Sitting of 7 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Midland Railway Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 20th March (Evening Sitting).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1892.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANSreported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—1. Highland and Great North of Scotland Railways Amalgamation. 2. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Croydon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Two Petitions from Stanton Fitz-warren, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth Report of the Royal University of Ireland,
  426
  being for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th March; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
  SHOP HOURS ACT 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Gates head, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALIA.
  Copy presented, of Address from the House of Representatives and Resolution of the Senate on the subject of Home Rule for Ireland, and the Replies thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sub-officers and Assistants in the Dublin Postal Districts.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General how many sub-officers there are in the Dublin postal district; how many assistants are employed in these offices; what is the aggregate amount of the salaries paid to the sub-postmasters in charge of these offices last year; what is the aggregate amount of the salaries paid to the assistants engaged in these offices during the same time; are the sub-postmasters in question required to pay out of their own stipends not only the assistants' salaries but also office rent, cost of repairs, fire, light, and stationery; what was the average salary of a sub-postmaster in the Dublin postal district last year, after deducting the expenses entailed in carrying on the postal and telegraph duties entrusted to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet been able to obtain the Returns asked for by the hon. Member, but as soon as the information is available I will communicate with him.

  Programme of Work for Pembroke Dockyard.
  MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is possible yet to make any statement with regard to the programme of work to be provided for Pembroke Dock in the next financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The programme of work for Pembroke Yard for 1906–7 has not yet been issued, but provision is being made for advancement in the construction of the armoured cruisers "Warrior" and "Defence," together with the necessary maintenance of yard craft, etc., and miscellaneous services. This programme does not admit of laying down an additional new ship during 1906–7.

  Discharges from Sheerness Dockyard.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state why the discharges from the Royal Dockyard at Sheerness, from 1st April, 1905, to 31st January, 1906, amounting to 33 per cent. of the men employed at the former date, have been proportionately so much more numerous than the discharges at the other British dockyards, which on the average amount to 19 per cent. of the men employed at the date in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The work of Sheerness dockyard in the past consisted to a great extent in the construction of sloops, and the repair of vessels of this and similar types. The decision to build no more sloops, and to withdraw from the fleet vessels of small fighting efficiency, has appreciably reduced the class of work which the yard is capable of undertaking. The comparatively large reductions at Sheerness may, therefore, be regarded as the direct outcome of the recent re-organisation and re-distribution of the Fleet.

  Ireland and the Royal Commission on Canals.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the appointment of a Royal Commission on the subject of canals in Great Britain, he will consider the advisability
  428
  of that Commission including Ireland in the scope of its inquiries; whether, in that event, some additional members of the Commission can be appointed to deal with Irish canals only; or, in the alternative, whether he will recommend the appointment of a Viceregal Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Ireland is included in the scope of the Canals Commission, and two gentlemen resident in Ireland have been appointed Commissioners. It will, in my opinion, be an advantage to Ireland that the ability and experience of the Commissioners as a whole should be brought to bear on the very important question of developing internal navigation in Ireland.

  Working of Labourers Acts in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the promised Labourers Bill for Ireland, he will have printed as a Parliamentary Paper the Reports on the working and administration of the existing Labourers Acts furnished in 1903 or early in 1904 by the inspectors of the Local Government Board; and whether he will include in such Paper two or more examples of Reports of inspectors of the Local Government Board as to local inquiries in relation to typical schemes under the Acts, and two or more examples of Reports of the proceedings and decisions of the Privy Council, in reference to petitions from the decisions of the Local Government Board under the Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have not seen the Reports referred to in the first part of the Question. I am informed that they were intended for the private and confidential information of the Local Government Board and of its President, the Chief Secretary of the day; and I find that it was so stated by the right hon. Member for Dover in reply to a Question in this House on the 15th June, 1904† If the hon. Member thinks that examples of the Reports referred to in the latter part of the Question will serve his purpose, I shall have no objection to furnish them if he moves for them in the ordinary way.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 154.

  Importation of Irish Pigs into England.
  MR. J. P. FAERELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any modification will be made in the present order against the importation of Irish pigs into England; and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The movement of store swine from Ireland to Great Britain was prohibited by an order of the English Board of Agriculture which came into operation in January, 1905. That order has recently been modified by a further order of the same Board, which carne into force on the 1st instant, and which allows store swine to be sent direct from their homestead in Ireland to a place of destination in Great Britain subject to specified conditions as to declaration, licence, and mode of transit, and to the further requirement that the animals must in every instance be detained and isolated for twenty-eight days following arrival at the destination indicated in the licence. I have sent a copy of this order to the hon. Member.

  Date of Next Meeting of Land Sub-Commission at Ballymahon.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the next Sub-Commission for the hearing of fair rent applications in the union of Ballymahon, county Longford, will sit, and where.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that the cases in question will be heard at Longford on the 22nd instant.

  Fair Rents on the Earl of Annesley Estate.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will supply a list of fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissions of the Irish Land Commission on the estate of the Earl of Annesley, in county Down, in the rural districts of Banbridge, Kilkeel, and Downpatrick, since the 1st day of November, 1904, showing the old and new rents, and percentage of reduction, and giving in each case the name of the lay Commissioner on whose inspection and report the rent was fixed.
  430
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that the decisions in the fair rent cases referred to were announced in open court. In addition, each party was notified of the result, and and a list of the decisions was posted at the court house in which the hearing took place. The names of the legal and lay Assistant Commissioners, who adjudicate upon fair rent applications, are also stated in the published lists. This is the general rule, and the Land Commission are of opinion that no useful public purpose would be served by making a separate return in reference to a particular estate.

  Erection of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland—Legal Costs.
  MR. LIDDELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the first scheme under the Labourers Acts of the Banbridge (county Down) Rural District Council nine cottages were built at an average cost, including price of land, of £205 each, and that the lawyers' fees in connection with these nine cottages amounted to £150, or an average of £50 per cottage; and whether in the Labourers Bill which the Government have promised he will introduce amendments to simplify and cheapen the procedure, and by which the lawyers' charges may be reduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The records of the Local Government Board show that the average cost of each labourer's cottage in the district referred to has been about £340, and that the engineering and legal expenditure in each case amounts to almost £100. This excessive expenditure has been the subject of remonstrance on the part of the Board. One of the chief objects of the Labourers Bill which the Government intend to introduce is to cheapen and simplify the procedure of the existing Labourers Acts.

  Fair Rent Appeals at Letterkenny—Delay in Delivery of Judgment.
  MR. MCVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the delivering of judgments in the fair rent appeals from Letterkenny, county Donegal, heard by the Land Commission at Londonderry on the

  431
  21st of November last; and when it is likely that judgment will be delivered.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the delay in delivering judgment in the eases referred to has arisen through the absence on circuit of the Judicial Commissioner before whom they were heard. Judgment will be given in these cases before the end of the present month.

  Purchase of Holdings on the Warburton Estate.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to introduce legislation, or otherwise provide a remedy for the position of the tenants on the Warburton, Queen's County, property, and others similarly situated, which estate has been in the Land Judge's Court for the past twenty years, so as to enable them to purchase their holdings under the Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The case of these tenants is doubtless one for which it might be desirable to make some special provision; but I cannot, as at present advised, undertake to introduce a measure for this purpose. I will, however, look into the matter at a convenient opportunity, and see whether it may be possible to find some means of dealing with it at some future time.

  Sale of Estate of late J. Dunn at Aughaboe, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he can say if the Estates Commissioners have acquired the untenanted land belonging to the estate of the late Jeremiah Dunne, Aughaboe, Queen's County, which the Laud Judge proposed to dispose of on the 26th February last.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners' offer for the purchase of the unsold portion of the estate in question came before the Land Judge on Monday last, when the learned Judge postponed the consideration of the matter for a fortnight in order that he might make a further communication to the Commissioners.

  Rates of Mortality among Natives Employed in Transvaal Mines.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rates of mortality among natives employed in the Transvaal gold mines, coming from British Central Africa, Rhodesia, Mozambique, and Damaraland, further recruiting of labourers from those regions will be stopped.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have to refer the hon. Member to the statement at page 44 of 2819, from which he will see that it is proposed to stop recruiting from certain tropical areas, unless the mortality returns show marked improvement. Damaraland was closed as a recruiting area last year by the German Government.

  Death Rates amongst Chinese, White Labourers, and Natives in African Mines.
  MR. HILLS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the average death rate among Chinese coolies, white labourers, and African labourers, respectively, employed in the Transvaal gold mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The death rate among Chinese coolies for 1905 was 18.386 per thousand, among African labourers 47·13; per thousand; the mortality among white labourers on the mines is not separately given from that among the white population generally.

  Upkeep of Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Colonial Audit Branch, under the Controller and Auditor-General, is paid for out of Parliamentary funds; and, if not, how much is the amount of appropriations-in-aid received by the Exchequer and Audit Department for the housing, etc., of this Colonial Audit Branch; and why this amount is not clearly stated in the Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Colonial Audit Branch is not paid for out of Parliamentary funds. No appropriations-in-aid are received by the Exchequer and Audit Department for the housing, etc., of the Branch, who are accommodated in the same building with

  433
  the main office of the Exchequer and Audit Department.

  Standards for Civil Service Excise, Customs, and Second Division Examinations.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what is the system adopted by the Civil Service Commissioners in adjudging the papers of candidates at the various examinations for Excise, Customs, and Second Division; and whether the standards fixed by the Civil Service Commissioners have been promulgated to one college only.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The maximum of marks obtainable for the various subjects is fixed by the published regulations in the case of competitions for Assistants of Excise and Assistants of Customs, but not in those for Second Division or Customs Port Service. In the case of the two competitions last mentioned the Commissioners fix the maxima, care being taken that equal weight should always be assigned to optional subjects. The examiners then assign to the several candidates such proportion of the maximum marks as their work in each subject may be judged to deserve. No information is given by the Commissioners to any college or institution which is not accessible to all.

  Suggested Government Supervision of British Insurance Companies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the Dominion of Canada all insurance companies operate under strict Government supervision; and that the Finance Minister requested the head of the Insurance Department to prepare a special report showing in detail how the Government supervision of insurance companies is carried on; and whether he will make inquiries into this subject with a view to applying the Canadian principle to British insurance companies.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention has been directed to the facts referred to in the hon. Member's Question. The Life Insurance Act, 1870, already imposes upon insurance companies certain obligations in the interests of the insured, and as at present advised I am not disposed to make these obligations more stringent.

  French Import Duty on Umbrella Fittings.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that for many years previous to 1892 the integral and indispensable parts of an umbrella, such as slides and ferrules, etc., made of common brass, were subject to an import duty into France of sixteen francs per 100 kilos, (or roughly 12s. 8d. per two cwt.), and that at this duty it was possible to do a good trade at a small profit; but that in 1892 there was a considerable advance in the French tariffs, and through wrong classification these small brass articles forming indispensable parts of the commonest umbrellas were included with the dispensable parts, such as gold and silver-plated mounts, and charged at the duty of 100 francs per 100 kilos., as fixed for imitation jewellery; and whether he will cause representations to be made to the French Government with a view to having the classification rectified, and these duties readjusted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The facts are as stated. We are at present in communication with the French Government on the subject.

  Suggested Opening of a Sub-Post Office in Ballymahon Street, Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will, with a view to faciliating the postage of letters and parcels in Longford, consent to the opening of a sub-post office in Ballymahon Street, Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry whether the business done in the locality would justify the opening of a sub-post office in Ballymahon Street, Longford, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Delay in Completion of Whitefriargate Bridge in Hull.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the delay on the part of the North Eastern Railway Company in finishing the new Whitefriargate bridge in Hull; whether he is aware that, under the contract, the bridge ought to have been finished by the 23rd October last; and whether in view of the loss the

  435
  tradesmen in Whitefriargate are suffering, in consequence of the neglect of the railway company to proceed with due diligence with the work with which Parliament has entrusted them, he can exert pressure to prevent the company using their powers to the detriment of the town of Hull.
  (Answered by Mr. John Bums.) I understand that complaints have been made to the effect above mentioned. It would be matter of satisfaction to me to learn that the bridge was completed, but I have no control over the company in the matter.

  Irish Tenders for Supply of Drugs to English Boards of Guardians
  DR. AMBEOSE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether tenders for medicines and appliances from Irish druggists and manufacturers will be considered by English boards of guardians; and whether any Irish tenders have ever been refused.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) There is nothing in the regulations with respect to tenders to prevent boards of guardians in England and Wales from considering tenders from Irish firms. Whether such tenders have ever been refused I am unable to say.

  Ventilation of Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Reports have recently been received from His Majesty's inspectors of factories as to the ventilation of the Pimlico Clothing Factory; and what was the date of the last visit paid by His Majesty's women inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As a result of the conference that took place last summer between the representatives of the two Departments, instructions were given by the War Office for the preparation of plans of an improved system of ventilation for the factory. In reply to a recent inquiry, I was informed by the Army Council that the matter is still under consideration, but that they hoped before long to communicate full details of the proposed improvements. The last visit paid by a
  436
  lady inspector was on the 10th April last.

  Home Charges on Annual Expenditure of India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the chief items and amounts chargeable on India under Home charges, the total amount expended under Home charges for the last five years, and the proportion of Home charges to the annual expenditure of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The information asked for has already, so far as concerns the period up to and including 1903–4, been laid before Parliament in the annual Returns entitled "Home Accounts of the Government of India." It has been repeated more briefly in the "Financial Statements of the Government of India," annually presented to Parliament. It has also been summarised in the following Papers which are annually presented, viz., (1) Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India, (2) Statistical Abstract relating to British India, and (3) Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress of India. The gross expenditure in England charged against Revenue in 1904–5 was as follows:—

  £

  Interest and management of debt and payment of interest and annuities on account of railways

  9,762,193

  Payments in connection with Civil Departments in India, excluding stores

  382,924

  India Office, including Auditor's and Store Departments

  193,753

  Army effective charges, excluding stores

  1,474,535

  Stores of all kinds charged against Revenue

  2,964,196

  Furlough allowances

  218,692

  Pensions, civil and military

  4,467,464

  £19,463,757

  Besides these payments, the outlay on stores, etc., for the construction of State railways and irrigation works was £1,502,352. The gross expenditure in England forms about one-fourth of the total annual expenditure of the Government of India.

  Increased Cost of placing Majors holding Staff Appointments on List of Officers extra-Regimentally Employed.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the estimated charge that would be placed upon the taxes if majors in the Army, who have been passed over for the appointment of second in command by reason of their now holding staff appointments, were at once placed on the list of officers extra-regimentally employed, instead of being retained, as at present, on the lists of regiments; and also whether he will state the present system on which these officers are eventually placed on the special list of officers extra-regimentally employed.
  (Answered by Mr Secretary Raldane.) At the present moment there are only four officers so situated, and the immediate extra cost of placing them on an extra-regimental list would be £400 a year. Further, on vacating their staff appointments they would be placed on half-pay and so would increase the Non-effective Vote, but the calculation of this latter cost would, at the present moment, be impracticable. As regards the last part of the Question, as these officers have foregone further regimental promotion, the only way by which they can reach the extra-regimentally employed list, is by promotion in due course to half-pay lieutenant-colonelcies.

  Rebuilding of Piershill Cavalry Barracks, Edinburgh.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to rebuild the cavalry barracks at Piershill, Edinburgh.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As I have already explained to the House, all questions of building cavalry barracks depend upon the general military policy, and at the present moment I am not in a position to come to any decision on this policy.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Expenditure.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
    438
    whether he is aware that the French Budget Commission calculate that 70 per cent. of the French expenditure on new construction is returned to the country in wages and payments for goods made in the country; and whether he can give an approximate calculation of a similar character for British expenditure on new construction.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): I have not seen the calculation to which the hon. Member refers, and, as regards British expenditure, I am advised that, while it is impossible to make an exact calculation, it is believed that much more than 70 per cent. of the expenditure on new construction is returned to the country in the way indicated. In the case of Navy Votes as a whole, the proportion so returned would be even higher.

    Walton-on-the-Naze Lifeboat.
    MR. A. L. LEVER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that at Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, in case of a ship in distress or of a wreck, written information of such is sent from the coastguards' station to the coxswain of the National Lifeboat Institution's boat, and that no such information is supplied to the crew of the volunteer lifeboat, notwithstanding the fact that the messenger has to pass the houses of members of the volunteer crew, and whether, in view of the services rendered by the Walton lifeboat, the Board of Admiralty will give instructions that the same information is supplied to the volunteer lifeboat crew, and in the same manner, and at the same time.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Instructions will be issued to the coastguard to give information to both coxswains in the same manner.

    Naval Policy.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., Is he prepared, with the sanction of the Chairman of Committee, to enter into an arrangement whereby a general discussion may be taken on the Navy and on naval policy on Vote 8, or some other Vote?
    MR. EDMUND BOBERTSON: I have no power to enter into any special arrangement, but I may remind the hon. Member that Vote 8 and Vote 12 will afford full opportunity for the discussion of naval policy, and those Votes will be submitted at a convenient time.

    Militia Training.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council is satisfied that Militia recruits can be satisfactorily trained generally, and particularly in musketry, during the winter months.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if the scheme for allowing Militia recruits to enlist for their six months training at any time convenient to themselves has been approved by the commanding officers of Militia regiments; and how the scheme can be carried out consistently with the regular training of the complete battalions.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAE (Mr. HALDANE,): If the hon. and gallant Member will kindly refer to the full reply which I gave to Questions put on this subject on the 1st March, † he will find such information as I am at present able to give him on the points raised in his two questions. The scheme is purely experimental, and until it has been given a fair trial it is impossible to say whether it will be thoroughly satisfactory.

    Army Officers' Pay.
    MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any and what changes have been made in the pay of officers in the Army during recent years, and when these changes were made.
    MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend is presumably referring to regimental officers. Since 1881, when there were a few unimportant changes, there has been no alteration in the pay with the exception of the extra one shilling a day to the senior major as second in command, which was granted in 1887. It must be remembered that officers have received pecuniary benefit in recent years in respect
    †See (4) Debates, clii. 1289–90.
    440
    of provision of furniture for quarters and messes, public horses, and grants of money in aid of mess and band expenses.

    Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill.
    COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to re-introduce the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill during the present session of Parliament.
    MR. HALDANE: It is too early in the session to say whether an opportunity will arise for the re-introduction of the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters. Bill of last session.

    St. George's Barracks Recruiting Establishment.
    COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken for the transfer of the Recruiting Establishment from St. George's Barracks, London, to a more desirable locality.
    MR. HALDANE: This question is receiving very careful consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present moment.

    Cavalry Barracks.
    MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as a result of the inquiries made last year by the War Office of various district councils, with reference to securing suitable sites for the erection of cavalry barracks within their area, it is proposed to take any further steps in the matter.
    MR. HALDANE: The question of the erection of any further barracks necessarily forms part of the general question of the future organisation of the Army, and, as I have already stated, I am not at present in a position to arrive at a decision on the general military policy.

    Sir W. Butler's Trip to South Africa.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir W. Butler has been sent out by the Government to South Africa on a mission, giving him large powers of local inquiry; and, if so,

    441
    whether he can give the House any information as to the nature of that mission.
    MR. HALDANE: Nothing is known in the War Office of the reasons for the departure of Sir William Butler to South Africa. He has not gone on any mission connected with the War Department.

    Soldiers in South African Prisons.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say how many men convicted of offences while serving as soldiers are now in civil prisons in South Africa; can he also give the names of such men imprisoned in Pretoria, with the nature of the offences, the sentence pronounced against them, the date on which they were convicted, also the conduct of those men while in prison; and whether their cases will be looked into with a view to mitigation of their punishment.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I am not able to give this information, but I will endeavour to obtain it from South Africa. No adequate reason for interfering with the ordinary procedure in such cases has been brought to my notice.
    MR. JOYCE: When shall I put the Question again?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I propose to ask for the information by despatch, in view of the heavy cost of telegraphing.

    Native Labour Limitations in South Africa.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed to extend to Natal and the Cape Colony limitations in respect of the conditions of native labour, similar to those to be imposed on the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
    I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the limitations proposed in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony in respect of the control of those Colonies over the conditions of native labour.
    MR. CHURCHILL: In reply to this and the other Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that limitations in regard to the conditions of native labour are not under consideration at present.

    Land Settlement in South Africa.
    SIR JOHN DICKSON - POYNDER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken since the annexation of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal in 1900, with a view to British colonisation in those territories; whether any surveys have been made to ascertain what lands are available for settlers from the United Kingdom; what roads or other facilities of access and development are required; what methods of sub-division and tenure are best calculated to promote the establishment of an agricultural and pastoral population; and whether the Government will forthwith consider means by which these parts of the Empire may be most speedily and effectively colonised upon the same principles that have been applied with conspicuous success in other dependencies of the Crown.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I regret to say that it is impossible within the limits of a Question to answer the hon. Member's queries in detail. The last reports on the subject of land settlement which have been published to Parliament will be round in Cd. 2,482 and Cd. 3,563, and I shall be happy to send the later reports for the year ended 30th June, 1903, to the hon. Member for his perusal. Up to 30th June, 1905, about £2,200,000 had been expended on land settlement in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony out of the guaranteed loan. The amount of land acquired in the Orange River Colony is over 1,000,000 acres, at a cost of £850,000, and about 700 heads of families have been settled under the Settlers' Ordinance; nearly 1,000,000 acres have been purchased at a cost of about £500,000. The hon. Member will therefore see that the matter has engaged the serious and benevolent attention of the administration of the two Colonies, but the result has not so far been as satisfactory as could have been desired. Settlers require considerable capital, and there have been several bad seasons recently.
    SIR JOHN DICKSON -POYNDER: Has a survey ever been instituted for the Transvaal, and a return of the ownerships obtained?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that Question.

    Native Disturbances in Natal.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if the Government have any fresh information with respect to the native rising in Natal? Can he say what prospects there are of an early pacification?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The information which has been received by the Secretary of State has been practically to the same effect as that which has appeared in the newspapers. The last telegram, dated March 5th, reported the capture of the chief Gobizembe and the surrender of four chiefs, several headmen, and about 300 natives, and stated that the officer commanding hoped to complete the sweeping operations successfully.

    Suggested Standing Committee for India.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the wisdom of appointing a Standing Committee of the House in order to form a link between India and the Members of this House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): As at present advised, I can see no sufficient reason for making, in respect of Indian affairs, an exceptional arrangement, which is unknown in any other Department of His Majesty's Government.

    Police and the Public in Eastern Bengal.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the petition of J. L. Nundy, a merchant's clerk, supported by four other persons, three being Brahmins, to the commissioner of police, Calcutta, in which he states that when returning from his office on the 31st January, near the Bowbazar police station, he saw a number of constables, some in uniform
    444
    and some in undress, abruptly come out of the station and beat the passers-by indiscriminately with belts, batons, and staves, and that he was knocked down insensible and received scalp wounds; whether he has any official information showing that this action of the police was due to some students, coming from a meeting of protest against partition, singing a national but not seditious song, called "Bande Materam," or "Hail to our Motherland"; and whether forcible repression of public meetings has been reported from many towns and villages in Eastern Bengal.
    MR, JOHN MORLEY: No information has reached me as to the statements contained in the Question, but I will see that the attention of the Government of India is drawn to them. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, the Government of India are awaiting a full report on the subject from the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam.

    Inspection of Telegrams.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the addressee of a telegram has a right to inspect the original; and, if so, whether there is any published rule on the point, or is it in the discretion of the Post Office authorities absolutely to grant or refuse such a request.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Telegrams are preserved by the Post Office for a period of three months. During this time the telegrams are as a rule open to inspection by either the sender or the addressee, but there might be special circumstances under which the Postmaster-General would not consider himself bound to produce the original except under the order of a competent Court. The published regulation on the subject will be found on page 85 of the Post Office Guide.

