effect that
  508
  the House was not prepared to legislate upon the subject without further information as to the facts of the case, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions upon which Sunday trading is now permitted by law. We thought then, and we think now, that my noble friend's Amendment was the proper way of dealing with the Bill on the Table. But that Amendment met with a good deal of objection from different parts of the House. It was objected to by the noble mover of the Bill. It was al o, if I remember right, objected to by the most rev. Primate, and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition supported the proposal that the Rill should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.
  The Bill now comes back to us from that Committee. It has been, I have no doubt, improved in some particulars, but I am bound to suggest to your Lordships that the Bill as it now stands is not in such a shape that it could with advantage be placed, on the Statute-book. I certainly do not impute any blame to the Committee. They were not given a free hand to examine into this difficult and complicated subject, and were necessarily limited to the amendment of the particular Bill placed before them; and I am afraid the result of their labours has been to produce what I can only call a piece of not very successful patchwork. The Bill is to be tacked on to the existing Sunday Observance Act of 1677. That Act is not repealed and remains in force. We shall, therefore, have side by side the old law end the new law, and the result, I am afraid, will be to produce not a few ambiguities and inconsistencies which may lead to extremely inconvenient results.
  It is quite clear that the intention of the authors of this Bill is to strengthen the law against Sunday trading. The main proposal, I suppose, if there is one, in the Bill is the proposal that the penalties for Sunday trading should be considerably increased; but, my Lords, side by side with that proposal are other proposals of a wholly different kind, which create very serious exceptions in favour of Sunday trading. If your Lordships will look at the third section of the Bill and at the schedule you will find

  509
  that there are, in the first place, certain trades which remain wholly unaffected by this Bill. It does not touch, for instance, the trade in intoxicating liquors, which remains where it is under the law already in force. Then, again, the trade in refreshments for immediate consumption remains unaltered, and, curiously enough, the trade in newspapers, magazines, and periodicals also remains un interfered with, I presume upon the ground that if there is to be free trade in refreshments of the body there should be equal free trade in refreshments of the mind.
  Then we come to another class of exceptions dealt with in the second part of the schedule. Those exceptions will have this effect, that the sale of certain commodities, such as bread, fish, fruit, and cooked meat, can only take place before nine o'clock in the morning. There is a third class of exception which is still more remarkable. Under Subsection (b) power is given to the local authority to extend, by resolution, the list of trades which may be practised before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning. So that this state of things will arise, that under this subsection the trade in any particular article may be permitted on Sunday while at the same time, under the existing law, those who trade in that very same article may be punished by fines and penalties.
  I must mention yet another exception which also seems to me of a very serious kind. It is the exception contained in Clause 6 of the Bill, under which local authorities are empowered to apply to the Secretary of State for a suspension of the provisions of the Act on the ground that owing to special circumstances they might press with undue and exceptional severity on the general body of the traders and their customers in a particular area. I cannot help thinking that that section will place the Home Secretary in a very invidious position and one in which no Minister should be placed. He will have to hold the balance between those who are in favour of the rigid observance of the Sabbath and those, on the contrary, who hold that a certain class of trading is permissible on the Sabbath day. The result of all these exceptional enactments will, I fear, be that the
  510
  Bill will operate capriciously and unfairly. It will, I cannot help thinking, be unjust to the smaller traders, who have not the organisation and the means of making themselves heard which are enjoyed by the larger shopkeepers. And, if numerous statements which have been circulated and which your Lordships have seen are to be believed, we are led to the conclusion the these small traders did not have—perhaps it was inevitable—a sufficient opportunity of making their case heard before the Committee of your Lordships' House. These poor people are not pleased, and their customers, who are, I think, entitled to our sympathy, whose opportunities of supplying themselves with the common necessaries of life are very limited, are also discontented with this Bill and would regret to see it become law.
  But that is not all. I have here a document which has been circulated by the Lord's Day Observance Society protesting very strongly against the Bill on the ground that it is unnecessary, that it is deceptive, that it is injurious to the best interests of young people, and finally that it will prove impracticable in action. I cannot help thinking that all these documents disclose a somewhat serious state of things, and that they should at least lead us to pause before we too hurriedly pass this measure into law. While I hold this view I do not suggest that your Lordships' House should reject the Bill. I may be permitted to say, in all sincerity, that I regard with the utmost respect the source from which the Bill proceeds, and I respect the opinion of those noble Lords who desire that it should become law; but the fact remains that the Bill has elicited very serious criticism, and, so far as we can judge, there is no chance whatever of its passing into law during the present session of Parliament. In these circumstances, although I certainly should not move the rejection of the measure, I am bound to say that it seems to me at least doubtful whether it would be for the advantage of your Lordships that you should pass it. We, at any rate, who sit on this bench desire that it should be understood that we cannot accept any responsibility for the Bill, and that we

