Sitting of 18 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th day of May, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Dublin Police Acts Amendment Bill.
  Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill; Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill; Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and parsed.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Sheffield," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]
  Cork Junction Railways Bill. Ordered, That the evidence taken before the Committees on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (City of Dublin Junction Railways) Bill, 1884, the Cork and

  731
  Fermoy and Waterford and Wexford Railway Bill, 1890, the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill, 1898, the great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, 1899, and the great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill, 1900, be referred to the Committee on the Cork Junction Railways Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of McConnell's Divorce Bill, together with the Documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)
  Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 4).
  Mr. TATTON EGERTON Mr. TATTON EGERTON reported from the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills; That the parties promoting the Cork Junction Railways Bill had stated that the evidence of Alderman Daniel Horgan, of Cork, and Captain L. Bertie Millington, R.E., of Cork, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Alderman Daniel Horgan and Captain L. Bertie Millington do attend the said Committee on Wednesday, 24th May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Alderman Daniel Horgan and Captain L. Bertie Millington do attend the Committee on Group 4 of Railway Bills on Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 7).
  Mr. BOND Mr. BOND reported from the Committee on Group No. 7 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  East Cowes Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
  Petition from Argyll, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS BILL.
  Petition from Haverfordweat, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Argyll, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND IN DUSTRY BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Argyll, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Northumberland altering certain Polling Districts in the Wansbeck Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire altering certain Polling Districts in the Doncaster, Osgoldcross, Rotherham, and Sowerby Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords], and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158b]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council of the 10th May, 1905, varying the Establishments of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 10th May, 1905, directing that the Extradition Acts, 1870 to 1895, shall apply in the case of Cuba [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FLAX AND LINEN FACTORIES.
  Address for "Return of the number of Flax and Linen Factories in the United Kingdom subject to inspection under The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and the number of Spindles and Looms used in such Factories."—(Mr. Wolff.)

  PARISH MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOT LAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for each Parish in Scotland as at the 1st day of December, 1902, the salaries and fees paid to outdoor Medical Officers under

  735
  the Poor Law, Lunacy, and Vaccination Acts, and the arrangements made by the parish council for supplying medicines and medical appliances to poor persons."—(Mr. Charles Douglas.)

  INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENTS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Assessments to the Income-Tax for the years ending the 5th day of April, 1902 and 1903 (in the same classes and in the same amounts as stated in and in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 314, of Session 1902)."—(Sir George Bartley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Courts of Equity—Persons Arrested and Detained for Unreasonable Periods while Waiting Trial.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Baron (Palles), on the 10th instant, in which he alluded to the lengths of time that persons arrested under attachments in Courts of equity were at present being detained in custody, and stated that this was not the case in the King's Bench Division where Crown rules particularly pointed out the course to be adopted, and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to see that the defendant was brought before the Court, and that the proper proceeding was taken for the purpose of having it determined what punishment he was to be subjected to; whether he can say if the other Divisions of the High Court have adopted these Crown rules; and, if not, will he take steps to see that like rules are adopted for dealing with cases of imprisonment for contempt of Court; whether there are any persons now imprisoned in Ireland for contempt of Court in which the plaintiff failed to have the defendant brought before the Court in the way condemned by the Lord Chief Baron; and, if so, will he take any action in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer
  736
  this Question. My attention has been called to newspaper reports of the judgment referred to. I cannot, however, say whether they are accurate. The Lord Chief Baron, in referring to the Crown Office Rules of 1891, apparently omitted to call attention to the fact that, on June 30th, 1899, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a Circular was addressed to all Governors of Prisons requiring them, in the case of every prisoner committed for an indefinite period for contempt of Court, to send a report on the case within fourteen days of the prisoner's reception to the Lord Chancellor, through his secretary, and also to the Judge who made the order of committal; and to send a similar report to the same persons on every succeeding quarter day. This practice is similar to that which exists in England, and is followed by all the Divisions of the High Court in Ireland other than the King's Bench Division; and it has hitherto apparently given satisfaction. The matter is not one for the Executive, but rather for the Judges themselves to regulate. The attention of the Lord Chancellor will at once be called to the Lord Chief Baron's observations.

  Transvaal Constitution—Franchise for British Indians.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in respect to the provision of constitutional changes in the Transvaal, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the undertaking in the terms of peace signed in 1902 that the question of granting the franchise to the natives would not be decided until after the introduction of self-government did not apply to the case of non-African coloured subjects of His Majesty, or bind the Government to withhold the franchise from British Indians possessing the requisite educational and property qualifications; and whether, in these circumstances, he will advise His Majesty to so amend the Letters Patent and Order in Council as to admit such British Indians to the franchise, in fulfilment of various official pledges, including that contained in Governor Viscount Milner's despatch to Mr. Chamberlain, dated May 11th, 1903.

  737
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The reason why, as stated in my despatch of March 31st in [Cd. 2400], His Majesty's Government have been unable to make provision for the representation of any of His Majesty's coloured subjects is that they understand that the interpretation placed upon the pledge contained in the terms of peace by the burghers is that the question of granting the Parliamentary franchise to any coloured persons would not be decided until after the introduction of self-government. Having regard to this fact and to the importance of giving no ground for a charge of departing from the terms of peace, I am not prepared to advise His Majesty to amend the Letters Patent, and I am not aware that specific pledges on this point have been given either in the despatch quoted or otherwise.

  British Railway Rates on Foreign and Colonial Farm Produce—Publication of Report of Committee.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state when the Report will be issued of the Departmental Committee appointed in April, 1904, to inquire into the rates charged by railway companies in Great Britain in respect of foreign and colonial farm produce, and to report whether there is any evidence to show that preferential treatment is accorded to such produce; whether the evidence taken will be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if so, will the evidence already taken be circulated at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) It is not possible, as yet, to state when this inquiry will be completed. Some difficulty has been experienced in obtaining evidence, and it is very desirable that the work of the Committee should not be brought to an end until the fullest opportunity has been given to those concerned to bring forward any complaints which they may have to make. The evidence will be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper, but it would be undesirable that it should be presented except as a whole.

  Piracy on the Chinese Coast.
  COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the prevalence of piracy in the Canton delta and along the coast of China; whether he has received during last year any account of organised attacks on British vessels; and what action the British Government is taking towards the suppression of these pirates.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The attention of His Majesty's Government has recently been called to a number of piratical attacks on vessels on the Canton River (some of them being British owned). His Majesty's Cousul-General at Canton has made a representation to the Viceroy on the subject, and His Majesty's Government are in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Peking regarding these attacks.

  Transfers of Telegraphists.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to transfer a number of telegraphists from certain towns to offices in other districts; if so, whether he can state what monetary compensation he proposes to give to telegraphists who are to be compelled to leave the places in which the have resided for a number of years; and whether he will take steps that such transfers shall not interfere with the prospects of promotion and position on the seniority list of the telegraphists at the offices to which the transfers are sent.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As the result of a general falling off in telegraph business throughout the country, the staff of telegraphists in some towns is more than sufficient for the work. The officers thus rendered redundant cannot be allowed to remain idle; and if they cannot be employed on postal work in the same office they must be transferred to some other office where work can be found for them. The interests of such officers are considered as far as possible, but I do not consider that any monetary compensation is due to them, since they are liable to employment wherever they

  739
  are required; but they will be allowed to retain their seniority, and their actual and reasonable removal expenses will be paid. It is always the case that circumstances arising from the exigencies of the Service may affect favourably or unfavourably the prospcets of the staff; and I do not consider that any special measures are necessary in the interests of the staff at the places to which the officers I have mentioned are transferred.

  Transfer of Telegraphists—Retention of Seniority—Case at Croydon Post Office.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the rule of the postal service that officers transferred from one office to another do not carry their seniority with them, but are placed at the foot of their class, he will explain why a sorting clerk and telegraphist, having been removed from the Croydon office seven years ago at his own request, has been allowed to return and take his place above a number of his colleagues; whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to recompense the men for their loss of prospects; and whether it is intended that this action will form a precedent.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The officer to whom the hon. Member's Question is understood to refer had been promoted to another office from the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Croydon, and has recently been removed back to his former position by any direction. The case was dealt with on its merits, and I do not consider that the other members of the class have any good ground for complaint.

  County Courts (No. 2) Bill—Date of Second Reading.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can state when the County Courts (No. 2) Bill will be brought on for the Second Reading, and if he can hold out hopes of passing the measure this session.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I am not yet in a position to name a day for the Second Reading of the County Courts (No. 2) Bill, and it would be premature
  740
  for me to express any opinion on the question whether it will become law this session.

  Vaccination Regulations.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the recently published opinions of Dr. S. Monckton Copeman, and of the Commissioners appointed by the Lancet in 1900 and 1902 to examine the various lymphs on sale in this country, support the view that large marks are not an evidence of efficient vaccination, and that small marks are not an evidence of inefficient vaccination; and that the same authorities have shown, that, in consequence of the modern methods of vaccination, it is possible to produce the Board's stipulated area of vesiculation, viz., not less than half a square inch, without leaving anything; like a corresponding area of marks; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the Board's Vaccination Order of 1898 so as to make it more consistent with the latest medical evidence on these points.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Dr. Copeman informs me that in his opinion large scars are not necessarily evidence of efficient vaccination, and small scars are not in themselves evidence of inefficient vaccination, but that usually the area of the scar corresponds fairly closely with that of the vesicle which preceded it. These opinions do not, as I am advised, render it necessary or desirable to amend the Vaccination Order, 1898, which does not make the area of the scar a criterion of successful vaccination.

  Ventilation of House of Commons during Divisions.
  MR. MOON: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the expediency of giving orders that, from the moment when a Question is put from the Chair for a second time and the challenge of a division is persisted in, the upper windows of the Chamber, on both sides, be opened and so kept open for at least ten minutes.

  741
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The capacity of the input and extract fans is more than sufficient to change the air rapidly, if run at full speed when the Chamber is cleared for an adjournment or division. The First Commissioner is quite willing that the windows shall be opened occasionally during the sitting, but he is unable to promise that this shall be done at each division.

  Sale of Foreign Gold and Silver Watches in England in Contravention of the Law.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases in which silver and gold watches imported from abroad have been sold in England in contravention of the law which prevents silver and gold wares being sold in this country unless hall-marked; and to cases in which watches imported from abroad have been sold in England in contravention of the law which forbids the sale in this country of silver and gold vessels or plate of less than a minimum fineness; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the circumstances mentioned, and they have been in communication with the Commissioners of Customs and the Goldsmiths' Company on the subject. The Board are informed that the Goldsmiths' Company have commenced an action, which will raise the points referred to by the hon. Member.

  Recommendations of the Industrial Alcohol Committee—Benefit to the West Indies.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that if the recommendations of the Industrial Alcohol Committee are carried out the relative positions of the home distiller, the colonial distiller, and the foreign distiller will remain unchanged, he will explain how the West Indies can derive substantial benefit, as a surtax will still be imposed equally on colonial and foreign spirit.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Distillers generally will derive substantial
  742
  benefit from the encouragement that will be given to the consumption of alcohol for industrial purposes, and the West Indian distiller will have the opportunity of sharing in such benefit.

  Yield of Foreign Cigarette Duty.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the additional duty of 1s. per pound on foreign cigarettes imposed last year has yielded to the revenue, and how far the yield corresponds with the estimated production of the tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The amount of revenue yielded by the additional duty of 1s. per pound on foreign cigarettes from the date of its imposition, 20th April, 1904, to the 31st March, 1905, was £14,651. The estimated yield of this additional duty was £20,000.

  Athlone Workhouse Disinfecting Chamber —Loan by Local Government Board.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Local Government Board now state that the disinfecting chamber erected in 1895 in the Athlone workhouse, under the system known as Dr. Scott's Patent Hot Air Disinfecting Chamber, and approved by the Board, is useless; and whether, seeing that the amount of the loan, £175, was then granted by the Board for this purpose, he will explain why the Board sanctioned the loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have not stated that this disinfecting chamber is useless, but in reply to the guardians' inquiry whether it was sufficient for the purpose of disinfecting the clothing of smallpox patients they stated that such a chamber is not to be depended upon, and that disinfection after smallpox requires special efficiency. The Board understand that disinfection by hot air is rapidly falling into disuse-Experience has shown that such disinfection is not as efficient as disinfection by steam, as the hot air does not penetrate the clothing so thoroughly as steam. When sanctioning a loan in

  743
  1895 the Board imposed no conditions upon the guardians as to the description of disinfector which they should obtain.

  Delay in Erection of Labourer's Cottage for Michael Fisher, of Raphoe.
  MR. MCFADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Fisher, of Raphoe, county Donegal, applied to the Strabane No. 2 Rural District Council over six years ago to have a labourer's cottage erected for him under the Labourers Acts, and that the dwelling-house he then resided in was condemned as unfit or human habitation by Mr. Tully, Local Government Board inspector; and whether the Local Government Board will make inquiry as to what is the cause of delay on the part of the district council in providing the man with a cottage.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 24th March †, the delay in this matter is not due to the Local Government Board. The Board are now addressing the district council on the subject.

  Rejection of Applications for Erection of Labourers' Cottages by Ballymena Rural District Council.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the circumstances which led to the rejection of the applications for labourers' cottages presented by John Weir, William Casson, John Dewart, and Thomas Young to the Ballymena Rural District Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A local inquiry was held in this matter, and the applications were rejected on the ground that there was no necessity for the cottages. The inspector found that there was an ample number of vacant suitable cottages, with gardens attached, to be had in the village of Ahoghill.

  Amount spent by Congested Districts Board on Cuilmore, Kilfree, and Coolavin Divisions.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount has been expended
  † See (4) Debates, exliii., 1079.
  744
  by the Congested Districts Board on the scheduled electoral divisions of Cuilmore, Kilfree, and Coolavin, situate in Gurteen, county Sligo; since the Board was formed has any grant been recently called for by or given to these districts; can he give the terms on which the Congested Districts Board some time ago offered a sum for the ejection of a bridge in Coolavin division; and will he say whether that was to be a free grant or one to be repaid by the ratepayers.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board has not made any expenditure in the electoral divisions mentioned. On 29th July, 1903, in response to a resolution of the Sligo County Council, the Board offered to contribute, as a free grant, half the cost of a proposed bridge over the Cut, provided that such contribution should not exceed £400, and that steps should be taken to avail of the Board's offer within a year. The counties concerned do not appear to have since come to any agreement in the matter.

  Blood Poisoning caused by Insanitary Condition of Cootehill Union Infirmary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that cases of blood-poisoning occurred in the Cootehill Union Infirmary in January, 1904, alleged by the medical officer and inspector to be due to rotten floors and want of sanitary accommodation; and whether, seeing that an appeal has been made on behalf of the seven electoral divisions in the county for the necessary alterations to be made, and that Dr. Biggar was deputed by the Local Government Board to confer with the board of guardians, he can say what action, if any, has been taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Cases of septicæmia occurred in this workhouse in January, 1904. The medical officer was of opinion that the germs of the disease were in the floors and possibly in the walls. The Local Government Board's inspector inquired into the matter, and reported that it was difficult to find the direct and definite cause of the outbreak as there are several ways in which infection of the kind could be conveyed. He advised the guardians to make certain alterations, and thereupon they decided

  745
  to obtain an estimate of the cost. No further action has, however, been taken by the guardians, but the new board will come into office next month, and the Local Government Board will urge them to take the matter in hand.

  Claremorris Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two clerks in the sub-sheriff's office, county Mayo, applied for parcels of the grazing land on the Claremorris Estate, recently purchased by the Estates Commissioners; that these men never held any land on the estate; that they are neither farmers nor the sons of farmers entitled to come in under the Land Act of 1903; that two bailiffs on the estate were induced by the clerk Soar to accept payment of one year's rent for an acre of land on each of their holdings, with a view to giving them some pretence of a claim for getting parcels of the grazing lands; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to prosecute these men for attempting to get a grant of public money under false pretences.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners have agreed to purchase the Claremorris Estate. Messrs.

  Gold raised.

  Dividends paid.

  Profit tax.

  Other mining revenue.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1902–3

  10,075,926

  2,855,626

  116,316

  Prospecting Licences

  279,867

  Diggers' Licences

  45,205

  Mynpacht Dues

  47,105

  Miscellaneous

  18,223

  1903–4

  14,762,184

  3,718,797

  343,014

  Prospecting Licences

  287,448

  Diggers' Licences

  37,348

  Mynpacht Dues

  20,905

  Miscellaneous

  32,041

  Six months to 31st December, 1904.

  8,298,435

  Figures not received.

  69,427

  Licences and Miscellaneous Dues.

  167,833

  Good and Black, who, the Commissioners understand, are clerks in the office of the agent, have applied, as tenants on the estate, for parcels of the untenanted land. It is, however, alleged that they have recently got assignments of small holdings on the estate for the purpose of qualifying as such tenants. The question of allotting parcels to these gentlemen is under the consideration of the Commissioners, who will inquire into all the circumstances.

  Gold Output of the Transvaal—Income Tax paid on Profits.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of gold raised in the Transvaal, the amount distributed in dividends, the amount paid to the Government as income-tax on profits or otherwise by the gold mining companies of the Transvaal in each of the three years 1902,1903 and 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The figures are given in the following table. The Gold Profit Tax Proclamation (seepage 168 [Cd. 1163]), was passed in June, 1902, and the figures are for the Transvaal financial years running from 1st July to 30th June:—
  I should explain that, owing to the gold mining companies frequently making up their accounts in December, the greater part of the profit tax is paid early in the calendar year, and does not therefore come in the last six months. With regard to the payment of profit tax reference should be made to No. 2 in [Cd. 2102].

  Transvaal Constitution—Exclusion of British Immigrants.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Constitution about to be granted to the Transvaal contains any safeguards against the exclusion of British emigrants by the colony in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee on the 4th instant, † in which I pointed out that any legislation relating to immigration would be subject to the power of disallowance belonging to the Crown.

  Interchange of Students between British and Colonial Universities.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to facilitate the interchange of students between the Universities in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies, he will take into his consideration the desirability of issuing from time to time a circular letter to the British Colonies, somewhat after the manner of the letter of 27th December, 1902, sent out by Lord Onslow, enclosing memoranda, from any of the Universities in the United Kingdom stating their rules and regulations for the reception of colonial students, and inviting the Colonies, on their part, to inform the Universities of the United Kingdom and the Colonial Office what rules and regulations are laid down by their Universities and technical schools for the reception of students from the Universities of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The circular despatch of 27th December,
  † See (4) Debates, exlv., 915.
  748
  1902, was sent in consequence of a communication received from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, followed by a conference between representatives of the University and the representatives of the Colonies. I shall always be glad to give all possible assistance in the direction indicated by my hon. friend to any University the authorities of which may express a desire for such action.

