Sitting of 17 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three-of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Swansea Harbour Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
MR. MOONEY reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Friday, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Taff Vale Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
MR. SOAMES reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday the 30th April, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Devonport with reference to their water undertaking and their electrical undertaking; to make further and better provision with regard to the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the said borough; and for other purposes." [Devonport Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Burnham (Somerset) Pier Company and to transfer to the Company the powers of the Burnham (Somerset) Pier Order, 1906; to authorise the Barry Railway Company to subscribe to the capital of the Company; and for other purposes." [Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Middlesbrough to construct a transporter bridge across the River Tees and to discontinue the Middlesbrough and Port Clarence Ferry; and for other purposes." [Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the sale of certain lands reclaimed by the Tees Conservancy Commissioners; to enable the Commissioners to establish a superannuation
938
fund; and for other purposes." [Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords.]
Devonport Corporation Bill [Lords]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords], Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords]; Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MIXES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Darwen; and Radford; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kilmarnock, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Eccles, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Dundee; and Hamilton; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Cambuslang (two); Coupar Angus (two); Dunnet; Eastwood; Edinburgh; Glasgow (three); Grangemouth (two); Huntley (two); Insch; Largo; Lochee; Musselburg; Oban; Partick; Pollokshaws; Stanhousemuir; and Thornliebank; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EGYPT (No. 2, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the Earl of Cromer respecting the Water Supply of Egypt [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports (Annual Series)

  939
  Nos. 3763 and 3764 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance, No. XIX. (Glasgow, No. 5) (Foundation of James S. Dixon Chair of Mining) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]

  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return ordered, "Of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended, the length of line authorised, and the length open for public traffic down to the 31st day of December, 1906, in respect of companies, and the 31st day of March, 1907, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriation of net receipts; the number of passengers conveyed, the number of miles run by cars, and the quantity of electrical energy used during the year ended on the foregoing dates respectively; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at those dates (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper,

  Net Cost.

  Per head of Population (30th June 1905).

  £

  S.

  d.

  Lord-Lieutenant and Household

  36,638

  2

  Chief Secretary for Ireland

  41,701

  2¼

  Local Government Board

  68,618

  3¾

  Supreme Court of Judicature and County Court Officers, including Resident Magistrates

  270,414*

  1

  2¾

  Public Education

  1,452,299

  6

  7¼

  *Including £28,273 charged on the Consolidated Fund, omitted from statement Appropriation Accounts

  For the figures as to the Board of Works I must refer the hon. Member to the Secretary to the Treasury, who answers for that Depart
  No. 298, of Session, 1906)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Civil Government in England and Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total cost in the last or preceding financial year of the Departments of the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; also the total cost under each of the following heads: Law and Justice, Board of Works, Local Government Board, Education; and the rate per head of the population in each of the five Departments, together with the total cost of Civil Government in Ireland, with the rate per head of the population.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following statement shows the cost of the respective services, so far as they are charged on the Votes of Parliament or the Consolidated Fund, for the financial year 1905–6. The figures are taken from the statement of net cost appended to the Appropriation Accounts
  ment. The total of the charges of Civil Government for Ireland in the year 1905–6, as shown on page 12 of House of Commons Paper, No. 278, of 1906, was
  £4,746,500, or £1 1s. 7½d. per head of the population.

  Inspectors and the Labourers Act, 1906.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the qualifications for the positions of inspector, under the Labourers Act, 1906, and inspector of evicted farms; what is the procedure of appointment to these positions; and what steps are being taken to secure that all qualified persons will have an opportunity of applying.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Inspectors tinder the Labourers Act, 1906, are appointed by the Local Government Board, and inspectors of evicted farms are appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant. In neither case have the qualifications for the appointment been formally prescribed. The fitness of the applicants is carefully considered when appointments are being made. It is open to any person to apply for an appointment, and a great many applications were received for both classes of appointment. I may mention that about 250 applications were received for the fourteen appointments of inspector of evicted farms recently made. As a preliminary step the three Estates Com-

  Province.

  Rateable Valuation (corresponding to the net valuation in England).

  Per head of Population.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  Ulster

  5,479,814

  3

  9

  3

  Munster

  3,480,437

  3

  4

  8

  Leinster

  5,119,040

  4

  8

  9

  Connaught

  1,457,476

  2

  5

  1

  I have no information as to the gross valuation asked for. With regard to the second portion of the Question, the amount of income-tax collected in each province could, no doubt, be ascertained, but as the tax is collected at the source, and not from the persons on whom it ultimately falls, I do not see what useful purpose the figures could serve. In any case they would certainly not represent
  missioners were requested to examine the applications and testimonials of the entire body of applicants, and to select those whom they considered most suitable. The Commissioners accordingly selected forty-two persons, and each of these was subsequently interviewed separately by a committee consisting of the Under-Secretary and the three Estates Commissioners, who went fully into the qualifications of each of the forty-two and formed their opinion as to his fitness for the post. As a result, fourteen names were unanimously selected by the committee and referred to me, and, after examination, I submitted the names of these persons to the Lord-Lieutenant as being the best fitted for the appointment.

  Rateable Valuation of Ireland
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the gross valuation in each of the four provinces in Ireland, and the average rate per head of the population in each province; and the total income-tax collected in each year of the provinces, and the rate per head of the population in each province.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the Answer to the first part of the Question is as follows:—
  the true proportion of the tax paid to population in each province.

  Exchequer Bonds.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts of Exchequer bonds current on 30th June, 30th September, 31st December, and 31st March respectively in each of the financial years from 1896–7 to 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith)

  Exchequer Bonds outstanding.

  30th June.

  30th September.

  31st December.

  31st March.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1896–7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1897–8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1898–9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1899–1900

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1900–1

  —

  10,000,000

  13,000,000

  24,000,000

  1901–2

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  1902–3

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  24,000,000

  1903–4

  24,000,000

  21,000,000

  21,000,000

  20,500,000

  1904–5

  20,500,000

  20,500,000

  26,500,000

  26,500,000

  1905–6

  34,152,600

  33,303,700

  23,500,000

  23,500,000

  1906–7

  21,682,000

  21,466,300

  21,863,500

  19,200,000

  From 14th October 1904, £6,000,000 bonds under the Capital Expenditure (Money) Act are included, from 7th December, 1905, £1,000,000 under the Cunard Agreement (Money) Act, 1904, and from 7th December, 1906, a further £1,200,000 under the same Act.

  Treasury Bills outstanding.

  30th June.

  30th September.

  31st December.

  31st March.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1896–7

  5,219,700

  5,219,700

  5,219,700

  8,133,000

  1897–8

  5,838,000

  4,808,000

  6,808,000

  8,133,000

  1898–9

  4,808,000

  5,807,700

  6,807,700

  8,133,000

  1899–1900

  5,808,000

  6,808,000

  14,633,000

  16,133,000

  1900–1

  16,133,000

  18,633,000

  19,633,000

  21,133,000

  1901–2

  21,133,000

  21,133,000

  21,133,000

  21,133,000

  1902–3

  21,133,000

  23,133,000

  28,633,000

  21,133,000

  1903–4

  21,133,000

  25,133,000

  29,633,000

  21,133,000

  1904–5

  25,633,000

  31,633,000

  31,633,000

  21,133,000

  1905–6

  19,133,000

  21,133,000

  25,633,000

  19,213,000

  1906–7

  17,213,000

  19,713,000

  17,713,000*

  10,713,000 †

  *Excluding £2,000,000 paid off temporarily.

  †Excluding £ 5,000,000 paid off temporarily.