    Hours of Labour of Signalmen and Shunters.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will call for a Return of the number of instances on which eight-hours signalmen and shunters have worked ten and more

    445
    hours, and ten - hours signalmen and shunters have worked twelve and more hours per day on the railways of the United Kingdom during 1905.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. KEARLEY,): My right hon. friend is making inquiry to ascertain whether the information desired can be obtained.

    Goole Railway Fatality.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President to the Board of Trade if he has yet received a Report from the officer who held the inquiry into the cause of the accidents to Porter Sellers and Fireman Day at Goole, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on 28th December 1905; and can he state the ages of the two men and the hours they had been on duty at the time of their accidents.
    MR. KEARLEY: An inquiry was held into the accident that occurred to Porter Sellers, and Fireman Day, who was injured at the same time, attended the inquiry. The Report has been received, and will be published in due course. Sellers, who stated that he was twenty years of age, had at the time of the accident been on duty for sixteen hours ten minutes, and the Board of Trade are in communication with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company on the subject of the hours worked by goods porters at Goole. I have no knowledge of Day's precise age, but in the notice rendered by the company of his accident, he is stated to be over eighteen years old, and to have been on duty eight hours thirty-five minutes at the time of the mishap.
    MR. BELL: Will the hon. Gentleman obtain a return from the company of the number of hours worked by these men in the three months ending December, 1905?
    MR. KEARLEY: I will make inquiry and see if the information can be obtained.

    German Tariffs on Bread Stuffs.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether under the new German tariff the duties on bread
    446
    stuffs have been raised approximately from 35s. to 70s. per ton for the general tariff, and to 50s. for the conventional tariff; what percentage of duty is now levied on the principal bread stuffs in Germany; whether the price of such bread stuffs in Germany is greater than their price in England; and, if so, by how much; and, on the assumption that such duties are paid by the consumer, how much out of every Is. paid in Germany for bread will, under the new tariff, be paid by the consumer for bread, and how much for duty.
    MR. KEARLEY: The German import duties on wheat and rye were 35s. 7d. per ton under the former tariff; under the new general tariff they are 76s. 2d. and 71s. 1d. per ton, and under the conventional tariff 55s. 10d. and 50s. 10d. per ton respectively. The new conventional rates represent 39 per cent. and 43 per cent. respectively of the value of imported wheat and rye as shown in the German Import Returns for 1905. The price of wheat in Germany is higher than in the United Kingdom. The average market price for wheat in Berlin was 38s. 1d. per quarter in 1905. In the United Kingdom in the same year British wheat averaged 29s. 9d. per quarter, and imported wheat 31s. 0d. per quarter. Thus in 1905 the Berlin price exceeded that of imported wheat in the United Kingdom by 7s. 1d. per quarter (or 33s. 1d. per ton) and that of British-grown wheat by 8s. 4d. per quarter (or 38s. 11d. per ton). With the above data the hon. Member must form his own judgment as to the proportion of the price of bread which would be attributable to the duty.

    Shirley Village Community for Poor Law Children.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to a report made at a meeting of the Bermondsey Board of Guardians on the 18th January last, showing that the average cost of educating and maintaining the Poor Law children of Bermondsey in the village community, recently erected at Shirley at a cost of £320 per bed for 560 children, was during 1904 £1 11s. 1d. per child per week; and that in January, 1906, the community was costing the ratepayers £625 per week, or £1 1s. 9d. per

    447
    child per week for 588 children; and whether the Local Government Board will take measure to check such expenditure by boards of guardians, seeing that it keeps the children as a class apart, and isolates them from the educative activities and interests of everyday life.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): I have not seen the report referred to, but I am aware of the high cost of maintenance in the Shirley schools, and I am in communication with the guardians on the subject. I will not lose sight of the matter.

    Inland Revenue—Supervisors' Promotion.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the rule that before a supervisor of Inland Revenue is promoted to the first class, his books must be examined and passed, he will say if the supervisor promoted over so many of his seniors was appointed before his books were examined; if he will give the date of the Board's minute giving special promotion to this official, also the date of the report on his books, and what explanation is offered if the former date precedes the latter; whether the Chairman and Board of Inland Revenue accept responsibility for this promotion, involving as it does the supersession of a hundred officials.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The books of the supervisor in question were examined in the usual way and were found to be extremely satisfactory. The report on them was dated the 18th January, and the letters announcing his promotion were issued the same day. The board's minute making the selection was dated the 18th Januarv, but effect was not given to it until the report on the books had been completed. The Chairman and the Board of Inland Revenue accept full responsibility for the promotion.

    Stratford District Inland Revenue Supervisors' Promotion.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it was with the knowledge and sanction of the Chairman and Board of Inland Revenue that the regulations were departed from in
    448
    the case of the supervisor of Inland Revenue who was promoted from a lower to a higher class recently over more than one hundred of his seniors; and will he explain why, when this officer was first appointed to a district at Salisbury, he lid not proceed there according to rule, but was allowed to remain at the chief office until a vacancy had been created at Stratford, to which, on the recommendation of the chief inspector, he was appointed.
    MR. MCKENNA: The circumstances referred to in this Question took place in December, 1903, and were as follows:—After the assignment of the supervisor in question to the Salisbury district, it was found that it would be a more advantageous arrangement to appoint him to the new district in Stratford, and this was accordingly done—of course with the knowledge and sanction of the Board of Inland Revenue.

    National Pension List.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the approximate annual sum at present paid out of public funds for pensions and annuities in respect of the Navy, Army, and Civil Services, including the Judiciary.
    MR, McKENNA: The provision for pension and retirement gratuities, either voted or charged on the Consolidated Fund, was for the year 1905–6, in round figures.

    £

    (i)

    Navy

    2,423,000

    (ii)

    Army

    3,531,000

    (iii)

    Civil Service (including Judiciary).

    1,720,000

    Total

    7,674,000

    This does not include the sums voted for pensions for the Dublin metropolitan police and for the Royal Irish constabulary. These were £32,000 and £379,000 respectively.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: Having regard to the fact that a sum approximating to £10,000.000 per annum is now paid out of public funds in respect of pensions to officials who have had good salaries, will

    449
    the Government consider the possibility of providing old-age pensions for the aged and deserving poor?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Do the Army pensions include those to the rank and file, or does the amount given refer only to officers' pensions?
    MR. MCKENNA: It includes all pensions.

    Leadless Glaze Ware for Government Departments.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the use of leadless glaze ware is continued to be specified in contracts for china and earthenware by, or undertaken by other Departments on the advice of, the Office of Works; and whether the advice of the Office of Works in this matter is still asked by the Admiralty, the War Office, the India Office, and other Departments, or whether Questions should be put separately to them, and to the Post Office in respect of the purchase of insulators; whether he has any reason to suppose that there is combination on the part of many manufacturers or dealers not to supply articles made with leadless glaze except at special prices, higher than those originally set upon such articles when the policy of preference to leadless glaze was originally adopted by the Office of Works, the Admiralty, and other Public Departments.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): Amended special rules under the Factory and Workshop Acts, for the manufacture and decoration of earthenware and china, have been issued by the Home Office in the form established after arbitration by the awards of the umpire, Lord James of Hereford. These rules allow the use of lead glaze if the amount of soluble lead does not exceed five per cent. Experience having shown that strict adherence to the policy of using leadless glaze rendered it extremely difficult to obtain competitive tenders and considerably enhanced expenditure, the Office of Works has recently followed the example of the Home Office in accepting lead-glazed articles in accordance with the
    450
    above rules. The advice of the Office of Works has not been sought lately by the other Departments mentioned; and I am unable to answer for them as to supplies under their control. I have no evidence of such a combination as is referred to by my right hon. friend; but if he has any information which he is willing to give me I shall gladly receive and, if necessary, act upon it.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are any steps taken to test at the Government offices set apart for the purpose any of the articles supplied from time to time in order to see that the five per cent. is not exceeded?
    MR. HARCOURT: I believe that tests are made, but how frequently I am not able at this moment to say.

    Education (Provision of Children) Bill.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when he proposes to move for the appointment of a Select Committee further to consider the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, read a second time on Friday last.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): This matter is in the hands of the proper authorities, and the Committee, it is expected, will be moved for to-morrow or the next day.

    West of Scotland Fisheries.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the inadequate representation of the West of Scotland on the Scottish Fishery Board, and in view of the dissatisfaction prevailing with regard to the inaction of the Board in the present crisis, he will exercise the powers conferred upon him under The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, Clause 6, Section (1), and create a Fishery District Committee for the Firth of Clyde.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Secretary for Scotland can only move in this matter on the application of a local authority. No such application has yet reached me.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: What local authorities can move in the matter?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The authorities appointed by statute.

    Capital Expenditure for Scottish Education.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the sum of £210,000, which in September last the Scottish Education Department intimated to the governing bodies of technical institution in Scotland had been carried to a suspense account, so as to be available for capital expenditure in connection with educational work, is still available for that purpose; has the Treasury appropriated any unexpended balance of any sum allocated to Scottish education; and, if so, what steps, if any, does the Secretary for Scotland intend to take to recover for educational purposes in Scotland the sums so appropriated.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Treasury has consented to a revote of the sum of £100,000 in the next financial year, the balance of the whole sum being placed on the Estimates in the next few years as may be required.

    Scottish Education—Equivalent Grants for Technical Instruction
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when he intends to introduce a Bill for Scotch Education, and how the equivalent grants for aiding technical instruction, amounting to some £211,000, are to be dealt with in the meantime.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The question of what legislation may be necessary for the better organisation of education in Scotland is under consideration; but it is not probable that a Bill dealing with the subject will be introduced during the present session. The sum revoted for next year will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of a Minute to be laid before Parliament.

    English Trawlers in Scottish Waters.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the point of law awaiting decision by the Courts which prevents steps being taken to re
    452
    move the disability under which English trawlers suffer when fishing off the coast of Scotland, as compared with trawlers flying a foreign flag.
    MR. SINCLAIR: British trawlers are prohibited from fishing in certain waters by Act and by-law, and the question pending in appeal before the High Court of Justiciary relates to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts over trawlers other than British.
    MR. ASHLEY: When is a decision likely to be come to?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That I cannot say.

    Irish Tenants-at-Will.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if, in view of the fact that future tenants are tenants-at-will, liable to eviction without cause by twelve months notice, and are excluded from the Land Courts except with the consent of the landlord, and that they are the only considerable class of tenants now so excluded, and that many of them have been in occupation without physical interruption for more than a quarter of a century, and that the legislature has never expressly enacted the creation of a permanent class of this kind without security or redress, His Majesty's Government will find some remedy for the position of future tenants.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The hon. Member has not quite correctly stated the legal position of future tenants under the Irish Land Acts. They cannot be truly described as mere tenants-at-will, inasmuch as, though their tenancies may be determined by notice to quit, they are, if evicted without cause, entitled to compensation for both disturbance and improvements. As a matter of fact, I believe that very few of them have been dispossessed except for non-payment of rent, and many of them have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts. Whether it would be possible for desirable to extend their rights by legislation is a matter which I could not very well discuss within the limits of an Answer.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the Government introduce some legislation on the matter?
    MR. CHERRY: I have answered that part of the Question.

    Irish Tennants' Improvements.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the practice of the Courts empowered to fix judicial rents in Ireland to presume every improvement to have been made by the landlord, unless the tenant furnishes legal evidence of the improvement having been made by himself or his predecessor; and whether, in view of those provisions, Section 5 of the Land Act of 1870, amended by Section 1 (10) of The Land Law Act, 1896, which say that all improvements are to be deemed the tenant's until the contrary has been proved, His Majesty's Government proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to enforce these statutory provisions.
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that it is the practice of the Land Courts to presume every improvement to have been made by the landlord until the contrary is proved. I am informed by the Land Commissioners that, so far as they are aware, the Assistant Commissioners loyally observe the provisions of the statutes dealing with the presumption as to improvements and the decisions of the Superior Courts on the matter, which are numerous. His Majesty's Government does not propose to take any steps to enforce these statutory provisions, inasmuch as a right of appeal already exists in the event of a sub-Commission making a decision which is alleged to be erroneous.

    Challenging of Irish Jurors.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the revised instructions which he has issued with respect to challenging jurors in Ireland; and whether he can explain the reason for the issue of these instructions.
    MR. CHERRY: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar Question addressed
    454
    to me by the hon. Member for North Down.†
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise his constituents at the late general election that such instructions
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order. That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Irish Land Purchase—Mineral Rights.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Land Act of 1903, the mineral rights of purchased estates are vested in the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners have power to work, sell, or lease, such mineral rights in any farm; and, if not, will he introduce a short Bill giving power to the Commissioners to sell or lease these rights, with a view to the development of such mines as may be found to exist in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): Pursuant to Section 13 (3) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the rights to minerals in respect to lands purchased by the Land Commission must be reserved to the Land Commission, but such rights cannot be disposed of by the Commission until the manner of disposal is provided for by Parliament. The question of legislation on the subject is under consideration.

    Land Prices and Rent Reductions.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the average reductions on judicial and non-judicial rents fixed before and after the Land Act of 1903; and if he can also give the average number of years' purchase paid for land before and after the Act, inclusive and exclusive of the bonus.
    MR. BRYCE: Full particulars respecting the reductions in first and second term judicial rents are set out in the tables which appear in the appendices to the annual Reports of the Irish Land Commission. In these Reports, and also
    †See (4) Debates, cliii., 304.

    455
    in the Report of the Estates Commissioners, will be found information as to the average number of years' purchase in cases where advances have been made under the Land Purchase Acts before and after the year 1903. The tables in the Reports do not include the bonus. It would be a very troublesome task to add the bonus to the tables, but the hon. Member can without difficulty calculate its amount in any case or group of cases.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that the effect of the Land Act of 1903 has been to raise the standard of value by six years' purchase?
    MR. BRYCE: I should not think so, but I have no information before me to enable me to say definitely.

    Irish Out-door Relief Regulations.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Belfast and other parts of Ireland objection is taken by the League of the Blind to the system of placarding in public places, even at the street corners in which they reside, the names of those who are in receipt of outdoor relief, and also bringing those persons twice yearly before the Poor Law Board; and whether, as no such system exists in Great Britain, and the relief is paid in cash instead of kind, he will see his way to have the system in Ireland assimilated to that in England.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are not aware of the objection mentioned in the Question. The practice referred to has been found to be a great safeguard against fraud, by enabling poor persons to see the amount which has been voted to them; and it also acts as a check to the giving of outdoor relief to persons who are not fit subjects for such relief. The Local Government Board have no information as to what the practice is in England, but experience has convinced them that this practice has not worked ill, and that it is desirable to have the lists of recipients of relief revised at least once in each half year.

    Candclear Estate, County Galway.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps
    456
    have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to confirm the arrangements made by the tenants on the Candclear property, Raeveagh, Clarenbridge, county Galway, and the agent, Mr. Talbot Crosbie, in respect to the Coolratty farm; and seeing that ten months have since elapsed without an opportunity having been given the tenants to effect such changes and improvements as are required, and in view of the urgency of the work, will he direct the Commissioners to proceed at once to the settlement of this property.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the property referred to from the particulars given in the Question, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of the owner of the estate, the Commissioners will make further search. The Commissioners are making all possible efforts to accelerate the despatch of business, but the quantity they have to deal with is very large.

    Gort Untenanted Lands.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received a copy of resolution passed by the Gort District Council at their meeting on the 17th ultimo, wherein they request the Commissioners, in the event of their purchasing any estate in the neighbourhood, to have regard to the distribution of such land to the requirements of the evicted tenants in Gort, tenants of uneconomic holdings, farmers' sons, and workers skilled and unskilled, in the district and to means provided by the Land Act of 1903 for satisfying these requirements without adding to the rates; and whether due weight will be given to the representation made by the council when they come to deal with the un tenanted land in the vicinity of Gort.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the resolution referred to, and that, in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the vicinity of Gort, the views of the district council will receive due consideration.

    Administration of the Irish Land Act.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    457
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact recognised by Parliament in 1881, and subsequently, that the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland precluded real freedom of contract between those parties with reference to rent, and similarly recognised by Parliament with reference to price in all the Purchase of Land Acts prior to that of 1903, and that on account of the said fact Parliament established authorities for fixing rents and controlling prices; and having regard to the immediate increase in prices of land consequent on the removal of the latter safeguard by the Act of 1903, and the ultimate risk to persons not parties to contracts under that Act, in the event of default by the purchasers, what practical measures His Majesty's Government propose to take against this risk.
    MR. BRYCE: Without expressing any opinion upon the validity of the argumentative portion of this Question, His Majesty's Government consider that the evidence before them including the experience acquired under former Land Purchase Acts, goes to show that the advances which are being made to purchasers under the Act of 1903 are adequately secured.

    Untenanted Land Return.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return on the Paper for To-morrow in the name of the Member for North Westmeath.†
    MR. BRYCE: The matter will be carefully considered. A Return of the nature referred to would involve considerable expense, and I cannot yet say how long it would take to prepare it. The hon. Member had better defer his Motion for some little time.

    Bloomhill and Derrycarney Road, Birr.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the new road, known as
    † Untenanted and Non-residential Land (Ireland)—Return of Untenanted and Nonresidential Land, exclusive of demesnes, in Ireland by counties, giving in relation to such land in each county; (1) the rural district; (2) the townland; (3) the area in statute acres; (4) the Poor Law valuation; and (5) the name and address of the owner or person receiving the profits of the said land.
    458
    the Bloomhill and Derrycarney Road, in the Birr rural district, is delayed in completion, by reason of the fact that the auditor has threatened to surcharge the county council should they proceed with the work; and whether he will give instructions to that official, who proposes holding his audit in Tullamore on the 11th instant, to allow those works to proceed, as they have been repeatedly approved by the district council of Birr and the King's County Council.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Local Government Board that it is not the fact that their auditor threatened to surcharge the county council for the cost of the road in question. He suggested, however, to the council the desirability of considering whether the road should not be constructed as a whole rather than that, as proposed, a small section of it should be made which would not be of general public benefit. The county council approved of the auditor's suggestion, and referred the matter back to the district council in order that they might formulate a fresh proposal. It is the duty of the auditor to determine the legality of payments which come before him, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere except on appeal from his decision.

    Constable Anderson—Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland where is Constable Anderson, who was one of the three constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary who received an indemnity from the late Government at the secret investigation which preceded the dismissal of Sergeant Sheridan for procuring by perjury the conviction of innocent men for crimes perpetrated by himself, and who was allowed by the late Government to remain on at the depôt of the Royal Irish Constabulary and discharge the duties of a constable of the force, notwithstanding the fact of his being Sheridan's accomplice in the fabrication of perjured evidence and the perpetration of crime; and whether, if this man be not removed from the Royal Irish Constabulary, on what ground is he still retained in the force, and what are the safeguards of the public against him.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that this constable is still serving at the Royal Irish Constabulary Depôt, that he is, as was stated in this House on July 21st, 1904†, employed solely on the "fatigue" staff and is not entrusted with any authority over recruits or other members of the force, and that he performs no public duty outside the depôt. I find that the reasons for retaining this man in the force were fully stated in this House by the right hon. Member for Dover on July 23rd, 1902‡, and on other occasions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman bound by the statement of the right hon. Member for Dover to retain in the force this moral contamination and to allow this fellow, who has been proved up to the very hilt to be a perjured felon, to wear the uniform of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member will recollect that this man was allowed to continue in the force upon a promise which appears to have been made to him at the time when he became King's evidence. The hon. Member will see that it is not easy to depart from a promise made by my predecessor.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed. He did not become King's evidence. He gave evidence at a private inquiry, and the result of that was a pledge which I say should not be kept, as it was a dishonourable pledge.
    MR. SLOAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the charges preferred against this constable are true?
    MR. BRYCE: I submit that that does not arise. This matter was very fully gone into several years ago.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, by a coercion Government. If this impure felon is to be retained, will he at least be segregated from other constables?
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Was not this man entirely acquitted of the charge brought against him?
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 780.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxi., 1073, et seq.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: He was never tried at all, and his guilt was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is now becoming a controversy. Hon. Members are not confining themselves to asking Questions.

    Game Licence Prosecution in County Galway.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. Harry Persse, of Woodville, Loughrea, county Galway, was found by the police on February 17th, 1906, carrying and using a gun, accompanied by a setter dog, in the pursuit of game on his farm at Woodville; will he say whether Mr. Persse had taken out an excise licence or was in possession of a game certificate; and, if not, in view of the fact that Mr. Persse holds the commission of the peace, and repeatedly adjudicated in cases of this nature at Loughrea petty sessions, what steps the excise authorities intend taking in the case.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Board have ordered proceedings against Mr. Harry Persse for the offence referred to, and the matter will be left to the adjudication of the magistrates. Mr. Persse took out a gun licence after the detection.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to this case?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no information on that point.

    Irish Education Grants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Estimates for the coming financial year show an increase in the amounts required for primary education in Great Britain of £645,000, and in Ireland of only £1,502; and, if so, whether, in view of the state of primary education in Ireland, and the complaints as to defective school buildings and remuneration of teachers, the Treasury will take steps to remedy the disparity between the amounts raised for the purposes of primary education in Great Britain and in Ireland.
    MR. McKENNA: The figures are not comparable, as the Estimates for England and Scotland include not only Elementary hut Secondary Education, Science and Art Grants, Museums, Royal Colleges of Science and Art, etc. As regards the charge for elementary education in Great Britain a large proportion of the increase is due to the larger number of children in the schools, a consideration which does not apply to Ireland in the same degree.
    MR. FLYNN: But do not the figures show that England will receive from the public purse in the coming financial year 7s. 7d. per head of population while Ireland will get only 6s. 5d.? Will the Treasury favourably consider applications from Irish boards for increased grants in view of the defective nature of many school buildings and the low remuneration of the teachers?
    MR. MCKENNA: The larger increase in England is due to the fact that there are more children in the schools this year. The increase of children in Ireland is nothing like in the same degree.
    MR. FLYNN: The hon. Gentleman entirely ignores the significance of my figures.

    Irish Quit Rents.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average amount paid in Irish quit rents to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests during the last ten years; how these sums have been employed; and whether he can see his way to earmark these sums for Irish purposes.
    MR. MCKENNA: The average annual amount of quit rents paid to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests during the ten years ended 31st March, 1905, is £35,516. The money has been merged in the general income of the Land Revenues of the Crown, the surplus proceeds of which have been paid into the Exchequer each year in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Lands Acts. I do not see my way to proposing any change in the existing practice.

    St. Patrick's Day Observance in Ireland.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that St.
    462
    Patrick's Day is now by law a public holiday in Ireland, he will give directions that the post offices in Ireland will be closed on that day, as on Christmas Day and Good Friday.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the North of Ireland St. Patrick's Day is not observed as a public holiday, that there is no demand for the closing of post offices, and that, as a matter of fact, the closing of public houses—of post offices I mean—would be a hardship upon the business men and traders of Belfast.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a Question of which the hon. Member should give notice.
    MR. FLAVIN: May I ask whether the hon. Member wants the public houses open on St. Patrick's Day in the interests of Dunville's whiskey?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: St. Patrick's Day, being a bank holiday, the ordinary bank holiday arrangements apply generally to post offices throughout Ireland as being more suitable than the Christmas Day and Good Friday arrangements.