  Canada and the Colonial Stock Acts.
  SIR ALEXANDER HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Provinces of Canada, which, along with all Colonies of the Crown, at present enjoy the benefits of the Colonial Stock Acts of 1877 and 1892, are alone deprived by Imperial legislation of the benefits of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900; and whether, with a view to the removal of such disability, His Majesty's Government would be prepared, on the motion of the Dominion of Canada, to take steps with a view to such amendment of the British North American Act as would confer upon the King in Council, as well as upon the Governor-General in Council, the right of disallowance of Bills assented to by the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces of Canada, whereby the Provinces of Canada might be enabled to enjoy the benefits of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received no communication from the Canadian Government on this subject, and am not prepared to say what action His Majesty's Government might be prepared to take in the hypothetical case referred to by my hon. friend.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Mock Courts-Martial—Case off H.M.S. "Kent."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make with reference to the case of a midshipman on H.M.S. "Kent," who,

  749
  having been sentenced by a mock Court-martial to be flogged, defended himself with a revolver; whether the commander of H.M.S. "Kent" or the other officers on board were aware of the treatment of this midshipman by his associates; and what steps were taken to protect him; who was the president of this mock Court-martial; and whether flogging with the flat of a dirk is the usual penalty inflicted by these mock Courts-martial; and whether the Admiralty authorities intend to take steps to put an end to such treatment on the King's ships.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PEETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): In September, 1903, it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty that in a ship in the Channel Fleet there was a practice of private punishment in the gun room. Orders were immediately issued that this system must be at once put down, and a circular letter was addressed to all commanders-in-chief forbidding such a practice, and desiring that commanding officers of His Majesty's ships might have their grave responsibility in the matter impressed upon them. For the intervening eighteen mouths no further case has come to the knowledge of the Admiralty. On the evening of the 2nd instant, however, a midshipman of the "Kent" who was about to receive a caning from the senior midshipman, fired a revolver at him. The Admiralty, on receiving the report of the Rear Admiral commanding the First Cruiser Squadron and that of the Court of Inquiry, decided at once to supersede the captain of the "Kent" and to place him on half pay; and the others concerned were suitably dealt with. A further circular letter has now been issued to the Fleet making it perfectly clear that the Admiralty are determined that this practice shall cease.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And what has become of the boy who saved himself from outrage by firing the revolver? I hope he is not to be punished.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The boy has been withdrawn from the Navy by his parents.
  MR. BRIGHT: In view of the great gravity of the question, will the hon. Gentleman appoint a
  750
  Committee to inquire into the question of flogging in the Navy?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I shall bring this up later on.

  Naval Cadetships.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty by whom are nominations to compete for cadet-ships with a view to obtaining commissions in the Royal Navy conferred; on what principle is the practice of nomination based; and why is not admission to the position of commissioned officer in the Royal Navy open to public competition instead of being closed to boys whose parents and friends cannot exert sufficient influence to procure nominations.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Nominations of candidates for naval cadetships are made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to a limited extent by other members of the Board and certain naval officers holding high commands. The principle on which the practice is based, under the new system of entry, is fully described in the Papers presented to Parliament this year and last (Cd. 1962–04 and Cd. 2450–05), which show the care taken to ensure that the best boys are chosen and in the fairest possible way.

  Premature Publication of Parliamentary Papers.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what date Paper (Cd. 2433), Return of Stores and Supplies destroyed locally, was sent to the printers; on what date was it p published; and if he will explain why this Paper was published in the London papers three or four days before being available for Members of this House. It is a growing practice thus to ignore the Members of the House.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): This Paper was sent for printing on the 11th inst., and was circulated to the Vote Office on the 13th inst. The distribution to Members of Parliament

  751
  and to the Press is not a matter with, which the War Office is concerned, and I am not therefore in a position to reply to the rest of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. FLYNN: How is it it was published in Saturday's papers and we did not get it till Tuesday?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I cannot say.
  MR. REDDY: Then read The Times.

  Royal Military College, Sandhurst, Examinations.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason why boys who do not get a leaving certificate on leaving their public school, and who, having passed their preliminary examination for the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, fail in the further examination, should be required to again pass the preliminary or qualifying examination.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The question of the relative value of leaving and qualifying ceitificates is not at present definitely settled, but is under the consideration of the Army Council.

  Militia Service Abroad.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relating to Militia Service Abroad during the South African War, of which notice stands upon to-day's Paper.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am prepared to give a Return containing such information as is available. As regards the 4th and 5th Sections of the Return, there is no record containing the information required.
  The Return referred to is as follows:—
  Militia (Service outside United Kingdom), Address for Return showing—

  (1) The number of Militia units and the number of officers and men serving in the Militia on the 1st day of January, 1900.

  752

  (2)The number of Militia units and the number of officers and men, excluding the Militia Reserve, who served outside the United Kingdom at any tune between October, 1899, and June 1902, distinguishing those who served (a) in South Africa; (b)at Mediterranean or other stations outside the United Kingdom.

  (3)The number of Militia Reserve who served in South Africa.

  (4)The number of Militia units which volunteered for service outside the United Kingdom during the South African War, but whose services were not accepted.

  (5)The number of Militia units and the number of Militia officers and men who are known to have refused to volunteer for service outside the United Kingdom when asked to do so.

  Unpaid Learners in the Post Office.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of unpaid learners employed in the postal service who have passed the Civil Service Competitive Examinations, together with their average service; whether he is aware that two learners at the Enniskillen office with fifteen months service have received no pay, and that youths in the Enniskillen district with four years service are still waiting appointments.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  The National Telephone Agreement.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTasked if the Postmaster-General was prepared to accept his Amendment to the Motion regarding the National Telephone Agreement Committee with a view to enabling the Committee to inquire how far the interests of the National Telephone Company's employees were safeguarded.
  LORD STANLEY: I have always said I wished these employees to have an opportunity of expressing their views before the Committee, and I was under

  753
  the belief that the reference would enable that to be done, but as there appears to be some doubt on the subject, I have no hesitation in accepting the Amendment.

  County Councils and Education Expenditure.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having in view Section 18 (1) (c) of the Education Act, 1902, when a county council has paid either the whole or a part of the expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure or rent, on account of the provision or improvement of any public elementary school, out of the county rate, and has charged a half or three-quarters of such expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure or rent upon the pari h or parishes which in the opinion of the council are served by the school, it has been the practice of the Local Government Board auditor to allow such an arrangement.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): With one exception no case has been brought to my notice in which a district auditor has allowed as a charge on a parish under the enactment mentioned in the Question a portion of the expenses incurred in respect of the provision or improvement of a school, in so far as the cost of the work has been defrayed out of current rates and not out of a loan. In the case in which the auditor allowed the charge, he suggested in his report to the county council that the education committee should consider the matter carefully and endeavour to get a definite ruling upon the meaning of the section before making further charges of the description referred to. I may add that I am not aware that any doubt has been felt that the enactment applies to the rent of a school paid out of current rates.

  Swine Fever in Ireland—Removal Orders.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to repeal the Swine Removal Order so far as Ireland is concerned;
  754
  whether he is keeping in correspondence with the Irish Department as to the progress of the disease in Ireland; and when he hopes to be in a position to act in the matter.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey)As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on the 13th April, † I cannot under existing circumstances hold out a hope of the relaxation of the Order at present. The reports we receive go to show that it is working smoothly and well, and it appears to afford the necessary protection against the introduction of disease into Great Britain with a minimum of loss and inconvenience to those concerned. The returns of the number of outbreaks of disease in Ireland are carefully examined by the Board week by week, but no further correspondence has been necessary.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts no inspection at all is carried out?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I have not heard it.
  MR. FLAVIN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is so.

  Light Railways.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state how many light railways have been authorised to be constructed under the Light Railways Act, how many have actually been constructed, what is the annual cost of the Light Railway Commission, and whether it is proposed to renew the Act or to allow, it to terminate.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The length of lines authorised as light railways under the Light Rail ways Act up to the present date is 1,567 miles, and 429 miles have been constructed and opened for traffic. The cost of the Light Railway
  † See (4) Debates, exlv.,68.

  755
  Commission in the financial year 1903–4 was £3,647, and from the commencement of the Act to the end of that year was .£22,991. Some additional expense is incurred by the Board of Trade in dealing with Orders made and submitted to them. The total amount received in fees under the Act to the 31st March, 1904, was £22,750. Proposals for amending and continuing the Act are now before this House.

  Law Officers' Fees.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the total fees paid to Mr. Attorney-General in respect of the Venezuelan Claims Arbitration and the British Guiana Arbitration, and to Mr. Solicitor-General in the cases Rex v. Osborn and others and Rex v. Hooley and Lawson; on whose advice were proceedings instituted in the two last-named cases, and where do the amounts for these and other Law Officers' fees appear on the Estimates.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The total fees paid to the Attorney-General in the Venezuelan and British Guiana Arbitrations respectively were:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Venezuela, 1904–5

  1,736

  4

  6

  British Guiana

  1903–4

  2,124

  0

  0

  1904–5

  714

  12

  0

  2,838

  12

  0

  The total fees paid to the Solicitor-General in Rex v. Osborn and others and Rex v. Hooley and Lawson, respectively, were:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Rex v. Osborn and others

  596

  18

  6

  Rex v. Hooley and Lawson

  1,033

  19

  3

  Rex v. Lawson (Court for Crown Cases Reserved)

  53

  9

  0

  1,087

  8

  3

  These proceedings were instituted by the directions of the Attorney-General. The fees in the Venezuelan Arbitration were paid from the Foreign Office Vote for
  756
  1904–5, and the fees in the British Guiana Arbitration were paid from the Foreign Office Votes for 1903–4 and 1904–5. The fees paid to the Solicitor-General in Rex v. Osborn and others and Rex v. Hooley and Lawson were paid from the Vote for Law Charges, England. All fees paid to the Law Officers are shown in the Statement appended to the Appropriation Account for Law Charges.
  MR. WHITLEY: Do I understand that the Law Officers advise proceedings in the cases in which they subsequently draw fees?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. WHITLEY: Then I take it the Answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amounts of salary, fees, refreshers, and every other consideration paid out of the Treasury to Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Solicitor-General during the two years ending May 15th, 1905.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The information desired by the hon. Member will be found up to March 31st last in the reply I gave on May 8th† to the hon. Member for the South Molten Division of Devonshire. I fear that it is impractical to give details for broken periods of a year.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: But I have asked for information to May 15th.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: It is impossible to give that yet.

  Government Parliamentary Agents. Messrs. Bircham & Co.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the date and nature of the appointment of Mr. Bonner Maurice, of the firm of Messrs. Bircham and Co., Parliamentary Agents, and the amount of his emoluments for services rendered to the Government.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Mr. Bonner Maurice was appointed on
  † See (4) Debates, exlv., 1112.

  757
  November 11th last as one of the Parliamentary Agents for the Government for the current session. The amount of his emoluments depends upon the work done during the session and cannot be stated at present.

  Lake Erne.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the bed and soil of Lake Erne surrounding the town of Enniskillen are claimed to be the property of Lord Enniskillen, and are also claimed by the Commissioners of Woods (Dublin Office) to be the property of the Crown, and that the ownership has been the subject of correspondence for some time past between the parties; and whether, seeing that the Urban Council of Enniskillen is being retarded by this difference in carrying out a projected scheme of sanitation and roadway, he will state what decision, if any, has been arrived at between the claimants.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The matter is under investigation and a decision will be come to as soon as possible.

  Liverpool Court of Passage.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in the event of the County Courts (No. 2) Bill becoming law and rules being framed under Section 6, extending the cases in which judgment may be entered up summarily against a defendant, he intends to grant similar powers by rule to the Liverpool Court of Passage, pursuant to the Liverpool Court of Passage Acts, 1893 and 1896, and the recommendations of the Borough Courts Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): This is not a matter which rests with me. I have communicated in the proper quarter the views of the hon. Member, and I have no doubt they will receive every consideration.

  Richmond Park Rabbits.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First
  758
  Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that rabbits are being exterminated in Richmond Park by being entrapped by gins where they are sometimes kept in agony for hours suffering from mutilation; and whether he can take steps to effect the extermination of the rabbits in a more humane manner.
  LORD BALCARRES: The rabbits are being trapped as being the most effective manner of reducing their excessive numbers. All trapping must inflict pain on the animal; every effort is made to reduce this to a minimum by frequent visits to the traps.

  Higher Grade Secondary School Fees at Stockton on-Tees.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department still adheres to its decision to compel the Stockton-on-Tees educational authority to increase the fees charged in the higher grade secondary school from 3d. per week to £3 per annum per scholar as a condition to continuing the Government grant; and whether, seeing that the educational authority has protested against this decision, which would practically debar the children of the working class from benefiting from the existence of this school, he will state under what authority the Department is seeking to compel a local education authority to increase the fees charged in the school which is supported from the rates.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): A special investigation is now being made into the conditions of the three secondary schools at Stockton-on-Tees. Until this is completed I am unable to give a specific Answer to the Question, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as possible of the decision of the Board. The Board are not concerned with the requirement of a fee as such, but are bound to make such requirements as they consider necessary to secure the financial stability of the school before recognising it as eligible for grants.

  Estates Commissioners—Enlargement of Holdings and Evicted Tenants.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any farms or the interest in any freehold or fee-simple farms have been purchased so far by the Estates Commissioners for the purposes of enlarging holdings or finding equivalent houses for evicted tenants; and whether, in cases where no un-tenanted land is for sale or possible to obtain in a district, he will consider the advisability of extending the powers of the Estates Commissioners to enable them to buy in large grazing farms for this purpose.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I am not quite certain that I understand the Question. The Estates Commissioners have not any power to buy land from a person whose interest is less than that of a limited owner within the meaning of the Act. They have no power to purchase under the Land Purchase Acts the interests of tenants entitled to lesser interests. Where the owner purchases the tenant-right of his tenant, he can, of course, sell the farm as untenanted land to the Commissioners; and applications to purchase such lands have, I understand, been made or are about to be made to the Commissioners. I do not think any additional powers are required to carry oat the policy of the Act.

  Turf Rearing at Inny Junction.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cost of the operations undertaken by the Board of Agriculture at Inny Junction for the rearing of turf; how much of the crop was sold; what sum was realised in respect of the sale; and whether it is proposed to continue the experiment this year.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol S.): The cost was about £1,150, exclusive of the cost of Departmental direction. No produce was sold, as there were no facilities for putting the turf on rail. The experiment is being continued this
  760
  year, and a railway siding and loading bank are being constructed.

  Education in Collooney District.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received copy of a resolution adopted recently at a meeting of clergy and laity held in Luawarry, Collooney, county Sligo, in reference to the educational wants of the district; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in regard to it.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have informed, the hon. Member that if he will send me a copy of the resolution I will inquire into the matter.

  Kilross Evicted Farm.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been in progress for six months between the Estates Commissioners and Count Moore for the purchase of the evicted farm of the late Mr. Matthew Mooney, at Kilross, near Tipperary; and that two inspections have been made; and if he will state whether the Commissioners have as yet completed the purchase; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The facts are as stated. The negotiations for purchase have not yet concluded owing to the owner's absence abroad.
  MR. CULLINAN: I understand the agent has no authority to act. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will bring the complaint of the hon. Member to the notice of the Commissioners.

  Sir Edmund Hayes' Estate, County Donegal.
  MR. McFADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the sale by Sir Edmund Hayes of his estate to his tenants in the county of Donegal, some nine or ten evicted tenants were restored by him to their holdings, and on their restoration signed agreements for purchase under the

  761
  Land Act of 1903; that the landlord's agent has been informed by the Estates Commissioners that the first half-year's interest on the purchase money will not be collected through the Land Commission; that the evicted tenants should not have been restored until the advances had been sanctioned; and that the agent may collect the interest in whatever manner he chooses; and whether, in view of the effect of this ruling of the Commissioners, if persisted in, upon the voluntary and immediate restoration by landlords of evicted tenants to their holdings for purposes of sale under the Land Act, instructions will be given to the Commissioners to withdraw this ruling.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Section 35 of the Act of 1896, which empowers the Land Commission to collect, from the tenant of a holding, interest in lieu of rent from the date of the agreement for the purchase of the holding up to the date of the advance, does not apply to the agreements for "parcels," and the Land Commission have no jurisdiction to collect or recover interest which may, by agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, be payable. There is nothing before the Land Commission to show that the persons referred to are in occupation of their plots, but even assuming that they are, the agreements for purchase of "parcels" only provide for collection of interest from the date of advance until the purchase annuity commences.

  Irish Language in Irish Schools.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of schools examined in Irish as an extra during the period from 1st January, 1905, to 31st March, 1905, upon which the inspector of Irish and the ordinary inspector reported favourably; whether payment has been delayed in some cases; and, if so, what has been the cause of the delay; and when the fees will be paid.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The number was 259. Payment was delayed in some cases as a result of steps taken for the adoption of a uniform school year ending June 30th. The fees have now been
  762
  paid in most cases, and the remainder are in process of payment.