  Employment of Soldiers by the Post Office.
  MR. CLYNES: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on 1st August 1906, he received a deputation of trade union officials with regard to the civil employment of ex-

  Treasury Bills.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts of Treasury Bills current on 30th June, 30th September, 31st December, and 31st March, respectively, in each of the financial years from 1896–7 to 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.)
  soldiers, and then stated that he was not prepared to favour any proposal likely to weaken the ordinary workmen's economic position; whether he is aware that the Post Office authorities are now employing as telegraphists in London soldiers who are still serving with the colours, paying them 6s. 6d. only for

  945
  forty-eight hours attendance; and, seeing that this departure is contrary to the statement made to the deputation and weakens the economic position of other men in civil service, will he order its discontinuance.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The hon. Member's summary of my remarks is, I think, substantially accurate. With regard to the latter part of his Question I am informed that under a recent arrangement with the War Office a certain number of soldier telegraphists still serving with the colours are lent to the Post Office temporarily to aid in the reduction of season pressure at provincial telegraph offices. These soldiers retain their regimental pay, but as that is scarcely enough for their maintenance whilst temporarily employed by the Post Office it is made up out of postal funds to 24s. a week, which is a very usual rate of remuneration for a substitute telegraphist. Wages of 6s. 6d. a week are not offered, but there may probably be cases in which 6s. 6d. is the supplement added by the Post Office to the regimental pay. If any of these men pass ultimately into the permanent employment, of the Post Office they will be placed on the same scales of pay as other established officers.

  Qualifications of Irish Officials.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what professional qualifications were respectively possessed by the following heads of offices in the High Court in Ireland at the time of their appointments to their present positions, viz.: the registrar to the Court of Appeal, the Accountant-General, the present chief clerk to the Lord Chancellor, the chief clerk to the Master of the Rolls, the chief clerk to Mr. Justice Barton, and the registrar of the Land Judge's Court; whether he is aware that none of the following heads of offices in the High Court in Ireland ever practised either as a barrister or solictor, but were promoted from subordinate positions on the staff, viz.: the registrar of the Court of Appeal, the Accountant-General, the three chief clerks in Chancery, and the registrar of the Land Judge's Court;
  946
  and will he state the reasons why men entering the Supreme Court (Ireland) service by open competition are considered ineligible for promotion to be heads of offices, while those who, prior to the passing of the Judicature Act, 1877, entered through patronage and without professional qualifications have frequently been promoted to these posts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have referred this Question, to the Lord Chancellor, who has furnished me with the following Answer:—At the time of their appointment to their present positions, the registrar of the Court of Appeal was a barrister of over twenty years standing, and was promoted after many years' previous service as an officer of that court. The Accountant-General was a barrister of nineteen years standing, and had many years service in the Chancery Registrar's Office. The chief clerk to the Lord Chancellor was a barrister, and had served as an officer to the courts. The chief clerk to the Master of the Rolls entered the service by limited competitive examination, and was promoted after many years service to his present position. The chief clerk to Mr. Justice Barton was a practising solicitor when appointed assistant chief clerk, and was subsequently promoted. The registrar of the Land Judge's Court was a barrister, and had for many years been an officer of the court. Save where professional qualification is required by statute, persons entering the service by open competition are not debarred from promotion to be heads of office, but they have no rights of succession to such places, and in considering questions of promotion the possession of professional qualifications will always carry much weight.

  Irish Chancery Court Appointments—Professional Qualifications.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give a list of the posts on the Chancery side of the High Court in Ireland above the rank of first-class clerk for which statute requires that the occupants thereof shall have professional qualifications, and also a list of those for which statute does not require such qualifications.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Lord Chancellor informs me as follows:—Professional qualification is required by statute for the holding of the following offices, viz.:—Taxing Masters; chief clerks to the Lord Chancellor; chief clerks to the Masters of the Rolls; chief clerks to Mr. Justice Barton; Examiners and registrars in the Land Judge's Department. In some of these cases an alternative qualification of a number of years previous service in the Department is allowed. No statutable qualification is required for the holding of the offices of—Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper; registrars to the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Bolls, and Mr. Justice Barton; Accountant-General; clerks of Judgments, Records and Writs. Legal attainments, however, are necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of these offices, and for a very long period the Clerks of the Crown and Hanaper, the Accountants-General, and the Clerks of Records and Writs have been either barristers or solicitors. The Chancery registrars were formerly appointed from the staff of the office, and had statutory rights of promotion, but the statute allowing this was repealed in 1867. Professional qualification, though not actually required by statute, is deemed necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of that office.

  Superintendent of the Public Carriage Department and the Croydon Tramway Fatality.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether the superintendent of the Public Carriage Department inspects the cars of the South Metropolitan Tramways Company; and whether any application had been made by the South Metropolitan Tramways Company for the superintendent to give evidence on their behalf at the inquest on Mrs. Wilhelmina Suhr held at Croydon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commissioner of Police informs me that the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and that that to the second part is in the negative.

  Structural and Sanitary Improvements to Provided Schools—Spreading Cost over a Period of Years.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he has received applications from any local education authorities to spread over a period of years the cost of structural and sanitary improvements of their provided schools.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. A good many local education authorities have applied to the Local Government Board for sanction to loans to meet the cost of structural and sanitary improvements in provided schools, and sanction has frequently been given to such loans.

  Supply of Milk in Workhouses—Precautions against Tuberculosis.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the statement in the Second Interim Report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider the relations of human and animal tuberculosis as to the amount of disease and loss of life, especially among the young, to be attributed to the consumption of cow's milk containing tubercle bacilli, and pending full consideration of the subject, he will consider the advisability of issuing a general order directing that all milk supplied to children in workhouses shall be boiled or sterilised or pasteurised, or subjected to some process approved by the Board, with a view to rendering it free from tuberculous poison.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The dietary order issued by the Local Government Board in 1900 contemplates that young children in a workhouse shall be dieted in accordance with the directions of the medical officer and with careful regard to the requirements of each individual child. In many Poor Law establishments the milk is treated in the manner suggested by the hon. Member; but, looking to the circumstances I have mentioned and also to the division of medical opinion on the question of the best way of dealing with milk

  949
  for children, I doubt the expediency of issuing a general order on the subject at the present time.

  Applications for Poor Law Relief—Case of Mrs. Gould of Birmingham.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Gould who, being destitute and starving, applied to a relieving officer of the Birmingham Poor Law Union for relief, which being refused she attempted to destroy her life; whether inquiries have been made into this case, and with what result; and whether instructions will be issued to relieving officers that in all cases of female applicants for relief immediate inquiries should be made so that the necessities of such applicants may be met.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention was called to this case, and I caused inquiry to be made with regard to it. I found that a committee of the guardians had carefully investigated the matter, and that they had censured the relieving officer for not having brought the case before them previously. It is the duty of a relieving officer on receipt of an application for relief forthwith to examine into the circumstances of the case and I do not understand that there was any failure on the part of the relieving officer in this respect in the present case. I may add that the officer does not admit that he refused relief to the woman, and in fact she was in receipt of it at the time of the attempted suicide. Moreover, the income of herself and family seems to have been understated by her.

  Working of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has had a copy of the resolution adopted by the Leeds Distress Committee, stating that the number of unemployed as registered under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 does not represent the total number unemployed; that unnecessary and irritating questions are attached to applications for relief, preventing many of the most deserving
  950
  from registering; that committees are greatly hampered, both in providing sufficient permissible employment for applicants and in obtaining the necessary funds therefor; that there is a necessity for immediately introducing a Bill to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905; and that the cost of providing employment under the Act should not be dependent on voluntary contributions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the direction stated, and when.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. For reasons which I have previously explained, I do not contemplate proposing legislation to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act.

  Payment of Public Vaccinators.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the opinion is held by certain unions competent to judge that the minimum payment to public vaccinators under the Vaccination Act should be reduced from 5s. to 2s. 6d., and, whether he is prepared to accept and act upon such opinion.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have in preparation an order dealing with the subject of the remuneration of public vaccinators, which will shortly be issued.

  Tuberculosis—Notification of Disease in Cows.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the opinions as to the danger to human life from the consumption of tuberculous milk expressed in the Interim Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the relations of human and animal tuberculosis, he will now reconsider the advisability of issuing a general order to compel the notification of cases of disease of the udder in cows which are kept for the purpose of selling their milk.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Report of the Commission is receiving our careful consideration. The

  951
  matter is, however, one primarily affecting the public health, for which my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board is responsible, and with whom my noble friend proposes to confer on the subject. We quite recognise its importance.