  511
  regard it as still open to some very serious objections.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I need hardly say that I have listened to the remarks which have just fallen from the noble Marquess with very great regret. The principal objections that my noble friend took had reference, not to what the Bill does, but to what the Bill does not do. One of the objections made was that the Bill does not repeal the Act of Charles II. I was disposed to take the same view as the noble Marquess that this Act might well be repealed, and I did my best to repeal it in another Bill last year. But it was objected to by Viscount Cross and by Lord Belper, as representing His Majesty's Government, and in deference to these high authorities in the House I did not this year propose to repeal the Act of Charles II. If the noble Marquess thinks this should be done, we should make no objection. The next objection taken by the noble Marquess was that the Bill does not deal with the sale of intoxicating liquors. There are many who would be glad if the Bill could have dealt with that matter, but because you cannot do all you wish in one direction that is no reason why you should refrain from doing what is good in another. Moreover, public-houses have always been dealt with in legislation separately from shops.
  The noble Marquess next complains that we permit certain things to be sold up to nine o'clock in the morning. I submit it is too much to expect working people, many of whom live a whole family in a single room in the great Metropolis, to lay in overnight stores of vegetables and other perfshable food in hot weather. It has been thought desirable, therefore, to allow poor people the opportunity of buying these perishable articles up to a certain hour on Sunday morning. The noble Marquess expressed somewhat severe opinions with reference to this Bill, but he did not hear the evidence which was given in favour of it. The noble Lords to whom the House entusted the consideration of this question in Select Committee heard a great deal of evidence, were unanimous in their conclusion, and strongly recommend the
  512
  Bill to the favourable consideration of the House.
  The evidence taken shows that there is a deep and general feeling among the tradesmen of the country in favour of the provisions of the Bill. We obtained the opinion of over 300 tradesmen's associations in all parts of the country, and the Confectioners' Association was the only one which did not wish the Bill to become law. They were almost unanimous in the wish to have their Sunday rest, and they told the Committee that Sunday trading was on the increase, and would, in their opinion, increase further. I venture to say that there are few things upon which there is such unanimity of opinion amongst the trading community as there is upon the desirability of this Bill becoming law. Then the noble Marquess referred to the customers. The Committee obtained a great deal of evidence as to the feeling of the customers. Sunday closing is supported by trade councils and associations all over the country. It is supported by the London Trade Council, the Bristol Trade Council, the Nottingham Trade Council, the Walsall Trade Council, the Irish Trade Council, the Glasgow Trade Council, and various other trade councils throughout the country; not a single trade council has opposed the Bill, and I submit, therefore, to your Lordships that the customers, the poorer classes, as well as the tradesmen themselves, are in favour of the passing of this. Bill.
  The noble Marquess next referred to Clause 6, which enables, in some cases, local authorities, if they are satisfied that in their particular district there may be reasons why it is undesirable to put the Bill into operation, to avoid doing so. That is not a clause for which I am responsible. It was suggested by the Duke of Northumberland, who was a regular attendant at the Committee, and I will leave him to give the reasons for the clause which he suggested and which the Committee accepted. Another criticism made against the Bill by the noble Marquess is that it would operate capriciously. That is what the law does at present. Some places endeavour to enforce the law, but in most cases it is scarcely pat into operation at all because