  Aughrim Parish Priest and the Police.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 2nd April Constable Fitzgerald, stationed at Aughrim, county Galway, used threatening and insulting I language on the public road toward the Rev. Father Coghlan, priest of the parish; whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will have him removed to some other district; and whether it is the practice of the constabulary authorities to leave constables stationed in the parish where they have married a parishioner; and, if not, why has this constable been retained in Aughrim.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A complaint to the effect stated was received by the Inspector-General, who found, on inquiry, that on the date in question the rev. gentleman, when publicly reading a list of subscriptions received from his parishioners, announced that the constable had not subscribed. The constable, who asserts that he had subscribed £1, subsequently met the rev. gentleman and spoke to him on the subject; but he emphatically denies having used the language attributed to him. On the contrary, he complains of the clergyman's language towards him. The matter does not call for any interference on the part of the Government. The regulations provide that a constable shall not be stationed in a county in which he or his wife have relatives. That provision has not been contravened in this case, and it is not proposed to remove the constable.
  MR. ROCHE: As there is evidently a conflict of testimony will the right hon. Gentleman grant a sworn inquiry.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly not, but if the hon. Member has any evidence he can furnish me with, I will look into it.
  MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action with regard to the language used by the priest?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Malicious Injury Claims at Galway Quar- ter Sessions.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the list of malicious injury claims for which damages were awarded at Gort (county Galway) Quarter Sessions on 26th April last, which included one for cutting a boat adrift from her moorings, four for pulling down stone walls surrounding grazing farms, one for cutting the tails off cattle, and two for burning hay; whether he is aware that there were also a number of similar claims at the Quarter Sessions Courts at Ballinasloe, Portumna, Galway, and Tuam; and whether these outrages were of an agrarian nature, and what steps the Government is taking to deal with this class of crime in Galway.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the number of cases in which claims for compensation were made at the recent quarter sessions in the county of Galway. Fifteen such claims were made, and compensation was awarded in each case. In two cases, however, appeals have been lodged. I may point out that there were no cases of cutting the tails off cattle, but that there were two cases in which the hair was removed from the tails. Of the fifteen outrages, eleven were of an agrarian character. A considerable force of additional police has been drafted into the county for the protection of the person and property of individuals, and a marked improvement in the condition of affairs has, I am glad to say, since manifested itself throughout the entire county.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Have the police been able to bring anyone to justice?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Were any of the constables in this district ever under the charge of ex-Sergeant Sheridan, who knows more about cattle maiming than anybody else?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Malicious Injuries in County Galway.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a new wooden gate and 100 yards of new fencing were pulled down and destroyed on the farm of Patrick Costelloe, at Ballymacward, county Galway; and that on this farm 500 yards of stone wall were knocked down a few weeks ago, for which £50 was awarded as damages for malicious injury; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to prevent the recurrence of similar damage.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir; the facts are substantially as stated, save that the amount of compensation awarded was £34, not £50. The later of these offences was committed on the 4th of last month, and since that date a force of twenty extra police has been sent to the district concerned, namely, Athenry. Every effort has been made by me, and will continue to be made, to prevent the occurrence of outrage and to protect the property of individuals.

  Land Purchase in County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that negotiations for sale to the tenants were, some time since, almost brought to a conclusion on the estate of Mr. Adam Stafford Delmege, Garryspillane, Knock-long, county Limerick; that the tenants wanted that the untenanted lands on the estate should be sold through the Estates Commissioners to the labourers and tenants renting uneconomic holdings; and that a tenant, named Edmond Murphy, of Ballingarry, has been processed for rent due only six days because he refused to sign purchase agreements, although at the same time he owed only a half year's rent and the running gale; and will he take any steps to prevent further proceedings against Murphy.
  MR. WALTER LONG: An application for the sale of a portion of this estate has been received by the Commissioners, but no agreement for purchase has been lodged by Edmond Murphy, and no untenanted lands were comprised in the

  765
  application. I have no information as to proceedings taken against Murphy, nor have I any power to intervene in any Case of the exercise of legal rights by a landlord.

  Portavogie Disaster.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the possibility of a Government grant to assist the fishermen who are sufferers from the recent disaster at Portavogie.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction were asked by me to make special inquiry into the circumstances attending the disaster referred to, which had been brought before me by my hon. friend and by a deputation from the locality. Their report shows that there are some circumstances of an exceptional character, which enable a contribution to be made towards the expense of repairing the damaged boats without creating a precedent which would cause a larger demand than could properly be met by the limited funds available for all purposes of sea fisheries.

  Land Commission Rules.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the codified rules of the Land Commission now in preparation will be issued.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The new code of rules is being prepared with all possible despatch, but the date of issue cannot yet be fixed.

  Athenry Police Force.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the circumstances under which an extra force of constabulary has been drafted into the district of Athenry, county Galway.
  MR. REDDY: Has the hon. Member got his information from Lord Ashtown?
  MR. WALTER LONG: A system of boycotting and intimidation directed against the holders of grazing farms has been in existence for some time past in the Athenry and other districts of the county Galway. The reletting of grazing farms on the eleven months system usually takes place about May 1st, and on the approach of this date intimidation was exercised against these persons in order to compel them not to renew their grazing contracts. A number of outrages were also committed in furtherance of this movement, and, in the circumstances, it was considered necessary to augment the police force stationed in Athenry and other disturbed areas.

  Irish Dried Milk Industry.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the new industry of dried milk started in Ireland about a year since; and whether, seeing that at present the rate for French dried milk from Louviers viâ Paris, Dieppe, and Newhaven to London is only 30s. per ton, while from Limerick to London it is 47s. 6d., he will consult with the English Board of Agriculture with the view to some remedy being applied to this disadvantage under which the Irish trade suffers.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A complaint has been made to the Department in this matter and is under investigation.

  Delays in Delivery of Limerick Butter.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will have inquiries made as to the cause of the delay in the delivery of a consignment of five cwts. of butter, sent from Limerick on May the 9th to John Thomas, Taffs Well, viâ Cardiff, and not delivered up to Saturday the 13th; and will he say what steps he intends to take to deal with such cases of railway neglect.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department have received a complaint in this matter, and are inquiring into it.
  MR. JOYCE: I hope this inquiry will bear fruit. Personally I am sick of inquiries.

  Irish Local Government Board Auditors
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the Local Government Board auditors in Ireland were previously accountants, or held or hold any certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or any kindred body.
  MR. WALTER LONG: As I informed the hon. Member on Tuesday last,† ten out of the seventeen auditors were accountants prior to appointment, in the sense that they had experience of public accounts. Only one, however, holds a certificate as accountant.

  Constable Masterson, R.I.C.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Constable Masterson, Royal Irish Constabulary, Mountmellick, who has been returned for trial to the next assizes in Queen's County on a charge of assault preferred against him by a man named Carroll, and which is alleged to have been committed at Somergrove, near Mountmellick, and who is at present at liberty under a rule of bail, is still discharging duty as a peace officer in Mountmellick.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Constable Masterson has been suspended from duty since May 2nd.

  Lord Dunraven's Croom Estate.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from the agent of Lord Dunraven with a view to a sale of the houses in the town of Croom, in the county of Limerick, to the town tenants; and whether, having regard to the fact that Lord Dunraven has arranged to sell the agricultural and pastoral part of the estate to the tenants thereof through the Estates Commissioners, and is willing to sell to the Croom town tenants the houses in their occupation, and also having regard to the fact that these tenants are anxious
  † See page 484.
  768
  to buy same under The Land Act, 1903, at a price to be fixed by arbitration, the Estates Commissioners will take steps to purchase the same with a view to resale to these tenants.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The application for sale in respect of this estate does not include the town of Croom, and the Commissioners cannot trace any correspondence with the agent on the subject. The question whether the Commissioners can, under the Land Purchase Acts, buy and resell to the tenants houses situate in towns, is one for the determination of the Commissioners, instructed by and subject to the review of Mr. Justice Meredith. I understand that a case in which this point is raised is at present before the learned Judge.

  Kerry Evicted Tenant-Mr. Daniel Casey.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in rendering assistance to Mr. Daniel Casey, a reinstated evicted tenant on the Coltsmann Estate, county Kerry, about whose circumstances the Estates Commissioners are fully informed for over a year at least.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are not yet in a position to sanction the advances for the sale of this estate, and in the meantime they are unable to make the grant recommended in the case of Daniel Casey. It is, however, anticipated that the advances will shortly be sanctioned.

  Constable Reddy, R.I.C.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what was the result of the recent investigation held at Mountmellick by order of the Inspector-General of Constabulary into the charge made against Constable Reddy of using offensive and insulting expressions towards respectable residents of the town; and whether, seeing that this policeman was obliged to make a public apology before the County Court Judge at Mountmellick within the past twelve months, in a case in which he was charged with assaulting and using insulting

  769
  language towards a resident in the town (which offence was alleged to have been committed outside complainant's door), he proposes that the services of Constable Reddy should be retained in Mountmellick.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have received a report on this case, but have not yet had time to look into it. I would ask the hon. Member to kindly postpone the Question for a few days.

  Irish Development Grant.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Lord-Lieutenant on the Development Grant will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Report for 1904–5 is now under consideration, and will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to submit a revised Estimate of the Irish Development Grant.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What is the cause of the delay in submitting it?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid the reason is to be found in the necessity of examining the Estimates personally. I am dealing with each application as rapidly as I can.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Prime Minister to give us a day for the discussion of the revised Estimate?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will do my best to secure an adequate opportunity.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not mean an ordinary Irish Supply day, but a special day.

  Cushendall Water Supply.
  MR. O'NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Local Government Board of Ireland are
  770
  taking, or intend to take, to enforce the carrying out of the sealed Order, dated May 15th, 1903, which ordered the Rural District Council of Ballycastle, in the county of Antrim, to provide a supply of wholesome water and proper sewerage for the village of Cushendall in their district, this Order having been made after an inquiry instituted by the Local Government Board, the result of which was a condemnation of the sanitary arrangements of Cushendall.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The delay in this case has been mainly due to proceedings in the superior Courts. A new Order was made on the 8th April last, and the district council are now preparing plans for the necessary works.

  Galway Telegraph Office.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to the public in Galway City by the want of an intermediate telegraph office, the present ones being at least one mile apart; and whether he will take steps to establish one in connection with the present sub-office in Dominick Street.
  LORD STANLEY: My attention has not previously been called to this matter, but it was considered by one of my predecessors in 1902, and he came to the conclusion that a telegraph office was not warranted in Dominick Street as the total telegraph business of Galway was not large, and the head office was within half a mile. I regret that I am unable to take a different view.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Is the noble Lord aware that the business has considerably developed since 1902?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think it has. I inquired into that, and still hold that my predecessor's decision was right.

  Enniskillen Postal Arrangements.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, some time ago, letters from Belleek, Pettigo, Kesh, and Irvinestown were delivered in Enniskillen about two o'clock in the afternoon, and that now

  771
  letters from these towns are not delivered in Enniskillen till about 8.20 p.m., when business of the day is over; and will he state why the early delivery was abandoned; and whether he will arrange to have the letters delivered at the former time.
  LORD STANLEY: It is the fact that until about a year ago mail bags were despatched to Enniskillen from the places referred to at about midday, but it was then found that so little use was made of the service by the public that the maintenance of the bags was not warranted. Instructions were therefore given for their discontinuance, and I regret that I am unable to restore them.

  Mr. Roche and the Police.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, in accordance with private notice, whether, having regard to the Answer he gave on Monday, based on the report of a county inspector of constabulary—an Answer impugning the veracity of a Member of the House—he will read aloud to the House the later report that he has received from the inspector, so as to give to it the same publicity as that given to the first statement.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I doubt whether it would be in order to read aloud an Answer which has already been printed and circulated with the Votes this morning. It would not be desirable to give Answers a second time in this way.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The matter is of the gravest importance, as it involves the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for repeating false information supplied to him and impugning the veracity of an hon. Member. The question is not whether the right hon. Gentleman will read his printed Answer to the House, but whether he will read the report from the police which the right hon. Gentleman has now received, and which bears out in substance and almost in detail the statement of the hon. Member for East Galway. The right hon. Gentleman is asked to do so in order to give as much publicity to this second report as to the
  772
  false statement to which, inadvertently, no doubt, he gave currency the other day.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I can only deal with this matter by the consent of the House. The case has been put in a somewhat unfair way as regards my Answer. I repudiate the suggestion that I have communicated false information to the House. I communicated the report I received from the police.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I made no personal accusation.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yesterday a Question was placed on the Paper by the hon. Member asking whether further information had been received. That Question was not asked, and I received no intimation that it was desired to postpone it. I had, therefore, no alternative but to follow the rules of the House and circulate my Answer with the Votes. I cannot now read again an Answer based entirely on the report of the county inspector, but I agree that, where the personal veracity of an hon. Member is concerned, it is desirable that the utmost publicity should be given to any statement on the subject. If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper, so that I may deal with it, I will take any opportunity within the rules of the House to see that the utmost publicity is given to my Answer.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will read the inspector's report?
  MR. WALTER LONG: There must be no misunderstanding. My business is to make a reply for which I am wholly responsible. I base that reply on the information which I receive from the members of the Executive Government; but it is within my discretion whether I read the reports that I receive or not.

  Prime Minister's Speech on Imperial Defence.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it can be arranged that an authorised report of his speech on 11th instant, as President of the Committee of Imperial Defence, shall be

  773
  issued to Members of both Houses of Parliament, and of the Indian and Colonial Governments; and also circulated in all naval and military commands for purposes of general information.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): If my hon. friend's suggestion is that the report of my speech should be made into a printed document and be published and circulated at the public expense, I think that would be a novel and not a good practice to set up. I believe that long custom authorises that procedure in the case of the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, on the whole, we should do well to confine our procedure to that case and not extend it If I am able to revise the speech I shall be glad to give a copy to any one who takes an interest in the subject.

  Imperial Defence—Discussions in Parliament.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of proposing some method by which the House shall be put in possession of conclusions upon broad principles of policy, controlling expenditure and arrangements for Imperial defence, arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence, before and not after Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy and Army Estimates are discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with my hon. friend in thinking that as far as this year is concerned there might have been a distinct convenience in having a discussion on item E of the Treasury Vote, but it was absolutely impossible to carry the arrangement out this year. Nor do I see how it can be carried out in another year without a drastic change in our procedure. I should rather deprecate having annual discussions on these large questions of Imperial defence and strategy. I deferred my statement as long as I could, but it was clear from the debates on the Votes for the Army and the Navy that it
  774
  was necessary to make a statement this year.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility, in case decisions of importance are arrived at by the Committee, of issuing to Parliament a statement of the broad conclusions by means of a Memorandum similar to the Memorandum issued on the Navy and Army Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that suggestion is well worth consideration.

  The Unemployed Bill.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that arrangements have been made for 700 unemployed workmen in Leicester to begin a march to London on Sunday next, to demand work from the Government; and that arrangements are in progress for similar demonstrations from Glasgow, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham; and whether, in view of the hardship which these men and their wives and children are enduring, he will take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Unemployed Bill on an early date so as to ensure that the measure shall become law this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard of the report to which the hon. Member refers, but I am of opinion that the arrangements of this House in regard to its own business ought not to be modified in one way or the other by any external demonstrations.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question—whether he will take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Unemployed Bill at an early date, so as to ensure its becoming law this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not answer the last part of the Question because it seemed inseparably bound up with the first part, and I was unwilling that the House should suppose from my Answer that we ought in the smallest, degree to be influenced by the facts of

  775
  which the hon. Member has given an indication. But as he now puts a separate Question, I may assure him that I have every desire and expectation of seeing this Bill passed into law this session, and I should regard it as a great misfortune if it were not passed.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a date for the Second Reading? In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's deprecation of these demonstrations, my statement was that it is only force that carries any measure through this House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take exactly the opposite view to the hon. Gentleman. It is not force that carries measures through. I hope it is a reasoned, cautious public opinion; and, in my judgment, any such demonstration of force as he describes is inimical to the prospects of the Bill becoming law, and not favourable to them.
  MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman exclude from his mind the consideration whether there are any demonstrations or not, and, realising the need for this Bill, will he give us a simple Answer to a Question asked in a law-abiding way? There is no more force about this than there was about the Brewers' Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not hear of the brewers marching up to London.
  MR. SHACKLETON: The brewers' demonstration was behind you.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not I who introduced the subject of these demonstrations, but the hon. Member who put the Question, as he will find if he reads the Question. The hon. Member cannot ask me to say more than that it is my earnest hope and belief that the Bill will become law in the present session.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing the grave evils which the introduction of this Bill has already
  776
  brought about, he will consider the possibility of at once withdrawing it?
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I will repeat this Question at an early date. Perhaps, as a personal explanation, I may be allowed to say that I am not advocating force. I am only pointing out that these men have grown desperate, and, seeing the indifference with which this measure is treated, have no resource but force.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make a recommendation to these unemployed poor people to withdraw their pennies from the bank of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Islington?

  Militia Bill.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the Second Reading of the Militia Bill will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot fix a day.

  Local Government Board Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state on what day he will take the discussion in Supply on the Local Government Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to give an absolute pledge, but I hope to be able to take this Vote this day fortnight.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And Irish. Supply is to be taken this day week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that is so.

  Reorganisation of the Local Government Board.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state what progress has been made in the proposed reorganisation of the Local Government Board; and if he could indicate to the House the outline of the changes which he proposes, should be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the Bill may be introduced without any very long delay. It is in an advanced state of preparation.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the business will be next week after Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At present I can only say I cannot flatter myself we shall complete the Budget Bill on Monday, and therefore we shall have to take it on Tuesday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask at the rising of the House with regard to Wednesday.