  Tenant Farmers and the Preservation of Game.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been called to the resolution passed by farmers in the North of England expressing regret that, in the case of some estate owners, the preservation of game and the enjoyment of sport are made of greater importance than the tilling of their land and the well-being of agriculture and the agriculturists, and urging the landlords to remember that their pleasure may be, and often is, at the cost of their tenant's bread, and begging them not to make the tenant farmer and his interests subservient to that of the gun and the pheasant; and, whether, seeing that the resolution is the outcome of the treatment of several farmers who have recently been turned off farms they have tilled for many years simply because, under the new Act, added power is given to tenants regarding fixity of tenure and compensation, it is his intention to amend the Act so as to prevent such action in the future.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The resolution to which my hon. friend refers has not been communicated to us and we have no knowledge of the particular circumstances which led to its Adoption. My noble friend is not, therefore, in a position to express an opinion as to whether further legislation is necessary; but, as I have already indicated, the working of the Agricultural Holdings Act of last session will be carefully watched, and we shall not allow the intentions of the Act to be defeated.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. BECK: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether legislative measures dealing with outbreaks of
  952
  American gooseberry mildew in England will be in force by May next; and, if not, whether, considering that the disease spreads by spores from that month onwards, the Board of Agriculture will make a grant for the purpose of providing for a strict supervision of the diseased plantations with special reference to the carrying out of spraying and other remedial measures likely to prevent the spread of the disease,
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My noble friend has introduced a Bill giving power to the Board and to local authorities to deal with this disease, but it will not be possible to bring it into operation by May next. We have, how ever, issued a further memorandum, giving full information as to the best means of preventing the spread of the disease, copies of which I shall be glad to supply to my hon. friend. I am afraid there is no prospect of any Government grant being given towards the expenses of spraying and other remedial measures.

  Scottish Marriage Laws
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord-Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that a general desire exists in Scotland for a system of civil marriage in registrars' offices, on lines similar to that recognised in English Law and recommended in the Report of the Marriage Laws Commission issued in 1868; and if he can see his way, in order to lessen the cost of marriage and to save the time of the sheriffs, to introduce legislation on this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) My attention has not been called to this, nor am I aware of the desire stated. There are no proposals to legislate on the subject, but I shall be glad if my hon. friend will lay before me any detailed information in his possession.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he is aware that the omission in the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878, to provide for publication of marriage where one of the parties is

  953
  resident furth of Scotland has given rise to trouble and annoyance; and whether he can see his way to remedy this by legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The Marriage Notice Act of 1878 applies in the particular mentioned only to persons resident in Scotland. Any proposals to alter this would require very careful consideration, and I am not aware of any public desire therefore. In these circumstances legislation is not contemplated.

  Superannuation Privileges of Extractors' Department, Court of Session.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he is aware that the Extractors' Department of the Court of Session was deprived of the advantages of the Court of Session Clerks Act by the action of his predecessor in office; and if there is any reason why that Department should not be put on the same level as the other departments and members of the staff entitled to superannuation.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The Question appears to be based upon a misapprehension. So far as I am aware my predecessor in office did not in any way interpose so as to deprive the Extractors' Department of any advantages under the Clerks Act. The fact is, that under the Court of Session (No. 2) Act, 1838, the assistant extractor and clerks are appointed and hold office at the pleasure of the principal extractor. The rule of the Treasury applied to such a tenure of office is accordingly that they are not entitled to superannuation allowances under the Clerks of Session Regulation Act, 1889.

  Assessment in Stirlingshire for Repairs to Established Church Manse.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that an assessment of 2d. per £, following upon a recent similar assessment, is being made in the parish of Kilsyth, in Stirlingshire, on proprietors who are Dissenters, and also upon Dissenting ministers, for whitewashing and decorating the Established
  954
  Church manse; and whether, in view of the recent Resolution of this House that all ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland shall cease and of the provisions of the Ecclesiastical Assessments Act of 1900, notably Clause 3, Sub-section (2), of that Act, he intends to take any, and, if any, what steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have no information on this matter other than that furnished by my hon. friend. On the general Question I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen on the 13th March.†

  Enforcing of Customs Act, 1842.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Customs are enforcing the Customs Act, 1842, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Goldsmith Company v. Wyatt.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) As the case to which the hon. Member refers is now the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords, the Board of Customs have not as yet departed from the practice which has prevailed for many years.

  Tribal Fighting near Jamrud.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information to the House regarding the tribal righting which is reported to have occurred during the past few days near Jamrud.
  (Mr. Secretary Morley.) No official information has yet been received on the subject. The Government of India have not thought the occurrence of sufficient importance to send a telegraphic report. The Malikdin Khel and Kumbar Khel are two sections of the Afridi tribe, who both occupy land in Kajurai, to the south of Jamrud.

  Elementary Education in India.
  SIR CHARLES SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): To ask the Secretary of
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 40–41.

  955
  State for India if he can briefly state whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to improve the quality and increase the quantity of elementary education in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) It is not possible within the compass of the Answer to a Question to give a summary of what has lately been done to extend and improve elementary education in India, but if the hon. Member will refer to the Report on the Moral and Material Progress of India for 1905–6, shortly to be laid on the Table, he will find a chapter in which the facts are summarised. I am not without hopes that I may be able to say something on this subject when I speak on the Indian Budget.

  Conveyance of Local Correspondence between West Indian Islands.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is responsible for the conveyance of local correspondence between the various West Indian islands; and what steamship subsidies are paid for the conveyance of such letters, and by whom.

  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Correspondence is conveyed between the

  Statement showing Ordinary and Sick Leave allowed.

  Rank.

  Ordinary Leave.

  Sick Leave.

  Full Pay.

  Half Pay.

  Days.

  Days.

  Days.

  Naval Store Officer

  }

  42

  156

  156

  Victualling Store Officer

  Ordnance Store Officer

  Cashier

  Expense Accounts Officer

  Deputies of all Departments

  36

  156

  156

  Assistants of all Departments

  36

  156

  156

  various West Indian Islands, by such steamers as are available, at ship's letter rates, and also, up to the end of this month, by the inter-Colonial service of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which has been for the last few months in receipt of a subsidy at the rate of £17,500 per annum, paid in equal shares by the Imperial Post Office and by the Governments concerned. Letters are also carried under contract by the steamers of Messrs. Pickford and Black under contract with the Canadian Government which receive a subsidy of £27,000 a year, to which the Imperial Government contributes £13,500.

  Annual Leave, Travelling and other Allowances, of the Clerical Staff of the Admiralty Supply and Accounting Departments.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will grant a statement showing the annual leave, the rates of travelling, subsistence, and other allowances, if any, in London, at Home, and Abroad, permitted to each rank in the clerical staffs of the supply and accounting departments of the Admiralty.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The information desired is given in the attached statements:—

  Statement showing the Rates of House and Colonial Allowance authorised for Officers of the Supply and Accounting Departments.

  Rank.

  Head Office:

  Home Yards.

  Malta.

  Bermuda.

  Hong Kong.

  Cape.

  Gibraltar.

  Sydney.

  Wei-hai-Wei.

  House Allowance.

  House.

  Colonial

  House.

  Colonial.

  House.

  Colonial

  House.

  Colonial.

  House.

  Colonial.

  House.

  Colonial.

  House.

  Colonial.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  $

  $

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  $

  $

  Naval Store officer

  75

  75

  *

  †

  —

  —

  1066⅔§

  1066⅔§

  —

  —

  75¶

  65

  180

  120

  —

  —

  Victualling store officer

  75

  *

  *

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  180

  120

  —

  —

  Ordnance store officer

  75

  *

  75

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputies of all departments

  —

  ‡

  50

  50

  *

  75

  900§

  800§

  *

  100||

  50¶

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistants of all departments**

  —

  —

  40

  40

  *

  60

  800§

  533⅓ §

  *

  75||

  50¶

  40

  100

  75

  400

  550

  * In occupation of official residence.

  † No Colonial allowance paid.

  ‡ In certain cases officers of this grade are allowed to occupy official residences.

  § Temporarily increased by 75 per cent.

  || Temporarily increased by 100 per cent.