    Caledon (Tyrone) Mail Service.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Caledon, county Tyrone, have to post letters as early as 2.40 p.m. to catch the mails to England and Scotland the same night; and whether he will take into consideration the inconvenience which this entails upon business people, and arrange for a despatch of mails by the train leaving Tynan at 6.40 p.m. to proceed to England via Greenore, and to Scotland by way of Belfast and Ardrossan.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Inquiry is being made on this subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

    Local Expenditure—Suggested Government Statement on Budget Day.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of adopting an arrangement whereby, immediately after the

    463
    Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his Budget statement of the National Expenditure and Debt for the year, the President of the Local Government Board would make a further statement of the expenditure and debt of local authorities for the same year.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: The relations between Imperial and local expenditure and revenue are under the consideration of the Government, and the suggestion made by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

    Suggested Municipalisation of Canals.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended by the terms of the reference to require the Royal Commission on Canals and Inland Navigation to consider and report as to the advisability of canals and inland waterways being acquired and managed by the Government itself, or by county or municipal authorities alone or in combination, as well as by public trusts; and, if so, will he say what are the specific words in the reference which will enable the Commission to give effect to such intention.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: By the terms of reference the Commissioners are to report on the expediency of canals being made or acquired by public bodies or trusts, and I cannot doubt that under these words the Commission will receive evidence from those who favour acquisition and management by the Government and municipal authorities.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the Order Paper to-day if, in view of the understanding that a whole sitting should be devoted to the Report stage of the Vote on Account, it is intended to proceed with it to-day seeing that it stands third in the Orders?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, it will be taken one day next week.

NEW BILLS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (IRELAND) (ST. PATRICK'S DAY) BILL.
  "To enforce the closing of Licensed Premises on St. Patrick's Day in Ireland," presented by Mr. O'Mara; supported by Sir. Thomas Esmonde, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Thomas-O'Donnell; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  "To provide for the prevention of Juvenile Smoking," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Crooks, Major Seely, Dr. Shipman, Sir John Tuke, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. George White, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Alden, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Lea; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  "To amend The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876," presented by Mr. George Greenwood; supported by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Channing, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Maddison, and Mr. Lehmann; to be read a second time upon Friday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
  DOGS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the enactments relating to injury to live stock by Dogs, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Dogs," presented by Sir Edward Strachey; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to the sale of Agricultural Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs," presented by Sir Edward Strachey; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  "To consolidate enactments relating to Open Spaces," presented by Sir Edward Strachey; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—

£

Section II. Matèriel

100,000

Section III. Contract Work

100

Vote 10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs, &c.

100

Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

61,000

161,200

Less Surpluses on other Votes

161,100

£100"

THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)said he should like to give a short explanation of this Vote. Last week in introducing the Navy Estimates for the coming year he stated that the reduction of £1,500,000 shown on the face of them was, in part, partly accounted for by the purchase of armour in the now expiring year. The amount of armour so required was something like £286,000. The Treasury, by virtue of powers given in every Appropriation Act, might sanction such expenditure on the part of the Admiralty, provided it could be met oat of savings on other Votes as was the case in this instance; but, in the exercise of their discretion, they stipulated that, as a condition of their sanction being given, the new purchase of armour should be presented to the House in a Supplementary Estimate so that the sanction of Parliament could be given. The Estimates was now introduced for that purpose. At the same time the Treasury asked the Admiralty to include in the Supplemen-
466
tary Estimate various other minor items not actually provided for in the Estimates for the expiring year. The Estimates therefore included the armour to which he had referred, and one or two other things. The amount of armour was £286,000. The next item was £56,000 for hulls of ships, due to the purchase of a ship called the "Cyclops" during the now expiring financial year to take the place of the "Assistance" temporarily disabled. Then, under Vote 11, there was an extra sum of £17,000 for piloting and towing due to the piloting of a larger number of ships through the Suez Canal. A further item of £44,000 was for compensation for damage done to ships. That was mainly due to the running down of a ship called the "Afghanistan" by the "Caesar" in the course of the year. Those various items accounted for the amounts of the Supplementary Estimates except for £100, the balance shown between the new expenditure and the amount of savings. They might have taken the whole out of the Navy Estimates, but, in order to get the sanction of Treasury, they had to bring the matter before Parliament, and they therefore showed a balance of £100 to be provided for. He hoped he had made the matter clear.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood that on the present occasion the Treasury had taken, under pressure, he fancied, of the Public Accounts Committee, something in the nature of a new departure. Parliament had hitherto been pleased to direct that the Treasury should exercise its discretion in regard to allowing money already voted to be diverted in certain instances to other cognate purposes. In the Army and Navy Votes the practice had been that the Secretary of State for War or the Board of Admiralty, with the sanction of the Treasury, might transfer a surplus on one Vote to another Vote. In the case of the Civil Service Estimates, the discretion of the Treasury to authorise the surplus on one Vote being used to meet the deficiency on another Vote was, owing to technical reasons, much more limited, but in principle he conceived that there was absolutely no difference. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the policy of the Treasury in this matter. On the present occasion the

467
Admiralty desired to take certain surpluses available on certain Votes and apply them to meet an excessive expenditure under other headings. He gathered that there was nothing in the nature of new work included in the Estimate. There was more armour for ships than contemplated, but there was no armour for ships not included in Vote 8 at all. There was included in the Vote one new purpose not hitherto sanctioned by Parliament, which might be said to raise a question which had never been before the House, and on which other Gentlemen would desire to question the Secretary to the Admiralty; but he was dealing with the matter from the point of view of finance and not of Admiralty policy. The main item, as he understood it, out of which the Estimate arose, was the provision of additional armour. The Admiralty did not ask that anything should be done of which the House had not previous cognizance or that the Admiralty had not contemplated; indeed, by what the House had already sanctioned they had encouraged the Admiralty to commit themselves to the expenditure. The only difference was that the delivery of the material had gone on faster than was contemplated, and therefore more money was required. He wanted to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was the policy of the Treasury now that any divergence from Estimates, even where it was possible to meet the deficiency by a surplus on another Vote, should be sanctioned by the Treasury only subject to the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate to the House of Commons. He presumed, of course, that whatever answer was given to the question it would apply also to the Army Votes. If this were not so, then he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the principles which the Treasury now laid down and what were the limits within which they would exercise their discretion without recourse to Supplementary Estimates? Then he would venture to ask him a further question. Were the principles which he applied to the Navy Estimates to be applied to the Civil Service Estimates? He hoped the right bon. Gentleman would appreciate that he was not raising the question captiously. He had been Financial Secretary himself; he had been on the Public
468
Accounts Committee, and he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he had been for the ten years of his official life brought in contact with this class of questions from, he thought, every point of view; and he recognised that amongst unofficial Members of the House there was a natural tendency to be jealous of the discretion exercised by the Gentlemen who happened to sit on the Front Bench at any one time; but, if he might interpret the views of the hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat in the Public Accounts Committee with regard to these transferences, he thought they were not inspired by any narrow jealousy of the Government of the day and had no suspicion as to its motives or actions, but were animated by a belief that this transference from one Vote to another, from one subject to another, with sole appeal to the Treasury, led to careless finance, to extravagance, and to disregard of economy. The practice was open to abuse; he would not attempt to deny it; but he thought he knew enough of the Treasury to say that they, who were the especially-appointed guardians of economy and prudence in these matters, exercised an efficient and a sufficient control to prevent those abuses arising. He frequently stated to the Committee his firm opinions, as the result of long official experience, that anything which tended to interfere unduly with the discretion of the Treasury to sanction transference from one Vote to another, and from one subject to another, so far from serving the interests of economy, would lead to direct extravagance and waste. Anyone who had been Secretary to the Treasury or Chancellor of the Exchequer knew it was extremely difficult for a person holding that position to test effectively the real urgency of certain demands made upon him, especially for technical services. They had an illustration in the present correspondence, though he regretted that the letter on which the whole of that correspondence arose was not published. That letter would have shown at once the case the Admiralty put before the Treasury, whilst at the present time they were dependent upon the extracts in the Treasury's letter for what the Admiralty said. The Treasury said—
"In view of the statement in your letter that it would be detrimental to the public

469
service if the expenditure in question were postponed until provision could be made by Parliament in the usual course, my Lords feel bound to assume that such a case has now arisen, and they accordingly give the required sanction."
It was very difficult for the Treasury, when a member of the Admiralty or the Army Council came to them and said, with the full measure of their responsibility as heads of one of the great defensive services, and with all the technical advice they had at their command, that some expenditure could not be postponed without detriment to the public service, to take upon themselves the responsibility of disputing the accuracy of the views of the experts or of rejecting the recommendations they made. He had known similar cases in his own experience. He had in mind a case where the Army Council pressed upon the Treasury in his day some expenditure for a hospital which he thought ought to be submitted to Parliament in the usual manner before it was incurred. He was confronted with the opinion, not merely of the Medical Officers of the Army, but of the Advisory Council of hospital and medical experts who helped the Army Council in these matters, and, when they stated that the Army Council and their advisers would not be responsible for the ill results if he did not exercise the discretion vested in him and sanction the expenditure, anticipating Parliamentary approval, he felt that he could not take the responsibility, in a matter affecting the life and death of our soldiers, of refusing what all the experts pressed upon him. He apologised if he made the illustration at too great a length, but the House would see the point he wished to make—the difficulty of the Treasury in setting their discretion in matters avowedly expert against the statements of those who had behind them an enormous force of expert opinion. There was, however, one thing the Treasury could do, and which, in his experience, was constantly done, and it was a real test of the importance attached to the demand made. The Treasury could say to the Secretary of State for War or to the Admiralty: "You have made out a case, but, as guardians of the public purse, we cannot afford to spend more than Parliament has sanctioned, and therefore, if this expenditure is of the urgency you allege, you must make a saving elsewhere. Then we will sanc-
470
tion the expenditure." In that way the power of the Treasury, both in the Military and Naval Vote and in the Civil Service Vote, did certainly control and check wasteful and extravagant expenditure. It was a real help to the Treasury to have this authority; but it should be remembered that the Estimates were not only framed very often three months in advance of the commencement of the fiscal year, but fifteen months before the close of that year, and that they very often applied to items scattered over all parts of the world. Information had to be collected and weighed at an even earlier period. Was there any man who could make a budget of his own expenditure fifteen months ahead and could exactly adhere to his heading of expenses throughout the whole twelve or fifteen months and not have to spend less on one item and more on another? Not a single Member could do it with regard to his own expenditure, which was more under his immediate control and in regard to which there was not anything like the difficulty there was in framing the Estimates. It was not reasonable, when they insisted upon Estimates being presented in detail as they were presented, to expect that they could be rigidly adhered to and that there would be no divergence in practice from what was anticipated fifteen months before the expenditure was incurred. Therefore, whilst putting his question to the Financial Secretary as to what principles the Treasury were now going to act upon, he wished to express the earnest hope that, in the interests of economy and of the Treasury, they would not lightly surrender the power to use the discretion which Parliament had conferred upon them, and to urge upon the Committee, whilst watching that discretion, if it liked, with jealous scrutiny, not unnecessarily to limit it or to destroy its usefulness.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated quite accurately what the powers of the Treasury were with regard to the transference of surpluses from one Vote to another within either the Army or Navy Estimates or with regard to the transference from one subject to another

471
subject in the same Vote in respect of Civil Service Estimates. He went on to ask him (Mr. McKenna) whether the present form of Supplementary Estimates indicated any intended change of policy on the part of the Treasury. He might say at once that the Treasury intended no change of policy. The Treasury received very great powers from the House, but, in the exercise of them, they conceived it their duty, whenever anything of an exceptional nature took place, that the attention of the House should be called to the fact. It would have been perfectly open to the Treasury to have allowed the Estimate to be submitted in a form which would not have informed the Committee, but, in the exercise of their statutory authority, they believed it to be their duty to inform the Committee of the very exceptional circumstances of the present case. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury would continue to exercise their power without conceiving it necessary to consult the Committee in every case where things were of small importance; but he trusted the Treasury would always refer back to the House of Commons in respect of all matters which were exceptional. That was the sole reason of the course adopted on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had asked if there was any new Treasury rule, and as to the limits within which the Treasury would exercise their discretion in the future. It was, of course, impossible to define those limits, but the Treasury would be disposed always in the future to bring before the House of Commons any circumstances of an exceptional nature as in the present case. The same principle would apply to the Civil Service Estimates. He hoped he had satisfied the right Gentleman and relieved his anxiety.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the desire of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Secretary to the Treasury was the same. They both desired that the House and Committee should be in full possession of all the facts, and that the intention of Parliament, as shown in the discussions in Committee of Supply at the beginning of the financial year, should not be changed without Parliament being informed. It was from the point
472
of view of that object that he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty where the main saving or main changes had taken place. The Secretary to the Admiralty had just alluded to exceptional savings, and at first sight one would be inclined to find them in that point in which he believed they had not, as a fact, been made, and as to which no statement had been made. He alluded to the four armoured cruisers in last year's programme. He believed one of them had been dropped, and it would seem at first sight that the large saving concerned that dropping of one of them, but, on examination, he believed that that was not the case. No statement had been made with regard to them, he thought, either by the late or by the present Board; neither in the new Memorandum on the Estimates nor in Lord Cawdor's Memorandum; but he understood that, although four armoured cruisers were in the programme of the present financial year and were in the contract Vote, in which there were changes both up and down, and although only three were in that of the new financial year, yet more money, as a fact, had been spent in the year on the three than was to have been spent on the four. As far as he could make out not one of these three had been actually laid down. The sums taken in the Estimates last year were, he thought, one £80,000, two sums of £20,000, and one £10,000, or one £80,000, one £20,000, and two sums of £10,000, and although one had been dropped out of the Estimates three sums of £80,000 had been taken. Thus a larger sum had been spent than was expected. He was not blaming the Admiralty for dropping one of the cruisers, but he thought a change in the programme ought not to be made without the House being informed of it. A great deal of progress seemed to have been made before the laying down of the cruisers, but the only permanent change, he thought, was the dropping of one of them. There had been savings, and he thought they ought to know on what they had been effected.
MR. J. WARDasked if he should be in order in calling attention to the wages paid for certain classes of work, particularly in connection with the construction of docks, etc., on Vote 10 of the Supplementary Estimates.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that Vote 10 would come on later; these were only Supplementary Estimates.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought there was one point germane to the item on which he should like to ask a question of the Secretary to the Admiralty. He understood that the purchase of the armour had been owing to the unforeseen rapidity of construction of the vessels. If that was the case, it raised a point of greater importance than any that had arisen during the debate, and that was the rapidity with which we could turn out vessels. In Lord Cawdor's Report specific allusion was made to the necessity for that policy, first, on the ground that by turning vessels out quickly we avoided the risk of their becoming prematurely obsolete; secondly, that by pushing forward a limited number of vessels into the fighting line, we obtained a greater efficiency than by having a larger number of vessels constructed more slowly; and, thirdly, that we got interest on our capital very much more quickly than if we delayed construction. If he might express his own opinion, he thought, from the point of view of the efficiency of our Fleet, that the rapid construction of our cruisers exceeded perhaps the importance of any other point raised in the course of the debate, and he thought, if the occasion was in the opinion of the Chairman fit, that the Secretary to the Admiralty might do what had not been done so far as he knew, either in this House or in another place, namely, give some indication as to how far that most important policy recommended in the Report of Lord Cawdor was being pursued by the Admiralty.
MR. J. WILLIAMS BENNsaid that for the first time the Committee was in possession of figures which set out the amount of money spent in the royal dockyards and the amount spent in private yards. He noticed that there was a balance in favour of the private yards for the years 1905–6 to the amount of £500,000. It seemed to him that in that significant fact they had the true explanation of those discharges which had caused such distress in dockyard centres. He was extremely anxious to secure from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty some
474
assurance that the policy in future would be to study the needs of the royal dockyards, and after that was done to give every consideration to the private yards. During the past few years the private yards had been very busy, but so far as the royal dockyards were concerned, they had a sad story to tell of the discharge of thousands of workmen. He wished to draw attention to the great reputation which the royal dockyards enjoyed for being able to turn out shipbuilding rapidly and efficiently. The Secretary to the Admiralty might remember a statement made by Lord George Hamilton in the last Parliament, in which he gave a very valuable testimonial to the efficiency of the royal dockyards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make some statement which would tend to reassure the dockyard Members in this important matter. The royal dockyards could certainly turn out these ships as economically as private yards, and with equal rapidity. With regard to another item in the Vote—the clothing of the seamen—he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a great desire existed in the Navy for the reconsideration of the clothing, more particularly of those men who had to do with trades. The blue jacket costume was considered to be very inconvenient and unsatisfactory for the men who had, for instance, to do plumber's work on board ship. If the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry into this matter he would find a general desire that certain ratings should have a costume more suitable to the industry in which the men were engaged.
MR. MORTONsaid he was glad that the Treasury had insisted on this Vote being brought before the Committee, but it was very deceptive, because many people believed that it was only for the expenditure of £100, whereas they were asked to approve of an expenditure of nearly £500,000. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that the Treasury were going to take a new departure and allow, by way of Supplementary Estimates, these matters to be brought before the Committee; but he gathered from the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that that was not to be so. He thought that last autumn there was a sort of undertaking that some attention should be paid to these matters. Every year

475
those responsible for the Army and Navy Estimates asked for more money than they could expend on certain Votes, with the view of manipulating it for other purposes; and the result was that hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent without being sanctioned by the Committee of Supply at all. He wanted some assurance that in future the practice adopted on this Vote would be continued. When he was on the Public Accounts Committee—he noticed that he had been carefully left out of it in this Parliament, probably because he had made too many inquiries—he found on inquiry that money had been spent which had never come before the Committee of Supply at all. He hoped that in future these Votes would not be smuggled throughout that the Committee of Supply would have an opportunity of considering all expenditure. They all knew that the expenditure on the Navy was excessive and extravagant, and, if reforms were to be obtained for the people, savings must be made on the Navy and Army; and it was on Votes like that now under consideration that they ought to consider whether economy might be effected. He wanted an assurance from the Government as to what was going to happen in the future, and for that purpose he moved the reduction of the Vote by £50.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Morton.)
CAPTAIN HEEVEYsaid that after the words which had fallen from the hon. Member for Sutherland it was only right that he should get up and say that he did not think the sums which were voted for the Navy were being wasted. He did not think it was right that what was necessary for the Army and Navy should, for the sake of the fad of a great many people, be taken away from the purpose for which it was originally required, viz., the Navy, and appropriated to some other purpose. He objected to any statement that we were spending more on the Navy than was necessary for its efficiency. Since this point of economy at the expense of efficiency—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"]—had been raised, it was necessary
476
that they should consider one or two points in regard to the Supplementary Estimates. One was the Shipbuilding Vote. Experience gained in the last great naval war showed that efficiency depended on the size of battleships; and this question of size was nothing less than a question of money.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. and gallant Member was entering on a large question of policy which did not arise on the Supplementary Estimates.
CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman; but he had drawn attention to the point which he wished to refer to, namely, that the efficiency of the Navy should not be made the sport of a fad.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked for what ships this armour was required?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he hoped the Committee realised that practically all the expenditure the sanction of which was now asked for was due to proposals inherited by the present Government from their predecessors. The Government were only carrying into effect in this and in other matters the policy which had been accepted by the House before they came into office, as the history of the last financial year would show. The information he had about these Votes was not information for which he was personally responsible, but had been gathered at second hand from the permanent officials concerned in these matters. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had spoken about four cruisers. He was informed that one of these cruisers had been dropped, and that there had been some delay in regard to the other three which were now being laid down. The ships for which the additional armour was "required were the "Dreadnought," the "Shannon," the "Defence" and the "Minotaur." The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean asked where the amount saved upon the Estimates was coming from. It had accrued partly in consequence of the abandonment of the manœuvres last year, which had resulted in a saving. Under Vote 8,

477
Section 2, there was a saving of about £200,000, a good part of which was expected to be used upon the manœuvres, but was not used because the manœuvres were abandoned. There was also a diminution of expenditure due to the earnings of contractors being less than had been expected. The amounts which contractors would earn in the course of a year were of a most speculative nature, and in the past year a very large decrease of expenditure had taken place upon that score. Another and a curious diminution was the saving upon the Victualling Vote, upon which there had been a saving of £81,100, due to the diminished issue of clothing because of a lesser demand for new clothes. The reason for this diminution was the prospective issue of the new kit, and the men did not want to buy things which were not up to date. Therefore there had been less demand for clothing, and there had been a saving, or rather a non-expenditure. His hon. friend the Member for East Toxteth had raised the very large question of the rapidity of construction, and all he had to say was that he would not purchase it at too dear a price. That was to say, he would not pay too much overtime. He thought that that should be avoided either in the royal dockyards or in the private dockyards of the country, in regard to either of which we feared no rival. It was not a good thing, in his judgment. Then his hon. friend the Member for Devonport had raised the still larger question, which hardly came within this Vote, of the distribution of orders between private and royal dockyards. To discuss that question fully would need a very long time, and all he could say was that the Government should do all in their power to keep the royal dockyards as fully and efficiently employed as possible. He could not say anything as to Devonport or as to any other dockyard at present, but by-and-by he should be able to explain his views upon them, though he could not now, he thought, be expected to go beyond the declaration he had made. The only other point that he recollected was one raised by his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland, which he had made the basis of a Motion for reduction. It was that money voted by the House should be devoted to the particular purpose for which it was voted. Nobody had spoken more strongly on that subject than he had himself. He understood that the
478
Motion of his hon. friend was not a substantial one, but was intended to direct the attention of the House of Commons and the Government to the question, and the only assurance he had to give was that the Government would not, when they came to propose Estimates of their own, ask the House of Commons to grant more than they believed they could efficiently expend for the good of the country and its government. Moreover when they had got the consent of the House of Commons to that expenditure they would do their best to work closely to their Estimates
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in such a manner as to give the public the impression that the present Board of Admiralty had introduced a new and more desirable policy of keeping the Estimates down more closely to the actual expenditure. That was the declared policy of the late Board of Admiralty, specially referred to in the Cawdor Memorandum, and it was owing to the fact that the late Government had cut down the Estimates of the current year to the quick, and left no margin, that the necessity for these Supplementary Estimates had arisen. It was contemplated that this action of the late Board of Admiralty would often lead to the necessity for Supplementary Estimates such as these. But it was felt that it was a choice of two evils, and certainly the lesser evil was to put the Estimates as low as possible, because that would tend to greater economy in a big spending Department, as the officials would know that they had no margin to play with. This would, however, frequently result in the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate such as that under discussion. He thought credit for that ought to be given to the late Board and not be put forward as a new and improved policy which the new Government intended to introduce.
MR. O. C. PHILIPPSwelcomed the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty that he intended to keep the royal dockyards fully employed. He was also glad to see that more money was being spent upon the royal dockyards than was voted at the beginning of the year, but he would point out that the late Government had departed from the traditions