  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
  Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 168.]
  Bill as amended (in Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

  SUPPLY [7TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,905,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham)said that, in view of the modest character of the Estimate this year, his remarks would be brief. The effective portion of the Vote, that which was allotted to actual works, showed a considerable decrease—£110,574. The only items which showed a substantial increase were under Naval barracks, General Fleet Services. This increase was mainly owing to the new quarters at Whale Island and the provision of depôts for submarine boats. There was also a small increase in the item for naval armaments, which was due to the provision of torpedo ranges at Hong-Kong and Malta. The other main increase was for grants in aid of works. This item was accounted for by the fact that the New South Wales Government had agreed to provide, free of cost, the storage accommodation required by the Navy for Victualling services in Australia; but it was not convenient to them to pay that sum at once; and as the Admiralty were very anxious that the work should be begun at once, they had agreed to advance the money in the first place, the whole of it being repaid in annual instalments spread over the next five years. With these exceptions, every item in the Vote showed a decrease as compared with the Estimates last year, and every effort had been made to reduce the expenditure on naval works to the lowest possible figure compatible with efficiency. The only other salient point which he wished to draw attention to was with regard to the administration of expenditure under the Loans Act. In agreement with a desire expressed by the Committee last year, arrangements were now being made to amalgamate the Works Department proper and the Works Loans Department, and by this means he hoped that an economy of about £20,000 a year would be effected.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not complain of the brevity of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman: indeed, he thought he would follow his example in that respect. Probably the most important thing in his statement was to be found in the concluding sentences, wherein he told them that the

  779
  administration under the Naval Works Loan Act, and under the Naval Works were to be amalgamated. The original division of responsibility was the outcome of a well-considered scheme having economy for its object; and yet, although the works under the Loans Act had grown more extensive, a new policy had been introduced, and it had been suggested that it would be more economical to return to the old system, and to have the statutory works as well as the loan works under the same supervision.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: The change, in the first place, was not made on the ground of economy but from sheer necessity, because the Works Department of the day was small and not capable of dealing with great works. Now it has been gradually built up, and it has been possible, as well as compatible with economy, to reduce the two separate staffs and combine them into one.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONrepeated his suggestion that economy was the ground put forward for the original change. He further desired to know when the next Naval Works Bill would be introduced into the House. It was about time, he thought, they got information. He forgot whether any statement had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else as to the anticipated amount that would be asked for under the new Naval Works Bill, and he certainly hoped that they would get the information of the total estimated expenditure during the financial year just beginning. It was quite true that, apart from the increase in annuities and one or two other developments, there had been a decrease in the normal expenditure of the department amounting to £110,000. But he would like to know whether any portion of that reduction was attributable in any way to the new scheme of naval policy. He found that in the case of Jamaica there was a considerable item of £105,000 for a new official residence there. That was a large amount for a house, especially when they remembered that Jamaica was specifically mentioned in the last Memorandum as about to be reduced from its old status. Why, when the Admiralty were proposing
  780
  to degrade Jamaica from its present status as a naval station, should they be asking for such an enormous sum for an official residence? He would like further to know whether the hon. Gentleman was prepared to make any statement in regard to what was being done or to be done at Rosyth?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: An undertaking has been given that the sum of £200,000 already voted shall not be exceeded.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was afraid he could not accept the hon. Member for King's Lynn as a conclusive authority, and he must press the Admiralty for an Answer to this Question. At any rate, could they confirm the hon. Member's statement?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in the Report on the Appropriation Account it was specifically stated that the £200,000 was not to be exceeded.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid his hon. friend was quite mistaken. They were pledged, certainly, not to spend more than the £200,000 voted under the last Loans Bill during the existence of that Bill, but it was never supposed for one moment that they were going to create a naval base in Scotland for the total sum of £200,000. That sum, or the greater portion of it, had been spent mainly on the purchase of the site, and in due course, later in the session, when the Loan Bill of 1905 was introduced, he would lay before the House the full proposals of the Government for the development of the site, and ask the sanction of the House for the necessary expenditure.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he believed the amount paid for the site was £170,000, and he was glad to know that when the Naval Works Loan Bill was brought in they would hear a little more as to the intentions of the Admiralty. He accepted that as a pledge on the hon. Gentleman's part that they would have a careful estimate of the proposed expenditure on that new naval base. He hope that the Naval Works Bill would be produced as early as possible, and that they would be

  781
  given as much information at the present time as could be given, so that they might get some intelligible idea as to the extent of the naval budget they were dealing with.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that certainly his memory was very distinct that the Report on the Appropriation Accounts and the Papers connected therewith contained an absolute pledge that no more money than the £200,000 already voted should be expended. It was his surprise at finding that which caused him to mention it that day. Now he understood he was entirely mistaken, and possibly the official through whom that assurance was conveyed was also mistaken. Were they to take it that the expenditure of that £200,000 was only to apply to the end of the present year, and, if so, were they to have some tremendous expenditure corresponding to that upon Gibraltar or some other first-class naval base? If that were so, he looked on it as a very serious matter. It was a serious adumbration of the intentions of the Admiralty in regard to that site. The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty must be aware that it had been generally thought that Rosyth was to be abandoned. It was true that he had denied that statement within the last few days, but they were left for some time under the impression, conveyed through the ordinary channels of information—the Press—that an alteration had taken place in the policy of the Admiralty and that Rosyth was to be abandoned. Now they were told that it was not to be abandoned, and he supposed they were to have an expenditure of some millions incurred upon it. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would say at once that it was only proposed to spend a small sum in addition to the £200,000, he would make no further remarks, but if the outlay was to amount to some millions, he assured him that the proposal would meet with his most uncompromising resistance, and he trusted he would be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House in opposing the creation of a naval base which was unnecessary, which was strategically false and mischievous, and which would prove an enormous additional burden to that now placed upon
  782
  the country by this monstrous system of Naval Loans Acts.
  Now he came to the statement that the two administrative bodies were to be amalgamated—the Naval Works Loans and the administrative staff. He did not quite understand why that was not done before, and he confessed it aroused suspicion in his mind. Apparently the Naval Works Loans Department, instead of being temporary, was to be made permanent. He saw a very serious objection to that because it would saddle the country permanently with salaries which it had been anticipated they would get rid of when the loan works were completed, and it would also saddle the country with pensions. In the alternative, they would have to face this position, that the Admiralty engaged on permanent conditions, with the permanent advantages of permanent Civil servants, this staff, when they professedly were only to be engaged on work which in its nature was temporary, and was in due course to come to an end. If that were so, it indicated a determination on the part of the Admiralty to go on with Naval Works Loans Acts for an indefinite period. Surely some further explanation was required in regard to that. He would not go into the question of Jamaica. It was a very serious one, but it was only one among many questions of the same nature, Why, although the Admiralty were going to abandon that station, they were, nevertheless, incurring increasing expenditure in regard to it, was a thing which ought to be inquired into. Of course, it might be they were only fulfilling undertakings already entered into, but some further information was required. He wished to say, in conclusion, that the whole of this system of naval works by loan was a most monstrous and false system, and that in the case of Rosyth a tremendous blunder had been made. If the House was to be asked for a large sum in addition to the £200,000 already voted he certainly should most strongly oppose it.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he took some interest in the matter of Rosyth in the earlier stages, and he thought the House was now in possession

  783
  of one of the most important intimations they had ever yet had in regard to naval works. He understood the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to promise the full proposals of he Government in regard to Rosyth when the Naval Works Bill came to be discussed.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: What I said was that I could make no statement about Rosyth, as regards the future, until the Naval Works Loans Bill was introduced, but that I would lay then whatever proposals the Government had in regard to it before the House.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that exactly illustrated the position in which the House of Commons stood. He did not think his hearing was defective, but he certainly had understood the hon. Gentleman to promise them that when the Naval Works Bill was introduced he would give them the full proposals of the Government. Now they were told they were only to have such proposals as were in the mind of the Government, and there was some difference in that, because then they would only have the proposals up to a certain extent. The fact was that the Government at the present moment did not know what it was going to do with Rosyth as a naval base. It had entered on a large transaction, and it had bought property at a ridiculous and even at a scandalous price from the landed proprietor—it had paid eighty-five years purchase for that tract of land. He challenged that transaction at the time, and he still challenged is as a notable instance of how the Government had failed to use its Parliamentary powers for the acquisition of land, and had, in consequence, had to pay a much higher price than they ought to have done. He did not lay any blame on the landed proprietor, because having a soft Government to deal with he had extorted a very substantial price.
  He would like to explain what was the local position in regard to Rosyth, and he wished to do it now in order that it might not be said when the Naval Works Loan Bill came forward that he had made any reservation
  784
  in regard to the local interests involved. There were important local as well as national interests concerned. The county of Fife had furnished itself with a water supply, and the Government had become responsible for one-third of the cost of a not inconsiderable water scheme for supplying the population which was to be at this naval base. But he wanted to know where was that population, when was it to be there, would it be there within this decade or the next decade or even within the next generation? He believed that, unless they had another ridiculous outbreak of Jingoism in the country it would be postponed for at least half a century. That was the situation. The base had been projected, but the works which were to be established on it were now going to be postponed. The late Secretary to the Admiralty on one occasion spoke of Rosyth as an eventual base. He would like to know what was meant by that? It was not an eventual purchase of the site. They had not merely obtained the right to acquire the land and to hold it in reserve. The locality were led to believe there would be an increase of population, and the county and the locality arranged their business in view of present and future requirements. If the statement as to its being an eventual base had been made at the beginning the locality would not have formed the expectations as to the increase of the population which it had been led to form, and would not have made arrangements on the assumption that the Government meant prompt business. The fact was, the whole of this transaction was a sample of the way in which the Government went on. It was a spendthrift Government; it mismanaged its business; it started on a scheme and then found that it was not sufficiently urgent to be proceeded with.
  He held a very strong opinion that the whole of this scheme of naval works was opposed to the general financial system of the country. When the Naval Works Bill came forward they would get nothing but vague words about eventualities, and the one fact would stand out that the land had been acquired by the Government at a rate only justifiable on the assumption of instant and urgent need.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, as regarded the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he thought the hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact with regard to Rosyth that it was a total Vote of £200,000, and it was taken as a total Vote, because at that time no estimate either as to time or money could be given in respect of it, and what the House complained of then was the fact that the total proposal was made on the promise of something, the effect of which could not be foreseen. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundee as to the question of procedure in this House and the policy pursued with respect to loans for works. He thought if the Navy was to be sufficiently economically administered it must be on the basis of broad facts and broad principles, and his complaint was that they could not get from the Admiralty any clear statement of those principles by reason of the methods by which this House was approached for money. The whole thing was chopped up into little bits and they were never shown the whole account. He was sorry that they had a prospect of another demand being made for naval loans, following and not preceding the Naval Estimates, on this Works Vote. He did not think it was in the interest of the Navy or in the interests of the Admiralty. He had every confidence in the Admiralty himself, and had had for many years, and he believed they did work on broad principles, but they were open to the suspicion, and recent facts had increased the suspicion he had before, that they had taken action without due consideration with regard to this matter. The House, in his opinion, was placed in a very difficult position for discussing the Works Vote, because they had not the whole policy of the Admiralty before them.
  To complete his observations upon the expenditure upon this matter, he might say that the Memorandum recently issued was an exposition of the world-wide policy which would have to be contemplated by this country, yet we were abolishing, or, rather, largely reducing, and in fact taking the ground that certain bases were not necessary. He did not wish to go over the whole of them, but let them take
  786
  the case of Jamaica, which had been mentioned. The House would recollect that in the Memorandum dealing with this distribution of bases, the West Indian station was described as extending from the Equator to the Pole. That gave a very graphic description of the extent of the area, and they must remember that in that area the operations of commerce and trade which affected us were very great, and when they came to compare Rosyth on the one side with Jamaica on the other there was something incongruous in the position. The North Sea was not large when they considered the very small area of the German Ocean and all the waters to the eastward of England and to the westward of Europe as compared with the area between the Equator and the Pole. It was certainly incongruous when they were told the base at Jamaica was to be abolished because it was not wanted; that in these days of steam it was too near England; but that when they came to the German Ocean the contention of the Government was that Portsmouth was too far off, and that another base must be established within a few hours, steaming distance further north. He merely indicated that to establish his contention that our naval policy must be founded on broad principles, and based on a broad policy which had regard to the whole world and dealt with large areas. Therefore, this question could not be dealt with by the House unless the whole policy was before them.
  He noticed in this Vote there was a charge for the fifteenth instalment in aid of a dock at Halifax. Now the arrangements had totally altered since the time when the last Estimate was placed before the House with regard to the relations of this country, and of the Admiralty, to Halifax. So far as the garrison there was concerned, the Imperial business of providing for its defence was to be taken over by the Dominion Government, and so far as the policy of the Admiralty was concerned, it was to reduce expenditure and to create a sort of cadre. What that meant he did not know, and therefore he thought the House was entitled to have a real explanation of the meaning that was put to this new word "cadre," because a

  787
  dock was part of the appliances necessary for any sort of naval base. They were therefore entitled to press for information as to what exactly was going to happen under this system of cadre. What was going to happen to the machinery there? What was going to happen to the dock? Who was to be responsible, for its upkeep? and who was to pay for it?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge)said this was no question of a dockyard. The dock was a private dock and the instalments were paid in order to secure, if necessary, the prior use of it.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was perfectly well aware of what his hon. friend stated, but whether it was a private dock or not, the fact of subsidising it was sufficient reason for seeing why that arrangement was made and they should have once and for all some explanation of the meaning of this new word cadre as applied to naval bases. Another point on which he desired some explicit information was the item of £88,000 for buildings on Whale Island for the accommodation of sub-lieutenants. Of late the policy of the Admiralty had been to get the officers and men more on the water, more often afloat, than used to be the case. Was it not the fact that our "nucleus of crews" system and our new rules with regard to the distribution of the Fleet as it affected the personnel had not had the effect of diminishing the numbers requiring barrack accommodation? and was it not the case that the Government had built close to Whale Island at immense cost a most luxurious barrack?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEwas understood to assent.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid in that case he wanted to have it clearly proved that this expenditure on bricks and mortar on Whale Island was really necessary. He quite admitted that a great deal of time was lost by young officers having to go from the Naval College right through the dockyard to Whale Island, but he could not think that all this expenditure on bricks and mortar was necessary, and inasmuch as he had
  788
  raised his voice against expenditure of this kind for many years, he must press for this explanation. What he wanted to know was whether the result of the system of nucleus crews and the new distribution of the personnel had not reduced the occupation of barracks, upon which £2,500,000 had recently been spent. It was not right that this question of naval works and buildings should be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. The whole matter should be placed before the House and an opportunity afforded of fairly considering the principles of the policy upon which the Government were acting.
  *MR. McCRAEthought the Cotnmiitee had a right to complain of the perfunctory way in which this Vote had been introduced. No one would have imagined from the statement of the Civil Lord that a sum of £1,900,000 was involved. In 1899 the Vote amounted to only £730,000, so that in seven years it had increased nearly three-fold. The hon. Member would probably say that it was largely due to the annuities for the payment of advances, but that simply added force to the complaints which had been made against the policy of Naval and Military Works Bills. The Estimate for repayment had increased from £630,000 last year to over £1,000,000 this year, and that he took to be entirely due to expenditure already incurred and debt already created. If that were so, the indebtedness on account of naval works had been increased during the year by £5,000,000. This was borne out by the National Debt Return, which showed that the outstanding debt under Naval Works had grown from £11,000,000 in 1904 to £16,000,000. He submitted that it was not fair that expenditure of this amount should be made after the introduction of the Estimates for the year. The Committee was now considering the Naval Estimates, but they had not yet seen the Works Bill for the expenditure to be incurred daring the present year. That was bad finance, as it did not give the House any idea as to the expenditure actually to be incurred. A further reason why the Naval Works. Bill should be introduced before the Naval Estimates were passed was that it dealt not merely with new works but

  789
  with the completion of works to which the House was already committed. The policy of dealing piecemeal with naval expenditure ought to come to an end, and the Committee ought to have a clear statement of the responsibilities to be incurred during the financial year before the financial year began.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdesired to revert to the statement he made earlier in the afternoon. He remarked then that the Admiralty had pledged themselves not to spend more than £200,000 on Rosyth, but the representative of the Admiralty denied it. He had now the document with him and would read the evidence of Colonel Raban and Major Pilkington given before the Public Accounts Committee in 1904, and the Treasury Minute thereon. The Committee asked—
  "In that way we are giving you more and more latitude, and the House of Commons is having less control."
  To which the Admiralty witness replied—
  "At Rosyth you gave us authority to undertake work to the extent of £200,000, and no liability has been incurred beyond the £200,000. We have pledged ourselves that we shall not incur liabilities in excess of that, and the Treasury hold us to that. That is the obligation upon us."
  The Treasury Minute, dated November 30th, 1904, dealing with this matter stated—
  "The Committee express the opinion that Parliament should not be asked on a token Vote of a few thousand pounds to commit itself to the construction of a new work of which the total cost may run into millions and of which not even an approximate estimate is submitted. My Lords, while entirely concurring with the principle of the Committee's observations, do not admit that in practice Parliament has been so committed. In connection, for example, with the token provision of £50,000 in the Naval Works Act of 1903 for Chatham Dockyard Extension, my Lords in Treasury Letter of June 25th last stated that they do not accept the contention that Parliament has sanctioned this service in principle, further than to provide the above-mentioned sum for preliminary work. Similarly with regard to Rosyth the Admiralty representative before the Committee stated: 'At Rosyth you gave us authority to undertake work to the extent of £200,000, and no liability has been incurred beyond the £200,000. We have pledged ourselves that we shall not incur liabilities in excess of that.'"
  Did the Admiralty pledge themselves to that now?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Certainly not without the especial authority of Parliament.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that when he stated that the Admiralty had pledged themselves that they would not incur liabilities beyond £200,000 it was denied, but he submitted that he had now made good his assertion. Of course if the Admiralty got further authority from Parliament they could incur expenditure of £100,000,000 or £1,000,000,000. The Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury, and the official superiors of the two representatives of the Admiralty on the Treasury Bench, had stated that Parliament was not to be considered as committed to a large expenditure on a mere token Vote of £200,000. To placate the Committee the Admiralty witnesses stated that they had not incurred, and would not incur, liabilities beyond the £200,000, and when the hon. Gentlemen below him came—if they dared to come—and asked for an expenditure of three, four, five, or six million pounds on Rosyth, he would call upon their official superiors and the Treasury to make good the pledge they had given with regard to the £200,000. His belief was that the difficulties which this House might interpose in the way of the execution of the lunatic scheme for a naval base at Rosyth would be as nothing compared with those that the Admiralty would meet with when they went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was startled by the statement of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the Admiralty had pledged themselves never to spend more than £200,000 at Rosyth.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not use the word "never."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that no Department could pledge themselves to incur liabilities beyond the amount sanctioned by Parliament. It was true that at the time of the purchase of the Chilian warships the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed an act of illegality behind the back of Parliament, and he had to come to Parliament for an indemnity. The

  791
  language used by the Treasury and quoted by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was not quite of the same character as that now used by the Secretary to the Admiralty. This was an important financial question, and it now appeared to have become a Treasury matter. If the statement which had been read as to the Treasury policy in regard to this matter had any other meaning to that given by the Secretary to the Admiralty the House ought to know whether there was any other interpretation to be put upon it besides that which had been stated by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. This being a Treasury matter, and the Treasury having given a pledge to one of the Committees of the House, he appealed to the hon. Gentleman to let the representatives of the Treasury know in order that they might inform the House what their policy was.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that the statement read out by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was given by the witness in answer to a question. He did not think this was a point on which it was necessary for the Treasury to intervene, for there was nothing whatever behind the answer. It merely emphasised the fact that the Admiralty, with or without the Treasury authority, had no intention of doing anything which would put them during the currency of the present Loan Bill to any expenditure beyond the £200,000 authorised by Parliament.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had not gone into the whole, matter of these token Votes, because three such Votes had been taken. It was clear from the answer given before the Public Accounts Committee that the House was not committed to construct either the Rosyth or the Chatham docks. The Admiralty were bound not to exceed in two years £200,000 for Rosyth. As a matter of fact they had not exceeded that amount at Rosyth, but they had exceeded the amount voted in the two other token Votes. For the coastguard naval stations £50,000 was taken, but the Admiralty spent £89,000, and they had to go to the Treasury to permit them to
  792
  exceed the £50,000, and the Treasury gave them permission. The Chatham Dock extension was an exact parallel to the Rosyth case, for they got permission to spend £50,000, but they actually incurred liabilities amounting to £70,000. The Admiralty again went to the Treasury, but this time the Treasury stood out against their demand. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how he reconciled that with the statement contained in the Paper issued that morning with regard to the Chatham Dock extension. This form of finance was a very bad one, and they had often protested against it, and he hoped there would be an alteration in the mode of drawing up Loan Bills which had been adopted by the present Government.
  He was disappointed with the meagre statement made by the Civil Lord in introducing this Vote. The fundamental objection they took to this method of procedure was that they had not really before them anything like the full proposals of the Government with regard to the naval works of the year. What was put before them was a mere fraction of the expenditure upon the naval works with which they were dealing. They were not only without details as to the sum to be taken, but also as to the actual amount to be taken. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should conform to the practice of his predecessors and tell them what amounts were wanted for military and naval works during the present year, so that they might know what were the obligations of the country in this respect. The Admiralty had not only departed from the system of making a full statement, but they had also adopted the practice of introducing their Bills later, when the House could not give them the consideration they deserved. This was a Vote which he should like to see largely increased in order that the country might be made aware of what was actually being spent. For the year ending March 31st this year they had spent £3,500,000 in naval works, and that made an expenditure during the year of £5,000,000 for naval works. Let them assume that the expenditure under this heading for the