  ¶ Temporarily increased by 150 per cent.

  ** Two officers of this grade receive £50 each for being in charge of their departments.

  Statement showing the Rates of Travelling and Subsistence Allowance authorised for Officers of the Supply and Accounting Departments.

  Rank.

  Class of railway or steamer accommodation.

  Subsistence allowance when detached from usual place of duty.

  Lodging money to Officers entitled to official residences, when obliged to vacate them temporarily during periodical repairs, &c.

  First

  Admiralty Staff.

  Superintending clerk

  When absent at night exceeding 14 nights in one place.

  After 14 nights in one place, or for the whole period if the officer Knew before starting that his stay in one place must exceed 14 nights.

  When absent above 10 hours from home and place of business.

  When absent above 7 hours and less than 10 from home and not at usual place of business.

  Naval store officer

  Victualling store officer

  Cashier

  Officers whose scale of salary goes to £600 a year

  20 s.

  15 s.

  6s.

  8d.

  3s.

  6d.

  Officers serving at dockyards, &c.

  Expense accounts officer

  Deputy store, &c. officers

  All other officers

  15 s.

  10 s.

  5s.

  0d.

  3s.

  6d.

  Officers on salaries above £300 a year—£2 2s. a week.

  Deputy Cashier

  Staff of Naval Establishments at Home and Abroad.

  All other officers—£1 1s. a week.

  Deputy expense accounts officer

  When out all night ashore or afloat.

  After 14 days' stay in one place.

  Day allowance afloat or ashore when absent 10 hours.

  Assistant store, &c., officers

  Assistant Cashier

  Officers whose scale of salary covers £600 a year

  20 s.

  13 s.

  4d.

  6s.

  8d.

  Assistant expense accounts officer

  All other officers

  15 s.

  10 s.

  0d.

  5s.

  0d.

  Irish Jurors
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, seeing that it is the duty of each Crown Solicitor in Ireland to procure on every occasion upon which assizes and quarter sessions are held a list of jurors summoned by the sheriff, and to make inquiries relative to the persons summoned, he will explain the nature of these inquiries, and whether they are always, or nearly always, made through the police, even in prosecution cases instituted by the Crown; and whether he will enumerate the various reasons for which a juror may be ordered to stand by.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Each Crown Solicitor is left perfectly free and unfettered as to the persons from whom he should make inquiry as to the character and circumstances of jurors. He is directed not to inquire into the religious or political beliefs of jurors, but otherwise he is left to his discretion as to the nature of the inquiries he is to make. Crown Solicitors, I believe, rely very much on their own knowledge of jurors, supplemented frequently, but not invariably, by information supplied by the local police and other persons with whom they are acquainted. In answer to the second part of the Question, the reasons for which the juror may be ordered to stand by are: affinity to the person on trial, partiality, bodily or mental infirmity rendering them unfit to serve as a juror, or other sufficient ground on which a challenge for cause, if made, could be sustained. In all cases of peculiar local excitement in any particular town or district of the county, it is the duty of the Crown Solicitor, if the panel permit, to set aside all persons returned from that locality.

  Borough Councils and Mounted Police.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether borough councils are compelled to keep a section of mounted police, with or without consent of watch committee; if so, does it apply only to towns of a certain size; and whether every town in Lancashire, except St. Helens, has a section of mounted police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Local police authorities are not compelled to maintain a section of mounted
  962
  police. This is a matter for their discretion, but I understand that in most boroughs of any size it is found desirable to make arrangements to have a certain number of mounted men when an occasion arises. I am informed that such arrangements exist in all the Lancashire boroughs except two.

  Ventilation of Lobbies.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will order the electric fans in the lobbies to be set in motion when a large number of consecutive divisions are expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) This shall be done experimentally. It is not certain, however, that the fans are now necessary or desirable under the new system of ventilation recently adopted for the division lobbies.

  Armour and Company and Army Meat Contracts.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for the supply of meat to the amount of $5,000,000 has been entered into with Armour and Company; and, if so, whether the traders in native meat only were afforded an opportunity to tender for this contract.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No such contract has been made.

  Annual Leave, Travelling and other Allowances of Clerical Staffs of Royal Ordnance Factories—War Office and Army Accounts Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a statement showing the annual leave, the rates of travelling, subsistence, and other allowances, if any, in London, at home, and abroad, permitted to each rank in clerical staffs of the Royal Ordnance Factories, of the War Office, and the Army Accounts Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The information is as follows:—Leave—War Office—Principals and Assistant Principals, Clerks—Higher Division, 36 days; 48 days after 10 years service. Retired Officer Clerks, 48 days. Chief Examiners and Staff Clerks, (A) If promoted to Staff Clerk prior to 6th June, 1905–36 days for first 10 years in a Staff position, and thereafter 48 days; (B)

  963
  If promoted after 6th June, 1905, 36 days. Supplementary Clerks, 28 days. Second Division Clerks, (A) If appointed before 21st March, 1890, 28 days; (B) If appointed after 21st March, 1890, 14 days; 21 days after five years service. Abstractors and Assistant Clerks, 14 days; 18 days after ten years service. Boy Clerks, 1 day for every 24 days worked, subject to limit of 12 days annually. Ex-soldier Clerks, 12 days; 20 days after 5 years. Army Accounts Department.—Chief Accountants and Accountants, 42

  Rate 1.

  Rate 2.

  Rate 3.

  Rate 4.

  When absent at night, not, exceeding 14 nights in one place.

  After 14 nights in one place or for the whole period if the Officer knew before starting that his stay in one place must exceed 14 nights.

  When absent above 10 hours from home, and not at usual place of business but not absent for a night.

  When absent between 7 and 10 hours from home, and not at usual place of business, also for the day of return from a journey extending over 1 or more previous days.

  Class of Railway accommodation.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Class A

  20

  0

  15

  0

  6

  8

  }

  3

  6

  1st

  All whose scale of salary goes beyond £600.

  Class B

  15

  0

  10

  0

  5

  0

  2nd*

  Other Higher Division Clerks. Other persons not included in Class A whose actual salary exceeds £200. Retired Officers, Classes A and B.

  Class C

  10

  0

  7

  6

  3

  6

  2nd

  All War Office Civil Servants not included in any other class.

  Class D

  7

  6

  5

  0

  2

  6

  2

  6

  2nd

  Ex-soldier Clerks, Class A.

  Class E

  6

  0

  6

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2nd

  Copyists and Boy Clerks.

  Class F

  5

  0

  3

  4

  1

  8

  1

  8

  3rd

  Ex-soldier Clerks, Class B.

  Class G

  3

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3rd

  Messengers other than King's Messengers.

  When a sitting room is necessary for official business, the actual expense, not exceeding 10s. 6d. a day, will be allowed if vouched.

  * Higher Division Clerks, Retired Officers, Classes A and B, and Chief Examiners, will be allowed First Class fare. All members of Class B will be allowed First Class fare by steamer.

  days; First and Second Class Assistant Accountants, 36 days; Chief Writers, 18 days; Senior Writers, 15 days; Writers and Boy Writers, 1 day for every 26 working days. Ordnance Factories, Clerical Establishment, 36 days, with 48 days after 10 years service. Travelling Allowances and Expenses. Civil Staff, War Office. The following are the approved rates of travelling allowances for members of the Civil Staff of the War Office when proceeding on duty in the United Kingdom:—

  Royal Ordnance Factories.

  Travelling (Subsistence) Allowances.

  Appointment.

  Up to 14 nights at one place.

  After 14 nights at one place or for the whole period if the Officer knew beforehand that his stay in one place must exceed 14 nights.

  Absent above 10 hours, but not away the night.

  Absent above 7 hours, but not away the night, also for last day of journey.

  Class of Railway Accommodation.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Royal Ordnance Factories:—

  Principal Clerks

  20

  0*

  15

  0*

  6

  8

  3

  6

  1st

  Senior Clerks

  15

  0*

  10

  0*

  5

  0

  3

  6

  1st

  Clerks

  15

  0*

  10

  0*

  5

  0

  3

  6

  1st

  Up to 7 nights at one place.