479
of the Royal Navy in giving work in the first intance to private dockyards, and then considering the interests of the royal dockyards. The old tradition of the Navy, which had always been carried, out by previous Governments—and he hoped would be carried out by this Government—was that the first to be given work were the royal dockyards, and then when they were fully employed it was the custom to give the remaining work to private contractors. He considered that it was a shame to pay off Government men who for years had been dependent upon the Government, and employ private firms.
MR. ARTHUR LEEthought the hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the Committee was more fortunate than some of them in hearing the assurance that the Secretary to the Admiralty would keep the royal dockyards fully employed.
MR. NAPIERsaid he understood that the Secretary to the Admiralty preferred that the discussion on the comparative merits of Royal and private dockyards should be deferred till another time. He hoped the Committee would be afforded an opportunity at another time of fully discussing this question. During the year just expired, as the Secretary to the Admiralty must be aware, a very large number of employees had been discharged from the little dockyard in the constituency which he represented, namely, Sheerness. The number in that dockyard had been reduced one-third of what they were formerly. Every soul in Sheerness was dependent upon the Admiralty In the Secretary to the Admiralty they might be said to live, move, and have their being, and towards him they turned their eyes with singular anxiety. Dockyard Members were glad they were to have a day to discuss the matter, because they felt that their desires were co-extensive with the desires of those who wished to introduce greater economy into the Navy. Economy might be introduced without any sacrifice of efficiency if they gave larger employment to our expensive and costly dockyards. The royal dockyards were valuable national assets. The estimates were for one-third less men in the Sheerness dockyard, and, of course, if one-third less men were employed, the
480
output would be one-third less than it was previously, though the expenditure on police and supervision would be exactly the same. He desired to elicit whether it was the intention of the Board to adhere to the policy as to repairs laid down by the previous Board. Whatever might be the respective merits and demerits of public and private dockyards in construction, he thought it had been definitely agreed—and he thought it was said by Mr. Pretyman, a member of the late Government—that the Government dockyard was more economical for repairs than the private dockyard. Mr. Pretyman in July of last year said that there was no doubt whatever that the cost of repairs in private yards had been considerably greater than in Government yards, and that they had therefore decided that, in so far as was possible, repairs should be carried out in Government yards. Unfortunately, Sheerness was not a dockyard in which it had lately been considered advisable to construct and build ships, but he hoped that policy might be altered. At all events, he was deeply interested in the matter, and Sheerness had suffered severely in consequence of the action of the Admiralty in discharging so many men from the dockyard. He did not refer to those discharges in pursuance of any pledges he gave during the election, as he had declined to refer to the discharges as affording any reason for votes being given against the late Government. He felt every confidence in pressing the claims of this constituency upon the earnest consideration of the Secretary to the Admiralty.
MR. MADDISONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by an active group of service and dockyard Members who professed themselves entirely moved by great national motives. He had three years experience in this House some time ago and he might say he thought he knew every one of those speeches. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take a broader view than that which had been expressed by the dockyard Members. The hon. Member for Devonport had laid down that the first consideration ought to be given to the dockyards, and the second to the private yards, but he would suggest that the first consideration should be given to the nation.
MR. J. WILLIAMS BENN: It is the same thing.
MR. MADDISONsaid he should hardly like to think that Devonport and the nation were the same thing—at any rate not from what he had seen of it. No doubt his hon. friend the Member for Devonport would go up in the estimation of his constituency for his last remark. He thought there was something to be said for unemployment generally. With regard to the derelict condition of Sheerness, the people there appeared to be dependent upon the right hon. Gentleman as a sort of Providence, but he hoped that they had a better Providence than the Secretary to the Admiralty. A dockyard discharge of workmen was a pathetic thing, and a man discharged from Armstrong's, or from a dockyard on the Clyde, or any other dockyard, was also a pathetic thing. Unemployment was unemployment everywhere, and if the Secretary to the Admiralty was to be approached on his sentimental side—it would be rather a difficult approach from what he knew of him—he hoped he would remember that it was as pathetic a thing for a Tyne or a Clyde workman to be out of work as for a dockyard workman. Therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman to be very suspicious of the service Members. The country did not expect him merely to shuffle the Votes from one account to another, but substantially to reduce the total cost of the Navy.
MR. MORTONsaid he objected to the remarks made by an hon. Member opposite who said that he desired to sacrifice efficiency to economy. He did not desire anything of the kind, and he would remind the Committee that Mr. Gladstone produced an efficient Navy with £18,000,000, and the Government were now proposing to spend £36,000,000 on the same service. He had listened with something like amazement to the statement that there had been economy by the late Government in regard to this Vote. He thought the late Government was the most wasteful and extravagant Administration that ever existed in this or any other country. He desired to thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for his assurance that the present Government would take the Committee into its confidence before
482
money was spent. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. JENKINSsaid he only rose in consequence of the reference made to the dockyard Members by the hon. Member for Burnley. He wished to point out that those who occupied the very invidious distinction of representing dockyard constituencies were there in the interests of the nation, and they were in a position to prove that from an economical point of view
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now trenching upon the Question which I have ruled out of order.
MR. JENKINSsaid he would reserve what he had to say until Vote 10 was reached.
Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,954,500, 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, 1907."
MR. LAMBERTsaid he was asked two or three Questions the other day which he would take the earliest opportunity of answering on this Vote. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him whether naval medical officers were allowed to walk hospitals. He was now able to assure him that they were, and since April 1st, 1905, forty of different ranks had done so. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent asked him whether tenderers for Admiralty work would be required to pay the trades union rate of wages current in the district where the work was done. That was a very important Question which had been fully debated upon a Motion in this House.

483
The Secretary to the Admiralty had made the statement with regard to the Admiralty policy in general that the wages required to be paid by Admiralty contractors would be those agreed upon between associations of employers and trades unions and obtaining in practice in the district in which the work was done. The decision as regarded other Admiralty work would be that given by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. He had been asked a Question about Rosyth. In regard to that he could give no further information than that which was conveyed by the Financial Secretary when he introduced the Navy Estimates. He had expressed the opinion of the Board of Admiralty with great clearness, and they must have further time to consider this most important matter before announcing their decision. As regarded the expenditure at Rosyth, in the 1905 Naval Works Loan Act there was £200,000 taken. The expenditure to 31st March, 1906, was expected to amount to £157,000, and there were further liabilities incurred of £6,000; therefore there was a balance of £37,000 with which to conduct those preliminary investigations which were essential at Rosyth. He had been asked a Question about the new lock at Portsmouth. That was a most considerable work and it was estimated to cost £940,000. The Board of Admiralty, with a due sense of responsibility in the matter, thought it essential that this new lock should be constructed. It was impossible for large ships such as the "Dreadnought" to enter the existing locks. All those who had knowledge of naval matters would know that to take a ship into a basin with both caissons open would be rather a serious matter should an accident occur, and the ships in the basin would run the risk of considerable damage. Therefore it was proposed by this new work to construct a lock 850 feet long, 110 feet wide and 33 feet at low water level. This would be a far more permanent work, he thought, than many of the works which had been included in past Loan Bills, and, to his mind, in putting this sum on the Estimates they would certainly hope to increase economical expenditure of public money more than they would by including the sum in loans. He wished to say two or three words upon the Vote generally, which had been greatly simplified since last year. Any hon. Member who now wished to refer
484
to Portsmouth, Chatham, or Plymouth would be able to find exactly the service performed at any of the ports under the various heads in the Estimates. That, he thought, was a great advantage, and he would give his hon. friend the late Civil Lord the full credit for having suggested that that should be done. The total increase on Vote 10 was £49,300. There were two reasons for that. One was that the annuity to be paid on these various Loan Bills amounted to £1,094,309, which was an enormous sum for the Naval Estimates to be burdened with for many years to come; but still the money had been spent, and they had to pay interest on the money borrowed during the last ten years. There was an increase of £78,400 on the annuity, and there was also a sum of £93,900 on account of dredging transferred from Loan. Had it not been for these two items the total Estimate, instead of showing an increase of £49,300 would have shown a decrease of £123,097. The memorandum circulated this evening showing the progress made in the works at the various stations where money had been spent under loan would enable hon. Members to see exactly how the money had been spent and what progress had been made. He would give a short résumé of the financial liabilities that had been incurred during the past ten years by the various Loan Bills. By the Naval Works Loan Act of 1905, Parliament authorised borrowing to the extent of £27,593,820 out of a total estimated expenditure of £32,206,933, leaving £4,613,113 to be provided by future Acts. The actual expenditure upon these works to 31st March, 1905, was £19,817,091. The approximate estimated expenditure to 31st March, 1907, was £6,700,000. Therefore, it was estimated that by the end of the next financial year there would be expended out of the large sum authorised by Parliament, £26,517,091. If the works were executed and the estimated expenditure were incurred as foreshadowed by the Act of 1905, there would have to be spent after 31st March, 1907, a sum of £5,689,842. Now if all that expenditure was incurred they would have to look forward to a very large burden in the Naval Estimates in regard to the repayment of annuities and the interest on loans. The ultimate annuity in that case would be £1,500,000. This would be a very serious sum indeed for them to burden posterity with, and

485
he only hoped posterity would be grateful for the favours that had been conferred upon it. At any rate it was hoped by exercising a strict supervision over these works to effect considerable economies.
MR. ARTHUR LEEcongratulated the Civil Lord on his accession to the post which he now held, and on the manner in which he had introduced the Vote to the House. He further congratulated him on the fact that the Vote was this year being introduced under much easier circumstances, because his experience went to show that if the late Government had been introducing it, the criticism would have been prolonged for many days. He did not think that that would be the case this year. He had no doubt that the Civil Lord had already discovered that it was easier to be a critic than to be an economist. In recent years it had been impressed on the late Government that the expenditure for naval works was excessive and often unnecessary, and that they were making unreasonable demands on the House of Commons. [Cheers.] He hoped hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who cheered that remark would take further opportunities of pressing their view on the new occupants of the Treasury Bench. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench had not yet had sufficient time to give the House a full test of their mettle, but judging from their professions in the past, he thought they might have effected a substantial reduction in this particular Vote this year, although he was perfectly certain that however anxious they might be to make such a reduction, they would find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, if due regard was had to the efficiency of the Naval Service. Therefore they found that the proposals which he had put forward in the past had been inevitably adopted by His Majesty's Government to-day, and it was only natural, therefore, that the Opposition should be willing to support those proposals. With regard to loan expenditure, the hon. Gentleman had said very fairly that there was a grave objection to the system of paying for naval works by constant borrowing. He had always held that view, but had also pointed out that the present Secretary to the Admiralty was the originator of the system, and the right hon. Gentleman was wont to reply that
486
although he was the proud parent he was not prepared for such a rapid growth on the part of the child. He thought that during the debates last year both sides showed a disposition to bring this system of borrowing to an end at the earliest opportunity, and so far as he was concerned, if it were more convenient in view of the financial exigencies of the moment to provide the necessary money for these works out of the Naval Votes rather than by borrowing, he could see no objection whatever to that course. A great deal depended naturally upon borrowing advantageously, but after all the important point was not the method by which the money was to be raised but that the importance of the works should be recognised and the efficiency of the Navy not endangered by considerations of economy, because that was the very worst economy in the end. It was that short sighted system which had led to the original introduction of these Loan Bills. If Vote 10 had not been starved in the past there would have been no necessity for bringing in a system of Loan Bills at all, and he hoped that as soon as the Naval Works had been brought up to the level which the Navy required no further necessity for these Loan Bills would arise, and that in future they might have the whole of the expenditure shewn upon the Votes. He understood from the hon. Gentleman, although he did not perhaps state it in precise terms, that it was the policy of the Government in future to transfer many of these works from Loan to Votes The big item which at once came up in this connection was Rosyth. The total Estimate given to the House last year and included in the original draft of the Vote was £2,500,000. The House was then informed that this large item would be shewn in the Estimates of this year, but it was not so shown, and the explanation of the Government was that the present Board of Admiralty had found it necessary further to consider the matter. It was said that that was a full explanation, but he did not think so. The Government wished for further time to consider this project, but he wished to know whether they wished for that further time in order further to consider the design of the project, having regard to the increased dimensions of modern ships, or whether they wished further to consider the

487
matter from the point or view of its strategic necessity. That was an important point, because it was strongly felt in some quarters of the House that the strategic necessity of this naval base was of urgent importance from the point of view that it would take ten years from the time the project was started before the works would be available. That was a long time to look ahead. It was difficult to say what our international relations would be by that time, although there was no reason to suppose they would be less satisfactory than they were now. But if this project was to be adopted it should be commenced as soon as possible, because we should not have the use of it for ten years. He hoped that point would be touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman when he replied later. Then the large item in connection with Portsmouth was merely shewn as "new lock, etc." That was not a very luminous description of a work for which the Committee were asked to vote £940,000, and no doubt they would be anxious to have some further information with regard to that item. The necessity for a new lock had been well established, but the proposal originally included other works of another description consequent upon the idea of the new lock. He wished to know in what position the new lock was to be placed, as at the time he left the Admiralty that was an open question. It was with the greatest satisfaction that he heard that this great scheme was not to be given up in spite of what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen had said about economy when they were in opposition. He also asked for information as to what had been the outcome of the proposal of the late Board of Admiralty to take over from the Colonial Government the Commercial Mole at Gibraltar, in order to give the Atlantic Fleet more extensive but necessary accommodation. He desired to know on what terms that Mole had been taken over and what would be our extra financial responsibility in consequence. The last point was with regard to the employment of Marines at Bermuda upon works of a purely bricks and mortar character. He thought that the whole of their pay, including that for this work, should not be charged to this Vote. The anomaly of purely regimental pay being charged to the Works Vote was one which he had
488
attempted in the past to get rid of, and what he desired now was an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he would take up this question and see that the Marines' pay was put on Vote 1, only the extra working pay being retained on Vote 10.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid he would like to know whether the amalgamation of the Works and Loans Department and the Works Department was completed, and if so whether it was working satisfactorily, whether the £1,500,000 a year, which the hon. Member had mentioned as being the interest we should have to pay on the various works, included what would have to be paid for Rosyth. When he looked down the list of the projects upon which the late Government had spent this money he could quite understand the objection of the Liberal Government to many of them, and their desire to abandon several items altogether. There was a very great objection to the amount incurred in Gibraltar, where the works were open to a bombardment from the coast of Spain. He had always failed to see the necessity for any Naval works at Gibraltar at all. At Malta nearly £1,000,000 had been spent on a breakwater, and the question was now beginning to be discussed as to whether that work had not spoilt the drainage of the harbour. The floating dock at Bermuda, which the Admiralty did not appear to have much use for, might, he suggested, be brought home to Rosyth, where it might be made of use. With regard to Wei-hai-wei the late Government, he believed, had a scheme cut and dried, but happily in that case the expenditure had been very small. He noticed that the cost with regard to Osborne College had been increased from £50,000, the original estimate, to £163,000. He agreed that the lock at Portsmouth was necessary, but he could not understand why only £10,000 was taken for it on the Estimates this year, when the estimated cost was £940,000. He pointed out that whilst it was now the custom of hon. Members opposite to talk of Rosyth's being necessary for strategical reasons, when that project was put before the House it was said its necessity arose owing to the congestion in Royal dockyards. This would be seen if hon. Members examined the terms of

489
Reference of the Commission which reported upon it. There was no question of strategy; they simply had to consider the question of congestion in the Royal dockyards, and they even went so far as to consider the question of increasing the personnel of the existing Royal dockyards. They considered the advisability of increasing the number of men in the existing yards, yet 6,776 men were dismissed from the Royal yards last year, which was equivalent to discharging the whole establishment at Chatham. He agreed with the hon. Member for Fareham that it would take at least ten years to erect Rosyth into a great Naval base. But he thought he would be borne out when he said there was very little prospect of there being any congestion in the Royal yards for many years to come.
He asserted that there was not the slightest prospective congestion in the existing dockyards. The dockyard Members were complaining of want of work a short time ago, and it was perfectly evident that with a programme of four armoured ships a year there was no prospect of congestion at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Sheerness, and Chatham. Writing of the Rosyth scheme at a time when the Press was asserting that it was a bad scheme, Lord Selborne, in a letter dated December 31st, 1904, to Mr. Maconochie said:—
"Questions of policy must be influenced by financial as well as naval considerations."
He thought that was a point which it was necessary to rub well into the Committee. If the Admiralty could get economy without lack of efficiency he would support them, and he was perfectly certain they could get economy under Vote 10 when considering the question of Rosyth. He hoped they would remember that portion of Lord Selborne's letter in which he referred to financial as well as naval considerations. He had before him the Dunfermline Press, a paper published in the locality, in which there was reported a speech made in April, 1903, by Lord Elgin as Chairman of the Dunfermline District Committee of the County Council, when he occupied a position of less responsibility than he did now. In that speech the noble Lord said:—
"When the naval base was fully developed there would be, as he understood it, that
490
proportion of the men belonging to the Navy ('30,000 or 40,000 bluejackets') in connection with that base."
The Committee could understand from that statement what sort of dockyard was contemplated by the late Government. It was to be a dockyard on the same scale as that at Portsmouth. It showed the mad way in which they were prepared to plunge into bricks and mortar when the taxpayer had got what was called a hot fit.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Member was quite mistaken in supposing that the late Government proposed to build a dockyard at Rosyth the same as those at Portsmouth and Chatham. It was to be a small naval base which would cost £2,500,000.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a very level-headed man, who was chosen as chairman of the War Commission by the late Government, certainly went away from an interview with the Admiralty with the impression that a great dockyard was going to be built. Lord Elgin, in the same speech, proceeded to estimate the population which the Admiralty had led him to believe would be established by 1913, and for which the local authorities should at once lay down the necessary pipes for a water supply. He said he had had a conference the previous afternoon with the officials of the Admiralty and that they said that, in their opinion, anyone who was laying pipes for a water supply to this spot at the present moment would not be wise to lay pipes for a less population than 30,000 within twenty years. He hoped the Civil Lord would take these points into consideration. The Admiralty might appoint a small Advisory Committee to consider the special circumstances in regard to Rosyth.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn would have been more appropriate ten years ago, when some of the matters to which he had referred were current questions. He had referred to the considerations which affected the Berthing Committee, which sat many years ago.
MR. BELLAIRS: In 1902.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid a great deal had happened since 1902, as he would show. The hon. Member told the Committee that he had come to the same conclusion with regard to Wei-hai-Wei as the Admiralty came to some time ago; he lamented the mad ways of the Admiralty and said, speaking as a member of the Naval profession, that they were wise enough to follow his view. With regard to one question which was touched upon, and which might still be considered a current question, he thought the hon. Member had not followed the subsequent stages of the Admiralty policy in regard to Rosyth. It was quite true that a Committee was appointed to deal with the question of congestion in the dockyards. What happened after the Committee had reported? The Admiralty grappled with the problem of berthing in a way which made it unnecessary to carry out the great berthing programme which was previously in contemplation. They effected an enormous diminution in the ships to be berthed in the dockyards. The problem which the Admiralty were now called upon to deal with—and so far as he knew they had not changed their minds about it—was the strategic problem in connection with the Continent of Europe. The Admiralty had merited the eulogy of this House for having dealt with that problem, and if the hon. Member would go to the west coast of Scotland he would see how they had dealt with it. They had taken the useless and obsolete ships out of the dockyards and put them in the Kyles of Bute, where the cost of their maintenance was little or nothing. The strategic position of Rosyth remained, and it would, he believed, be dealt with by the Board of Admiralty on Naval grounds alone. That was a far less expensive problem than the berthing project which was in contemplation when the plans for Rosyth were under consideration. He understood that under Vote 10 the general principle had been adopted that in connection with all the Naval Works the trade union rate of wages was to be paid to the workmen. He asked the Civil Lord what was to be done in cases where there was no trade union organisation. He asked the Question,
492
not because he objected to the principle but because it had a very practical application. He remembered making a very careful inquiry into the rates paid in every shipbuilding yard throughout the country. He found then that a very large number, he believed a majority of the men in the skilled trades in the Admiralty dockyards were trade unionists, and that as a rule the wages paid to them were at the trade union rates. He understood that the same was the case with regard to similar classes of labour under Vote 10. But there were cases where considerable disadvantage arose from not following the exact prescription of the House of Commons' Resolution which was that the rate of wages current in the district should be paid. The Question he had asked had an important bearing on both sides of this matter. What happened in the Thames district? In that district the trade union rate of wages was higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. A disadvantage from which the Thames shipbuilding yards suffered was that there was neither coal nor iron in the district. Some of the yards had been abandoned, and he understood that there were one or two others which would not be able to continue with the higher rates of wages. He wished to know whether central rates or trade union rates were to be fixed for the localities where no trade union now existed. Perhaps the hon. Member would tell the Committee also whether this change would or would not produce an excess in the Estimate under Vote 10. This was a very important matter, and they ought to know now, before proceeding further with the discussion, if there was to be any increment in the cost owing, to the change.
MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to say a word or two on behalf of a body of men employed in the Government dockyards who were not included in the trade union rate of wages. They had had some difficulty in connection with the dock extension at Portsmouth a few years ago. A contract was given out by the Admiralty to make a dock, and after work was commenced it was discovered that the wages paid to the navvies were at least 1d. per hour

493
under those paid in the locality. He approached the Admiralty with a complaint that the trade union rate of wages was not being paid, and the reply of the contractor was that there was no similar class of work being done in the district by which the rate of wages could be fixed. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty would see at once that many docks could not be excavated in one locality at the same time, and therefore the comparison of wages paid could only be made by taking the ordinary work of excavating for the local building trades. The Admiralty sided with the contractor, who completed the last portion of the Admiralty dock by paying to the excavators 1d. per hour under trade union rates. There should be some definite understanding as to what were trade union rates for navvies. He believed that it was proposed to spend a big sum of money in making docks at Rosyth. [Ironical MINISTERIAL Cheers.] Well, it was assumed that there might be money spent in that direction, and therefore it was necessary for him to take this opportunity of putting his case, to provide against that possibility being carried into effect. Rosyth was practically a wilderness at the present time. [An. HON. MEMBER: And will remain so.] He was not so sure that he would not second the hon. Gentleman in making that statement; but the Government were surely going to place their views in regard to that Naval base before the House shortly. However, Rosyth was at the present time practically a wilderness, and supposing the Admiralty called for tenders for the construction of a dock there, they might feel that they had satisfied their conscience by saying that there was a clause in the contract providing that the trade union rate of wages was to be paid. But what possible means would there be of deciding what was the trade union rate of wages for excavating docks in the locality? Consequently, he wanted to know whether the Admiralty could not, outside London, fix something like a minimum rate of wages for this class of work which should be recognised by Government contractors. The wages paid for excavating work in London was 7d. per hour; and the average wage outside London for similar work was 6d. per hour. He was very sorry it was so low, because the work was most laborious
494
and the service rendered by navvies to the community was most important. Could not the Admiralty say, in asking for tenders for this class of work, that the minimum wage should be 6d. per hour? He thought the representative of the Admiralty would admit that he was not asking for anything unreasonable. He hoped that more sympathy would be shown to the navvies whom he represented, and who, he admitted, were not thoroughly organised, in this application than was shown in the case of the Portsmouth dock contract. The men were a very deserving class and performed important functions to the State.
MR. CREMERsaid he understood from the statement of the right hon. the Secretary to the Admiralty that an opportunity would be given to discuss the whole Naval programme of the Government on another occasion, and therefore he did not now propose to criticise the policy which involved the enormous expenditure now being incurred for the Naval service of the country. But he could not allow this Vote to pass its final stage without registering an emphatic protest against that policy. The feeling of Members, both old and new, on the Ministerial side of the House was very strong on the subject. They had repeatedly said—
"We have come here with pledges given to our constituents at the recent election that we would do our best to secure economy"—
and they were quite clear that if a Liberal Government came into office and remained in power, there would be very great retrenchment on the expenditure for the services. It was a source of deep regret to him that it had been left to an hon. Member on the other side to twit the Government of the day for not having redeemed the pledges made during the election. He wanted to deal with the Government as tenderly as possible, and not to say anything very severe; but it was quite time that some one should tell them of the feeling which existed in regard to this question. What had been done during the last sixteen or seventeen years? In the Queen's Speech in the session of 1889, when a Conservative Government was in office, there was presented a Naval Defence Bill, in which it proposed to expend £21,000,000 of