  793
  current year would be the same as in the past year. In that case if they really wanted to realise what the country was being called upon for naval works they would find that it was not £2,000,000 they were voting, but £5,500,000. Why should the Government conceal this matter from the consideration of the House? It was all due to the mischievous system of introducing this form of loan expenditure.
  In many cases there was no distinction whatever between the character of the expenditure under the Loan Acts and the expenditure in the Navy Estimates. There were certain very large works for which there might be some justification in asking that they should be carried out by loan and repaid after a considerable period of years, but anyone who examined the Loans Act would find that there was expenditure of an identical character both under the Naval Estimates and under the Loans Act. The Admiralty asked for £40,000 or £50,000 in the Estimates for dredging, and he observed that last year they spent £120,000 for the same purpose under the Loans Act. Why should these two charges be separated? Why should not both be charged on the annual Votes? It had been stated that the charge in one case was in regard to the construction of a new dockyard, and that, therefore, the Admiralty were justified in charging the expenditure to the Loan Fund. That reason would not stand criticism for a moment in view of what should be the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure of the taxpayers' money for certain specific purposes. There were no hospitals on the Loan Fund. Why should they all be on the annual Votes and none on the Loan Fund? Barracks were sometimes on the Loan Fund and sometimes on the Votes. There was a certain amount of torpedo expenditure in the loan account and another amount in the Vote now before the Committee. Why should not the whole sum for these specific purposes be included in one item? For many years past there had been an item for coaling stations in various parts of the world, but there was none this time. He was naturally a little suspicious at the disappearance of that item. Did it mean that there was no longer to be any sum asked for coaling depôts at home
  794
  and abroad? Did it mean that they policy of the Admiralty in this matter was to borrow the money in future? That would be a step in the wrong direction. He was beginning to hope that they were retracing their steps in the right direction.
  The extravagance of which he complained tended to a confusion of the accounts and made it impossible for the House of Commons really to understand what was being taken out of the taxpayers' pockets for different specific purposes. It also introduced laxity of control. An item was introduced one year in the Votes, and the work to which the money was to be applied was not constructed, or only half constructed, and then the item disappeared from the Votes. The House of Commons did not notice these omissions from the Votes, but a year or two afterwards they found that the items had been transferred to the Loan Fund. Could anything be worse than that? He instanced the case of a store which was to be erected at the Cape at a cost of £2,000. It disappeared from the Estimates, and they afterwards learned from the Comptroller and Auditor General that the charge was transferred to the Loan Fund. It was ridiculous that this rich country when erecting a trumpery store at a cost of £2,000 should not pay outright instead of spreading it over a number of years. When the Vote now before the Committee was under discussion a couple of years ago he pressed the then Secretary to the Admiralty for details of an item in regard to the purchase of land. The hon. Gentleman replied that it would be very inexpedient to give the information because it might spoil the market. He could not help agreeing with that contention. They now found that the Vote included, among other things, £4,000 for the purchase of a church and parsonage at Portsmouth. It might be very right and proper that there should be for the benefit of the seamen and others a church and parsonage, but he should like to ask why this charge was puts on the Votes. In the Vote they were discussing to-day there were items for two churches, and the Committee had, therefore, an opportunity of expressing their opinion about them. It was originally proposed to pay for the

  795
  church and parsonage at Portsmouth out of money included in the Estimates. He did not know for what reason the charge was taken out of the Votes and put on the Loan Fund. The church and parsonage at Portsmouth were now to be purchased for £5,000, and the payment of the money was to be spread over thirty years. The whole thing was to be charged to the extension of Portsmouth Dockyard. Was that a fair and honest way of treating the House of Commons? He thought the whole of this system ought to be done away with, and that they should return to the former practice of the House, which was to put the Naval Works expenditure on the Votes of the year. There were some signs that the Government were disposed to take steps in that direction. There were considerable sums for new works now included in the Votes which three or four years ago would have been put on the Loan Fund. This showed that the promise given by the Secretary to the Admiralty two years ago was beginning to bear some fruit. The promise was that in the Naval Loans Bill for the future no new works would be introduced. Here they had new works on the Vote for the year, and it seemed as if they were returning to a saner system for the future. He hoped there would be presented to the House at an early date the Naval Works Bill in order that they might be able to examine the details, and have an opportunity of considering them in all their bearings.
  As to the dockyards at Jamaica, Halifax, and Esquimault, hon. Members would observe that the columns with regard to personnel in the Estimates were blank, but there was still to be a staff retained at Bermuda. The garrison at Bermuda was very largely reduced, and he thought the Committee should get from the Civil Lord a statement of what was proposed to be done there in future. What was the policy of the Government with regard to all these dockyards in future? From a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury it appeared that the amount expended on naval works during the ten years ending March 31st, 1904, at Bermuda, Halifax, Jamaica, and Esquimault was £609,000. That was in addition to the military expenditure at these places, which was very great indeed. They
  796
  were now told that after all this expenditure these bases were practically to be given up. There was no charge in the Vote for caretakers, and he wished to know how the buildings and works were to be kept in proper repair unless there was a staff to look after them.
  MR. JOHN DEWARsaid he wanted to know what the Admiralty were doing in regard to the erection of batteries in the Western Highlands for the training of the men of the Volunteer Naval Reserve. He understood that, notwithstanding previous promises, no progress had been made with them, although they had been started three years ago by the Admiralty. More than 600 Naval Reserve Volunteers had joined there and had no facilities for training in gunnery.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the whole question of batteries for the Naval Reserves in the Western Highlands and elsewhere was now under consideration. The hon. Member for Dundee, speaking of the amalgamation of the Works Loan Department and the Works Department, was under a misapprehension. He said that the Works Loan Department was created for the purposes of economy. That was not so. It was created because the Works Department was not large enough to deal with all the great works which were contemplated under the Works Loans Acts, and it was necessary to relieve that department of a portion of this work. The new department created was only of a temporary nature to be maintained during the progress of the loan works. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would not object to a modification of that policy in the interests of economy, when the Works Department was sufficiently reinforced as to be able to take over the supervision of all these works.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Who is now Director of Works?
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the change had not yet come into effect, but the director was to be Colonel Raban. The present engineer-in-chief was Sir Henry Pilkington, and his department would be gradually reduced during the current year and finally closed

  797
  by March 31st. The Director of Works would then have sole responsibility, and there would be a saving of about £20,000 on staff expenses. He was not disposed to quarrel with the hon. Member for Dundee when he said that it was an unfortunate thing that the entire expenditure for the year for naval works was not all shown under one head. On the other hand, neither he nor the present Government were responsible for introducing this system of Loan Bills. It was introduced by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. He confessed he did not hold it up to admiration. It had been suggested that the Loan Bill for the next two years should have been introduced before this time. He was very anxious that it should be introduced as early as possible; but it was not for the Admiralty to settle the order of the business of the House. Moreover, a great many of the details had not yet been approved, but he hoped that it would be introduced at an early date. The hon. Member for Dundee asked whether the reduction on Vote 10 this year was in any way due to the new naval policy. Certainly it was. It was obvious that the mere closing of some of the naval stations abroad must effect a reduction in repairs and maintenance, and in the staff kept up at these ports.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I wanted to get an example.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the closing of Halifax necessitated a reduction of the staff. It was said that if Jamaica was going to be given up as a station why was it that they were going on spending money there. They were under contract obligations in regard to particular buildings which were nearly finished; and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would admit that it would be the very worst policy to leave houses without a roof if they could be completed at a comparatively small expense, so that they could be disposed of in the open market or transferred to the Colonial Government. He was not able at that moment to indicate to the House anything with regard to the future expenditure on Rosyth. The hon. Member for King's Lynn talked of the stupendous expenditure
  798
  on Rosyth and asked how was it that the rumours of the abandonment of that naval base had not been contradicted. Well, if the Admiralty were to spend their time in contradicting or verifying all the rumours that appeared in the papers in regard to naval policy, it would be difficult to proceed with their ordinary business. He asked the Committee to be patient. He could promise that when the Loans Bill was introduced the Admiralty would be in a position to give full information with regard to the expenditure on Rosyth. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that the Works Department was not a big enough or strong enough body to deal with all these works. That department had been gradually built up until a sufficient number of officers had been trained to carry out the works under the Naval Loans Act. An increasing proportion of the works under loan had been carried out by the Works Department; and when the personnel of the Works Department was sufficiently strong to take over the whole, economy would be effected.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are the appointments to the Loans Works Department temporary or permanent?
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that in neither the Works Department nor the Works Loans Department were all the officers permanent. Many were taken on temporarily when work was pressing, and discharged when work was slack. He could not really gather what was the true attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Hawick Burghs in regard to Rosyth. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. He was outraged at the vast expenditure incurred in connection with Rosyth, and, on the other hand, he was outraged that his friends in Scotland were not receiving all the benefit they anticipated from the creation of a naval base in the waters of the Firth of Forth. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an "eventual naval base" at Rosyth and condemned them because they had bought the land for it. That was surely a logical sequence of events. If a gentleman bought a site

  799
  for a house he hoped he paid for it before he proceeded with his intention to build a house. He did not see that there was any ground for criticism of the Admiralty because they had purchased a site suitable for a naval base. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth had joined the chorus against the Loans Bill.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the schedule should be representative of the Estimate.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that he did not think that that was the practice of the hon. Member himself when in office.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that his Party was not allowed to remain in office long enough.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that his right hon. friend the Member for Great Yarmouth stated that there was no more necessity for Loans Bills. There was, however, a number of arrears to be disposed of, and then he hoped that the system of Loans Bills would be abandoned, and that all expenditure would be shown on the Estimates. As regarded the Halifax Dock, also mentioned by his right hon. friend, the Admiralty had the use of the dock without any responsibility for its upkeep and the maintenance of the machinery. That obviated the necessity of providing a separate dock. His right hon. friend also wished to know what the expenditure was.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that his request for information was based on a broader principle.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that he thought it would be out of order to enter on the general question of naval policy.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid his point was the cost of repairs at Halifax.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the arrangement was that the care and preservation of the buildings and of all the appliances should be undertaken by local authorities, either the Royal Engineers or the Colonial Works Department.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked whether the cost would be voted by the House or borne by the Canadian Government.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the repairing work would be carried out when possible by the Royal Engineers, and the charge would naturally fall on the Vote before the Committee. The charge had only been incurred from the 31st March last; and it was impossible to show the details at the present moment. He hoped, however, that the details would be shown in future years.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked if the Royal Engineers were doing naval work.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that at the moment he was not able to answer that Question. His right hon. friend also objected to certain expenditure at Whale Island, but that was not incurred in connection with gunnery courses solely, but because the quarters were required for other courses.
  MR. WHITLEYasked why £4,000 was spent before the work was authorised by the House.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was a special case. It was an emergency; and the expenditure was incurred with the full sanction of the Treasury.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if the Treasury were informed that the total expenditure would be £45,000.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the Treasury agreed to the whole expenditure. As regarded the argument of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, they all recognised that expenditure should only be incurred with the full sanction of Parliament. Sufficient money had, however, been sanctioned for two years; and the Admiralty were accordingly in no way exceeding their powers. No new items had been included. A definite pledge had been given, not only by the representatives of the Admiralty, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. The hon. Member for Perthshire said that he wished the Vote would be increased. Such a remark was rarely heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

  801
  He, himself, agreed to the extent that he should be very glad to see the whole of the works expenditure shown and discussed together under the one head. With regard to the coaling depots which had been referred to, there was no mystery about their disappearance from the Estimates. Having been completed no further expenditure was required upon them; and they were, accordingly, removed from the Vote.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, before going into the question which was the subject-matter of the discussion, ho should like to ask whether the new buildings for the accommodation of the Explosives Committee were connected with the experiments that were being carried on by the Committee to discover a less erosive form of cordite powder. The erosive quality of the cordite was admitted, and they were told last year that experiments had been made and that already they had led to an improvement of the cordite powder. That was a statement of a rather speculative, but somewhat reassuring character, and there was naturally anxiety upon the point, because, although he should not be in order in alluding to the life of the 12-inch guns, every one knew that it was very short owing to the erosive quality of the cordite powder used.
  He thought they were in a more hopeless and muddled position than they had ever been in before in regard to the conflict between the Works Vote and the Naval Works Bill. The confusion which had always existed had been increased by the sudden and complete change of policy on the part of the Government. His hon. friend the Member for Dundee was right in his contention as to the character of the first Loan Bill introduced by a Liberal Government. It was to be an annual Bill, and a Return was to be laid annually before Parliament. The items had a wholly different signification when they were supplied every year from that which they had when they were supplied every two years. The arrangement had, therefore, become hopelessly confused, and no one knew where they stood as between the Loan Acts and the Works Vote. The Civil Lord had admitted that he could not anticipate the
  802
  statement that would be made later in the session on the introduction of the Loan Bill because the policy of the Government was not yet settled.
  The fact that the policy of the Government was not yet settled affected the question of Rosyth. The charge against the Admiralty, in which the whole House joined, was that they paid a Very high price for the land at Rosyth as an emergency measure for which no case could be made out. Difference of opinion came in when they came to consider the ultimate future of Rosyth. He admitted that in the ultimate future it would not be possible to rely on Portsmouth and the Solent, and even on Portland, as we had relied upon them in the past. We should have to look forward to removing some of our establishments from the Channel because of the rapidly increasing dangers to navigation in the Channel in time of war. But that was a case for deliberation and the discussion beforehand of all the considerations involved, and there was no case for a sudden purchase and the payment of an extravagant price. It was no secret that the Admiralty would have gone on with the Rosyth scheme some time ago if the Treasury had consented to it, but it was not a question for the Admiralty. The change of policy would involve great expenditure, and it was therefore a policy in regard to which the Treasury would have a preponderating voice. He was, therefore, convinced that in the Naval Works Bill the proposals in regard to Rosyth, although they might involve large ultimate expenditure, would not involve any large immediate expenditure. The confusion on this occasion was increased by the absence from that House of any member of the Cabinet who could give authoritive expression to the views of the Cabinet on these questions. If Lord Goschen were still in this House and had been First Lord of the Admiralty he would have given to the House an expression of opinion which would have satisfied the Committee, not perhaps that he was right, but that he understood what he was doing. They had not that expression this evening. That was not due to want of ability on the part of hon. Members on the Front Bench, but to the want of authority

  803
  which they could not in their position command.
  The confusion between the Works Vote and the Loans Bill was illustrated by the fact that the list of dockyards now before the House was inexplicable without reference to the other list. Why was Wei-hai-Wei counted as a dockyard? The whole range of these Votes would have to be considered, and they would have to start afresh on all this works expenditure. There was one item not in this Estimate at all, an item that he thought was very important to this Estimate. Jamaica was in but Bermuda was out. Why was it the name of Bermuda did not appear in the list? Was it the policy of the Government to abandon Bermuda? He did not know what the future of Bermuda was to be and what expenditure was justified. Owing to the position in which they were placed it was hopeless for them to obtain any real information in regard to this Vote. All they could do was to insist that the Admiralty should clear their minds as to their policy and should make a frank statement of their policy to the House. The Committee would expect that if they passed this Works Vote the Admiralty would come under an undertaking to make a statement, upon the introduction of the Works Bill, in the presence of representatives of the Cabinet and the Exchequer of the intended policy with regard to dockyards and naval stations abroad. The Committee were dealing with the matter in a piecemeal way which was unworthy of the House of Commons. They could not come to any proper conclusion on the present occasion, and if the Vote were passed to-day it would be on the understanding that, as on previous occasions, a statement would be made and an opportunity for a proper discussion afforded at a later period.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it would not be in order to enter upon the question of policy at any length; but, though he could not speak with authority on matters of policy, he thought he might say a few words to induce the Committee to pass the Vote. The policy in regard to naval stations might be shortly stated. We had stations in all parts of the world, acquired where possible to meet as far as they could be foreseen naval exigencies in
  804
  naval operations, having regard to possible enemies and our own resources. When the bases at Jamaica, Halifax, Trincomalee, and Esquimalt were created, naval necessities in the opinion of the Cabinet and the Admiralty required under the then conditions that they should be maintained as bases that would probably be used in the event of war. They were therefore equipped for the repair of ships, and ships were kept at these stations and were available at all times. What had now happened was that, as a matter of policy in regard to preparation for instant war, they were not considered likely to form part of the field of operations and come into use upon a declaration of war, and therefore ships were no longer based upon these particular stations, though they visited them. When ships were not based there it was no longer necessary to keep up expenditure for equipment. Facilities were there with permanent structures and machinery, but if they were not for present use there was no object in spending money in maintenance, but they would be available if in any particular warlike operations it became necessary to use them as a temporary base. It had been seen during the present war that the Japanese and Russian fleets had used improvised temporary bases. If the requirements of the British Navy demanded the use of a station as a base, the plant would be there, and it would be equipped; but it was not suggested that immediately on the outbreak of any war, without consideration of requirements, we should immediately send out re-equipment. The right hon. Baronet's criticism would be justified if that were intended. It was not the intention. The Admiralty believed it would not be an economic policy to spend money on the maintenance of a base simply because we had it, if they did not believe it would be likely to be required for war.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there were such questions as trade routes and food supplies to be considered, and the whole of the previous policy of the Admiralty was concerned, but these questions could not now be debated.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he was merely stating that, from the point of view he