  513
  the fines are so small. The noble Lord said the Bill would press hardly on small shopkeepers. That is what the law does at present. Under the present law the maximum fine for Sunday trading is 5s. In those places in which the law is put into operation the small shopkeeper is shut up because he cannot pay the 5s. fine, but the shopkeeper who is doing business on a larger scale pays the 5s., snaps his finger at the law, and opens again, and there are cases of tradesmen being fined 5s. as many as 100 and 200 times and still continuing to trade on Sundays in defiance of the law.
  The objections of the Lord's Day Observance Society were referred to by the noble Marquess. There are two societies which are anxious to see Sunday preserved. There is the Lord's Day Observance Society and the Lord's Day Rest Society. The latter society is very strongly in favour of this measure, but the Lord's Day Observance Society objects to it because we give facility for trading in certain perishable articles of food before nine o'clock on Sunday mornings. We thought it necessary to give this facility to poor people to obtain perishable articles, and, as has often happened in connection with temperance legislation, those who hold extreme views on the subject are preventing important and reason-able reform being carried out. Because we do not go quite so for as the Lord's Day Observance Society would wish, they ask your Lordships to throw out this Bill as a whole and prevent the carrying of a reform which is urgently desired by the shop keeping community throughout the country and by the working classes also. I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess say that he was not going to vote for the rejection of the Bill, but I was sorry to hear him affirm that there was no chance of the Bill passing the other House, though I was not very surprised to hear him make that observation; but, at any rate, by ventilating the question, and by your Lordships passing the Bill, an important step will be taken to check the growing tendency towards Sunday trading, and to preserve that day of rest which is, I believe, so important to this country, not only from a religious point of view, but also from the point of view of the health and well-being of the community.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to move that the Bill be committed on this day three months. I came down to the House to-day prepared to go fully into the question, but the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was so much to the point that it is hardly necessary for me to go at any length into the matter. But I wish to say one or two words to strengthen what fell from the noble Marquess. The noble Lord in charge of this Bill has described it as a moderate and reasonable measure. On a former occasion I invited my noble friend and your Lordships to go and see the Sunday trading that takes place in London, and if the noble Lord and his Committee had gone to see this trading for themselves, I believe that they would had taken a different view. When I asked my noble friend before the Whitsuntide recess if he had been to see this trading he blandly smiled and shook his head. The other day I again put the question to him, with the same result. I know why he did not go, ray Lords. He is a conscientious man, and he knew that if he had gone he would have felt compelled to withdraw his Bill. Personally I have made such a visit, and what did I see? I saw markets crowded with traders and thousands of customers. It should be borne in mind, moreover, that the small traders have no association, and for that reason I speak in favour of small traders and their hardworking customers.
  As these people could not put their case properly before the Committee, having no association, a circular was sent out to ascertain the views of the poorer traders, and 2,000 replies were received. One reply says that—
  "This Bill would mean total ruin for myself and family, as we depend mostly on the Sunday trade."
  Another says—
  "If I have to close on Sundays I shall be deprived of my livelihood, and I call it monstrous and unfair."
  A widow with four children says—
  "The Bill means ruin to me."
  Another shopkeeper—a confectioner—writes—
  "My average takings for the week total £14 On Sunday alone I take £4 15s. I have rent