495
the taxes of this country for the purpose of providing a strong Navy. On that occasion he moved an Amendment, the discussion of which occupied two days, and he divided the House upon it. Considerable feeling was shown in the lobby in regard to the matter and a large number of Members registered an emphatic protest against this shameful waste of the resources of the nation. He himself did not object to a powerful Navy.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon Member was discussing the general question of the size of the Navy. This was Vote 10 for Works, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that Vote.
MR. CREMERsaid that he tried in vain the other day, when the general question was under consideration, to raise this point; but if he was ruled out of order now he would reserve what he had to say until the proper moment arose. He wanted to take action to prevent the unnecessary waste of public money. He had never joined those who repeated the parrot cry of "We must have a strong Navy." But leaving that aspect of the question, he supposed that Members of the House, generally speaking, were appalled by the statement made the other day by the Secretary to the Admiralty that in seven years time we should be paying £2,000,000 more for the Navy than to-day. They had yet to learn whether they would be really compelled to carry out the obligations already incurred. He wanted to point out what was the attitude taken up in regard to the naval base at Rosyth. In the last Parliament, when it was proposed by the then Government to establish a naval base at Rosyth, the whole Liberal Party in the House took up an attitude of hostility to it. Some of them had lea ned with amazement that the policy of continuity in regard to Rosyth had been observed by the present Government. They had solemnly protested in the last Parliament that this project was absolutely unnecessary, and he and many others had taken a conscientious view of the subject. They had expressed that view by their votes and some of them
496
by their voice, feeble though they might have been. They had protested against such a waste of public money. Now they 1 arned with astonishment that the present Government were going to continue the policy which they had condemned when in Opposition. He should be glad to be corrected if he were wrong, because he admitted that no clear statement had been made on behalf of the Admiralty and the Government, but the impression which prevailed on the Ministerial as well as upon the Opposition side of the House was that the Government proposed to complete this naval base at Rosyth, and it was against that that he and a considerable body of Members in the House wished to enter an emphatic protest. He thought, and he was sure that hundreds of other Members on the Ministerial side of the House thought with him, that they should have some promise or hope of a promise held out to them that the Admiralty would consider the question of whether they should continue to waste the resources of the nation in this way. Not only was this expenditure useless, but it was absolutely dangerous, because it had an irritating effect in Germany with which country it was to our interest to cultivate friendly relations. He thought that they were justified in asking the Government to state their opinion very clearly in regard to this wasteful and mischievous proposal. After wasting the resources of the country in naval armaments for twenty-one years and spending money upon what the Prime Minister in his speech at the Albert Hall called "provocative institutions" and leading other nations to do the same, he thought they were justified in the protest they had made, because after all this expenditure had been incurred we were in exactly the sane position as we were twenty-on years ago.
DR. AMBROSEsaid he did not rise for the purpose of discussing in detail the work which had been carried on at Rosyth, but for the purpose of protesting against the enormous amount of money which was taken out of Ireland for the purposes of works of this kind. We were going to spend £2,500,000 on Rosyth, and he wanted

497
to know what equivalent sum was going to be spent in Ireland upon similar works and what was the amount which was going to be taken out of Ireland as a contribution towards the works at Rosyth. The Government were going to spend £36,000 upon Haulbowline, and that was the return which Ireland got from taxation amounting to millions a year. In comparison with what was spent in other parts of the country it was in his view but the millionth part of a farthing in the way of return. The Admiralty were going to construct a naval base at Rosyth, but surely there was enough water round Ireland to relieve the congestion from which it was said the Navy suffered. It was to protest against this policy of the Government that he begged to reduce the Vote by £100.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not ex-exceeding £1,954,400, be granted for the said Service."—(Dr. Ambrose.)
MR. SOARESsaid he merely rose to make a remark in reply to the hon. Member for Haggerston who said that the Liberal Party had steadily opposed the policy in regard to Rosyth of which they were now voting in favour. He was present at most of the debates in the last Parliament when this question was dealt with, and so far as he remembered what they did oppose was the enormous price, representing some fifty or sixty years purchase, which the late Government paid for the land at Rosyth. That they always protested against as an extravagant mode of expenditure, but they always left the policy of whether there was or was not to be a naval base at Rosyth to the Government, and he hoped that that policy would always be left to them.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that he recollected that Ministerialists during the last Parliament did protest against these Estimates again and again because they considered they were bad financially, but they also protested for another reason, and that
498
was that this great expenditure should be incurred by a vacillating Government which could not makeup its mind whether Rosyth was to be a great naval base or a small naval base. When the proposal was brought forward by Mr. Pretyman he said that an officer was proceeding to Rosyth to draw up a comprehensive plan of what would be required for a great naval base on the scale of Portsmouth or Plymouth. That was in 1903, and the hon. Member for Fareham would say he did not share that view in 1904; he said it must not be supposed that the laying down of a first class naval dockyard could be settled in a few days or even in a few months. Later on, however, the scheme was modified in such a may as to justify them in saying that there had been vacillation. He thought therefore they were entitled to protest against right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite supposing that because they did not criticise these Estimates they did not continue to hold the views they did before. What they wanted was continuity of ideas and that was what they never could get from the late Government during the last few years. Against any vacillation of that sort they should again protest, but he would remind hon. Members of the Opposition that it did not lie in their mouths to call Ministerialists to account for any protest that they had made for the vacillation for which they were not responsible.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had stumbled upon what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had that afternoon called a nidus equinus, or, in plain English, a mare's nest. He had quoted speeches made by the late Secretary to the Admiralty and also by himself with regard to Rosyth in order to show that he had taken up an inconsistent position that afternoon. Nothing of the sort had happened. It was quite true that according to the original suggestion made in the Berthing Committee's Report it was considered that it might be necessary, or would be necessary under conditions which no longer existed, that there should be a large increase of berthing accommodation for the Royal Navy,

499
and consequently that there might have to be a large dockyard at Rosyth.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What was to be the cost?
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid about £8,000,000 or £10,000,000, although no careful estimate was made, and could not have been made until the plans were further advanced. If hon. Gentlemen would do him the justice to look up his statement of last year, they would see that he said that they proposed to create at Rosyth a small self-contained naval base, but that in view of possibilities in the future they did not wish to hamper any future Board of Admiralty if they wished to extend that base should the necessities of the Navy require it. He also said that they, in the first place, had profited by past experience where dockyards had been originally laid out upon too small a scale, and it had been found impossible afterwards to extend them without great expense. He also said that they had therefore determined, in the interests of posterity, to lay out the design of the base in such a way as would give those who came after them an opportunity, if necessary, of using the site to the fullest possible extent. The plan which was laid before the House of Commons last year was merely for a small self-contained base, which they considered then, and still considered, was vitally necessary, but which could be extended at any time, without undue difficulty, if a larger base were required. They did not wish, in short, to prejudice the site, and make it impossible for posterity to increase the size of the dockyard if it was found necessary. He did not think his hon. friend had made out any case whatever as to inconsistency of his attitude.
MR. MADDISONsaid the point on which he desired to address the Civil Lord had reference to the very wise decision of the Admiralty Board, preceded by the equally wise decision of the Post Office, to recognise what were called trade union rates of wages. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had no great sympathy with this kind of thing, seemed to him to assume that there was some
500
difficulty in the way of recognising trade union rates. But those who were associated with the Trade Union group in this House had always felt very keenly on this matter, and the hon. Member who had to reply would not be embarrassed, because by the trade union rate of wages it was not meant that any particular union rate should be paid, but that a rate should be paid according to some agreement arrived at between the employers and employed in a particular district. It had been asked how that principle could be applied to contracts in districts where there was no trade union rate and which were desert places before the docks were placed there. A particular district where a dock was about to be made would correspond with other districts where docks had previously been made and where the rate of wages had been fixed. It might be advisable for the Admiralty and all the great Departments to call to their aid, not for the purpose of deciding, but for the purpose of helping them to come to a conclusion, an advisory committee of large employers and trades union representatives, who in two or three hours would come to a conclusion as to what should be the standard rate of wages in any new district. These exceptional questions were constantly cropping up and were always dealt with. He hoped therefore the Department would not be deterred from carrying into effect their intention to carry out the spirit and the letter of the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman had recently come to. There was not the slightest difficulty in the matter. It must be clearly understood that whether it was the men who worked the guns or the men who made the ships or repaired them it was not the intention of those who desired retrenchment in these Estimates to effect that retrenchment out of the wages of the men employed. A good deal had been said as to the way in which Liberal Members had opposed the item with respect to Rosyth. One basis of their criticism was no doubt the manner in which the Estimate was presented and another was the vacillation of the late Government which knew the mind of every body but itself, but more than that there was a feeling on the Liberal side of the House

501
that the time had come when there should be reduced Estimates for both the Army and the Navy. The country had watched with the greatest interest and delight the statesmanlike foreign policy of Lord Lansdowne in his endeavours to bring about more amicable relations with foreign Powers. He himself was a simple man, and he could not help thinking that any attempt to bring about better relations with foreign countries should be connected with these War Budgets, and if the Liberal leaders did not so connect them they were either impotent or hypocrites.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order; the hon. Member is trenching on the wider question. His remarks must be confined to Vote 10.
MR. MADDISONsaid he bowed to the Ruling of the Chair, and desired to say in conclusion that it should be clearly understood that they did not wish to reduce the efficiency of anything needed for the defence of the country. Hon. Members opposite must recognise that he and those with him had just as much interest in the defence of the country as any Member of the House. This was a matter of large policy, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would put into operation at the earliest possible moment the sound principles he had so eloquently advocated when in opposition.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he thought that he individually took even a wider view than the hon. Member for Burnley, because he was concerned about that large section of the community,—the taxpayer; and what he ventured to ask the Civil Lord was what would be the initial effect of this change. The hon. Member had not made that quite clear. What was the procedure to be adopted? In the printing trade and kindred occupations the London rate of wages regulated the whole of the wages throughout the country, not, it was true, on the London scale, but the provincial rules of wages always bore some relation to the London scale, and when the London scale was put up the provincial rates of wages all over the country went up also. What he wished to know was, supposing Admiralty works were undertaken at a place where no work of a similar kind had ever
502
been done before or was likely to be done in the future, whether the rate of wages was to be governed by the London rate or by a new rate which was to be created, and if by a new rate, by whom was that to be decided? Was the Admiralty to have anything to do with the making of the rate; was it to be left to the nearest trade union in the neighbourhood; or was it to be governed by the London rate? Those were the Questions he wished to put to the hon. Gentleman, and also what would be the net effect of this change on the portion of the Admiralty Administration which came in Vote 10?
MR. WEDGWOODcalled attention to the item for the pay of civil engineers working for the Admiralty. He said that our private shipyards did not require civil engineers to work for them, and there were no such officials at Elswick or other private establishments. They were not absolutely essential to the Admiralty, because there was a body called the Royal corps of naval constructors, an admirably trained set of men, who were quite able to deal with dockyard work. He had a very interesting recollection of a year spent by himself in that corps at Portsmouth dockyard, and, so far as he could remember, the Royal corps of naval constructors and the civil engineering branch of the Admiralty spent a good deal of time in trying to do each other's work over again. So long as there were great works going on a certain number of civil engineers must be employed, though he had seen £200,000 spent at Elswick without their assistance. Now that they were no longer going to borrow money for large works, surely this body of engineers might be reduced or a period set to their services. He did not want to see the country saddled for many years to come with this payment of £55,000 a year for these gentlemen, who were not absolutely essential to shipbuilding in this or any other country except, of course, when big works were projected; and when big works were carried out, it was then necesssry to go outside the Government engineers to the great private consulting firms. Another disadvantage in having this partially unnecessary corps in the Admiralty service was that the tendency was naturally for them

503
to create work for themselves. The Committee wanted to see this unnecessary construction and extension checked, and if possible put an end to. £940,000 was put down for a new lock, and that might be very necessary, but could they trust the civil engineers absolutely to cut down the work to a minimum? He thought not. He considered the corps of civil engineers an excellent body of men, but as they were economising they might as well reduce the number of these gentlemen.
CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid he did not wish after the words of the last speaker to push up the expenditure on new works, but with reference to the expenditure on the new lock at Portsmouth it had been necessary, he believed, to make it, in consequence of the increase in the size of our ships. They had in addition to consider whether the locks that we had at our other dockyards were equal to taking the ships which were being built. It was no good our building big ships if only in one or two of our dockyards we could get the ships into the repairing docks. Each must be considered, so that it might be able to take the biggest ship afloat at any given time. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the question had been thought out, and whether there was a scheme on foot by means of which it would be possible at Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, as well as Malta and Gibraltar, to take such ships as the "Dreadnought" without any increase in the present size of the locks at these yards. If not, what proposal was there to meet the situation when that ship was ready for commission, and might have to be docked? He also desired to ask what arrangements there were at Gibraltar for the ammunition reserves of the fleets that we had in being. The fleets that we had now based on Gibraltar were very much larger than those which had been based on Gibraltar in the past. Some years ago he was gunnery lieutenant of a flagship in the Mediterranean, and he had a good deal to do with this question there. At that time a vast amount of ammunition was stored at Malta, and a large amount was also stored at Gibraltar, partly for the Mediterranean fleet and partly for the Channel squadron. Now there was
504
another fleet being based upon Gibraltar, and he should like to know whether the ammunition arrangements for the reserves had been thought out so that there were sufficient magazines and shell spaces at Gibraltar to supply the necessary ammunition for the increased fleets. It was necessary that this matter should be carefully considered before the fleets were based upon any one of these particular ports. He remembered when he was carrying out the duty of supervising the reserves, a question was put to the senior ordnance store officer at Malta with reference to the actual stores in reserve there. The question put was how long would it take to get the actual reserves of ammunition that were supposed to be in store at Malta into such a condition that they would be able to be put immediately on board the ships of the squadron. There was then only 25 per cent. of the ammunition that was supposed to be there, and the answer that they got from the senior ordnance store officer was that it would take fifteen months. That showed how necessary it was that this matter should be carefully considered, if possible before making any increase in the number of ships that were based on a given port. At any rate it ought to be done as soon as possible after having determined on an increase. Had such arrangements, he would ask, been made to increase the storage of ammunition and shell supply at Gibraltar in accordance with the increased number of ships based there?
MR. LAMBERTsaid that with regard to the last Question he could inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that according to the Memorandum circulated this morning there was an Estimate in the Act of 1905 of £1,325,000 for magazine accommodation, of which a considerable portion had been spent up to 31st March this year, and he could give figures by reference as to what had been spent at Gibraltar. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his suggestion would receive attention, and if he cared to put a Question the Admiralty would be glad to answer him. With regard to the general question of economy in naval expenditure, it was not his function to enter into that,

505
the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty being the Minister to announce great changes in Admiralty policy. It would be also out of order on this Vote. He had been asked one or two questions as to what the financial effect would be of giving trade union rates of wages to those employed by the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon asked how they were going to find out the trade union rate of wages where no trade union existed. Of course that must be a special circumstance and must be the object of special consideration. A Resolution known as the "Fair Wages Resolution" had more than once been affirmed by this House, and it was the desire of the Government, taking account of all the circumstances of such several cases, to act up to the spirit of that Resolution. Precisely the same consideration must be taken into account in assuming what was the rate of wages that were current in the district as would have to be taken into account with regard to the wages paid where no trade union existed. With regard to the question of navvies, he believed the hon. Member for Burnley suggested a joint board. All he could say at the present moment was that that should be most sympathetically considered by the officials of the Admiralty with a view of giving fair treatment to those employed on this arduous Admiralty work.
MR. MADDISONasked whether this sympathetic consideration applied to the general question of wages?
MR. LAMBERTsaid certainly it would be considered by the Admiralty. The Admiralty would be most willing to do what they could in the matter. The right hon. Member for Croydon had spoken from the taxpayer's point of view. He thought the taxpayer had given this House a mandate to be model employers, and he hoped that all that trade unionists wanted was to get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. He was sure that that was a principle of which every Member of the House would approve, namely, that the Admiralty should pay their employees the rate of wages current in the district where the work was to be performed. The
506
question of Rosyth had come into the debate very considerably. He did not profess to be at all competent to pronounce an opinion upon the strategic advantages of Rosyth; that was a question for the naval experts of the Admiralty. He would point out, however, as showing the necessity for deliberation on the part of the present Board of Admiralty that the late Civil Lord had mentioned that this scheme originally was to cost something like £8,000,000.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: No, £2,500,000.
MR. LAMBERTsaid he thought the statement was that there was some idea of establishing a naval base at Rosyth, which would cost something like £10,000,000.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. Member had misunderstood him. What he said was that if a large first-class dockyard had been decided upon the cost would have been £10,000,000.
MR. LAMBERTsaid the hon. Member admitted that there had been consideration of such a scheme, at any rate, and this proved the wisdom of the policy of the present Board of Admiralty. That sum was afterwards brought down to £2,500,000, a very considerable difference. That fact in itself would be a justification for the deliberation being pursued by the Admiralty in further considering this matter of Rosyth, which was purely a question of naval needs. If it was found necessary for the Fleet, and for the naval defence of the Empire, then Rosyth would be proceeded with, and if it was not necessary it would not be proceeded with. The hon. Member for King's Lynn asked whether the £1,500,000 a year paid for the loan included the £2,500,000 for Rosyth. By the Naval Works Act of 1905 £200,000 was provided for Rosyth, and that would be in the £1,500,000 for the annual interest upon loans. At the present time the charge upon loans was£l,094,000, but that would go on increasing, and if the expenditure foreshadowed by the Act of 1905 was carried out, and the whole of the money expended, in 1910 the annual interest to be borne by the

507
Navy Estimates would be £1,500,000 a year. With regard to the amalgamation of the Loan and the Works Departments, that had already been satisfactorily effected, and the change would come into operation on the 1st of April. The late Civil Lord had asked a question about the employment of marines at Bermuda. That was a very intricate subject, at which the hon Member had been hammering for a long time, and all he had to say was that he would endeavour to follow his example. With reference to the commercial mole at Gibraltar, that was part of the Admiralty scheme of extension at Gibraltar, which also included improving the harbour and other things, and it was thought by the Civil Government that they would like to have a commercial mole as well. That was agreed upon, and the civil authorities had one placed at their disposal, but owing to the redistribution of the Fleet that commercial mole was required by the Admiralty, and therefore the money paid by the colony of Gibraltar to the Admiralty had to be refunded in order that the Admiralty might be the absolute possessors of the mole. They were actually in possession at the present time. With regard to the position of the lock at Portsmouth it was difficult to describe, but if any hon. Member was interested in it he should be pleased to show him the plan. In regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for West Mayo, they all sympathised with the desire of Irish Members to get as much money as possible spent in Ireland. He liked to see as much money spent in Devonshire as possible, and that was only a natural desire. They did not, for a moment, wish to deprive Ireland of any work which could be executed in that country with advantage to the Navy and the naval needs of the Empire, but the Admiralty had to consider where its repairing could best be done most cheaply and where the dockyard could be most conveniently placed. The hon. Member for West Mayo would have no more sympathetic friend than himself in giving Ireland as large an amount of work as possible, and he assured him that they did not wish to deprive Ireland of any money which could be economically spent there, but
508
they must look to profitably employing money voted for the general efficiency of the Navy. With regard to enlisting Irish boys into the Navy, he should like to see a larger number of Irish sailors, because Irishmen had proved themselves so brave in the British Army. The action of the Admiralty in this matter was not due to any idea of depriving Ireland of her fair share of this money, but simply to keep up the efficiency of the Navy.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked if the hon. Member could tell them whether there would be any, and if so, what, extra expenditure, as the result of the change in regard to the payment of wages.
MR. LAMBERTsaid that had not been calculated. The principle they were going upon was that of paying a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, calculated after due regard to all the circumstances of employment in the district.
LORD R. CECILsaid that in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley the Admiralty had promised something in the nature of sympathetic consideration to the proposal to appoint an Advisory Committee to determine the rate of wages to be paid.
MR. MADDISON: I did not say to determine, but to report. The determination, of course, would rest with the Admiralty.
LORD R. CECILasked whether, if such a Committee was appointed to report, the Government would undertake to give the House an opportunity of discussing that Report before they adopted it. This question was of a far-reaching nature, and the House ought to have a full opportunity of discussing it before it was adopted. He would also like some information with reference to the provision of dock accommodation at other ports besides Portsmouth.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONwas understood to say that at the present moment vessels of the "Dreadnought" type could be docked at Portsmouth

509
and Gibraltar and at Keyham and Malta in a short time. He had promised sympathetic consideration to what was suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley, and that consideration would be given. He thought it was quite reasonable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the matter if any change of the wages was decided upon.
MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that the hon. Member in the course of his reply had stated that the Admiralty would be very glad to spend all the money they could in Ireland. Judging from that reply, one would imagine that a good deal of money was being spent in Ireland by the Admiralty. He thought he was correct in saying that as a matter of fact not one pound would be spent in Ireland this year on Admiralty works, though that country would have to contribute far beyond her share and even beyond her power for the maintenance of the Navy. Of course, they were accustomed to hear year after year expressions of sympathy in this matter, but when the representatives of Ireland made an appeal to be relieved of some of the taxation they never got any sympathy. He was delighted to hear from the Civil Lord that the representations of the trade unions were so well received by him and by the Department for which he spoke. The cause of labour had always received from the representatives of Ireland very earnest and sympathetic support. The statement of the Civil Lord that the workers in connection with the Government dockyards would be well treated and paid would receive their support. They were glad to hear that economies were to be effected. The economies could not begin too soon or be carried to too great an extent. In other days it was represented to them that it was necessary that this country should have a great Navy to defend its commerce, but Members from Ireland represented a country whose commerce had been diminished for many years. That was very much owing to the influence of this country in Ireland. Having no trade on the seas to defend, Ireland had no benefit whatever to draw from this expenditure on the Admiralty. No valid reason could be given why some of
510
the expenditure should not be made in Ireland. In the west of Ireland there were places where magnificent harbours could be constructed, and strategic reasons could be adduced for such expenditure. The west coast of Ireland was closer to America than any other portion of these islands. Esquimault and Halifax were to be taken over by the Canadian authorities, and consequently the expenditure ought to be diminished to a very large extent, and also the taxation to which they had been subjected in this country. He complained of the magnitude of the contribution which Ireland made towards meeting this expenditure while deriving absolutely no benefit from it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot raise the question of the financial relations now.
MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he was aware he could not raise the question of the financial relations at present. He did not even mention the question of the financial relations. His complaint was that heavy expenditure was incurred for the Navy, that Ireland was obliged to contribute towards the cost in too great a proportion, and that that country which was overburdened with taxation got no benefit from this expenditure.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that Ireland had to pay a substantial portion of the amount expended under this Vote, and it was the duty of the Irish representatives to enter a protest. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that the position of the Irish representatives in regard to the Navy was altogether different from that of the British representatives. He had never expressed surprise at the declarations of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, for it was necessary for Great Britain to maintain a large and efficient Navy. He believed that most people would recognise that the Army, to say the least of it, was a weak reed to rely upon. Though the expenditure on the Navy was colossal, the people of this country had the consolation that a certain amount of the money expended was circulated amongst their own working classes in connection with the dockyards, harbours, ports, and workshops.