  805
  had taken, the right hon. Baronet's criticisms were justified. He was now endeavouring to state what the Admiralty policy was, not the grounds upon which it rested, to justify sanction to the Vote. Bermuda was retained as a naval base, but the number of ships based there would be less than formerly; and therefore the expenditure upon the Bermuda establishment was reduced in proportion to the use to be made of it. As to the purchase of Rosyth, with great respect for the opinion of the right hon. Baronet he found a difficulty in understanding what he meant when be objected to the sudden purchase.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he meant the element of suddenness as it appeared to have affected the price.
  MR. PRETYMANdid not admit that it had.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEunderstood that the high price had been defended on the ground of the necessity for the sudden purchase.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he had never put forward any such suggestion. The price was the best that could be obtained by private treaty, and information and experience at the disposal of the Government confirmed their view that resort to arbitration would not have been in the interests of economy. The purchase was made as part of a settled policy, and the Admiralty believed that a base at that particular point in the North Sea would have many advantages. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the dangers of the narrow seas in time of war, but Rosyth would be more exempt from those dangers than Chatham.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: But the choice did not lie entirely between Chatham and Rosyth.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that all these points were fully considered before the Admiralty came to a decision.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the difficulty which many Members felt in agreeing to this Vote
  806
  was not merely with regard to the distribution of the Fleet and the abandonment of certain coaling stations, but the absence of control on the part of Parliament over this Works Vote in connection with expenditure under Loans Acts. The control of Parliament was purely fictitious; there was no real control. They did not even know where certain branches of expenditure were to be found—whether they would be met out of yearly revenue or out of loans. A longer statement from the Civil Lord to the Admiralty would not put the matter altogether right. Parliament would not have any real control over the money spent under loans unless effect were given to the pious opinion of the Civil Lord in favour of having the entire works expenditure properly estimated and laid before Parliament, so that it could be considered as a whole. These Loans Acts could not be entirely dispensed with. If the works at Rosyth were proceeded with the expenditure would doubtless come under an Act of this kind. He was not urging the expenditure at Rosyth because it represented a certain advantage to Scotland; he believed that on the whole the Admiralty were taking a right course; but, if the works were continued, there would be a continuance of the hopeless confusion which now existed, and he regretted that there had been no member of the Cabinet present to observe the profound dissatisfaction which existed in the House with the present system of granting Supply to the Admiralty without any proper Parliamentary control over its expenditure. He believed that the best way of controlling expenditure would be by a Joint Committee of the Treasury and the House specially charged with the work. There ought to be a special Committee formed for that purpose. If they were satisfied that the country was getting value for its money, which he did not believe was so in all cases, these debates would be very much curtailed. He had always supported the Navy proposals of the Government, but he felt very much the responsibility of joining and acquiescing in the expenditure of these huge sums without adequate control. It was the fashion now to accuse Parliament of being extravagant, but, in regard to Votes

  807
  like this, the Government were encouraging extravagance by not giving the House adequate means of securing efficiency and economy in the expenditure of the country. There was extravagance in not having modern machinery in some of the dockyards.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I say that we are remedying that under this very loan expenditure?
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that he joined in a vote against one of the churches in this Act not long ago because he thought that church was not needed, and because he thought the existing accommodation was adequate for the religious discipline of the troops. He thought also that the expenditure upon barracks had been extravagant. At any rate, he thought those who were responsible for this enormous expenditure when economy was so urgently required were not justified in agreeing to this system of presenting public accounts without entering a strong protest against it. In no country in the world did they find so un-businesslike a control over finance as they did under this particular Vote. He thought if they had a strong Committee they would be able to evolve some sound system of finance.
  MR. JOHN HOWARDsaid he desired to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty two Questions. In the first place had the Admiralty decided to remove the School of Gunnery from Sheerness to Chatham; and, secondly, he wished to know when the Torpedo School to take its place was going to be started at Sheerness?
  MR. BLACKsaid a twofold complaint had been made of the present system of the Admiralty, and the Civil Lord had given the Committee an assurance that the system complained of would not be repeated. He asked what hindered the introduction of the Naval Works Loan Bill at an earlier period of the session, and prevented the Bill being considered on previous occasions. There appeared to be some doubt in the mind of the Admiralty regarding their policy towards naval works. He hoped that the Government,
  808
  having been squeezed by a landlord in Rosyth, would not now be bullied by their supporters into abandoning what was considered an advantageous policy, viz., the establishment of a naval base in the northern parts of these islands, and concentrating the base of the Fleet in these islands instead of its being scattered all over the world. He should not like it to go abroad that they objected to the general policy of establishing a naval base at Rosyth. Their objection to the policy of the Admiralty in this instance was, first, that they paid far too much money for the site, and secondly, that they bought the site far too early, and in advance of their requirements. The justification advanced by the Government for paying the high price of eighty-five years purchase was that there was a feuing value of the land. He had been there personally and investigated the matter, and he found that the total feuing value was to be measured by one year's purchase. The Government had paid two and a-half times as much as they would have paid had the matter gone to arbitration.
  The hon. Member for Inverness had referred to Naval Reserve batteries and the Civil Lord had told them that the matter was under the consideration of the Admiralty. He hoped that before the debate was concluded they would have some indication from the Admiralty as to their policy with regard to the Naval Reserves. It was a branch of the service which it was very desirable to encourage. It enabled persons skilled in handling ships and in seafaring matters to train during the time they were not engaged in their occupations, so that they had in this system the best form of civilian contribution to the Navy. He hoped that the Admiralty would, in establishing Naval Reserve batteries in the future, follow the seafaring population. In one case the Admiralty had failed to do this, but it was to be desired that future batteries should be established in the centre of a seafaring and fishing population. He noticed that a sum of £6,000 was put down for dredging at Wei-hai-Wei. That expenditure was surely a little premature as matters at present stood in the Far East. He understood that our tenure there was

  809
  somewhat precarious, and that when matters settled down at the end of the present war there would be room for considerable readjustment in the Eastern Seas. He hoped that some satisfactory reason would be forthcoming for this expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei, because he understood that the place had been practically abandoned for naval purposes. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs had referred to the item for churches on these Estimates. He hoped to have some assurance that these churches would not be allowed to go from the control of the Admiralty; and that they would be left free for occupation by any religious bodies that found it necessary to use them, and would not be set apart for the exclusive use of any one communion.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked whether the Secretary to the Admiralty was prepared to give the Committee the items of the reductions due to the change of naval policy. The proposals in regard to Esquimault and Halifax disclosed to his mind most clearly that the Admiralty were shutting their eyes entirely to the development of sea war power in the United States. This disclosed a grave state of things. He thought the hon. Gentleman would find that the Admiralty were deliberately leaving out of contemplation the contingency that might arise owing to the fact that at present the increase of naval war power was going on in the United States and not in Europe.
  MR. BENNsaid it seemed to him that they should not pass this Vote unless they had a little more information as to the policy of the Government with regard to shipbuilding. If there was to be a fundamental change of policy with regard to shipbuilding, that was to say, if the shipbuilding yards were to be turned into repairing shops, that change would affect the works for which they were asked to vote money at this moment.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that should come up on another Vote.
  MR. BENNsaid one of the items in the present Vote had to do with the
  810
  foundations for machines, and that was the very point to which he was directing the attention of the Committee. If the policy which was foreshadowed in Lord Selborne's Memorandum obtained, it must largely affect the money they were asked to vote with regard to these works. His concern arose out of the statement by Lord Selborne that the first business of the Royal dockyards was to keep the Fleet in repair, and that, accordingly, the amount of new work allotted to these dockyards should be subordinated to these matters. The Committee ought to know before they voted this money whether the policy of the Government was to maintain these yards as shipbuilding yards as heretofore.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman's remarks must come on another Vote.
  MR. WHITLEYmoved a reduction of £510, which was the amount proposed to be spent on Wei-hai-Wei. There was also on the Estimates an item of £6,000 for works to be carried out at that place. He thought it was time that this make-believe was put a stop to. Of course they all knew that Wei-hai-Wei had been an immense mistake. The Government had acknowledged it. It was at first intended, they were told, to be used as a great fortified station in the Far East, and it was to be a set-off against the taking of Port Arthur which the Government had allowed to go, but to which result they largely contributed by the withdrawal of the British ships then at Port Arthur. He did think it was time to remove all expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei from the Estimates. They had been told once or twice that this was to be used as a health resort in the Far East—a bathing establishment for officers or something of that kind. Of course they all knew what that meant. It was an easy way for the Government to let themselves down and to prevent them confessing the huge mistake they had made. Now they had practically given up this policy of bluff. Rosyth was practically the same thing. The Government went in for Rosyth in response to certain German newspapers which

  811
  were making a great fuss. Now the Government had got over their fit of the blues and were going in for a more reasonable policy in naval matters. Therefore let them make a clean sheet and remove this kind of thing from the Estimates. The sum of £510 was not large, and it could not do much good. There was one man at Wei-hai-Wei at £1 per week. He did not know whether he was an Englishman or a Chinaman, or whether living was particularly cheap in that part of the British Empire, but it was very small remuneration. Why could not the Government have the courage to strike off the item and acknowledge that it was a great mistake to make such a flourish of trumpets. It was practically annexing a slice of China, and who knew how much that had to do in bringing about the Boxer trouble and the present war in the Far East as well. It was certainly lending a hand in the scramble that began for territory in China at that time. Now that they had abandoned their original policy there they ought to take the item off the Estimates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Allowances of Superintending Officers and others) be reduced by £510."— (Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. BRIGHTsaid it could not be supposed that Wei-hai-Wei was a strength to the Empire. If it was, they must spend more money on it. There had been too much or too little spent on it during the time they had had it. He thought the Government might be congratulated on the fact that these Estimates were £1,000 less than the Secretary to the Admiralty in reply to a Question said they would be. What was the use of spending any money at all on this place? Nobody supposed that it could be made a really strong place by the expenditure of a few thousand pounds a year. The particular Vote which they were objecting to at the present moment was in regard to dredging, the amount to be spent being £6,000. He should like to know to what depth the dredging was to be undertaken and what advantage was to be gained by it. Was it for naval or commercial purposes? He understood that as a
  812
  commercial port it was hopeless because there were no railways to it. If it was important as a great matter of policy to retain Wei-hai-Wei, then it would be necessary to spend millions, but to spend small items for which we got no return was a pure waste of money. He hoped the Committee by voting for the Amendment would protest against this frittering away of the public resources.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Member for Halifax had asked why the station at Wei-hai-Wei was maintained. The whole question of the policy with regard to Wei-hai-Wei had been fully debated in the House on many occasions. There had been a change of policy with regard to that place in one respect only. It was no longer to be maintained as a fortified naval base, but it was being maintained as a sanatorium for use by the Fleet on the China station. The hon. Member for Halifax made fun of that, but he would not make fun of it if he had ever lived on that station and realised the necessity for a healthy anchorage for the Fleet during the worst season of the year. It was a place also where exercises could be carried out on shore. The men went there for rifle practice. It had been of the greatest possible value to the health of the Fleet on that station, as had been shown by the reduction of the number of men on the sick list. No new works were going on there, but it was found desirable to maintain the dredging.
  MR. BRIGHT: What depth is to be dredged?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I cannot say the exact depth at the moment.
  MR. BRIGHT: What advantage is to be derived from the dredging?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: There are cruisers and other ships which must have a sufficient depth of water.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid there were several other items on the Votes for Wei-hai-Wei. Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what was the total expenditure, capital and annual, for that place?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid no one could deny for a moment the value of a health station for the Fleet in the Far East. There were two such stations in the Mediterranean on foreign territory, and we had a naval hospital in a third place, also foreign. Wei-hai-Wei was Chinese territory and was only acquired on lease so long as Port Arthur was occupied by Russia. At the time of its acquisition it was pointed out that Wei-hai-Wei was subject to torpedo attack and that it could not be made a war station but a peace station. Now, Port Arthur was not likely to be retained by Russia, and it seemed to him that Wei-hai-Wei should not be detained in our hands. It was totally unnecessary and should be returned to China. In his opinion, we ought to make arrangements with the Chinese Government to secure the use of it in time of peace as a health resort, the same as we did in regard to our Mediterranean stations in Turkish territory.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the Government had now given up Wei-hai-Wei as a naval station and had kept it as a sanatorium. What had dredgers to do with a sanatorium? Moreover, for years past, large vessels had used Wei-hai-Wei, and dredging was therefore unnecessary. All the accommodation that was required there was for the men ashore. The only use to which Wei-hai-Wei could be put in any sense was as a port to which to bring invalids. Had the Government got to the bottom of their mind in regard to whether they were going to make of Wei-hai-Wei a Chinese Plymouth? The only purpose for which they required dredging was to give that perfect accommodation for large battleships which was required at a naval base. He was very glad indeed at the change in the policy in regard to Wei-hai-Wei as they understood it. He was only surprised that some one did not move a reduction in the Vote for Rosyth, for there they did not know fully the policy of the Government. But in regard to Wei-hai-Wei they knew what the Government policy was.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he could not quite understand why we should
  814
  be dredging a sanatorium at Wei-hai-Wei, and some answer was necessary. Last year it was said that it had been decided to hold Wei-hai-Wei as a peace and health resort where the Fleet could go in hot weather; for exercise of the crews on shore; where 6,000 tons of coal could be kept; and where a hospital and canteen could be established. They could quite understand that. He believed that there was not the least difficulty in sending a battleship now into Wei-hai-Wei Harbour. The only difficulty was that the whole Fleet could not go in there and anchor; and perhaps that was the object of the dredging. Why this waste of money? Had the harbour silted up? and was this expenditure of £6,000 to be incurred every year on an unfortified base?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that by arrangement with China it was agreed that we should give back Wei-hai-Wei to that country and only hold it as long as Russia held Port Arthur. They knew that, as the result of the war, Russia would not hold Port Arthur; and therefore the Government were wasting money in any expenditure on Wei-hai-Wei. He thought that before the Vote was taken the Committee ought to have some sort of explanation on that point.
  MR. MOONEYsaid there were several sub-heads "all over the place" about Wei-hai-Wei. Could the hon. Gentleman say what the annual and capital cost of this sanatorium would be?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he could not answer that Question because it would not be in order, as these other Votes were not under discussion. All he could say was that Wei-hai-Wei was being maintained as a sanatorium for the exercise of the men of the China Fleet when they were ashore, and for rifle practice. It was necessary to dredge the anchorage to accommodate the Fleet when it went into the harbour. If it was the policy of the Government at the conclusion of the war in the Far East to hand back Wei-hai-Wei to China, this expenditure would cease.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was wandering completely away from the subject. There was on the Vote a sum of £510 for a civil engineer at Wei-hai-Wei. The Civil Lord said that the Vote for Wei-hai-Wei was £6,000 for dredging, but why was there this £510 for a civil engineer? Was that civil engineer attached to the dredger, or was he attached to the sanatorium, or was he dredging baths for the sailors of the Fleet? The Committee was entitled to an explanation regarding this expenditure. He arrived at the House that day anxious to support the Government; but under the circumstances he could not vote for money which was thrown away on dredging at Wei-hai-Wei, although it was badly required elsewhere. It would be interesting to know what the civil engineer was engaged in out there.

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 163.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  M'Kean, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Austin, Sir John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bell, Richard

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Maro, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, John

  Parrott, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crombie, John William

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw'sBghs

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ffreneh, Peter

  M'Hugh, Patrick

  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the hon. Member could not have heard his statement.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid it was because of the hon. Gentleman's statement that he intended to vote against the Government.
  MR. BLACKsaid that the Committee should have more information as to why £6,000 was being spent on a dredger at Wei-hai-Wei which was apparently employing a hundred men.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that evidently the Civil Lord to the Admiralty had no information with reference to the increase in the Vote. Surely further information was required.
  Question put.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  J. H. Whitley and Mr.

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Bright.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Young, Samuel

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invern'ssB'ghs

  Mount, William Arthur

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Percy, Earl

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS Edm'nds

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd'ndery

  Renwick, George

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bigwood, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bill, Charles

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Spear, John Ward

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stock, James Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander, (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuff, Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE. (Wigt'n)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Moore, William

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

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morrell, George Herbert

  818

  819

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Younger, William

  MR. COURTENAY WARNERdrew attention to a reduction on Item C., the item dealing with the official residences in Gibraltar. Originally it was, he said, intended to spend £10,500 on these official residences, but the officials having been done away with the official residences were not now required. £2,000 of the money had not been spent, but the hon. Gentleman in respect to this said the Admiralty could not leave these houses with their roofs off but would have to finish them before selling them off. Seeing that 82 per cent. of the money had been spent he was inclined to think it was not so much a matter of roofs as of decoration, which his experience told him it was better to leave undone until the houses were sold. He did not see what object would be gained by spending this money, and thought that this item should be struck off the Estimates, therefore he begged to move the reduction of the Vote, Item C., by £2,000.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item C (Dockyards Abroad) be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. Coutenay Warner.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid there was nothing more to be said about this matter than had already been said, except that the Government were under contract obligations. They had entered into a contract which involved this money being spent on these houses, and he did not suppose the hon. Gentleman desired them to default.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that if that was so he would not press the reduction. He nevertheless considered it was a most improper way of arranging matters, and he thought the Government ought not to have placed themselves in the position of having to pay for work from which they could not possibly derive any benefit.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he had put a notice of Motion on the Paper to reduce Item D. by £550. This sum was asked for for the purpose of the cold-meat store at Gibraltar. The Committee was cognisant of the scandal in reference to this cold-meat store, the short history of which was that the Admiralty started out to build an ammunition store at an estimated cost of £20,000. When nearly completed they discovered that the building was in the first place well within the range of any enemy that might come along, and in the second it was too damp to store ammunition in. They then proceeded to turn it into a cold-meat store at a cost of £47,000. It was admitted by the Admiralty that it had been a mistake from beginning to end, and under the circumstances he moved that the item might be struck out of the Votes.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item D (Victualling Yards) be reduced by £550."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. DILLONasked whether the Secretary to the Admiralty did not propose to give some explanation with regard to this. He pointed out that a few days ago the House had had to listen to a lecture from the hon. Baronet the Member for Islington, who had told them that discussions in this House had no effect on the Estimates. He denied that that was the case. It was Votes such as those that they were discussing that the Committee ought to turn their attention to with the view of reducing that expenditure. The effect of the discussions in the House was felt by the officials who prepared these Estimates. It was more effectively felt under the old system before the new rules were brought into operation, but even now he had not the slightest doubt that the dread of exposure of carelessness or corruption of any kind which led to large sums of money being wasted in this way greatly affected the officials who prepared these Estimates. It was on these large Votes that the leakages took place and not upon the