  515
  taxes, gas, etc., to pay, and can just manage; but if Sunday trading is put a stop to by unfair legislation my business is gone"
  A small shopkeeper at New Cross writes—
  "When will Lord Avebury stop interfering with the liberty of the subject? The sooner he enjoys a rest the better."
  These are poor traders, and their customers are busy all the week, but the noble Lord insists that they must not even be shaved on Sunday. Evidently he has no sympathy with razors or shaving; therefore, if a poor man desires to be tidy and to have his chin shaved so as not to give discomfort to anybody, he must be shaved on Saturday night. That being so, I cannot help observing that a more appropriate title for the measure would be the Sunday Bristles Bill. This Bill would cause the greatest possible inconvenience, cruel inconvenience, to these hardworking people, and I appeal to the House to resist this attempt to do a cruel wrong to small traders and their customers.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of Lord Avebury's Bill, and I would allude to a representative meeting in the City, over which I presided and at which my noble friend spoke, as showing that the small traders as well as the large traders are in favour of this Bill. Objection was taken at that meeting, at which we were discussing the question of early closing, that we had not dealt with Sunday trading, and when Lord Avebury said that he would bring in a Bill on that subject and I promised to support it that great meeting from end to end cheered us enthusiastically.
  I deny that this is a Bill aimed at the small traders as against the big ones. The fact is that the small traders are anxious to get Sunday closing, but whenever they try they are always defeated by one or two rivals. I endeavoured in one large district in London to get the butchers to close on Sundays. They were all, with one exception,
  516
  anxious to do so, and the man who held out defeated the desire of the rest. And now the idea is to have one law which will bind all the members of a trade in a particular locality. The picture of ruin which has been drawn really depends on the rival being able to keep open while others close. The majority are threatened by the action of the small minority. On the grounds of practical experience, the unanimous feeling of the small traders as well as the big traders, and the fact that wherever it has been tried the voluntary system has broken down by the action of one or two men, I urge strongly that the Bill should be passed.
  I am puzzled to know what the Lord's Day Observance Society, in the circular quoted by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, mean by saying that the Bill would be bad for the young people. My experience is that it is the long hour all the week, and then again on Sunday, which is ruining so many of our young people. I earnestly press on the House not lightly to kill a measure which is for the welfare of the shopkeepers and also of the people they employ.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, as a member of the Select Committee which considered this Bill, I should like to say one word before we go to a division. In the first place, I would suggest to the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment that it is a somewhat inconvenient course to move the rejection of a Motion for the House going into Committee without notice, and I trust that your Lordships will not agree to that Amendment. The attitude taken by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has left an impression of a somewhat painful character on my mind, in that he does not appreciate the-enormous strength of feeling in favour of a measure of this kind.
  I entered upon this inquiry with a perfectly un passed mind beyond the abstract feeling, which I suppose all Members of your Lordships' House share, that it is not good for people to have to work seven days a week all the year round; but I confess I was amazed at the enormous weight of evidence in

  517
  favour of this legislation. It has been found impossible for the majority of traders to close on Sunday if the minority keep open. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has objected to certain exceptions which we have felt it necessary to suggest. I should have been very glad not to have had those exceptions, but I am certain that the noble Marquess himself would have been the first to point out that, unless we made some exceptions of this kind, the Bill would be hopelessly unworkable. What the House should take to heart is this, that you have an enormous mass of the population working seven days a week, all day long and all the year round. One witness told us—he was a barber, for whom the noble Earl Lord Wemyss has so much sympathy—that lie worked every Sunday in the year from seven in the morning till eleven at night. And this Sunday work is increasing by reason of the pressure of competition.
  We talk a good deal about the deterioration in the physique of our population. What do you think the physique of the population is going to be if you will allow men to work every day and all day long all the year round? I do not wish, at this stage of the Bill, to say anything about Clause 6, for which, as Lord Avebury has explained to the House, I am responsible. I would rather leave the explanation of it till the Committee stage. I would only say that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is quite mistaken when he thinks that that, clause was intended to put, or, with all respect to him. would have the effect of putting upon the Secretary of State the necessity of deciding between rival opinions with regard to Sunday trading. It was not thought desirable to mention them by name in the clause, but I may tell your Lordships that it was framed mainly, and as far as I was concerned I might almost say entirely, for one section of the population—namely, the Jews, who stand on a totally different footing from any other portion of the population; and whether they are Jews or not in the district affected is a matter which the Secretary of State can perfectly well ascertain. I do not think it would be a very invidious task to put upon him. But, as I have said, I do not
  518
  wish to discuss the clause now. I would ask your Lordships to take to heart the fact that there is an enormous mass of the population working, as I have said, seven days a week, all day long, and all the year round, and that this is a question which sooner or later must be faced in the interests of health and morality.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House having referred to me as one of those who recommended that this Bill should be reed a second time and then referred to a Select Committee, I rise to say a few words upon this matter. I feel that those who share the views which I now hold with regard to this Bill are in a position of some difficulty. While I was impresed by the prima facie arguments of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill when he moved its Second Reading, I must admit that I have very grave doubt, after having looked at the evidence before the Select Committee whether it is judicious or right to pass the Bill.
  I do not wish to go into details, but I share the view which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has put forward, that there are grave difficulties, especially connected with the consumers; and, notwithstanding what the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London has said, I believe that the small traders have not been so successful in getting their views expressed as the larger traders. I have very little doubt that any meetings addressed by the right rev. Prelate would be swayed by his arguments, but, in spite of what he has said, I cannot help thinking that the small traders are in a very different position from the large traders in this matter. We know there is a law of Charles II. prohibiting trading on Sunday, and that that law, which is still in existence, is being broken. I want to know whether this Bill encourages the breaking of that law or to some extent puts a stop to it. I confess, having read the Bill, that it does both, and it is very doubtful in my mind which it does most.
  I gather from the evidence that numbers of people are only able to purchase their food on Sundays. These are the cases of workmen who do not receive