511
But the people of Ireland had to bear their full share of the taxation without getting a single penny of it returned. In connection with this particular Vote, money was expended at Gibraltar, the Cape of Good Hope, Hong-Kong, and Malta. But his constituents would say, "We don't care very much about Hong-Kong; we do not wish Hong-Kong any ill whatever; we hope things may go well with them; this may be very important for England, but it is for Great Britain to pay for these things herself and not come to the people of Ireland for large contributions towards services from which they get so little return." This was not the Vote on which to raise the question of the attitude of the great self-governing portions of the Empire toward the Navy, but he would take another opportunity for doing so. He considered it a perfectly monstrous thing that the British and Irish taxpayers should be asked to bear the whole of the expense of the Navy, and that the enormous communities in different parts of the, world—great, wealthy, and progressive—should not be asked to pay anything at all. That was a large question which would have to be considered. Everybody was glad that this year there was a decrease in the Navy Estimates. Since he came to the House the Navy Estimates had considerably more than doubled, and whatever benefit the people of this country had derived the people of Ireland had derived none. They hardly ever saw the Fleet; they were told there was a Fleet, but they found the greatest difficulty in getting a gunboat when required to prevent ships from coming in and interfering with the fishing industry of the poor people. The hon. Member for Galway represented one of the finest ports in Ireland, which did not figure in this Vote at all. He made this protest in no particularly unfriendly spirit. He believed that the present Government were alive to the gigantic proportions of the Naval Estimates, and that they would do something to reduce them, but there was no harm in giving the hon. Member a reminder now and again.
CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the arrangements for docking at Ports-
512
mouth, but he did not make mention of Chatham, which was the only big Naval port on the east coast. The centre of Naval activity at the present time was the North Sea, and under these circumstances it was more than ever necessary to be able to dock our biggest ships at Chatham, or it might be at Rosyth. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some more definite information.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he could not add anything to the Answer he had already given
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he rose for the purpose of telling a story which he hoped would not be regarded as irrelevant to the question raised by his hon. friend. It related to an all-night sitting which occurred many years ago, when he spoke occasionally. The story was told by a highly respected Member who came from Gallant little Wales, and was a Whip of the Liberal Party. His name was Tom Ellis, and when that gentleman visited Cork, the boys chartered a steamer in order to take him a trip down the river, and they pointed out to him Haulbowline. The name appealed to the imaginative mind of Mr. Ellis, and he said he well remembered Haulbowline because it constantly occurred in the Estimates for the Navy—
" Not long ago,"said Mr. Ellis, "I left the House of Commons during one of these all-night sittings, when Mr. John O'Connor was talking about Haulbowline. Next morning, at seven o'clock, I was summoned back to the House, and when I arrived at half-past seven o'clock, there was John O'Connor still talking about Haulbowline."
He trusted the story was relevant.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he would be grateful if the hon. Member would be a little quicker in giving him the means of judging of the relevancy of his reference to Haulbowline.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid the relevancy would appear in a moment. Haulbowline was a base for Naval supplies. There was a dock there, commenced forty years ago, but still unfinished. And during all that time no vessel of any great dimension had ever entered

513
it. When he asked long long ago what was being done for the dock at Haulbowline, he was told that there were no workshops. Some years after the workshops had been erected, he asked what was being done, and was informed that no tools had arrived; and afterwards Lord Charles Beresford stated that the dock was not big enough to hold any ship in the Navy. Cork harbour had always been regarded as a refuge for His Majesty's ships in time of war. Its motto was Statio bene fide carinis. They had been spending any quantity of money all during his natural life to fortify that harbour in order to make it a safe refuge for vessels in time of war, and yet the Admiralty had allowed this dock to remain absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was originally intended! He remembered many years ago, during the first reign of Earl Spencer as Viceroy of Ireland, that the noble Lord, as a splendid personality, came down to Cork and visited Queenstown, and said that he proposed to ask His Majesty's Government to build a dock at Queenstown. It was during Lord Spencer's Viceroyalty that a dock was commenced to be built. Successive Governments had been spending money for the purpose of building up a great Navy, which was an insurance for the commerce of England, but which was not an insurance for the commerce of Ireland, because England had taken good care that that country had none. At the same time, however, this money was being spent in a wasteful manner, and he had to point out to the Committee that the money which had been expended upon Cork harbour, from time immemorial, or at all events within living memory, had been wasted. It was in the interests of the Empire that they, the reluctant Members of that Empire, should point out that taxes should not be wasted in this manner. They had asked, although they had not been urgent, for the expenditure of larger sums out of the taxation upon Ireland. He had a pregnant Question on the Paper yesterday in connection with this very question, as to how the Imperial monies ex-acted from Ireland were spent. If they had been spent on making or completing the harbour of Cork and Haulbowline and rendering them of service to the Navy, there would have been no reason to complain. The
514
conduct of the Admiralty business with regard to Cork was a living and lasting scandal, and an evidence of the incompetence of successive Governments and Government Departments. He could only promise those who, on the part of the Government, had to conduct the debates or discussions on this subject for the Admiralty that, when they again came to consider this particular Vote, hon. Members for Ireland would again raise the question and would endeavour to point out to a new House of Commons the particular grievances of Ireland in respect to the expenditure of Imperial monies in Ireland. He trusted that by the time the session was over the Government and the House would be in full possession of the grievances which Ireland suffered in regard to the Imperial expenditure of the country.
DR. AMBROSEsaid that while he would withdraw his Motion for reduction, he could not but protest against so small a portion of Imperial expenditure being disbursed in Ireland.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £275,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)thought it might be convenient if he made a statement as to the remaining Estimates. After the kindness of the Committee he thought it would be wrong for him to claim any further Vote which raised any question of substance except the last three, numbered 13, 14, and 15, which were non-effective Votes, as they dealt with the half-pay of the Reserve and the retired pay of Navy and Marines.
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed

515
to withdraw Votes 3 and 6 and to proceed with Votes 13, 14 and 15. As far as he was concerned, he had no objection, because they were automatic Votes and no contentious points arose upon them. Of course, however, he could not guarantee that some of his hon. friends might not seek to raise points upon them. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to proceed with any other Votes.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that was so, except Vote 1.
MR. ARTHUR LEEthought that might raise controversial matter.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he should recommend that they should see when they came to it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
3. £820,700, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
4. £1,256,300, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
5. £383,700, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

SUPPLY [1ST MARCH] REPORT.
Resolutions reported.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
1. "That 129,000 officers, seamen and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, including 19,466 Royal Marines."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,810,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to officers, seamen, and boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
Resolutions read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution."
Debate arising.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYrose to move to reduce the number of men by 5,000. He insisted that it was the duty of the Liberal Party to accentuate the fact that the verdict given by the country at the late election was largely returned on the question of extravagance and waste in the administration of the revenues of the United Kingdom. The figures in the Estimates, which only covered a period dating from the financial year 1897–8 to the end of the current year 1906–7, showed an increase within a few years in the number of men from 96,925 to 129,000. That represented a tremendous growth of the naval expenditure which demanded the attention of every man who had the welfare of the country at heart. While in favour of a large Navy, according to the two-Power standard, he asserted that this standard had long been exceeded and that we were building a Navy approaching to a four-Power standard of naval expenditure. In 1884 we were content with an expenditure of £10,000,000 a year, and in 1886, the year of Lord Randolph Churchill's resignation, the expenditure had risen to £13,000,000, representing half the number of men asked for by this Vote. In that short period of twenty years the number of men which the House was asked to vote had been doubled. The two-Power standard referred to by Lord George Hamilton was France and Russia. With regard to France, we were never on better terms with our ancient enemy. As to Russia, which was once the great bogey, because of which we built ship for ship and gun for gun, and voted man for man, the greater part of her fleet was at the bottom of the ocean. Lord George Hamilton, who had not the advantage they had of being wise after the event, did not then perhaps sufficiently realise that the fleet of Russia was split up into three different parts—one in the Black Sea, another in the Baltic, and the third in the Eastern seas. After the recent war, however, they should at least be wise after the event. In 1893 Mr. Gladstone resigned rather than submit to a Naval increase, in which year the Vote of men was 74,000, or 56,000 less than the House was asked to vote this year, and the Naval expenditure was only £18,000,000 sterling. At that

517
time the Army and Navy combined accounted for £36,000,000 expenditure, which was only £1,000,000 more than the gross expenditure on the Navy in the coming year. That was a very startling and significant fact. He did not urge that there was anything necessarily wrong in big figures. The better test was to make comparisons with the expenditure of other countries. Taking France and Germany together, they spent on their navies £23,000,000 per annum, as compared with our £35,000,000. That alone gave ground for the suspicion that we were a three-Power standard. Last year Mr. Pretyman gave some figures relating to the expenditure on new construction during the ten years from 1895 to 1905, and they were important because, to use the words of the Secretary to the Admiralty, they dominated the whole question of Naval expenditure. During the ten years the United Kingdom spent £70,000,000, France nearly £32,000,000, Russia £28,000,000, and Germany £22,000,000, so that even were the Russian fleet still in being, it would still be the case that our expenditure in those ten years was very little short of the combined expenditure of France, Russia, and Germany. As a matter of fact, the Russian fleet was not in being, and making a comparison with France and Germany alone, we had the fact that in ten years this country spent £70,000,000, while France and Germany spent only £55,000,000. He did not mention the United States, because any question of rupture between this country and the United States had been practically banished from the mind of every right-thinking man. There were two other vital considerations, the first of which was that because this country was a Free Trade country it could build ships better, more cheaply, and more quickly than any other country. That was a very great advantage indeed, and it should never be forgotten in connection with Naval armaments. There was also another point, namely, that dockyards in this country were often used by foreign countries for the building of their war-vessels, which really amounted to an investment of foreign money on behalf of this country, because we could at any moment take up these vessels when they were on
518
our stocks, and use them for our own purposes. All these matters pointed to the fact that the House could wisely and judiciously consider the question of reducing Naval expenditure. This constant increase in the first and last line of defence did not lead to a reduction or even keep stationary the number of men for the Army which the House voted year by year. Whereas in 1895–6 the number of men voted for the Navy was 95,000 and in 1905–6 it was 129,000, in the same period the number of men voted for the Army was 155,000 in 1895–6, and 221,000 in 1905–6, so that the money spent in connection with increased Naval armaments gave no relief as regarded the Army, and he ventured to say that it was the same waste and extravagance which caused increases in both cases. He did not ask for a weak Navy, but submitted that the two-Power standard ought to content the country. This House had a right to say to their naval experts: "We want our two-Power Navy. We will give you £25,000,000, £26,000,000, even £27,000,000, and we shall expect you to give us in return a two-Power Navy and a little more."That would be equivalent to a saving of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 in the bloated Estimates. If they went back to the figures of 1898–9, they would be well justified and would earn the renewed confidence of the country. He asked the House to remember that when they voted 129,000 men for the Navy, it meant that other men had to labour to supply necessaries for those men. This was an important economic question which went down to the roots of poverty in this country. They were building up vested interests in waste. They were confronted with hon. Members who came to this House pledged to study the interests of towns which were supported by the spending of public money, and so it was that hon. Members got up in this House and said the Government was very extravagant, but would they kindly be extravagant in Ireland, or at Rosyth, Portsmouth, Woolwich, or some other place?
MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the complaint of the Nationalist Members was that, though Ireland paid towards the cost of the Navy, not a penny was

519
spent on Admiralty work in Ireland; and, further, that that country was already overburdened by taxation, and should not be taxed further.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he had no desire to misinterpret the remarks of hon. Members opposite, but certainly some things had been said in the debate coming from hon. Members representing constituents who were often men engaged in work furnished by the waste which was going on in this country. It was a serious consideration that when they had built up—as the late Government and its predecessors had been building up year after year—trades in waste hand over hand, the first effect of reduction should be to cause misery, and, perhaps, destitution, in certain places; but, unfortunately, the painful necessity was forced upon them. He would not plead for sudden reductions—that would be cruel to places like Portsmouth and Woolwich; but it must be done gradually, and it would not cause a greater dislocation of industry than was caused by calling men into these industries of waste. They were called in gradually, and let them be called out gradually. The final consideration was that a sound state of finance was the greatest strength in war, as it was in peace. Even prosperous Free-Trade England could not stand this drain, and he warned them that if they insisted upon a war expenditure in times of peace, it would go hard with this country when the next war arrived; and if they desired to make progress with the political and social reforms which had been actually promised, they must reduce unprofitable expenditure and divert the national wealth to truly national needs.
MR. SPEAKERproceeded to put the Question that the House agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, and then called upon Mr. Byles.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he begged to move a reduction of 5,000 men.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is too late. I asked him whether he wished to make a reduction, and he concluded his speech without doing so, and I have now put the Question that
520
the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
MR. BYLESsaid he would move, if necessary, the reduction which his hon. friend had desired to move. They had voted a great deal of money for the Navy in the last few days, and he could not assent to the report of this large Vote without raising his voice. He had put before his constituents the view that the security of the country could be amply provided for by a much smaller expenditure either upon the Army or the Navy, and he did not believe that the poor people among his constituents desired to spend their hard-earned wages upon costly ships and munitions of war and for keeping thousands of men for the purpose of destruction. Lord Randolph Churchill, when Chancellor of the Exchequer a good many years ago, said that if the foreign policy of this country was conducted with skill our huge armaments would be quite unnecessary, and the taxation they involved unjustifiable. Yet we were spending twice as much now as at the time when those words were spoken. If our naval strength was to depend on our policy, then it was relevant to point out in the first place that the Russian navy had been practically destroyed, and that it would take ten years to restore it; secondly, we had now an entente cordiale with France, which had led the Government to reduce the strength of the Mediterranean Fleet; thirdly, we had friendly relations with Italy and the other Mediterranean Powers; and fourthly, our relations with the United States were so friendly that it was absolutely unthinkable that we should ever get into conflict with that great Anglo-Saxon Power. In these circumstances, was not the reason for this vast expenditure largely removed? If the Navy was in the nature of an insurance, then when the risks were lessened the premium ought to be lessened also. He acknowledged that the Government had been obliged to a large extent to put before the House the Estimates of their predecessors, and it might seem inconsistent on his part to make the observations he had done. He was disappointed that the Secretary to the Admiralty had

521
not encouraged them to look for a large reduction in naval expenditure. On the contrary, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we must look for automatic increases in the Navy expenditure.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that what he stated was that he had had a table prepared of the prospective naval expenditure of this country based on the assumption that new construction, which dominated the whole of our naval expenditure, was to remain practically at the level it had reached this year, and that no material change would take place in the other Votes. On that footing a calculation was made by his order in the Admiralty, which showed what the prospective expenditure in these five years would be owing to automatic increases which could not be prevented in annuities and in the non-effective Votes. The result was that the expenditure would rise by about £2,000,000 in the five years.
MR. BYLESsaid he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given the House some expectation that there would be a reduction in the expenditure. In addition to the reasons he had stated for believing that the expenditure on the Navy should be reduced there was the fact that in the Far East we had now a thoroughly effective alliance with a Power which had control of the Pacific Ocean. The House ought to expect from this advanced Government an indication that there was a prospect that the naval and military expenditure, which had grown so terribly in recent years, would be substantially reduced.
MR. VERNEYsaid it had been stated that the naval and military armaments should be regarded as a national insurance. It seemed to him that insurance required the observance of two great principles. In the first place they must consider the amount of property they had to insure, and secondly they had to consider the risks against which that property was to be insured. If they took into account only the amount of property, there was no doubt whatever that there was a strong reason for
522
increasing our insurance, because our property had increased in the last ten years by leaps and bounds. A few months ago Lord Avebury, a great financial authority, had made a statement of extreme interest in regard to the growth of the wealth of the nation, and the increase of extraordinary expenditure, which he thought was absolutely unpardonable from the economic point of view. Lord Avebury reminded them that in ten years our total exports and imports had risen from £702,000,000 to £922,000,000. From the point of view of the rise in the amount of our national property, we might be justified in increasing the premium of our national insurance.
And, it being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Subsequent Resolution to be further considered To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.
  MR. W. H. LEVERrose to call attention to the question of payment of Members of Parliament, and to move: "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of parliamentary representatives, that all members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum." He said that he had also intended to direct attention to the question of the payment of the election expenses of Members, but after the Resolution adopted by the House the previous evening that became unnecessary. In his opinion, the payment of Members was required to maintain the dignity and prestige of the House, and he believed it would enormously raise the efficiency of the House. Members were paid at one time, and with the gradual disuse of the system one very well-known writer

  523
  in the first half of the seventeenth century declared that—
  " It was the bane of Parliament that Members were not paid, because when they were paid the electors chose men who understood their duties and attended to them."
  While the great Benjamin Franklin, at a later period, said that—
  " When Members of Parliament were paid they went to Parliament as a duty and not as a privilege."
  In 1780 a Committee of the House was appointed, and they recommended that Members should be paid, on the ground that—
  "It would be a return to the wholesome practice of former times."
  He called special attention to the use of the word "wholesome." It was said that the payment of Members would also apply to a great many other representative bodies in this country—to county and borough councils, to urban district and to parish councils—and that it would strike at the root of the great system of voluntary service which had been established. But if they inquired into the constitution of those local bodies, it would be seen that they only supplied an argument for the payment of Members of this House. The county councils did their work in the daytime, their meetings being held in the most central part of the county, and unsurmountable difficulties were placed in the way of labour representatives who lived in the outlying districts in the way of time and fares, with the result that there was not a proper representation of those classes on our county councils. During the time that he served on the Cheshire County Council there was not a single representative of labour upon it, and he understood that that was the case now. The position of the London County Council in this regard was exceptional owing to the facilities of travelling, and consequently there were many representatives of labour on that council, who added dignity and prestige to its deliberations. Another objection raised to the payment of Members was that representatives of the mass of the people could and did get into Parliament. They had a great number of them in this Parliament, and other Members were proud of their presence, because the representatives of the people in the House exercised a wholesome in-
  524
  fluence on the whole House. But these men could only come if they placed a burden on their friends, or upon that section of the community which sent them to Parliament. Was it right and just that a nation, in order to secure complete representation, should place such a burden on any one class? And could it add to the dignity of the House that Members should be placed in such a position—a position in which they could not have the fullest measure of independence which everyone desired. There was no alternative. They must have either sectional representation, and therefore incomplete representation, or the payment of Members by the State, with perfect freedom to carry on the business of the State, subject to the approval of the electors. The moderate amount of remuneration which he suggested in the resolution could not be any inducement to the "professional politician"—the man who might wish to become a Member of the House for purely selfish ends—nor could it be any inducement to a Labour representative, for a working man receiving 36s. or 40s. per week at the bench or in the mechanics shop would be infinitely better off than a Member of Parliament receiving £300 a year and having to bear the expenses incidental to the position of Members of this House. Nor would the sum be any inducement to the wrong kind of politician. Neither was there anything in the argument that if Members were paid the electors would be less vigilant in their duties than they were at present. The Labour Members in the present Parliament gave the House the utmost confidence in increasing their number, and in making it possible for the mass of the people to have at least a fair share in the representation of the country. Moreover, if they adopted this system, they would have a fairer representation of the whole country than they had had in the past. In this House they had a working model of the system he advocated. There were Members of the House who were paid—Members who constituted the Government. He submitted that it was not because they could not form a Government unless its Members were paid. He was confident that there were Members of the House who would be perfectly willing to take any position in

  525
  the Government without a salary. But the House decided to pay the Members of the Government in order that there might be no hindrance in the choice of men to form the Government—men with strength of brain and of conscience, and not length of pocket should be the qualification. But they carried the payment of Members of the Ministry even further, for if they were satisfied that an ex-Minister was not in a position to maintain the dignity of the position he was in when a Minister, they voted him a sufficient sum to enable him to continue for the remainder of his days in such a position that he would not cast any indignity upon the House or himself.
  This working model—the payments made to the Members whom he had indicated—inspired them with confidence that if they treated the rank and file of the House in exactly the same way they would not only suit their own convenience, but would also be considering the dignity of the House in carrying this Resolution. The £300 a year proposed was only an enabling salary. There was not a man in the House with the ability of those now there—he did not care of what rank they were—who could not turn his talents to such purpose as would make a greater amount than that. It was only sufficient to make the right kind of man thoroughly independent. It was not enough to attract the wrong kind of man. Out of that amount there would be a great deal of expense to be borne. Out of it a Member could settle the question of the postage stamps, and so relieve the Postmaster-General of a dilemma; he would also be in a position to pay his railway fares, and so settle the question whether Members should be granted passes from the railway companies. They would have to sit on railway companies and would have to judge them. The total amount of money that would be required to carry out this scheme was somewhere about £200,000 a year; but if they considered that this House was the one and only authority in this country free from the control of the other House—that this House had the sole control of the finances of the country—they would realise that the payment of £200,000 was merely 2s. 6d. per cent. on the amount the House had to control—
  526
  very little more than a banker's commission and very much less than an insurance premium for fidelity. He did not think that any business firm would expect to get the management of its finances done so well and so cheaply. Would any man in business expect to get his affairs managed, involving such a large amount of money, for less than £300 a year? The amount was moderate, but at the same time it was ample, because they did not want to do more than make an enabling grant. He had been asked, since his Resolution was announced, whether it would not meet the case to make this payment of Members optional—to allow a Member to declare whether he would have it or not. He must say he could not accept that suggestion. It would be grossly unfair to every Member of the House. There was only one condition upon which he could accept such a, proposal, namely, that the names of the Members who received it should be kept strictly secret, and then he was convinced that when the amount paid was made public it would show that not a single Member had refused it. He begged to move.
  MR. VIVIAN, in seconding the Motion, observed that it could not be said that his hon. friend had any special interest in bringing it forward. His hon. friend would pardon him for that reference, for the contrast between the mover and the seconder from that point of view was very marked indeed. He desired to put one or two points in connection with the payment of Members and the attitude of workmen on this question. In seconding the Motion he was to a very small extent influenced either by the custom of foreign countries, where they paid Members, or even by the custom within the Empire itself, where, he understood, this country was practically the only exception. It was true that in past generations we had payment of Members, and some of our greatest politicians of the last century supported the reintroduction of this principle, notably, Charles James Fox, Roebuck, and Joseph Hume, but he felt that this was a practical question for them to settle in connection with the particular circumstances and conditions

  527
  of their own country. They had to consider it in the light of the enormous change that had taken place during the last fifty years in the character of the Government of this country. The enormous amount of decentralisation that had taken place, and the extent to which the people of the country as a whole participated in the government of the country, made this question of more importance to-day than it had been in years gone by. It seemed to be the one great barrier left to the real representation of the people in this House. It was because of the great changes in the Government and in the electorate of this country that they were called upon to consider this question at the present moment. Mr. Balfour a short time ago used these words—
  "Every wise statesman, be his politics what they may, would desire to bring the institutions of a country into conformity with the needs and wishes of the people of the country."
  What were the needs of the country today? One of the needs of the country to-day was that the people should have unrestricted choice in the selection of their representatives in this House. There should be no sense of inequality, no feeling of injustice on the part of any section of the community; the contest for a position in the House should he open to all in a real and practical sense. But he maintained that the choice was limited to-day by the absence of remuneration to Members of the House, and a large proportion of the people of the country felt that they were not free to have the representatives they desired to select. He felt certain that some hon. Members might probably regard this step as an attack upon wealth. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no"] He was glad to hear that "No, no" from the Opposition Benches. Large numbers of people assumed at any rate that wealth in itself was a mark of capacity. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no"] He asserted that Members who formerly represented the Party opposite held that view, and if the Party opposite had become so liberalised as to reject that doctrine he welcomed their conversion. He, however, was there to assert that the Party represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite had resisted, at every stage, the breaking down of the barriers to the free
  528
  selection of representatives of the people. They had regarded existing conditions as obstacles to prevent the introduction of undesirables into this House. In that respect they were not unlike the Aliens Act passed last session, but unlike that Act they did not prevent the introduction of undesirables. The whole assumption that the possession of material wealth was the measure of political wisdom, virtue, and character was false. He maintained that there was no evidence to support that. Wealth was not the hall-mark of character, or ability, or even of political honesty, and with every generation it was less and less so. Broadly speaking, those personal qualities which were valuable in politics were possessed in no greater degree by those in this House having an income of over £500 a year than by those who earned less than that sum. With the spread of education we had given to a large number of people the opportunity to take a larger share in the government of the country, and with the gradual rise of large numbers of the working classes into positions of responsibility it was evident that no one section of the community had naturally a mono-ply of the qualities which went to make up a good politician. It was John Stuart Mill who said, in discussing the extension of the franchise to the working people, that the qualities for exercising rightly the duties of suffrage would come by their exercise. It was being proved that as the working people had the opportunity of exercising those qualities, those qualities grew. He made no claim for any special virtue in the class to which he was proud to belong. There might be labour leaders who took a narrow and sordid view of their position, and regarded themselves as mere delegates of the special interests they represented; but there were also in this House representatives of joint-stock interests in quite as low a way. His point was not to score one class against another, but merely to show that no section of the community had special qualities that would fit them to govern other sections of the community. His claim was that all should have an equal opportunity in taking part in the government of the country. He submitted that there was a pressing need at the present moment for the step now proposed. At any rate his opinion was that unless the community