  After 7 nights at one place.

  After 28 nights at one place.

  Absent 9 hours or more, but not away the night, also for last day of journey.

  Absent 5 hours or more, but not away the nights.

  Class of Railway Accommodation.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Writers with weekly pay of—

  £4 10 0 and upwards

  8

  0

  6

  0

  5

  0

  4

  0

  2

  0

  2nd

  3rd if no 2nd Class

  From £2 15 0 and below £4 10 0

  7

  0

  5

  3

  4

  8

  3

  6

  1

  9

  2nd

  From £1 15 0 and below £2 15 0

  6

  0

  4

  6

  4

  0

  3

  0

  1

  6

  2nd

  From £1 3 0 and below £1 15 0

  5

  0

  3

  9

  3

  4

  2

  6

  1

  3

  2nd

  Boy Writers below £1 1 0

  4

  0

  3

  0

  2

  8

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3rd

  * An addition of 5s. a day may be made to these rates for travelling abroad, if necessary.

  Army Accounts Department.

  Travelling (Subsistence) Allowances.

  Appointment.

  Up to 14 nights at one place.

  After 14 nights at one place, or for the whole period, if the official knew beforehand stay in one place must exceed 14 nights.

  Absent above 10 hours, but not away the night, also for last day of a journey.

  Absent above 7 hours, but not away the night, also for last day of a journey.

  Class of Railway Accommodation.

  Remarks.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Army Accounts Department.

  Civilian Members:—

  Chief Accountants

  20

  0*

  15

  0*

  6

  8

  3

  6

  1st

  Accountants

  20

  0*

  15

  0*

  6

  8

  3

  6

  1st

  Assistant Accountants, 1st Class

  15

  0*

  10

  0*

  5

  0

  3

  6

  1st

  Assistant Accountants, 2nd Class

  15

  0*

  10

  0*

  5

  0

  3

  6

  1st

  Subordinate Staff:—

  Chief Writers

  7

  6

  5

  0

  2

  6

  2

  6

  2nd

  3rd if no 2nd

  Senior Writers

  7

  6

  5

  0

  2

  6

  2

  6

  2nd

  3rd if no 2nd

  Hired Writers

  5

  0

  3

  4

  1

  8

  1

  8

  3rd

  Boy Writers

  5

  0

  3

  4

  1

  8

  1

  8

  3rd

  * An addition of 5s. a day may be made to these rates for travelling abroad, if necessary.

  Men Employed in Government Ordnance Factories and at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the average number of persons employed in the Ordnance Factories in each year from 1884 to 1906, and the number employed at the present time, distinguishing the total numbers employed at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War
  968
  whether he will state the number of persons employed at present in the carriage department, the gun factory and laboratory, and the total number now employed at Woolwich; and what were the corresponding average numbers employed for each of the years 1884 to 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The information required by these Questions is as follows:—

  Statement showing the average numbers of Persons employed in the Ordance Factories in each year from 1884 to 1906 and the numbers employed at the present time, distinguishing the total numbers employed at Woolwich Arsenal.

  Year.

  Royal Carriage Department

  Royal Gun Factory.

  Royal Laboratory.

  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.

  Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham.

  Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham.

  Building Works Department.

  Central Office Stores and Medical Department.

  Grand Total.

  Total at Woolwich.

  1884–5

  1,465

  1,310

  3,942

  1,266

  174

  271

  —

  —

  8,428

  6,717

  1885–6

  2,061

  1,834

  5,694

  2,079

  220

  374

  —

  —

  12,262

  9,589

  1886–7

  2,015

  2,017

  4,561

  2,254

  299

  382

  —

  —

  11,528

  8,593

  1887–8

  2,016

  2,089

  5,019

  2,143

  437

  420

  —

  —

  12,124

  9,124

  1888–9

  2,350

  2,253

  6,452

  1,994

  520

  503

  328

  —

  14,400

  11,383

  1889–90

  2,507

  2,620

  6,550

  2,887

  849

  538

  455

  —

  16,406

  12,132

  1890–1

  2,585

  2,802

  6,354

  3,206

  954

  526

  542

  149

  17,118

  12,432

  1891–2

  2,313

  2,501

  6,584

  2,281

  717

  725

  626

  194

  15,941

  12,218

  1892–3

  2,237

  2,501

  6,466

  2,218

  703

  756

  647

  210

  15,738

  12,061

  1893–4

  2,550

  2,364

  5,989

  1,872

  456

  733

  677

  283

  14,924

  11,863

  1894–5

  2,586

  2,264

  5,936

  1,901

  606

  874

  725

  399

  15,291

  11,910

  1895–6

  2,487

  2,182

  6,155

  1,769

  883

  568

  857

  479

  15,380

  12,160

  1896

  2,687

  2,699

  7,081

  2,121

  553

  833

  863

  476

  17,313

  13,806

  1897

  2,684

  2,926

  7,666

  2,329

  480

  839

  923

  491

  18,338

  14,690

  1898

  2,834

  2,910

  7,935

  2,265

  464

  833

  1,104

  510

  18,855

  15,293

  1899

  3,051

  2,717

  7,944

  2,208

  458

  889

  1,159

  522

  18,948

  15,393

  1900

  3,398

  3,155

  10,552

  2,610

  564

  1,040

  1,463

  540

  23,322

  19,108

  1901

  3,705

  3,507

  10,873

  2,936

  700

  1,224

  1,838

  578

  25,361

  20,501

  1902

  3,708

  3,367

  8,717

  3,013

  788

  1,207

  1,827

  595

  23,222

  18,214

  1903

  3,366

  3,085

  7,256

  2,788

  753

  1,157

  1,676

  627

  20,708

  16,010

  1904

  3,202

  3,127

  7,186

  2,536

  653

  1,214

  1,633

  700

  20,251

  15,848

  1905

  3,018

  3,113

  6,523

  1,986

  492

  1,080

  1,772

  724

  18,708

  15,150

  1906

  2,964

  2,994

  5,973

  1,936

  401*

  804

  1,689

  708

  17,469

  14,328

  Present time i).e. week ending 13-4-07)

  2,620

  2,420

  5,727

  2,063

  —

  760

  1,854

  664

  16,108

  13,285

  * Average for the period up to the 9th of June when Factory was disposed of.

  Disbanding of Royal Engineers (Militia) Submarine Miners.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what units of the Royal Engineers (Militia) Submarine Miners have been disbanded since 1st January, 1906; and what was the establishment of each of such units on 1st January, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The names and numbers are as follows:—

  Establishment of all ranks on 1–1–07.

  The Falmouth Division

  83

  The Harwich Division

  60

  The Humber Divison

  108

  The Medway Division

  67

  The Milford Haven Division

  70

  The Needle Division

  58

  The Plymouth Divison

  83

  The Portsmouth Division

  82

  The Thames Divison

  90

  The Western Division

  103

  Total all ranks

  804

  Territorial Army—Physical Fitness of Men.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps will be taken to ensure that men enlisting in the Territorial Army shall be physically fit for active service; and whether men who, during their period of service, are reported as physically unfit, will be discharged from the force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The manner in which and regulations tinder which men will be enlisted in and discharged from the Territorial Force will be prescribed under Section 8 (1) of the Bill. The Bill has not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage to enable me to furnish the detailed information required concerning the condition of efficiency.

  Closing of Coastguard Stations.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any coastguard stations in Great Britain or Ireland have been closed during the past twelve months and, if so, how many.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In the last twelve months ten stations
  972
  and fourteen detachments in Great Britain have been closed; and fourteen stations and three detachments in Ireland.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Manning.
  MR. MUERAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the total number of men voted for the effective naval service of the year are borne a any given time in ships fully commissioned, in ships with nucleus crews on shore in barracks, and otherwise disposed of in shore establishments.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON Dundee): The approximate number borne on the 25th ultimo was 127,277 Of this total 108,826 ranks and ratings were distributed among the four heads mentioned in the Question as follows:— In ships fully manned, 58,918; in ships with nucleus crews, 18,979; on shore in barracks, 23,403 (including 7,008 on the shore strength of the Royal Marines); otherwise disposed of in shore establishments, 7,526. The remainder (18,451) were borne in gunnery and torpedo school ships, training ships, etc.