  821
  small and necessary increases such as they had discussed recently for the ventilation of the House. It was absurd to say that a small increase for ventilation or even the drainage of the House went to swell the Estimates. It was the Military and Naval Estimates that were to be blamed for these preventable increases, and it was an amazing thing to him that after the statement of the hon. Member for Halifax the officials of the Admiralty should make no attempt to give any explanation. It was well known that enormous waste took place under this Vote, because it was I an inevitable law that when one spent borrowed money there was an infinitely greater amount of carelessness as to the obligations that were undertaken than would be the case if the works had to be paid for year by year according to what was done. That was the main argument of those who opposed this policy of Loan Bills when it was first introduced ten years previously. He thought hon. Members representing the Admiralty had no right to allow the Committee to go to a division without replying to such criticisms as those made by the hon. Member for Halifax.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he did not gather that the Deputy-Chairman had actually put the Question with regard to the specific matter under consideration.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Deputy-Chairman had actually put the Question and he rose to draw attention to the fact.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he did not understand so. This Vote had been on the Estimates for years and this discussion had taken place for several years. It was one of those matters carried out not by the Admiralty, but by the War Office under the dual system, and the Admiralty were not in possession of the details of the progress of the works, nor had the Admiralty any control over the progress of the work.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made the most extraordinary speech that had ever been made in this House by an Admiralty official.
  822
  When the hon. Gentleman joined the Admiralty he thought he would be a credit to the Department, but if that was the only reply he could make to a serious criticism of this sort the sooner the hon. Gentleman resigned his position the better it would be. It was not fair that they should be referred to some other Department which was not before them at the present moment. It was a scandal for them to be told by the hon. Gentleman in that cavalier way that they had better wait for the War Office Vote. That was not treating the House in the way it ought to be treated. The hon. Gentleman did not appear competent to deal with these discussions, for when he was asked a very simple question about the depth of the dredging he replied that he thought it would be deep enough to take a battleship. Did the hon. Member know the draught required for a battleship? He generally tried to avoid making a personal attack and he was sorry if his warmth had carried him away on this occasion, but it excited his indignation to hear the hon Member stand up in the House and in that cavalier way say if they wanted to know that he would refer them to the Army Votes.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the Admiralty ought to know something about the way this money had been spent. The hon. Member representing the Admiralty said they did not know anything about it, because the money had been spent by the War Office, but it was Admiralty money and it was the business of the Admiralty to know how the money had been spent. The representatives of the Admiralty ought to take more interest in questions which had been pressed upon them and they ought to control their own expenditure. The Admiralty were paying £32,000 of this sum and the War Office £26,000, and he wished to know why the Admiralty were paying the lion's share of this money. Apparently the Civil Lord was not aware of that, because he said they were paying half and half. They wanted this expenditure explained. There, had been a great waste of Government money and they wished to know what reason there was for continuing this waste.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not think they ought to go to a division with only the statement they had had from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. His experience in Parliament had been that a Minister got his Votes quicker if he gave the fullest in formation. The hon. Member must recognise, however, that the fullest information had not been given in reply to the Questions put to him. They blamed him for not having the representative of the War Office present to explain this expenditure. It was obviously a War Office question although it had not been explained how the whole matter had been arranged. A large portion of this money was for an ammunition store, and he wished to know who was officially responsible for the expenditure of this money in the first instance, which had been spent without any adequate result. It was admitted that a large amount of money had been spent by the Admiralty in a useless fashion, because what was once an ammunition store was going to be turned into a meat store. What was the explanation as to the War Office not being represented in order to give the information asked for.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that this was really a War Office matter, and he thought it was a good principle that each Department should be responsible for its own acts. As he did not wish to make a second-hand explanation when they might have it first-hand he had sent for the Financial Secretary to the War Office and hoped that he would give the Committee an explanation of the point. But in any case they would have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the War Office Votes.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the Committee readily accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, but in a matter of this kind he could not give a guarantee that it would be discussed on a future occasion. The odds were that this particular question would not be raised at all on the Army Estimates. The explanation was not satisfactory, and he hoped the representative of the War Office would arrive soon and give fuller information.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Admiralty were paying their share of the cost of the work, and therefore the hon. Gentleman ought to have informed himself in regard to all the items in the Estimates so as to be able to explain to the House, on his own responsibility, the peculiar circumstances in connection with this Estimate. He thought it would be generally admitted that this system of works undertaken jointly by the War Office and the Admiralty with divided responsibility ought to be stopped. Nothing was more calculated to cause confusion and waste than to have work such as the Committee were now discussing under the joint control of these Departments. There was no real reason to render such joint responsibility necessary. He had taken the trouble to get the War Office Estimates, and the peculiarity of this Vote increased enormously when the Estimates of the two Departments were compared. In the Navy Estimates the total cost of this cold-meat store was put down at £47,300, a most astonishing figure for a cold-meat store, and in a note it was stated that the Admiralty's share was £32,000 and the War Department's share £26,000, making a total of £58,000. In the Army Estimates, on the other hand, the item was described as the conversion of the North Gorge magazine into a frozen-meat store, and the cost was given at £48,700, or £1,000 more than was entered in the Navy Vote. A note was added saying that half the cost would be borne by the Admiralty. That was totally at variance with the statement in the Navy Estimates.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)said he did not anticipate that this question would be raised, otherwise he should have been there, and he would have informed himself more carefully than be had been able to do as to all the facts. He might remind the Committee that the corresponding figures would appear in the Army Estimates, and that there would be another opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. DALZIEL: You cannot guarantee that.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was not quite sure whether the complaint was that the original cost of the construction of this store was unnecessarily high or whether it was that the cost of its conversion was too high.
  MR. DILLONsaid his point was that the cost, even if it were for the construction of the building, was extraordinary and required explanation; secondly, that if it were for its conversion it was preposterous; and, thirdly, that the figures of the two Estimates did not correspond.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the word "conversion" was misleading. The expenditure was for the building of the whole work, and very costly work too. The building was originally intended for an ammunition store, but while the work was proceeding it was ascertained that the place was likely to be too damp for that purpose. and accordingly it was condemned. The building involved an immense amount of excavation and tunnelling, and everybody who knew anything about work of that kind knew that it was impossible to estimate the cost exactly. As a matter of fact it was found that there were fissures in the rocks which allowed water to come in and which involved a great deal of pumping; and there was a variety of other causes why the building cost a great deal more than was originally estimated. He agreed as to the undesirability of two Departments being responsible for one work, but in this case the only Department responsible was the War Office. The only way in which the Admiralty came into the matter was that, as they were to have a share in the use of the building, it was agreed that they should bear half the cost. As to the variation in the figures, there was no real disagreement between the two sets of Estimates. The total cost of the building was £47,800. [OPPOSITION cries of "£48,700."] Yes, but in the Navy Votes other figures were given, because other subsidiary services were included which, in the Army Estimates, were shown quite separately.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the War Office estimate gave the sum as £48,700 for the conversion of the magazine, whereas
  826
  the Navy Estimate gave it as £47,200 for the construction of the magazine.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I thought it was in the Estimates at £47,800; and I can see no variation.
  MR. DILLON: How can the hon. Member say that?
  [Here the hon. Member for East Mayo left his seat, walked down the gangway, crossed the floor, and laid before the hon. Member for Macclesfield the White paper.]
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was extremely sorry not to be in a position to deal with this matter as he would like to do, but there would be another opportunity of doing so. He, however, assured the hon. Member that there was no variation in the figures whatever, except in respect of subsidiary services. The total amount of expenditure on this building would be divided equally between the two Departments. He did not contest that the building was very expensive, but it was of a character which it was impossible to judge of beforehand.
  MR. DALZIELsaid they were all glad of the intervention of the hon. Gentleman even at that late hour, but he was not at all satisfied with the explanation which he had given. He thought the Committee, before this Vote was allowed to pass, were entitled to information as to the War Office official who was responsible for the extraordinary blunder of recommending the building of a magazine on an unsuitable site. Who made the inquiry? Who sanctioned the expenditure? Explanation of every item which came before the Committee was shelved. He suggested that the Committee should adjourn until after the dinner hour to allow the hon. Gentleman to get information on this matter. The hon. Gentleman was very anxious that the War Office should have the full credit for this blunder; and he did not think the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was very anxious to divide the glory with him. On every side the Committee saw an enormous waste of money, and they had no information to justify this vast expenditure. The hon. Member

  827
  for King's Lynn, who went out to Gibraltar as a special representative of the Government, might have had time to look into this matter. If so, would he give the Committee some guidance?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he quite appreciated the observations which had been made as to the enormous expenditure on this building; but, in palliation or justification of that expenditure, he desired to remind the Committee that the cold stores had been built on such a scale as to provide for the whole requirements of the garrison, both naval and military, in the event of the isolation of the fortress. Half the cost would be borne by the respective services.
  MR. GODDARDsaid he thought they ought to have an assurance from the Admiralty, in view of what had already taken place, that the building, when completed, would be really suitable for the purpose for which it was now intended.
  *MR. BILLsaid he had seen these stores, and could assure the Committee that it was the opinion of everybody connected with the Army and Navy at Gibraltar that stores better placed and better fitted for the purpose could not possibly have been devised. The stores were so situated that they were absolutely protected from any hostile Power. No better refrigerating stores could be possibly provided.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was glad to learn from the hon. Gentleman that the stores were so good. That was some consolation for all the money that was being spent on them. The Estimate which had been submitted was, however, admittedly wrong. It was now acknowledged to be obsolete and was by no means a clear statement. Apart from that, he wished to know who was responsible for recommending the place as suitable for a magazine.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from the remainder of this day's Sitting, owing to indisposition.
  Whereupon Mr. JEFFREYS, the Deputy-Chairman, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [7TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) In the-Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,905,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he rose to renew his Motion for the reduction of item D. by £550. He was afraid the explanation that had been given so far was not satisfactory, and did not in any way clear up the mystery of the cold-meat store, which was originally intended not for a cold-meat store but an ammunition store. This item had been on the Votes for some years and it had increased year by year. Originally it was £30,000, now it was £48,000, and they had no assurance that they had yet seen the end of this expenditure. He thought, under these circumstances, he was justified in taking the sense of the Committee with regard to the waste and extravagance which had taken place.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D (Victualling Yards) be reduced by £550."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid this question interested him as a ratepayer. It appeared that the War Office thought they would like to make a store for ammunition, and they proceeded to spend a large sum of money in digging a hole in the Rock for that purpose. Then suddenly they discovered that the place was absolutely unfit for the purpose, and so, seeking for some excuse by means of which they could justify their expenditure, they said, "Let us turn it into a cold-meat store." And on the cold-meat store they spent more money. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Mayo that the amount of money spent upon it was an unheard of amount to spend for such a purpose, because one could spend any amount for a cold-meat store. The real question was whether it was necessary to turn this ammunition store into a cold-meat store. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were fairly justified in the stand they had taken. The question they raised was a fair question. He should like to know who suggested to the War Office that this place was suitable for an ammunition store, and who was responsible for the system of dual control, which he understood had been condemned by the Public Accounts Committee. He hoped the debate which had taken place would be the death blow to that system of control, for which neither was responsible but in regard to which both the Army and the Navy had to pay its quota towards the expenditure on any works that were undertaken. He could not see that any reasons had been given by the Secretary to the Admiralty for this cold-meat store, which was not finished and never would be. All the hon. Member had said was that he was not responsible for it and that he had no explanation to give. The Secretary to the War Office, who had been sent for in a hurry, also confessed that he knew nothing about it and could not explain it. The Gentlemen who represented Government Departments surely ought to know something about the Votes they had to defend.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, so far as he could gather, what hon. Members objected to was that there should be a cold-meat store provided in Gibraltar,
  830
  but if they had been to Gibraltar they would see that if there was one thing wanted more than another it was a cold-meat store. The men would not eat what was called hard rations; they objected to tinned meats and so forth, and it was very necessary that there should be some means of preserving fresh food.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite had shown a legitimate interest in the Vote now before the House. Though undoubtedly it was a useful function for the House of Commons to criticise the Estimates, at the same time those who criticised ought to be prepared to show not only that there had been an error but the way in which that error might be remedied. It was very easy to criticise, but not quite so easy to carry out great works and undertakings such as the erection of this cold-meat store. If anyone was to blame for what had taken place it was the old system of dual control—a system which neither the Army nor the Navy was responsible for and which they could not repudiate. This matter had received the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and the explanation was that, as usual, when one Department did work for the other the result was unsatisfactory. It would be well that each Department should provide for its own wants.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTagreed that was desirable, but there were occasions when work had to be done for both services. In this instance a cold store was required for joint naval and military use, and a joint committee which considered the question as to whether they should have an entirely new building or adapt a building originally intended for an ammunition store decided upon the latter, and did this in order to save the difference in expenditure between £55,000 and £40,000. The Estimate was exceeded, which was unfortunate, but not unusual in contracts of this kind, but still a considerable saving was effected. The discrepancy between the Army and Navy figures was explained by the latter Estimates having been submitted before the actual amount was ascertained. The sum was not excessive considering

  831
  that the store was intended to serve for the whole Gibraltar garrison in the event of a siege of unknown duration, that it was bomb proof, and that unexpected difficulties were met with in rock excavations and water pumping.
  MR. RENWICKsaid he was grateful to hon. Members opposite for having given the Committee an opportunity for discussing this Vote. He was glad that for once they had found the military authorities and the naval authorities working in harmony, a thing which they did not find often in the past. In other days, when one service commenced a useless work and finally abandoned it, it was left to go to rack and ruin. Now they found that when a work was finished and found to be unsuitable for the purpose for which it was erected the heads of these great spending Departments formed a joint committee and endeavoured to turn the work to some use. The hon. Member for Wilton appeared to be the only Member who had seen this cold store, and in his opinion the expenditure on it had been justified. For his part, he thought the best way of dealing with this Vote was to adjourn it, and that the Admiralty should put a man-of-war at the service of the House in order that the House might inspect this work and judge for themselves. Knowing something of the cost of refrigerating machinery and of excavations for cold storage, he submitted that £48,000 was not an excessive price for the accommodation here provided. It was absolutely necessary that the naval and military forces should be supplied with fresh food, and if a vote were taken he should follow the lead of the hon. Member for the Leek Division who had actually seen the place.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDpointed out that there had been already voted, for this, work £47,300, and it was now proposed to add for machinery and rolling stock £8,900 and £1,800, making in all £58.000. But it had been stated that the building de novo would cost only £50.000; consequently he failed to understand why £58,000 was required. Another point that ought to be explained was why only £550 was expected to be spent during the whole
  832
  of the financial year, seeing that in the financial year ended March 31st, 1904, no less than £20,700 was estimated to be spent. He agreed that cold storage was absolutely necessary at Gibraltar; the astonishing thing was that it had not been provided long since. Nothing was more calculated to keep the Government out of difficulties with contractors than that they should provide cold storage for themselves. According to a foot-note, the work was being carried out solely by the War Office, so that the dual control to which objection had been taken did not exist, and hon. Members ought to have withheld their criticisms until the War Office Votes were under discussion.
  *MR. BILLremarked that there had been a system of cold storage at Gibraltar for some time, but it had been confined to hulks in the bay, and consequently would have been altogether useless in time of war. Now that Gibraltar was the head-quarters of a great Imperial Fleet adequate cold storage was absolutely necessary, and if hon. Members had had an opportunity of visiting the place they would not criticise the present proposal.
  CAPTAIN ELLICEasked what had become of the ammunition store for which the Estimate was originally put down.
  MR. MOONEYsaid the only point the representative of the War Office had made clear was that the Estimate was altogether wrong and ought to be withdrawn. On the hon. Member's own showing there was a discrepancy of £1,400 between the Army Estimate and the Navy Estimate for the same work, but on neither of them did the moiety to be paid by the War Office amount to £26,000 as stated by the Army authorities. The Committee ought to be told upon what other Estimate that sum was based. The protests of the Opposition were directed not against the provision of cold storage at Gibraltar, but against the delay and the misleading Estimates. Who was the genius who informed the War Office that this site was the best possible for an ammunition store, overlooking the facts that tons of water came

  833
  into it daily, and that it was within range of any fire that might be directed against it by an opposing force? The reasons which made the site unsuitable for an ammunition store had equal force in the matter of cold storage. The discussion had revealed a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Civil Lord had admitted that he knew nothing whatever about the details of the Vote he was asking the Committee to sanction, and the War Office representative whose assistance had been called in was equally ignorant in the matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid the discrepancy between the two Estimates was more serious than he had supposed, and it was nothing short of a public scandal that such figures should be placed before Parliament. The total cost was put down at £48,700, while the amount already voted was £38,500, and the estimated expenditure during the current financial year was £21,650, making a total of not £48,000, but £60,000. It should be noted, moreover, that this was merely for the "conversion."
  MR. SOARESthought the Committee ought to press for information as to what had become of the ammunition store.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANruled that the Committee could not discuss the question of the ammunition store on this Vote.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the Government were going to treat the debate with silent contempt. For a long time the Committee were unable to get any information on the subject under discussion, and when at last they managed to secure his attendance the representative of the War Office was unable to give any satisfaction whatever. He had admitted that the money was voted in the first instance for an ammunition store, and that the site had been found to be unsuitable for the purpose. The Committee were entitled to know whether the expenditure was really necessary, and whether the official who advised the Government with regard to the ammunition store was still in the employment of the Department. He hoped they would
  834
  have some further explanation of the figures placed before the Committee before the Estimate was passed. The representative of the War Office had just made a remarkable statement. He told them that by turning this ammunition store into a meat store they were making preparations in case there happened to be a siege of Gibraltar. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He would tell the hon. Member opposite why not. The Prime Minister told them the other day that a siege of Gibraltar was absolutely impossible; therefore the opinion of the Financial Secretary to the War Office was opposed to that of the Prime Minister. He hoped the representative of the War Office would undertake that in future a full investigation should take place before such a heavy expenditure was incurred. He wished to have some assurance that in the future these Estimates would be put forward in a businesslike way. This kind of dual responsibility for expenditure ought to be brought to an end, for it was a system which had been strongly condemned by the Public Accounts Committee, and why was it allowed to continue. Dual responsibility in these matters always meant the squandering of public money.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo that £48,700 was the total amount, and that expenditure was divided between the Army and the Navy.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked what was the total cost to the Admiralty of their share of this item. The work had been estimated wrongly, and he wished to know what the cost was going to be on the corrected Estimate.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEwas understood to say that the amount would be £26,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that was £3,000 more than the Estimate, and he wished to know why that figure had not been put in the proper column.
  MR. MOONEYsaid that greater confusion had now been caused because another figure had been given. It said that half was to be paid by the Admiralty and half by the War Office, but if they

  835
  multiplied that total by two it gave them £52,000, an amount which was not mentioned in the Estimate. He wished to know how those representing the Government made out that £26,000 was half of £48,000.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTexplained that the figure referred to by the hon. Member contained certain subsidiary services as well, but £48,700 was the cost of providing this cold store.
  MR. DALZIELasked if the sum mentioned was all that would be required in connection with this mattter.
  MR. BROMLEY DEVONPORTsaid he was not concerned with the Navy Estimates, but he knew that half of £48,000 would be contributed in all by the Admiralty partly last year, partly this year, and partly during the next four years. The total amount provided by the Admiralty would be £24,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had not heard a whisper of explanation in regard to the Question he put as to the amount that would be required from the Admiralty to complete this work. Why had the amount not been put in the last column?
  MR. PRETYMANadmitted that it was a complicated matter and most difficult to understand. It was due to the Estimate having been increased two or three times by one Department and having to be paid by two other Departments. It was an unfortunate system, but absolutely unavoidable. [OPPOSITION cries of "No!"] At any rate no hon. Member had suggested any other method of dealing with it. It was obvious that it would be cheaper to build one store than two, and better that it should be built by one Department than by two. If any hon. Member would suggest a better way than that he should be glad to hear of it. He hoped the Committee, having discussed
  836
  the matter for more than two hours, would now agree to the Vote.
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid he did not think that the explanation given by the Secretary to the Admiralty was the right one. If he looked carefully at the figures he would find that that could not be the explanation. The difference in the Estimate according to the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office was £1,500, but the difference pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee was £1,350 for the Army share, and that, being only half, would bring it up to £2,700.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the Civil Lord would have the matter fully gone into, and he would furnish an explanation in detail.
  MR. DILLON,who was received with Ministerial cries of "Divide," said the hon. Members who desired to shout him down had conducted for an hour after 9 o'clock a sham debate in order to waste time. That kind of thing was absolutely intolerable. He did not agree that this system of dual control was unavoidable. Works of the kind under consideration should be constructed and paid for by either the Admiralty or the War Office, instead of by both. What did it matter to the taxpayer whether the War Office or the Admiralty paid the money. All they wanted was that the work should be properly controlled. To hear a Minister declare that it was impossible to do away with the system of dual control in a matter of this kind was absurd.
  MR. SOARESsaid that as the Vote was entirely incorrect he desired to know if the Secretary to the Admiralty would place the whole of the facts before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, who was the President of the Imperial Defence Committee. Perhaps in future, if his suggestion were acted upon, they might have these matters conducted upon a more business like basis.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 101, Noes, 151. Division List No. 164.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tuff, Charles

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Randles, John S.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Renwick, George

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

  M'Arthur, Charles Liverpool

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spear, John Ward

  Younger, William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stock, James Henry

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stroyan, John

  Viscount Valentia.