  529
  as a whole, through this House, boldly took upon itself the duty of remunerating the Members of this House, the poorer Members would get their remuneration from other sources, which, in the main, involved their regarding themselves as the representatives of the interests which paid them. Surely the ideal which ought to be aimed at in regard to representation in this House was that it was the interest of the country, using the term in its widest sense, which should be represented. That ideal could not always be attained. Circumstances were occasionally too strong for them, but they could here and there check, by judicious statesmanship, the inroads which sectional interests could make to the detriment of the commonweal. His point was that unless the public paid, others would, and it would be the interests of the others which would be looked after and not the interests of the public. One reason for his strong opposition to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was that under it we should have a house made up of trade groups, the driving force of each of which would be the hope of public plunder. His desire was that they should as far as they could prevent that spirit from growing up in the House, and he submitted that unless the House took steps to ensure the payment of every Member in the House by the community as a whole, large numbers would continue to come into the House with small incomes. They would be paid by sectional interests, and they would feel that they must represent those interests instead of the interests of the country as a whole. He was conscious of the fact that the Labour Members who had come into the House were of a very high type, and the father of the labour Members, the right hon. Member for Morpeth, was a man of that stamp who set a splendid example of devotion to the public welfare. He asked that this step should be taken not merely because the work was worth paying for, but on higher grounds; it would secure more purity when they came to give their votes. He asked no favour on this question for the workmen. From his point of view workmen who asked for favours ought to be moved into the House of Lords. Unless a workman showed
  530
  himself in his struggle with others, he did not care whether it was on the political battleground or elsewhere, unless he could prove in his own case the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, he had no claim to enter this House. It was as citizens that they claimed to be paid by citizens. Citizenship should be the basis of our political life, and not class or trade interest. Members of this assembly derived their mandate directly, of course, from the constituencies they represented, but they were also, in another sense, representatives of the nation as a whole. Again, they owned some allegiance to the Party under whose banner they served, and to whose influence to some extent their presence in the House was due. They had, as it were, three masters to serve—their constituencies, the country as a whole, and party allegiance. There was a tendency in some quarters to decry party allegiance, and cheap sneers cast at party Government were quite unjustifiable. He waited for a suggestion of a better method for conducting the business of the House than by the agency of one Party or another. Again, it was important to point out that Members of this House were not mere delegates. He should be sorry to see the time when Members became mere delegates of any one interest, or even of the interests of the constituency which sent them to Parliament. They had occasionally to act in accordance with their own judgment, and possibly in opposition to their constituents' wishes, or even the wishes of the country. Some independence of action was essential, although its degree was difficult to define; but what was certain was that independence and individuality would become less and less if Members were paid by sectional groups of interests to perform public work. Personally he refused to accept the proposition that a Member of the House should become a mere marionette pulled by some unseen influence behind the scenes such, as someone near him suggested, as the Tariff Reform League. He found that quite a number of eminent politicians supported the claims for the payment of Members, amongst them the right hon. Member for Berwick, who had been for many years a staunch upholder of the

  531
  principle. He had been rather interested and not a little amused at some observations on this question which the right hon. Gentleman had lately made. They were as follows:—
  "No doubt under a system of payment of Members some needy and unscrupulous adventurers will find their way into Parliament, but they will do so largely by displacing other adventurers who are less needy, but not less unscrupulous. Some people in arguing against payment of Members seemed to forget that there is room for improvement as well as for deterioration in the character of the House of Commons."
  He relied upon the right hon. Gentleman to support this Resolution and on the Government carrying it into practice. He had never been able to understand why a Member or his friends should have to pay heavy expenses to get into the House to serve the public, and even after he had got in to be regarded—as some hon. Member informed him they were—as a sort of glorified relieving officer for all and sundry in his constituency. Surely the time had come when it was desirable that that kind of thing should end, and that both Member and constituency should take a more serious view of politics. Modern conditions demanded that in future Members should give more detailed attention to the work of the House. Year by year the questions which came forward for settlement were increasing. Year by year the influence of Parliament was extending, as was also its control over the different aspects of our national life; and, unless Members received remuneration, these duties would not be discharged as they ought to be, and the interests of the public would suffer. It had been suggested that the charge should be made a local one. While not wishing to be dogmatic, he could scarcely agree to that suggestion; for it seemed to him that it would lead to the very evils which he had been arguing against. Some hon. Members appeared to regard themselves as commercial travellers for their constituencies, and their whole object seemed to be to secure Government orders for the towns they represented. He held that the highest and best interests of the public would be served only if the charge were made a national one. He was satisfied that the dignity of the House would be enhanced by this Resolution
  532
  being carried into effect. The cost would not be great. His hon. friend had suggested that it would reach £200,000 a year. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would naturally plead poverty and that he had limited means at his disposal. The right hon. Gentleman would have no more ardent advocate for economy in public expenditure than himself. It was the one thing needed in order to get the national finances straight. The national credit had to be re-established, and the right hon. Gentleman would find no more ardent supporters in all his efforts than the Members of the House who supported this Resolution. The trade unions he was proud to be connected with were with him on this question. He maintained that the cost would be small, and when they considered what was to be achieved at that small cost, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to support the Resolution which he was now seconding. He felt confident that it would be one more step in the broadening of the character of this House, and causing the whole nation to feel that it was at least no longer a club, or the path to mere social distinction or society life, but that it was a real people's chamber in which the interests of the people were closely looked after and cared for.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of Parliamentary representatives, that all Members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum."—(Mr. W. H. Lever.)
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he was quite sure that no Member of the House would cavil at the manner in which the mover and seconder of the Resolution had supported it; but at the same time he ventured to submit that their argument did not lead logically to the conclusion they wished to arrive at. He desired to find as much common ground as he could with the hon. Gentlemen, and to associate himself with them in the belief that the

  533
  presence of a large number of Labour Members in the House was a distinct advantage, because the House would be able to hear from them directly their experience and their point of view on the great labour questions of the day. He was not going to quarrel with the mover and seconder on the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration which they considered the labour of hon. Members was worth. Three hundred pounds a year must be admitted to be a moderate amount to pay for the exertions which any hon. Member had to put forth in doing his duty, but it was one thing for a man to deserve a sum of money, and another thing to take it out of the nearest pocket he could find in his neighbourhood. He submitted that the House itself, by any majority, had not the power to pass this Resolution. It had been vainly boasted that the House was omnipotent; but it was not omnipotent. There were many things it could not do, and among them it could not, as the custodians of the public purse, authorise its Members to dip their fingers into that purse and help themselves to what it might please them to take. It had been pointed out quite rightly that the members of the Government of the day were paid. That was true, but they had the sanction of the taxpayers outside, for they had to submit themselves to re-election after accepting paid office. Ministers were in a different position from the rank and file of the House. It was the Ministers of the day who were the servants of the public and not the ordinary Members. [Cries of "No, no."] That was a very important distinction. In the first place, they could not compare the labours of the Ministers of this great country with the labours of ordinary Members. The Ministers of the day were no doubt servants of the State, and were rightly paid, and it was the duty of ordinary Members to see that these servants performed their duties in a proper manner, and proposed laws for the benefit of the country. Members had first to consider their respective constituencies. ["Oh!"] Well they represented their interests, and not necessarily class interests, but their best interests, although they might be great or small. Each Member
  534
  individually only represented one part of the country the whole of which that House represented. Therefore it seemed to him that the proper party to pay the representative was the constituency. Take the ordinary constituency of a Labour Member. It was necessarily large and made the Labour Member in this House all the more valuable. Suppose he represented 6,000 voters and was paid £300 a year; that would represent just about a farthing a week to every one of the 6,000 voters. That could not be considered a great burden. There was a line of ultra vires which even this House could not pass, and they could not put their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers and take out their money without their consent. If they passed this Resolution, they were going to mulct the taxpayers of the country in damages without their even being heard. Who was going to represent the interests of the taxpayers of the country, when Members of this House decided the case in their own favour? Quite apart, however, from the question of ultra vires, and in this he was sure he should have the support of the learned Attorney-General, it had been held ever since we had any system of jurisprudence at all, that the law would not permit any person in a fiduciary capacity to attempt to make a profit out of his trust, and would make accountable any person who made such an attempt. Suppose the House permitted what he ventured to say was an illegality, the Attorney-General or any body else could lay an information challenging the action of Members—they were in a majority or not—who voted for and carried a Resolution which took money out of the pockets of the ratepayers and put it in their own. It might be a new case, but he could not see any arguable ground against such a case being raised. He recollected an utterance of the late Lord Selborne on appeal in a case in which the Court below had decided that the plaintiff had sustained a wrong at the hands of the defendant but that there were no means by which he could find a remedy. Lord Selborne said—
  "This Court, if it finds a wrong, will find an arm long enough to provide a remedy."
  One of the Attorney-General's supporters, only a night or two ago, reminded the hon.

  535
  and learned Gentleman that the law officers of the Crown were paid—and he was sure they were not too highly paid—for giving the Members of the House the best legal advice. He should therefore leave it to the Attorney-General to give them his advice, as to what would be their position if they voted for this Resolution and took money out of the pockets of the taxpayers. If they had a right to vote £300 a year why not £3,000. The appetite for salaries grew by what it fed on. They could, if the principle were upheld, take what they wanted without any restraint or scruple, except that imposed by conscience. But consciences sometimes became elastic, and they had seen a very fine illustration of this in the difference in a man's valuation of himself when he was only a candidate and when he became a Member. He hoped a very eminent member of the Government would take what he said as a pleasantry, which it was meant to be. Out of the House he put the maximum value upon himself or upon any other man of £500 a year. Now he as President of the Local Government Board valued himself at £2,000. which was four times as much. He was sure, however, that the work of the right hon. Gentleman was well worth the remuneration he received for his Department. But the episode showed that there was no limit which could be fixed. But even that was not all. The tendency of the payment of Members out of the pockets of the State, of which they were the custodians, had a tendency to deteriorate the character of the House. He should like to quote a statement by John Stuart Mill, which was approved by Henry Fawcett, in regard to what would be the effect of payment of Members in producing what is called the professional politician—the carpet bagger, who ran about the country, to see what support he could get to obtain a situation of £300 a year. He did not mean to say that every man of that kind would have no principle at all, and he quite admitted that in America there were some men of that class, though not popular there, who became very eminent men, and having devoted their lives to politics, did their best for their country, but as Mill said, the constant meddling of this class of men who felt bound to do something for their salaries would be in-
  536
  tolerable. Whether constituencies might contribute to the support of their Member was a different question, but there was no reason to doubt that such a course as that now proposed would deteriorate the character of the body and would diminish the respect in which it was held by the public. Constituencies might send up independent men who were paid, but how could a man be made more free and independent by accepting a dole out of the State funds. The question might also arise whether or not in special cases, or in times of prosperity or depression, the allowance should be increased or decreased, but the effect of the whole proposal was to make a Member dependent upon the State. This would make him less free and independent. There was one more point he wished to make, and he desired it to be understood that he imputed no motives. He did not say that Ministers of the day or Members would have any intention to use a question of this kind for the purpose of exercising unfair or undue influence upon any Section of the House, but whatever the intention was, the fact remained that it could be so used. He should like to know whether the Government intended to support this Motion or not. If they did what was the only inference? That they wished to conciliate and obtain the good will of a certain section of the House. ["Oh*!"] That was fair comment and the fact was incontestable. That was one way of getting that support, and although they might say they did not do it for that, hon. Members might form their own private judgment as to whether that was not the effect of it. He was not going into ancient history, but he would simply refer to the histories of the Republics of Greece and Rome, and ask hon. Members to consider whether, among the causes which brought those Republics to grief, arrangements of this kind for applying and dividing public money among those who governed the politics of the State were not one of the first if not the chief cause of their downfall. He appealed to all Members, whether old or new, not to spoil the traditions of this House by allowing anything to be recorded on its journals which would enable an enemy to say that the Members of it had any pocket interest in managing

  537
  its affairs. He begged to move the Amendment which, stood in his name.
  MR. EVELYN CECILseconded the Amendment on general grounds, because he thought that the legal and constitutional bearing of this question ought not to be lost sight of in this discussion. Adoption of this particular proposal was without precedent so far as our history went. When originally Members were paid, they were paid by their constituents, by means of a rate levied upon them. That was the case in the Plantagenet times, on various occasions since, and in the case of the famous Andrew Marvell in the time of Charles II. Now, however, it was asked that private Members, like Ministers, should be servants of the State, and not, as at present, be the servants of their constituents. They all took an interest in this House and wished to get the best men to serve in it. They all hoped that merely means and wealth would not affect the question, as they wanted to get the best men, irrespective of their private means or of those by whom they were supported. That was their common object but was it likely that this proposal would bring them any nearer to it? An hon. Member had said that £300 was no inducement, but if it was no inducement why give it? If, however, it was an inducement he thought it raised difficulties of a serious character. It would involve a serious strain being thrown upon Members who had no private means of their own in the event of certain important measures being brought forward, say Home Rule or Tariff Reform, or trades disputes, because if a Member were dependent for his living upon the salary he got as a Member of the House, he would feel that if he voted against them, he would loss his whole means of livelihood. It was obvious that there were questions in regard to which that spect of the case would arise, and he, therefore, protested against any departure of this kind. While he felt the force of the appeal that had been made he desired that Members of the House should be independent and should not be delegates. Edmund Burke, shortly after he had been elected for Bristol, told his constituents that they must remember that then he was
  538
  not merely Member for Bristol, but a Member of Parliament, and that it was their duty to expect him to take a wide view of matters, and to act independently sometimes of them, and not to rely upon their support. Where should they be if this legislation was passed? They could not exercise that independence which was so essential to a Member of the House. He was not sure, in view of what he had just said, and in view of the experience of other countries, that that was the case. He was in the United States last year, and was very much struck while in Washington by the fact that much, more dignity was apparently considered to attach to eminent business men, or say, railway kings, than was supposed to belong to Congressmen and politicians. He might be wrong in attributing the cause entirely to the fact that the Members were paid, but he did think that that had something to do with it. There was no doubt a widespread feeling in the United States—he supposed it was largely in consequence of the Members being paid—that legislators were not in a position of such dignity as those who had come to the front more by their own business powers and independence. That was a reason which, he thought, would present itself to many Americans and to many citizens of foreign countries, and before this House launched themselves into an experiment of this kind, they must bear in mind the experience of other countries. Much had been said about professional politicians. He wanted to be saved from professional politicians, and that would not be if they paid themselves as was proposed. It was much more likely that they would not get so many Labour Members, and they would be much more likely to get—if he might so describe him without offence—that individual known as the briefless barrister. There was another point which had not been mentioned. If legislative attendance in the House of Commons was to be paid, he would like to know whether it was to be paid in the other House. [Cries of "No,"] Surely the legislative duties in either House were of a very similar character? [Renewed cries of "No."] Hon. Members seemed amused, but if they received £1 a day or whatever sum it was, they ought in justice to pay

  539
  the same to Members of the other House according to the length of their sittings. He quite agreed that it reduced the proposition to rather an absurdity, but that was one of the strongest reasons for throwing out this Resolution. He did not want either House to be paid. The chief advantage, he believed, that was claimed for the Motion was that they would get candidates of all kinds irrespective of financial influences. He did not think they would be able to rid themselves of financial influences altogether, even if they paid members £300 a year each. If the object of paying this money was to get more Labour Members into the House—and if they got the best Labour Members he was extremely glad to see them—he could not think that that was really a good argument, because it could hardly be said after the last election that that result could not be attained under the present system. The large number of Labour Members elected at the last election was some proof at any rate that under the existing system they could get a very solid Labour representation, and that there was no need for spending another £200,000 of public money in order to secure any difference. The only other advantage he could think of was that Party funds would not require so much support. Under the present system the independence of the House had been well maintained, the Members elected had been true representatives of the electorate, and he saw no sufficient grounds for so drastic a proposal as was suggested in the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'it is not competent or desirable for this House of its own Motion, and being the custodian and protector of the public purse, and acting therein in a fiduciary capacity to the taxpayers of this country, to vote for and to pay or appropriate to its own Members out of that purse any money for their own personal use and benefit." (Sir Henry Kimber.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he presumed that if this
  540
  Motion were carried the Prime Minister would afford facilities for it to be put into immediate effect, because he remembered a debate in this House in the year 1893 when the late Sir William Harcourt saw that payment of Members would involve a great constitutional change, and that such a change ought not to be effected by a side stroke, but that it should be carried into effect by a legislative enactment. Now it was perfectly clear that if this were left to legislation there was no possible chance of the aspiration which had found expression in this Resolution ever being carried into effect, and therefore a very futile course had been adopted in bringing forward the Motion, unless they anticipated that the Government would put it into effect if carried by a substantial majority, and he knew no constitutional reason why it should not be carried into effect. There was a very simple expedient, and that was to embody it in the Budget. The only objection to this would be that in the event of a change of administration it would be competent for the new administration to leave it out of the Budget. He must say that he had in the past been a consistent opponent of payment of Members. But times changed, and, without any coercion on the part of his constituency, his views were considerably modified on this question. He differed from the mover of the Resolution in his appeal to foreign precedents. He did not think they were of much practical value.
  MR. W. H. LEVERsaid he expressly disclaimed any appeal to the practice prevailing in foreign countries.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he believed it was the seconder rather than the proposer who used the argument.
  MR. VIVIANsaid he also expressly disclaimed any such appeal.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he was glad to hear it because it absolved him from the necessity of pointing out that the circumstances under which the payment of Members had been established in foreign countries had no bearing upon the desirability or undesirability of the

  541
  practice. He appealed to supporters of the Resolution not altogether to disregard those considerations which had been urged with some force by the last speaker. He was far from thinking that the argument as to the "professional politician" should be dismissed with contempt; and he wished to point out that in no foreign country or colony where Members were paid had that payment resulted in the creation of a Labour Party in the sense in which such a Party now existed in this House. It was also a noteworthy fact that in Germany, Italy, and in England, in each of which countries there was no payment of Members, there was a larger body of Labour Members than in any Assembly where Members were paid. When he spoke of Labour Members he meant men who belonged to those who were euphemistically termed the working-classes of the country. What he wished to draw attention to was that the State was now being asked to incur an extra charge of £200,000 a year. He could not consider £200,000 a year a bagatelle. It would provide 13,000 people with old-age pensions. The income of the trade unions was £2,500,000, and to provide £300 a year to 100 of their own representatives would require only £30,000 a year. Organised labour was now returning with very little effort working-men representatives. The House was asked to give away £200,000 a year. What for? For working-class representatives. [Cries of "No."] He expected that "No," but he had the courage to repeat what he had said, and he would tell why he had said it. The briefless barrister, to which category he supposed he, more or less, belonged at the time he first entered this House, and the journalist could come into the House of Commons and carry on their profession, but the working men could not come into the House and carry on their business; and, therefore, it was solely in the interests of working men, and rightly so, that this scheme of payment of Members was formulated. What other class were they going to benefit? They would not seduce the farmer, the tradesman, or the struggling manufacturer from their business. The only people who would be got were briefless barristers, lecturers, and journalists. Why should they incur this great expense
  542
  of £200,000 when £30,000 would suffice to provide for 100 Members, because the Labour Party did not expect to get more. ["Why?"] At present there were fifty Labour Members, it was not reasonable to expect that the number would be more than doubled; if it were, then further provisions could be made. He thought the Labour Party had done extremely well at the last election. The working man had no more difficult task than that of persuading his fellow-citizens that he should represent them in Parliament rather than the professional man or the capitalist. But the working men had no right to shape the financial policy of the country on the basis that they would be able to secure more than a hundred Members in the next Parliament. Yet those who spoke on behalf of working men were anxious to draw from the pockets of the taxpayers £200,000 when £30,000 would meet their requirements. That was his conviction, and he trusted that his hon. friends would believe that he was not animated with any petty or jealous motives in the attitude he was taking. Inasmuch as the Labour Members were now able to speak with authority in this House, he thought that at least they should limit the payment of Members to the exigencies of the situation and not insist upon payment being provided for other classes who did not require it.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to say a word or two in support of the Resolution which had been so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Wirral and seconded by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He was afraid it would be necessary for him to deal with some of the criticisms passed by the hon. Member for North West Durham before he proceeded to deal with the Resolution itself. The hon. Member for North West Durham had said, and he admitted its force, that it was possible in certain circumstances for Labour to secure representation in the House even under present conditions. But the House should not forget that every constituency of trade unionists was called upon to support in Parliament men who were not merely attending to trade-union questions, but to the business of the nation as well. These men surely should not be

  543
  individually fined for filling a representative position in Parliament. It was quite true that the Labour Party had succeeded in geting a fairly good proportion of Members elected at the last election, and it had been suggested that there should be a limit to their number, and further that they could not hope to secure more than 100 in any future Parliament. He hoped in the future to see labour proportionately represented in this House just in proportion to its influence and numbers in the community in general, and anything like a fair proportion of representation labour would require far more than 100 representatives. It was not necessary for him to reply to all the criticisms of the hon. Member for North West Durham, but he might say that he would much rather the hon. Member had sat on the Opposition benches and delivered his address from the other side among the Tariff Reformers than from the Ministerial side. It was a most sinister speech, because it did not definitely oppose this Motion, but it was an attempt to damn this proposal by faint praise and he would sooner have a declared opponent than a false friend. He pointed out also that the late Sir William Harcourt stated in 1895, when this Question was discussed, that—
  "When I have the opportunity I will do what I can to give effect to the principle embodied in this Resolution."
  The resolution which Sir William Harcourt supported and said he would adopt stated—
  "That, as the principle of gratuitous public service, on which the representation of this House is at present based, limits the freedom of constituencies in the selection of their representatives, this House is of opinion that a reasonable annual allowance should forthwith be granted to all Members of Parliament."
  Unfortunately, the Government came to an end within a few months of the passing of that Resolution, or else the payment of Members would have been an accomplished fact. Several members of the present Government had when in Opposition made statements on this subject. The present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a debate in that House in 1894, said that—
  "Having extended the franchise, the House of Commons was bound to make the choice of candidates free."
  544
  The right hon. Gentleman also expressed the belief—
  "That with good average human nature, payment intensified and did not weaken the sense of obligation."
  That was exactly the position of the Labour Party towards this proposal, and they wanted a definite statement from the Government as to what they intended to do. It was a most curious thing that he himself was represented in that House by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, who had always been hostile to labour interests in the constituency. He was surprised, having lived in the locality for some twenty years, and knowing how hostile he had been to everything connected with labour interests in his own constituency, at the hon. Member's observation that he wanted to see more Labour Members in this House. He only wished that the hon. Member's actions tallied somewhat with the opinions he had expressed this evening. The hon. Member for Wandsworth said the House was not omnipotent, but he would remind him that Mr. Pitt said it was, and he did not think even the hon. Member for Wandsworth would put his opinion upon that point against a gentleman of the calibre and Parliamentary reputation of Mr. Pitt.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I would.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he thought the hon. Member possessed some modesty but evidently he had been mistaken. The hon. Member had said that they were not the servants of the State, but he should like to know if in making that statement he was speaking from his own personal experience, or was he applying his suggestion to the whole of the other Members of the House. He knew that the hon. Member for Wandsworth had had considerable experience in company business and the relationship between directors and shareholders, and he did not know whether his suggestion meant that Members of the House of Commons were in the position of shareholders and the Government were the directors. He thought the Members of the House of Commons were servants of the State. They had been appointed by their constituencies to perform public duties, and