  Nucleus Crews.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Navy Estimates for 1907–8, on pages 12 and 14, omit for the first time the number of officers and men of different grades appropriated to nucleus crews, and include them with the ships on active service; and that this course prevents the House from making any comparison of figures as to sea service with past years; and whether he can state why the Board have deprived the House of this information as to the number of officers and men who are doing less sea work than others by reason of their being appropriated to partially-manned ships.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The alteration in the form of the Vote is due to the fact that, when the Estimates were framed, the details of the newly-constituted Home Fleet were not definitely known. The Admiralty have never had any desire to prevent the

  973
  House from forming any comparison with past years, and the actual number of men appropriated to nucleus crews on any given date can now be given if the hon. Member wishes. I have just given, in reply to a Question from my hon. friend the Member for Falkirk Burghs, the actual number of men in nucleus crews on the 25th March, the latest date for which figures are available at the present moment.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to include these in next year's Estimates?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will consider that.

  German and French Naval Shipbuilding
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships of the 1906–7 programme of France and Germany have now been laid down and ordered.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The French programme of 1906 provided for the construction of six battleships, six destroyers and twenty submarines; two of the battleships to be completed by the end of 1910, the remainining four by the middle of 1911. Although these vessels have been officially ordered it is believed that up to a few weeks ago none of the battleships had been laid down, and it is not known whether any of the other vessels have been yet commenced. The German programme of 1906–7 provided for two battleships, one armoured cruiser, two protected cruisers and twelve destroyers to be completed by the end of 1909. There has been considerable delay in the commencement of the three armoured units. The armoured cruiser is believed to have been only laid down in February 1907, and the keels of the two battleships, if yet laid at all, are believed to have been laid only within the last few weeks. Most of the smaller vessels were begun in 1906.

  Tonnage of New Battleships
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the decision to make the tonnage of the three new battleships now building 650 tons greater than that of the "Dreadnought" was the outcome of experience gained in the trials of the "Dreadnought."
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The increase of 650 tons by which the tonnage of the new battleships exceeds that of the "Dreadnought" was decided upon in order that certain improvements might be embodied, and had no relation to any experience gained in the trials of the "Dreadnought."

  Northern Nigeria—Railway Schemes.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have come to a decision as to the construction of the railway in Northern Nigeria, as urged by the British Cotton Growing Association and a deputation which waited on the Prime Minister on the 17th May, 1906; and will he say what is the distance from the River Niger to Kano, and the estimated cost of the first section of the line from Baro to Zungeru, and also the extension from Zungeru to Zaria and to Kano.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): His Majesty's Government have not yet come to a decision in the matter. The distance from the Niger at Baro to Kano is about 395 miles, viz., Baro to Zungeru, 125 miles; Zungeru to Zaria, 183 miles; Zaria to Kano, 87 miles. The estimated cost varies from £3,000 a mile for a pioneer line to about £5,000 a mile for a line completely equipped to deal with a large traffic.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When will it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to make the statement on this subject which he promised me nine and a half months ago?
  MR. CHURCHILLadmitted that he was open to reproach for having led the House to believe he would make an early statement. He could only say that they were pressing the matter forward and hoped that when they received the report of Sir P. Girouard, who had been sent out to Nigeria, a definite decision would quickly be arrived at.
  MR. WEDGWOOD MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme) asked whether, as the route of the railway was practically known, steps would be taken to prevent land speculators reaping the benefit of the increased land values.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the land laws in Nigeria is being carefully considered with a view to securing for the Colony the advantage of any betterment resulting from the making of the railway.
  MR. REES: Is the line to be constructed entirely at the Government expense through the agency of the Crown Agents?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The line is at present purely hypothetical.

  Colonial Coastal Trade.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent Ministerial statements in the Canadian House of Commons on the subject of the coastal trade of the Dominion, the Secretary of State will inform the Canadian Government of the resolutions come to at the Imperial Navigation Conference in regard to the Colonial coastal trade, in order to ascertain the manner in which the application of the principles of these resolutions would affect the coastal trade of Canada.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The questions discussed at the Merchant Shipping Conference all concern the local conditions in Australia and New Zealand, and the Secretary of State does not consider that the resolutions arrived at with Australia and New Zealand delegates affect in any way the question of the coasting trade in Canada, or that any communication with the Dominion Government on the subject is necessary.

  Coloured Policemen in Crown Dependencies.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to recent occurrences at Nairobi, whether in most, if not all, of the Crown Colonies and tropical dependencies of the Empire, white settlers are liable to be arrested by coloured policemen.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
  *MR. CATHCART WASON: In view of recent occurrences, will the hon. Gentleman take care that in enlisting white policemen for the British East African Protectorate every care will be exercised to obtain men of experience and character?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Certainly we will endeavour to get the best men possible.

  Poll Tax on Immigrants.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the United States of America have a well-organised immigration department, with several hundred highly-paid skilled employees, and buildings containing every requisite for the efficiency of the work and the comfort of the immigrants, and that the whole expense is paid, with a margin of £20,000, by a poll-tax on each immigrant of two dollars a head; and if, in the interests of economy, he will consider the desirability of defraying the expenses of the immigration department and making better provision for the immigrants by an entrance fee of 5s., which would meet all charges and leave a profit for the taxpayer.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): My Answer to the first part of the Question is generally in the affirmative; as regards the second part, my hon. and gallant friend will remember that the Royal Commission on Allen Immigration made no recommendation on the subject, and for reasons with which he is probably conversant his suggestion, though attractive, is impracticable.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dover Harbour Board are applying to increase the poll-tax levied on immigrants by them, and that the Secretary to the Board of Trade held an inquiry in regard to it the other day?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, but that is only one of many considerations.

  Alexandra Palace Betting Case
  MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case at Enfield police court on 8th April, under The Betting Act, 1906, in which certain men were charged with betting in the grounds of the Alexandra Palace, a public park, in which case the betting was admitted, but in which the charge was dismissed on the plea that the grounds were adjacent to a race course; and whether he proposes to

  977
  take any steps by legislation to deal with such cases.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I find on inquiry that there has been a decision by the justices in the sense mentioned by the hon. Member. I do not think further legislation can be undertaken, but I will consider whether the question of law can be raised in a higher Court.
  MR. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when races take place at Alexandra Park, travelling on the Great Northern line between King's Cross and Wood Green is absolutely unsafe for the respectable public owing to the number of scoundrels who attend the races?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Scottish Emigrants
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board

  Statement showing the number of passengers of Scottish nationality and the number of passengers of all other nationalities that left the ports of Scotland for places out of Europe in each of the under-mentioned years.

  (Complied from the passengers lists furnished to the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.)

  Year.

  Passengers of Scottish Nationality.

  Passengers of all other Nationalities.

  Total.

  Gross outward movement.

  Net outward movement.*

  Gross outward movement.

  Net outward movement.*

  Gross outward movement.

  Net outward movement.*

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  No.

  1897

  8,409

  4,532

  1,748

  —3,302†

  10,157

  1,230

  1898

  7,099

  4,040

  2,178

  —444†

  9,277

  3,596

  1899

  7,865

  4,963

  3,279

  244

  11,144

  5,207

  1900

  11,131

  7,968

  4,785

  —877†

  15,916

  7,091

  1901

  11,011

  7,475

  3,891

  106

  14,902

  7,581

  1902

  12,867

  9,472

  7,095

  3,124

  19,962

  12,596

  1903

  20,134

  16,583

  7,292

  1,430

  27,426

  18,013

  1904

  23,522

  19,133

  6,247

  458

  29,796

  19,591

  1905

  27,648

  22,733

  11,205

  3,489

  38,853

  26,222

  1906

  38,335

  32,488

  17,888

  7,579

  56,223

  40,067

  * Excess of out-going over in-coming passengers.