  Percy, Earl

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY moved that the Vote should be reduced by £15,000, which, he said, was part of a total sum already partly voted for a residence for the Commander-in-Chief at Chatham. There was an item of £7,000 on the Estimates last year in connection with this matter, and he took the opportunity of protesting then against the extravagant nature of this expenditure. An additional sum of £1,500 was now put down for furniture, and he supposed that £3,000 would probably be required altogether before the furnishing was completed, bringing the total cost of this residence up to £28,000. When the matter was under discussion last year they had the interesting admission from the right hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth that it was necessary to have a magnificent palace of this sort because it was desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should entertain society. He should have thought that an admiral could be better employed than in attending social functions. The providing of a smaller house for him would have been more satisfactory in saving the money of the taxpayers. He understood that there was already a good house for the Commander-in-Chief at Sheerness, and that, apart from its position, nothing better could be desired. It was because it had been decided to remove the official residence from Sheerness to Chatham that this large amount was asked for.
  840
  He protested against the building of houses of this sort even for high officers. It meant that no man without a private income could undertake offices which implied entertaining and widespread hospitality. In the past the Navy more than the Army had been free from that kind of snobbery. He was sure nothing was more detrimental to efficiency than having high posts barred to men who had to live on their pay. In this case there was an allowance of £450 a year for servants in order to keep up the establishment. An admiral with a pay of £3,000 a year was not in a position to keep up a house of this sort.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Naval Barracks and General Fleet Services) be reduced by £15,000."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished to associate himself with the hon. Member for Halifax in protesting against the extravagance of building palaces for officers connected with the Navy. He thought the House scarcely realised the amount of money which was being spent in this way. Some of those who lived in houses of five or six rooms thought that a little more discretion might be exercised in regard to houses for officers of the Army and Navy. The sum of £25,000 which the house for the Commander-in-Chief was to cost was equal to the amount required, to build 100 houses of six rooms each in

  841
  a town in Lancashire. The amount now asked for furniture was out of all reason, and yet he believed that it would not be sufficient to furnish the house, and that another item would appear in the Vote next year for the same purpose. He wished the House and the country to know what they were paying for. How many rooms were there in the place, and what were they going to be used for? The hon. Member for Halifax had stated that the Commander-in-Chief could not, without a private income, maintain the position expected of him. He was afraid another result of this extravagant expenditure would be that the salary must be kept up in order that the Commander-in-Chief might be able to entertain and live in a style commensurate with the character of his dwelling-house. The Government were piling on expenses in this way, while the country was groaning under the unemployed and the terrible strain which the inhabitants of the large towns had to undergo in providing work for poor people. He thought the time had come when some economy should be practised. It was absolutely unnecessary that the country should spend anything like £25,000 on a house for any official.
  MR. MOONEYsaid it seemed to him that the Estimate they were now considering was one of extraordinary extravagance. At present the salary and allowances of the Commander-in-Chief amounted to £3,320. He would ask the Civil Lord whether he thought that a man in the position of an admiral, and with such an income, could keep up a house which was to cost £25,000, and, on account of his official position, do a certain amount of entertaining. He believed the Commander-in-Chief ought to have an official residence, but there was no reason why he should have a palace. He objected to the waste of money in building an extravagantly expensive establishment. There had been complaints as to the want of officers for the Army owing to the fact that they could not live on their pay. The Navy had not suffered from want of officers for the same reason, but if positions were to be created which could only be held by gentlemen having private means apart from official salary, that
  842
  condition would sink downwards, and the Navy would come to be in the same position in that matter as the Army. What was the reason for removing the official residence from Sheerness to Chatham? Would £25,000 meet the total cost in connection with the residence, or would additional sums be required later on? Was the £25,000 for bricks and mortar, or did it include an extravagant price paid for the land on which the house was built?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEexplained that the £25,000 represented not merely the estimate for building a residence for the Commander-in-Chief, but also large offices for the accommodation of his retinue and staff, offices in which the whole work of his office would be done. It was desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should be at the centre of his work rather than at Sheerness, twenty miles down the river. The furniture was not charged to this Vote. The reference to it was put here for information.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It does not appear anywhere else.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In any case it does not appear in this Vote, and it would be out of order to discuss it now.
  MR. WHITLEY: What is to become of the Sheerness house?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I am not yet in a position to say, because it will be a year or a year and a-half before the new house is ready.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLhoped the working classes of the country would take note of the fact that £25,000 was being spent on the housing of an Admiralty official at a time when the Government could not afford a meal for poor half-fed children. He hoped that would sink deep into the hearts of working men, and that they would remember it at the ballot. It could be perfectly well seen that the Navy was run on

  843
  class principles, the poor being robbed for the payment of highly-placed people.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: The Commander-in-Chief pays for his own furniture.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the £1,500 for?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: For fixtures.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether it was possible for the Commander-in-Chief to live in this house on the pay he received.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid it was considered a suitable size for the Commander-in-Chief with the salary provided for him.
  MR. SOARESasked how much was being spent on accommodation for the

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Parrott, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Benn, John Williams

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Black, Alexander William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Boland, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roche, John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. G. R (Northants

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Dillon, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

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

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Shackleton and Mr. Henderson

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Mara, James

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Commander-in-Chief, and how much on accommodation for the staff.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the accommodation was all under one roof, and, although he could not apportion the cost, he could state that a large portion of the building consisted of offices for the accommodation of the staff.
  MR. MOONEYasked how much was paid for the land.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid nothing was paid for the land, because the house was built on Government land.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 165.)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Balfour, Capt. C B. (Hornsey)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry G.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bill, Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N. W

  Randles, John S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Renwick, George

  Bull, William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Keswick, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tuff, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rnessB'ghs

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. G. B. Stuart

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Younger William

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

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aymer

  Viscount Valentia.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Mount, William Arthur

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £336,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he understood that they were to have a discussion on the discarded ships. It was rather late that night to enter upon such a discussion, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would not take this Vote that night.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he had no intention of taking the Vote that night, and he moved that Progress be reported.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL moved to reduce the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty by £100, in order to raise the question of flogging and "ragging" in the Navy. Hon. Members who professed to be gentlemen ought to treat him with ordinary courtesy when he spoke on a question of humanity. Although this practice of flogging in the Navy had been suspended since 1884 by an order of the Admiralty, the Lords of the Admiralty could, by a stroke of the pen, revive it, and to-day in every King's.

  847
  ship, as part of the equipment, there, was a cat-o'-nine-tails. Flogging had been abolished in the Army for twenty-five years, but youths in the Royal Navy under eighteen were subject, for the smallest and most trivial offence, after a summary trial, to castigation with twenty-four strokes by a birch which had been steamed over the coppers to make it hard. The strokes were administered on the bare flesh, in presence of all the other boys on board ship, and the youth was immediately afterwards removed to a cell below watermark and kept for twenty-four hours. These youths could be flogged because they could not swim properly, because their boots were not properly polished, because there was a speck of dirt on their clothes, or because their manner did not seem to be seemly to their superior officer. He had had letters from parents, from clergymen, and from deserters from the Navy on the subject; and he asked for a Commission or a Committee to investigate the whole subject. He insisted that it was intolerable that birching of that kind on the King's ships should be continued; and he appealed to the working men representatives in the House to help him in this matter, because they were returned by the fathers of the children who were the subjects of this degrading punishment. He could not help thinking that the new First Lord of the Admiralty could not better signalise his entrance into office than by abolishing the system of flogging in the Navy, as it had been abolished in the Army. Whenever Nelson had a particularly refractory sailor he sent him to Admiral Collingwood, who never flogged, and the sailors delighted in him.
  The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty stated in answer to a Question in March last that birching was a better form of punishment for boys in the Navy than in the Army. He traversed that statement in the most distinct way. England was the only nation in the world that retained corporal punishment in the Navy. Boys of sixteen years of age were accepted in the French training ships and they were liable to corporal punishment in no shape or form. Even in the Russian
  848
  Navy flogging had been abolished, The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had made a still more astonishing statement when he said that flogging in the Army had been abolished because there were no boys there. Had the hon. Gentleman ever seen a fife and drum band? The hon. Gentleman, who himself had been an officer in the Army, knew that there was no such thing as flogging in the Army, and he must recollect that in 1903 a colonel of the Guards had been placed on half pay for countenancing, or at least winking at, a case of "ragging" amongst the junior officers.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the Vote under discussion referred to the Navy and not to the Army.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he had only referred to that case by way of illustration, and to show that the man who permitted "ragging" in the Army had been dismissed. If flogging in the Army had been abolished why, then, permit it in the Navy? He maintained that boys who had been subject to being bullied or flogged either had their spirit broken, or it trained them to exercise tyranny afterwards over those who might become subject to them. They had heard that day, in reply to a Question, what had occurred on board H.M.S. "Kent." There were twenty-five midshipmen on board that ship, and one of their number who had been condemned by a mock Court-martial to be flogged with the scabbard of a dirk, which was a well-known punishment in the gun room, declined to submit, and said that he would make it serious work if he was subjected to it. The middy was alone and surrounded by the gang of gentlemen who were bullying him, and he used his revolver on them and wounded one or two of his comrades. Why had there not been an investigation in that case? Were the Admiralty afraid, if the whole of the facts and circumstances of that revolt were brought to light, they would show that the boy's conduct in fighting against such a system was praiseworthy? What had become of that boy? They had been told that his parents had removed him. Had they removed him at the

  849
  suggestion of the Admiralty or not? Did the commanders know that this system of cruelty in the gun room was practised? There was a speech of the Civil Lord which always went to his heart, in which the hon. Gentleman said that every boy carried in his kit an admiral's baton; but he knew it was perfectly certain that he also carried in his kit the possibility of a flogging with the cat-o'-nine-tails. The Navy, on which so much money was expended, was fenced around with class influence; and from the higher ranks the sons of the poor, no matter how able they might be, were absolutely excluded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries", Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he wished to refer to the practice of mooring obsolete warships in the waters of the Clyde.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid he would prefer to reply on the subject under discussion. It had been discussed at great length on a previous occasion, and there was no need for him to repeat the arguments he then used. The hon. Member had declaimed with ardour upon the possibility of flogging being inflicted upon men, but it was impossible that it could ever be revived.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not repeal the Act?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Member was aware that it would lead to a waste of Parliamentary time. As to the punishment of boys by birching—though corporal punishment was a thing to be avoided—there could be no doubt, it was an opinion general in the Navy,
  850
  that properly and judiciously inflicted, without undue severity, it was a great deal better than detention for growing boys. But it must be properly inflicted and must not be unduly frequent or be inflicted for offences which did not merit it. During the Easter recess he was on board the Irish training ship "Emerald" and asked an officer who had been on board the ship for a year how many of those birchings had been recently inflicted and he said there had not been one since he had been in the ship. He did not think the hon. Gentleman served his case by the extreme heat of his language and by his exaggeration. The hon. Member referred to cruelty and bullying. This was inconsistent with the fact that in no service in the world could there be found either in commission or in the ranks men more self-respecting and more respected than the officers and the men of the Royal Navy. His statement that there were no boys in the French Navy was correct, but with our system, where the personnel entered as boys, this particular form of punishment fell in. With regard to what went on in the gun room, there should be no sort of informal Court-martial or any severe unauthorised punishment upon midshipmen; and the Admiralty had taken the steps of which he had informed the House in order that any such practice should cease.
  There was no justification for complaint as to entrance to the Navy. Every application for nomination received at the Admiralty was accepted in the first instance unless there was exceptional reason to the contrary. All the boys who had received these preliminary nominations were interviewed by an interview committee presided over by a naval officer of high rank. This committee was kept in absolute ignorance of any recommendations which might be made in favour of any boy. All

  851
  they had before them was the statements of the parent and the schoolmaster or other person who had been entrusted with the boy's education. They interviewed the boys and classified them according to the opinion they formed of their brightness and fitness, and on that classification nominations were given. He thought it would be admitted that any possible objections there might be to the present system were enormously less than the obvious and serious objections there were to subjecting boys of twelve or thirteen years of age to the ordeal of a competitive examination. Under the present system there was no competitive examination whatever. There was only a qualifying and a medical examination, and every boy who passed them was qualified. There must always be a certain number of boys who failed to qualify, and therefore a few more nominations were given; but they were nominations on the selection and classification of a Committee who were absolutely guarded against any social influence whatever.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he desired to call attention to the danger attending the presence of obsolete warships in the Clyde. The present arrangement was objected to by all the yachting clubs in Glasgow.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that these ships were absolutely a danger to navigation, and he would urge the Secretary to the Admiralty to take the matter into consideration.
  MR. BENNsaid he feared that the Royal dockyards were being turned into mere repairing shops, and would
  852
  urge the importance of keeping up the shipbuilding capacities of the dockyards. There was a possibility that under the guise of economy the dockyards were being starved. He wished to know whether the extreme number of discharges from the dockyards was attributable to a new policy. It was a very grave matter for his constituency.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked whether it was the fact that the naval manœuvres had been cancelled for the present year.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that it had been decided to withdraw the manœuvres, which were to have been world-wide. When they were arranged the active naval war that was now being fought was not foreseen.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)stated that after the Committee on the Finance Bill, the first business taken would be the Naval Volunteers (Land) Bill and the Dogs Bill.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Sir A. Acland-Hood) put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Baker Street and Waterloo Railway; Edgware and Hampstead Railway; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway; Andover Lighting and Power.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bills; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
South Suburban Gas Bill; Epping Gas Bill; Nottingham and Retford Rail way Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Seaham Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill; Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [H.L.]; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill. Reported, with an Amendment.
Corbett Estate Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Great Western Railway (New Railways) Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Aylesbury Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Ealing Corporation Bill. Read 2a,and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Halifax Corporation Bill. Read 2a and committed.
Stockport Corporation Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill; Croydon Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill; Aberdare Urban District Council Bill; Colne Corporation Bill; Swansea Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H.L.]; Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bills reported, with Amendments.
Morley Corporation Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 11th of April and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Monday next.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill (No. 77); Dundee Water Order Confirmation Bill (No. 78). Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3375. Zanzibar (Pemba).
  No. 3376. Persia (Khorassan).

  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Report for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council of May 10th, 1905, varying the establishment of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights respectively.
  Order in Council of May 10th, 1905, directing that the Extradition Acts, 1870 to 1895, shall apply to the case of Cuba.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (OFFICE OF LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND ENROL MENTS).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).
  Statutory Rules and Orders, 1905, No. 231. The Foreign and Colonia Parcel Post Amendment (No. 14 Warrant, 1905.

  POLLING DISTRICTS.
  (County of Northumberland). Order made by the County Council of the County of Northumberland, altering certain, polling districts in the Wansbeck Parliamentary Division.
  (West Riding of Yorkshire). Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, altering certain polling districts in the Doncaster, Osgold-cross, Rotherham, and Sowerby Parliamentary Divisions.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LICENSED HOUSES.
  Petitions for early closing of; of inhabitants of Penrith (10); Young Men's Christian Association; lead, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend Section 86 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877. Was presented by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 75.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Judicature (Ireland) Acts, 1877 to 1897, and Section 6 of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the law relating to bankrupts and to the constitution of certain election courts in Ireland. Was presented by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No.76.)

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day read for adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the House will remember that a few days ago my noble friend Lord Avebury moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but at the request of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House kindly consented to allow the debate to be adjourned until to-day. I hardly like to ask the noble Lord to again adjourn the debate, but if he can see his way to postpone it until Tuesday of next week I can assure him, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we shall be very grateful.
  LORD AVEBURY; My Lords, after the appeal which has been made to me by the noble Marquess I feel that it would be discourteous on my part were I to decline to meet his wishes. I therefore move, with the permission of the House, that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday next.
  Moved, "That the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading be adjourned till Tuesday next."
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE LOSS OF THE "BANFFSHIRE."
  LORD MUSKERRY, who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have been made aware of the decision of the Board of Trade Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the loss of the trawler 'Banff-shire'; whether, previous to her leaving Aberdeen, she was inspected by a Board of Trade surveyor competent to survey her compasses and life-saving apparatus, and, if not, why not; also to call attention to the general question of the surveying of life-saving apparatus on British merchant ships," said that in the regrettable absence, through illness, of the noble Marquess the President of the Board of Trade he would postpone putting his Questions until Monday, May 29th.
  House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.