  519
  their week's wages until late on Saturday night, and there is a danger in those cases if the money were not expended on food on Sunday morning it would be diverted to the public-house. I can understand the noble Duke's object in inserting Clause 6, but will it act fairly? I gather from the speech of the noble Marquess that he thought the clause would lead to very considerable difficulty, and from the cheer which that observation elicited from the noble Viscount on the Cross Bencnes, who has been Home Secretary, it is clear that he concurred that the provision would place the Home Secretary very often in a position of great difficulty.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Hear, hear!
  EARL SPENCER: In the Metropolis, for instance, we should have one body doing one thing and another body doing another, which would be extremely unfair. I confess I have great difficulty in opposing the Bill, and I share very much the view, which the noble Marquess has expressed with regard to it. I have the highest possible respect for my noble friend who introduced the Bill, and I quite admit that there are many strong arguments to be put forward in favour of it; but I am driven to say, after reading the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that I should extremely regret if the Bill were carried at the present moment. I do not know whether it would be worth while, after what the noble Marquess has said, to go through the drudgery of the Committee stage. Personally I should not oppose the Motion for going into Committee, but should reserve to myself the right to oppose the Bill on the Third Reading if it reached that stage.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I will not occupy more than a moment or two of your Lordships' time, but I should like to answer one or two of the arguments winch have been used. This Bill was down for Committee on Monday, and Lord Belper asked me, for his personal convenience, to put it off till to-day. I had not the slightest idea that there was going to be any opposition to the prin-
  520
  ciple of the Bill, and therefore we made no special effort to get our supporters to attend.
  LORD BELPER: I informed the noble Lord that I could not be present on Monday, but left it entirely to him whether he would go on with the Bill or not.
  LORD AVEBURY: That is so, but my noble friend expressed the wish that it should be put off. He did not, however, say that there would be any attempt to throw it out on the Motion for the House being put into Committee. Surely it is a strong order, without any notice, to reject the Motion for going into Committee on a Bill which was read a second time without a division, and which, after careful inquiry, was unanimously approved by the Select Committee to whom it was referred. We have been told, that this is a question of large shopkeepers against small shopkeepers, but on the Committee we continually asked. witnesses—"Are you speaking for large shopkeeper?" They replied—"No, for all shopkeepers." We had the views of over 300 associations of shopkeepers, and only on was opposed to the Bill. Statements have been circulated which altogether misrepresent the object and scope of the Bill. We have been told that poor people will be unable to get their food on Sunday mornings. We were unanimously of opinion in the Committee that with the provision in the Bill there would be no possible difficulty on that score. Great sympathy has been expressed by the noble Earl below me for those who desire to get shaved on Sunday mornings, but the 120 barbers' associations throughout the country, with only one exception, express the wish that their shops should, be entirely closed on Sunday.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But what about their customers?
  LORD AVEBURY: The noble Lord has interrupted me in the middle of a sentence. I was about to add that in order to get the view of the customers I went to the London Trades Council, and

  521
  was told by the secretary that the closing of barbers' shops on Sundays would cause little or no inconvenience. He said there were some working men who liked best to be shaved on Sunday, but as working men had their Sunday's rest he thought it only right that barbers should have theirs as well. I appeal to the House not to pass the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, but allow the Bill to go into Committee, when all points of difference can be considered. If the

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Morton, E.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Brassey, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Reay, L.

  Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

  London, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Londesborough, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Herries, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Mansfield, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D

  Onslow, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Bath, M.

  Cross, V.

  Robertson, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. Galloway,) [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Digby. L.

  House to be in Committee this day three months.

  CRIMINAL CASES (RESERVATION OF POINTS OF LAW) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.