  † Excess of in-coming over out-going passengers.

  of Trade if he will state what has been the number of emigrants sailing from Scottish ports annually for each of the last ten years, distinguishing, as far as possible, emigrants of Scottish nationality and domicile from emigrants of other nationalities passing through Scotland; and whether he can give any indication as to the number of emigrants of Scottish nationality and domicile sailing from other ports of the United Kingdom during these years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The figures asked for are too numerous to be conveniently given orally, and I propose to have them printed, so far as they are available, in the Votes. These figures relate to the gross and net outward movement of passengers, and do not specially distinguish emigrants for settlement abroad.

  979
  Statement showing the number of passengers of Scottish nationality that left the ports of England, Wales, and Ireland, for places out of Europe, in each of the under mentioned years.
  (Compiled from the passengers lists furnished to the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.)
  Passengers of Scottish Nationality.

  Year.

  Gross outward movement.

  Net outward movement.†

  No.

  No.

  1897

  7,715

  410

  1898

  8,471

  858

  1899

  8,207

  —386‡

  1900

  9,341

  901

  1901

  9,909

  1,495

  1902

  13,418

  5,211

  1903

  16,667

  6,258

  1904

  13,923

  406

  1905

  13,862

  2,692

  1906

  14,827

  1,900

  Hamburg Dock Strike.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can obtain from the consular authorities at Hamburg an approximate estimate of the number of English stevedores who have been employed there since 1st March.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: His Majesty's Consul-General at Hamburg reports that the total number of British dock labourers employed there since 1st March is about 4,500, but several hundreds have left again. I understand that the great majority of these men were not stevedores, but no information is available as to the actual number of British stevedores brought over.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Have these 4,000 men lately arrived at Hamburg?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know when they arrived. They have been employed there since 1st March.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: How many of the men were discharged from Woolwich Arsenal?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot say.
  † Excess of out-going over in-coming passengers.
  ‡ Excess of in-coming over out-going passengers.

  Imperial Navigation Conference
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House what resolutions have so far been passed at the Imperial Navigation Conference; to what extent these resolutions alter the existing practice in regard to the control of the coastal trade of the self-governing Colonies of Australia and New Zealand; whether any representations have been made to His Majesty's Government by British shipowners as to the manner in which these contemplated changes would affect British shipping; and whether any of the self-governing Colonies have put forward suggestions dealing with the possible loss entailed to British shipowners.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Resolutions passed at the Colonial Merchant Shipping Conference will be presented to Parliament as soon as the proceedings are completed. Meanwhile, I do not think it would be respectful to the Conference to make any official statement on the subject. An authorised summary of each day's proceedings has been communicated to the Press. British shipowners are well represented at the Conference and have full opportunity of stating their views.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is that also a reply to the last two parts of my Question?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, certainly.

  Lady bower (Derbyshire) School.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the continued want of proper school facilities for children resident at Ladybower, Derbyshire; whether he is aware that these children, some of very tender years, are compelled to walk a lonely road in all weathers a distance of over three miles to Bamford to receive instruction; and what action, if any, it is proposed to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): Inquiries have been made as to the need of additional school accommodation for these children, some twenty-two in number, and I find that

  981
  the distance to Bamford is between one and a half and two miles. The local education authority inform me that there is sufficient accommodation in the Bamford school, and that they are, therefore, unwilling to incur the expense of providing a new school for these twenty-two children. I recognise that the distance may be the cause of some hardship, but it would not, in my opinion, be possible to lay down as a general rule that a school two miles distant cannot be regarded as available.
  MR. J. WARD: Is it not possible to find some means of conveyance for these children?
  MR. MCKENNA:I think it would be desirable for the local authority to do that.
  MR. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the local authority that they might at least do it in winter time, especially for children about five years of age.
  MR. MCKENNA: I will communicate with the local authority.

  Llanychan School.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state what steps the Board are taking with regard to the proposal of the local education authority for Denbighshire to close Llanychan School.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board have suggested to the local education authority that they should defer their application for the decision of the Board as to the necessity of the Llanychan Church School until after the close of the school year which ends on the 30th instant.

  Education Code.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the Education Code will be presented and circulated among Members.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Code is now in course of preparation, but I am, at present, unable to say at what date it
  982
  will be laid upon the Table. I hope it will be very shortly, earlier than last year.

  Royston Headmastership.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any directions with respect of the educational qualifications of teachers to be employed, had been issued by the local education authority for the West Riding of Yorkshire under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Education Act, 1202; if so, whether Mr. Milnes possessed those qualifications at the time of his application for the headmastership of Royston school; whether the Report of that local education authority, as to the educational grounds on which consent to his appointment was withheld by that authority, is corroborated in any single respect by the Reports of the inspector of the Board of Education; and whether he will consider the desirability of publishing the Reports of the local authority and of the Board's inspector.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have no information as to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. His Majesty's Inspector does not concur in the view which the local education authority have taken of Mr. Milnes' educational unfitness for the post. As I stated on Monday, I doubt whether, in the interests of the teacher, it is desirable to publish the Report which the Board have received from the West Riding County Council upon his teaching capacity, but as the hon. Member presses for it I will lay copies of both Reports upon the Table.

  The Chantry Trust.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the propriety of modifying or withdrawing the Treasury letter of 11th November, 1898, addressed to the Trustees of the National Gallery, so as to give the latter the power of refusing to exhibit such pictures purchased out of the funds of the Chantry Trust which they may consider unsuitable for this purpose, and also of eliminating from the Gallery such undesirable pictures as are already there; and, if the Treasury cannot adopt either of these courses, is it prepared to take any steps to restore to the Trustees of the National Gallery

  983
  complete control over the pictures exhibited in their Gallery which they now share with the Chantry Trustees.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Treasury letter referred to having been written under legal advice, I do not see my way to suggest any modification of it. I am not aware that, when the Chantry pictures have once been handed over to the National Gallery Trustees, any further control over them is either claimed or exercised by the Chantry Trustees.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if adequate proposals were to come from this side of the House so that a measure could be treated as non-contentious, he would be prepared to introduce a Bill to reform the Chantry Trust?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am informed, no Bill for the reform of the Chantry Trust would be likely to pass through this House unopposed. If the hon. Gentleman would let me know the nature of the proposals he would like to see brought forward, I would, of course, give them my consideration.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Will the Government consider the advisability of carrying out the recommendations of the Lords' Committee on the Chantry Trust of 1904, a good many of which would not need legislation?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. friend will put any points before me I will consider them.

  Sandford Wills Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Sandford Wills estate, Garryglass, Queen's County, have signed agreements for the purchase of their holdings; that up to the time of the sale there were 300 acres of untenanted land on the estate, from forty-five acres of which a tenant named John Delany had been evicted; and that, on the eve of the sale, the agent divided the untenanted land between four persons already in possession of large farms varying from eighty-six acres to 400 acres,
  984
  three being non-resident in the district, one living in Canada and his farms in Ireland let for eleven months grazing; and whether, seeing that 150 acres of untenanted land is good tillage, suitable for allotment amongst tenants of uneconomic holdings on the estate, some of whom are under £5 valuation, and nearly all of whom have to cart manure from four to seven miles to plant green crops which their own farms are not able to grow, steps will be taken to acquire this land for division amongst the tenants of uneconomic holdings on the estate.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Delany was evicted from a holding of forty-five acres on the Sandford Wills estate, Garryglass, Queen's County, and that the holding was taken by Joseph Dobbes, of Abbeyleix, who is a large trader, clerk of petty sessions, proprietor of a loan bank, and occupier of about 500 acres of land in the baronies of Cullinagh and Portnahinch, Queen's County; and whether, in view of the objects of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners will, under the circumstances, refuse to sanction the sale to Joseph Dobbes.
  I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the contemplated sale of the Sandford Wills estate, Garryglass, Queen's County, the Estates Commissioners can declare only the tenanted portion of the estate, with a view to refusing to recognise the tenancies created since 1901, and of acquiring the untenanted land for division amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings on the estate; and, if so, whether he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to act accordingly.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Thirty purchase agreements in respect of the estate mentioned were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in February, 1905. In five of the cases the tenancies were created subsequent to January, 1901, one of these being the case of an evicted tenant who has been reinstated. The area of the land comprised in the four other cases is about 230 acres, and the Commissioners directed their inspector,

  985
  when investigating the matter, to inquire whether this area could be acquired for the enlargement of the small holdings on the estate. The Commissioners have since received their inspectors report and will shortly deal with it, when the facts alleged in the Questions will receive their consideration. The Commissioners have received no application from John Delany, but will consider his case when dealing with the matter.