  545
  therefore they ought to be paid by the State. It had been said that this proposal was like putting their hands in somebody else's pocket, but he was not personally in that position at any rate. It was only necessary for him to point out that three paragraphs in his election address dealt with the very subject which they were now debating. His opponent devoted three parts of his address to pointing out what an enormous burden the payment of over 600 Members of Parliament would be, and he lost the election by nearly 4,000 votes. He thought that was a sufficient answer to the remarks of his hon. friend. He understood that lawyers were great sticklers for precedent, and yet the hon. Member for Wands-Worth said that this Resolution presupposed that payment of Members lad never occurred before. That was not true, because payment of Members had existed and would exist again. ["Not by the State."] At any rate, at one time the State compelled the constituencies to pay, and this proposal was merely an alteration in the method of collection. What did it matter whether the constituency paid the Member direct, or through the revenue of the country in the ordinary way? It had been said that if they were paid, hon. Members might sit here for the purposes of receiving salaries.
  MR. CROOKS: The Members of the late Government did that.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he did not desire to draw comparisons, but he thought that if the last President of the Local Government Board was worth £2,000 the present one was worth £20,000. He supported this Resolution because it would broaden the basis of representation. Once they had decided that this country should be governed by a democracy they could not limit it. They might try to curb it and put it down here or set it back there, but sooner or later they would be bound to admit the people to equal privileges in administering the affairs of this country. They could not have equal privileges so long as some were extremely wealthy and some were poor, unless some other steps were taken to make up for that inequality. That was exactly the position of the Labour
  546
  Party. It was the duty of this House, after the verdict of the constituencies, to put that verdict into shape and practice by adopting this Resolution.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEregretted that the inconvenient arrangements of the House compelled the discussion of a question of these dimensions in an inadequate space of time, but he would put succinctly the reasons which induced him to give definite and consistent opposition to a proposal which, in his opinion, was an entirely idle and ineffective one. In the course of the twenty years during which he had had the privilege of serving in this House he had heard a good many abstract Resolutions moved, but he had never heard one which was so absolutely unpractical as that which was now before the House. If translated into a Bill or a Vote in Supply, no Member could vote for it because of the clear rule that no Member should vote upon a Motion in which he was personally interested. If the Government were to propose a Resolution in Committee in favour of a vote of £300 to each of the present Members of the House, there would not be a Member who would not commit a breach of order if he voted for it and would not be liable to have his vote disallowed. This was a perfectly altruistic Motion, and there was only one way in which the House could adopt it. He had drafted the words in which it would have to be done. They were:—"That every Member elected after this date shall be entitled to receive an annual payment of £300 provided he shall not have been a Member of the House at the time of the passing of this Resolution." According to the absolute and unbroken and essential rule of purity in that House, it would be impossible for the Members who were now in the House to vote to themselves, out of public moneys, £300, £500, or any other sum of money. Therefore, this became a perfectly ideal and altruistic Motion. He agreed that the amount proposed in the Resolution was a moderate one; but it came to £210,000 a year, and that would be a permanent charge; £210,000 was the in-interest upon £7,000,000, and the House was really called upon to vote in favour of the establishment of a permanent charge which amounted to a capital charge of

  547
  £7,000,000 upon tie country. Last night the House decided to throw upon the resources of the country a charge of £50,000 or £60,000 a year. That was another £2,000,000 in capital sum. So that this House of Commons, which had come here resolute in its determination to effect economies, was beginning by placing upon the nation a capital charge of nine millions of money, the annual interest upon which was to go practically into their own pockets. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was speaking on this matter on March 29th, 1899, he said—
  "The total charge involved would be about £250,000 a year. That sum might very easily be obtained without imposing any additional taxation. A small charge like this could be met by rearranging official salaries upon a more moderate and reasonable scale, by reducing the ornamental sinecures, and by curtailing the grossly unreasonable pension and superannuation system."
  That right hon. Gentleman was now Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wondered whether he was going to begin with the salaries, or with the sinecures, or whether he thought it would be very easy to interfere with pensions and superannuations which had been earned and granted under Acts of Parliament? He thought he had shown that this was a very serious thing from the point of view of finance, but there was another consideration. No one had ever heard him use the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. If a thing was right they ought to do it. But the principle on which this Motion was based ought, if adopted at all, to be applied consistently. He agreed that Members of Parliament discharged duties of the highest importance, and many of them discharged those duties at large expense to themselves. But there were other large classes of persons who discharged most useful offices, which did not carry with them the social distinction which was part of the reward of hon. Members of that House. County councils borough councils, boards of guardians, county and borough magistrates, and members of Royal Commissions did good service to the State. The fact was that this country was happy in having an enormous amount of most valuable public service done for it by unpaid persons. He thought it would not be decent, it would scarcely
  548
  be honest, for the Members of this House, having the control of the national purse, to take out of that purse £300 a year for each of themselves, and leave these less dignified servants of the State to do their work in these other capacities without any payment at all. Supposing this proposal—even if it were practical, and it was not—were adopted, what would be the result? That whenever there was a vacancy in a constituency they would offer for public competition an office which was paid for at the rate of £300 a year and which carried with it a great deal of social distinction, and possibly a good deal of business influence and value. There would be no entrance fee, and when the candidate had been nominated by ten members of the electorate, the country would pay the whole of the official expenses of the competition. That was a dangerous outlook. He believed that one absolutely universal failing of mankind was vanity; and when they had vanity and a chance of £300 a year he thought they would find plenty of candidates at the elections. It had been stated more than once that some check would be needed. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, with a courage which they all admired, had again and again pressed this question on the attention of the House, and if anybody was entitled to any credit for this Motion it was the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, who in 1892 said in regard to a similar proposal—
  "If this proposal were adopted, I think it would be necessary to take some precautions against bogus candidates being started at the time of the election, and he suggested that there should be a deposit required to be returned if the candidate got a certain percentage of votes, and that there should be a second ballot."
  He did not say anything against those precautions, but they certainly would be precautions against the danger which this plan would set up. The reason which had been stated again and again for bringing forward this proposal was that it was not considered possible without it to send to this House a sufficiently large number of representatives of the great labour organisations of this country. But that reason had passed away. A good many of them were here. [An HON. MEMBER: A few of them] A good many of them.

  549
  They were sent here as men who were well-known and trusted by the great organisations of labour in this country, which, with very little sacrifice indeed, could make provision for the maintenance of their representatives in this House. He confessed he should have thought it would have been more congenial to the Labour Members to be sustained in their position in that House by the free will offerings of their great trade organisations than by the reluctant payment of a tax imposed upon the whole country. He said the reluctant payment because he believed this proposal was unpopular in the constituencies. There were some instances where the matter had been put before the constituency; but he doubted whether there were half a dozen Members on the Ministerial side who in their election addresses or speeches told their constituents that they were going to propose that £300 a year should be paid to them. He knew that the Government with its great majority could pass a Bill on this matter; and if the guardians of the public purse chose to help themselves out of it, the other House would not interfere, and it would be too late for the constituencies to interfere. But there was another consideration. There was another special body in that House seriously affected by this matter—the Nationalist Members for Ireland eighty-two in number. The effect of this proposal if carried out would be to endow that Party to the extent of £24,000 year. That proposal he would absolutely resist to the last. It was not a loyal Party.
  MR. JOYCE: Loyal to Ireland.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid if he were to single out one Member of that Party and say he was a loyalist he would ruin his political future. It was a Party which had declared again and again that it was here, not to help the deliberations and work of Parliament, but to hinder them.
  550
  It might be right or wrong that they should make that claim, but it had been made with unflinching frankness by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in this House only in April last. It was that Party which the Government, if they accepted this proposal, would be assisting and endowing with £24,000 a year. These were reasons why he objected to this proposal, and on all grounds he would resist it. First, it would be an expenditure of public money which was quite unnecessary. Secondly, they were the trustees for the constituencies. [Laughter.] Who laughed at that? Why every Member of Parliament who came here had the right to give his vote on the question of the salary of a Minister or the payment of men in the dockyards was a trustee. It was not his own money with which he was dealing, and which he had a right to give away at his will and pleasure. He had only a right as trustee to deal with the public money; as trustees they had no right to take the trust funds and put them in their own pockets without, at all events, consulting and getting the consent of the persons to whom the money belonged. Then, again, they ought not to select themselves as the persons to receive this payment. He should be the more reluctant to do it, because it was obvious that the adoption of the proposal would not only be a breach of trust but would add to the difficulties of their electoral organisation and the discharge of their Parliamentary duties.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): It is not my desire to occupy much of the time of the House, and there is not much time left for me to occupy. But, little as that may amount to, I will spare a moment or two of it to express the gladness with which we welcome back to the House the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. There were a great many of us who admired the manly

  551
  consistency which, led to his absence, and we welcome him back to an arena in which, I think, he is much wanted. Although he hits pretty hard, and went entirely out of his way just now to discharge his darts against hon. Members from Ireland, it is a pleasure to see him taking part in our debates again. But I was astonished to see him make his début in our debates by adopting an extraordinary argument used by the hon. Member for Wandsworth. I am not equal to the task of chopping law or logic with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Heaven forbid! He said it would be an impossibility for us, in accordance with constitutional rule, to act on such a Resolution as this; that it would be a breach of trust, that it would be putting our hands into other people's pockets. If that is the deadlock to which he reduces us, will he tell me how this system came to be adopted through all the British Colonies? Were they all guilty of this felony? How in the world have they managed to introduce the payment of Members? The hon. and learned Gentleman, I should have hoped, would have thought Imperially on this subject. But what is the value of the argument to a plain man and no lawyer like myself? When you talk of a Member's not being allowed to vote for anything conducing to his personal interest, the interest that is meant is his personal interest as a private individual, and not as a Member of this House. To carry out a policy of which he and a great many others approve, and which they think will redound to the public interest—namely, enlarging the scope of the choice of the electors and improving in other ways the position of the representatives of the people—that is not personal interest. If it is, is the hon. and learned Gentleman himself quite free? Did he ever vote for his own salary?
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I think I may say I never did, and I would not have thought of doing so.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The probability is that the hon. and learned Gentleman paired for the night. Let me have a home-thrust at this new champion of economy. He spoke of the idea that, if this were to be done, it might be done by the arranging of official salaries. All that I can say is that there is no official salary so capable of arrangement as was the salary of the Solicitor-General in his time. If we are to proceed on this suggestion, then of course we may expect to receive conscience money from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He spoke of the thin edge of the wedge. He used the argument, but said that he had no opinion of it. I remember Sir William Harcourt once said to me, when he heard a Member objecting to the thin end of the wedge—
  "I wonder if anyone ever thought of beginning with the thick end of the wedge."
  So scrupulous is the hon. and learned Gentleman that the thick end of the wedge is the one which he prefers to use.
  I come to much more serious business, and that is to state the view which I and the Government take. I am cordially in agreement with the principle of the Resolution, but it does not follow that it is on all occasions opportune to carry it into effect. In saying this I am only repeating what has been said on behalf of previous Liberal Governments in very plain terms. In 1893 a Motion of this sort was brought forward proposing, not a definite sum, but a reasonable allowance, and Sir William Harcourt, standing where I am, said that he accepted the Resolution, to be carried out as soon as possible, when we had at our disposal the time and the money which were necessary. In 1895 the same Motion was repeated, and Sir William Harcourt again said that it was a question of time and money. Again, last year the same question was raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, and we supported it—I supported

  553
  it, at any rate. That was a Motion for a reasonable stipend during a Member's Parliamentary life, It is rather an unpleasant way of putting it; no one likes to be reminded that he is mortal. But that was the state of things ten years ago. Has it improved? No, Sir; it is much worse. The impediment and want of money is much greater than it was then. The late Government have taken care of that. And now, why do I, and I think most of my hon. friends, if not all of them, agree With this Resolution? What, after all, is the object of our whole system of registration and of voting, from one end to the other. It is to obtain a genuine and straightforward representation of the people. And do we obtain that object now when the first question applied to a candidate, not openly, but behind the scenes, no doubt, is not, "Are you a man of sufficient character, ability, and sound sense to represent this constituency?" but, "Have you money enough either of your own, or derived from some other source, to meet the public expense of maintaining yourself in the discharge of your duties in attendance upon the House?" I believe that that is a most mischievous state of things. I conceive that the giving of a small allowance to a Member of Parliament, sufficient for his subsistence—and the difference, of course between this and other assemblies, such as boards of guardians and those to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, where excellent public work is done, is that there is no expense involved in their membership. It does not take members away from their homes and interrupt their daily lives. But the question is, what would be the advantage if this impediment in the way of a candidate were removed? In the first place there would be a free choice open to the constituency, which surely comes to something. Secondly, I maintain that under the present system—whether due to that system or not I cannot wholly say—but too often, I believe, the relations between
  554
  constituents and Members are perverted The idea pervading men's minds is that a constituency is doing the Member a favour by returning him to Parliament. It ought to be exactly the reverse. The candidate is doing the constituents a favour by undertaking arduous, difficult, and often tiresome work for them; and until you get that balance readjusted I believe you will not remedy many of those evils from which we are suffering. Why is it that Members are so overwhelmed in some places by demands for subscriptions? It is because the constituencies look upon him as a man who has received a great benefit from them, and they hold that he ought to give a return. The whole of that conception of the relations between a Member and his constituents is entirely wrong. Then I hold that, if" every Member of this House had this small sum to cover the extra expenses he is put to by living in London, it would, so far from debasing, exalt his feelings of independence. He would no longer feel that he had to look to any one to maintain him in the position in which he stood. The burden of proof in this case rests upon those who would refuse a moderate payment to Members. We hear of the professional politician. What do you mean by a professional politician? If you take a man who devotes himself to his work, to the study of public affairs, in order to qualify himself here, and contrast with him a man who comes here as a pastime or a means of social advancement, which of the two is the better man? Have there not been in past Parliaments men who, quite independently of money, have had some purpose—a trade purpose or some other purpose peculiar to themselves, perhaps, or shared by others—to serve by their presence and action here?
  I concur with Sir William Harcourt when he said that he had neither the time nor the money. No more have I. The policy upon which the Government have taken office and upon which they have been supported by their friends

  555
  is the policy of retrenchment. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am glad to hear that policy is so popular with those on the benches opposite. It is wonderful what a good dip in the brine of a general election does. There were no cheers from those Gentlemen last year for economy and retrenchment when Lord St. Aldwyn used to read his little homilies upon the necessity of stopping our extravagance. But now we are all for retrenchment. I am glad to hear it. It is not so easy to check the flow of expenditure. Still less easy is it to divert and bring it back to proper channels. But at this moment, when we are beginning to tackle this great question of expenditure and of retrenchment, it would be most inopportune for me to make any promise of action on this subject, because it would be an action which in my conscience I could not see any way of fulfilling at the time. We must wait until retrenchment and a wiser and more sober spirit in the people as well as in this House enables us to have funds in hand whereby we can effect this, as I consider, material improvement, and introduce that which would be a beneficial system in the best interests of the country.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Irish Party, to which the hon. and learned Member for the City of London had referred, would vote in favour of this Resolution, and for twenty-five years they had consistently voted for every popular reform. They would do so because they believed the suggested reform was in the interest of the democracy of Great Britain. The Irish Party had, however, never asked payment for their own services; they had never put forward this claim; they were content to be supported by the voluntary contributions of their own countrymen. If it would ease the conscience of the Unionist who drew a distinction between Irish and English Members in this House, the Irish were quite willing to be excluded altogether from this payment. They did not ask for it, and did not want it.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment so as to take the decision by one vote, but leave was refused.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 363; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 5.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bell, Richard

  Byles, William Pollard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cairns, Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Benn, Jn. Williams(Devonport)

  Caldwell, James

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T.C.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cameron, Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ainswortb, John Stirling

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Billson, Alfred

  Causton. Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Frederick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Chance, Frederick William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cherry, R. R.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barker, John

  Branch, James

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Brigg, John

  Clough, W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Clynes, J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes, Leigh)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grins'd

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Burt, Rt, Hon, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

  Cory, Clifford John

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murray, James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norman, Henry

  Cremer, William Randall

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crooks, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Crossley, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Cullinan, J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davis, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Dowd, John

  Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Grady, J.

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras N

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Malley, William

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  O'Mara, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  O'Shee, James John

  Duffy, William, J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Joyce, Michael

  Paul, Herbert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelly, George D.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Edwards, Clements (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(South'mpt'n

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Essex, R. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Evans, Samuel, T.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E)

  Everett, R. Lacy

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Radford, G. H.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. Waterford)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Gardner, Col. A.(Herefordsh. S.

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Gilhooly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richards, T.F (Wolverhampton

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson, A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradford

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robinson, S.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Grove, Archibald

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Gulland, John W.

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rowlands, J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launcestn)

  Runciman, Walter

  Halpin, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Hammond, John

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Meehan, Patrick, A.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harmsworth, RL(Caithness-sh

  Mond, A.

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manch'ster)

  Harvey, H. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza-

  Scott, A.H(Ashton under Lyne

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Sears, J. E.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seddon, J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Shackleton, David James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  558

  559

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E

  White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thorne, William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Tomkinson, James

  Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Torrance, A. M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Verney, F. VV.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Snowden, P.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

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

  Stranger, H. Y.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Winfrey, R.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wardle, George J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Young, Samuel

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Lever and Mr. Vivian.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Percy, Earl

  Ashley, W. W.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fell, Arthur

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield Eccleshall

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Gibbs, G A. (Bristol, West)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool Walton)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford

  Starkey, John R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SEdmd's

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Campbell J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Hill, Henry Stavely (Staff'sh.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Turnour, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

  Keswick, William

  Ward W Dudley(Southampton

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Chamberlain Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

  Clarke Sir Edward(City London

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Liddell, Henry

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

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

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin S.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Henry Kimber and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Cross, Alexander

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 348; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 6.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Agnew, George William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Davis, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Delany, William

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Atherly-Jones, L.

  Devlin Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dickinson, WH(St. Pancras, N.

  Joyce, Michael

  Barker, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barnes, G. N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duckworth, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beaumont, W. C.B. (Hexham)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lea. Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Leese, Sir Joseph P.(Accrington

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lough, Thomas

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lynch, H. B.

  Billson, Alfred

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, JM.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Waiter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brace, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E)

  Brigg, John

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Crae, George

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  M'Kean, John

  Brunner, J.F.L, (Lanes., Leigh)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Grove, Archibald

  Marks, G Croydon(Launceston)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hall, Frederick

  Massie, J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Halpin, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hammond, John

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Menzies, Walter

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Mond, A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza-

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Harmsworth, R.L(Caithn'ss-sh

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cherry, R. R

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murphy, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

  Murray, James

  Clough, W.

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

  Nicholls, George

  Clynes, J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nuttall, Harry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien William (Cork)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crean, Eugene

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Crooks, William

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Dowd, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  562

  563

  O'Malley, William

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Torrance, A. M.

  O'Mara, James

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Paul, Herbert

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manch'ster

  Wadron, Laurence Ambrose

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Scott, A. H(Ashton under Lyne

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sears, J. E.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Philipps, Col, Ivor(S'thampton)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Seddon, J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wardle, George J.

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

  Priestley, Arthur (Granthan)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

  White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Spicer, Albert

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Robertson Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

  Robinson, S.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Winfrey, R.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)

  Young, Samuel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Lever and Mr. Vivian.

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson, JW.H.(Somerset, E

  Runciman, Walter

  Thorne, William

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tomkinson, James

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.

  Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edm'ds

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clarke Sir Edward(City London

  Hill, Henry Staveley

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Hills, J. W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Balfour, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Keswick, William

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Cross, Alexander

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Liddell, Henry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Haddock, George R.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C W

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F

  564

  565

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Younger, George

  Sandys. Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

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

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool Walton)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

  Ward, W Dudley(Southampton

  Starkey, John R.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of Parliamentary representatives, that all Members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum.—(Mr. William Lever.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That Mr. Snowden be discharged from the Public Accounts Committee.
Ordered, That Mr. Barnes be added to the Committee.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)

POLITICAL REFUGEES.
On the Motion that the House do now adjourn,
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid he should like to ask the Home Secretary a question in regard to the manner in which a Russian was reported to have been dealt with under the Aliens Act. It was stated in the morning newspapers that a Russian immigrant had not been allowed to land in England, and that the captain of the ship in which he came to this country had been ordered to take him back again. The history of this man was that he was
566
a soldier in the Russian Army, that he had been ordered to fire on the Jews, that he refused and was put under arrest, that he escaped, and that, after undergoing many hardships, he shipped with his little store of money to London, thinking that he might here at least find an asylum. The report of the case stated that when the man was asked, "What will happen when you get back?" he replied, "They will shoot me." It seemed to him a horrible thing that a man coming to this country as a refugee escaping from tyranny should be compelled to return to a country where in all probability he would be shot. He asked the Home Secretary whether there was any truth in this story, and, if there was, whether he would be able to take any steps to save this man from the fate that appeared to await him. He asked further whether if there was any truth, or partial truth, in the story he would take steps to repeal one of the most infamous Acts ever passed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said his attention was called to the case to which his hon. friend referred, and he at once sent for particulars. The particulars which he had received were as follows—
"The appeal in this case was rejected because the man had no employment in view and no prospect of obtaining any. It was true that the immigrant's notice of appeal stated that he was a political refugee, but he himself made no mention of this fact either to the immigration officer who examined him or to the Immigration Board which heard his appeal.

567
Neither did he mention that he was a deserter nor that he had been arrested for refusing to fire on a Jew. On the contrary, he said that he had come to London at the invitation of a friend."
That was all the information he had. It was true, he understood, that the man returned to Bremen in the ship in which he came. If there was any truth in the story as stated by his hon. friend he took it that the Russian Government would have to apply for the man's extradition from Germany. He had made such inquiries as he could. It was one of the misfortunes in connection with the administration of the Aliens Act that cases where aliens were refused admission to the country were happening from day to day, and that he was asked for information regarding them. He did not know how long this condition of things would continue, but he was bound to say that from the point of view of administration it would be almost intolerable for the Secretary of State to be questioned in regard to every individual case. He was taking all the steps he could without any delay to impress on the authorities responsible for dealing with the immigrants what their duties were in these cases. He did not believe it was the intention of Parliament that, in enforcing the Act, cases of individual hardship should be caused under its provisions. He would do all he could to ascertain whether this man was likely to be made the subject of an application for extradition, and he would let his hon. friend know the result of his inquiry as soon as possible.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether it would not be possible to communicate with the Consulate.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid that according to the Home Secretary's statement under the
568
operation of the Act a Russian refugee was safe in Germany unless his extradition was demanded by Russia. He doubted if this was the case. He suggested that the Home Secretary should communicate with the British Consul at Bremen.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would do so. He did not think his hon. friend had followed closely what he had quoted from the Immigration Board's Report. It was not quite clear that this man was a refugee.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid his point was that if the man was a refugee he had found refuge at Bremen and not in this country.
MR. J. R. MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House who were the members of the Board who came to this decision. Could he find out why the Board decided that the man was not a political refugee? From the right hon. Gentleman's statement it was not quite clear when, where, and to whom, the allegation that the man was a political refugee was made. One part of the statement seemed to imply that it was made to the Board, while another part seemed to imply that the Board was not aware that he was a political refugee.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the man stated in his notice of appeal that he was a political refugee, but he made no mention of that to the immigration officer. The Board put questions to him as to why he left Russia, and he stated that he had a friend in London who induced him to come.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.