  Irish Land Purchase—Inspection of Estates.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the practice of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland to sell estates and order the advance of public money to the owners or mortgagees without any official inspection for value or for security; if, in some of these cases, the purchasers are non-judicial tenants who have been excluded from the Land Courts by reason of holding on court leases at rents never judicially revised; and, if it is in the power of the Irish Executive to have estates sold in that court officially valued before the money is advanced, will he have this done in the interests of the purchasers and of the State.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Land Judge has no jurisdiction to order advances under the Land Purchase Acts. Every intending purchaser in the Land Judge's Court has to make application to the Land Commission for an advance, and when the applicant is a non-judicial tenant, it is, I understand, the practice of the Commissioners to have the holding inspected before sanctioning the advance.

  Suggested Committee of Financial Experts.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the sum of money involved and the consequences to the Irish people, he will appoint a small committee of independent and impartial financial experts, with suitable actuarial assistance, to test the financial soundness of paying vendors, under the Land Act of 1903, without ascertaining the value of the thing they sell, an average of six and a half years purchase more than the average prices under the Acts which
  986
  required the value to be ascertained by inspection, together with a bonus inflated proportionally with this inflated price, and also to test the financial soundness of the model calculation appearing on page 7 of the last Annual Report of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELL: The suggestion of the Question appears to be that purchasers are paying too much for their holdings, and upon this point I would remind the hon. Member of my predecessor's reply to his Question of 27th March, 1906, namely, that it is reasonable to suppose that purchasers have found it to their advantage, in free bargains, to pay the price they have given under the Act of 1903, and that nothing has occurred to show that the amounts so advanced are not secured.
  MR. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question as to the appointment of a Committee of experts.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think I am in a position at present to advise the appointment of such a Committee.

  Uneconomic Holdings as Security for Advances.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the opinion of the Estates Commissioners that uneconomic holdings in Ireland, the rents of which have been paid out of money earned in other countries, are bad security for advances calculated upon those rents; whether his attention has been called to the number of such holdings now being sold without inspection, while neighbouring untenanted land is not sold; and whether he proposes to find any remedy for proceedings for which those charged with the administration of the Land Act of 1903 decline to accept responsibility.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not expressed the opinion attributed to them in the Question. The hon. Member knows that no inspection is necessary in the case of advances for the purchase of holdings which come within the terms of Section 1 of the Act of 1903. I am not aware that those who are charged

  987
  with the administration of the Act have declined to accept the responsibility which rests upon them.

  Barnmeen (County Down) School.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the necessity for school accommodation at Barnmeen, county Down, whether the Commissioners of National Education are aware that no other site is available, than that suggested by the manager; and, seeing that the rule of the three-mile limit has only recently been laid down, and having regard to the injury accruing from the present accommodation to the eyesight and general health of pupils and teachers and to the cause of education in the district, the Board will now reconsider their decision.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they are not aware whether any site other than that selected by the manager is available for building a new school at Barnmeen, nor does the Question appear to be relevant seeing that the Commissioners refused the manager's application for a building grant, not on account of the site, but upon the ground that there are already other schools within three miles of the place. The rule as to the three-mile limit referred to in my former answer is not a new rule, but has, the Commissioners inform me, been in operation for many years. The Commissioners do not see any sufficient reason for reconsidering their decision.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this school is two-and-a-half miles distant? Do not the Commissioners reserve to themselves the power to dispense with the rule under special circumstances, and has the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of a resolution passed at a public meeting of the people of the district claiming that there are special circumstances in this case?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am well aware that the application of such a rule as this is always unpopular in the district affected by it, and I am sorry to see children under an obligation to go such long distances as even the one-and-three-quarter miles in this case, but I do
  988
  not think that, even if I had the power I could in this case interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners.
  MR. MACVEAGH: The distance was measured last week and found to be two-and-a-half miles.
  MR. BIRRELL: At any rate it is well within the limit.

  Unlawful Assembly at Athenry.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that persons charged at Athenry with unlawful assembly were recently sentenced by a stipendiary magistrate named Gardiner to three months imprisonment each; will he say in what court of justice were the accused persons tried; how was the court constituted, and under what statute was a sentence of three months imprisonment imposed; are the accused persons still in prison; and what action the Irish Government propose to take in reference to this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The five persons referred to formed part of a crowd who, with drum beating and horn blowing, were proceeding to the houses of some graziers in the neighbourhood of Athenry on the night of the 4th of April. The police, believing that the object of the crowd was to intimidate the graziers, intercepted them; and the sergeant in charge, by striking matches, as the night was very dark, was able to identity the five persons referred to as being the ringleaders. After considerable difficulty he persuaded the crowd to disperse The five persons referred to were arrested on the following day on warrants granted by the resident magistrate, who on their production before him, ordered them to give bail for good behaviour in their own recognisances of £20 with two securities of £10 each. The magistrate on this occasion sat in the police station. In this case the police seem to have acted very well indeed in inducing the crowd to disperse. The resident magistrate constituted the court, and the proceedings were taken under the statute of 34 Edward III., and the magistrate's Commission of the Peace. On a review of the proceedings, the order of three months imprisonment seemed to me to

  989
  have gone beyond the necessities of the case, seeing that there was no actual breach of the peace and that the efforts of the police were successful. I have therefore been able to recommend to the Lord-Lieutenant that the prisoners should be released at the end of fifteen days, which will expire on Friday.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the desirability in a case of this kind of proceeding under what may fairly be called the ordinary law, and not under an old statute of Edward III?
  MR. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that I very much prefer to proceed under the ordinary law at the sessions or assizes rather than invoke the assistance of this statute, but necessities of a case may sometimes arise in which proceedings of this sort may be thought to be more necessary—only in very limited parts of the country. I am glad that in most parts of the country the ordinary law suffices, but there are one or two parts where it is difficult to secure the prevention of intimidatory acts. I only hope that it may not be found necessary to employ this statute again, but in this particular case, having regard to the reduction of sentences to fifteen days, I cannot say I think injustice has been done.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that respect for law in Ireland would be more promoted if he proceeded under the ordinary law and not under this statute, and whether he personally was consulted as head of the executive, as to the course to be taken in this case?
  MR. BIRRELL: I make myself responsible.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Oh, I know that.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not wish in any way to separate myself from the action of the authorities, but the hon. and learned Member can rely upon the desire of the Government to have all cases tried in accordance with the ordinary law, but at the same time there may be circumstances in which it is thought the ordinary law is not sufficient to meet the justice of the
  990
  case, and although I hope the occasion may never occur again, still there may be circumstances in which it would arise.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I gather from that Answer that the right hon. Gentleman was not personally consulted. Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that before this ancient law is put in force again, the matter shall be referred to him?
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member must leave me to exercise my own discretion, but he must thoroughly understand that I am most anxious to be involved in all that is going on in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people were on the public road going in the direction of their own homes and that there is no grazier living within 300 yards of the public road?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have had the report of the police, upon this case; the graziers' houses are in the vicinity.
  MR. ROCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether my statement that there are no graziers living within 300 yards of the road is correct?
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he would.

  Alleged Dynamite Outrage at Cloghroe.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities have yet ascertained if a dynamite outrage was recently perpetrated near Cloghroe, in the Parliamentary division of Mid-Cork.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities have carefully investigated this case, and have come to the conclusion that no explosion, either by dynamite or any other agency, took place.

  Agrarian Outrages in King's County
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of cases of burnings of residences, stables, offices, houses, animals and fodder which have occurred in King's County within the last six months; how many persons

  991
  have been convicted in connection with these cases; how many claims for compensation have been lodged, and the amount in each case; whether, in every case of incendiarism, the property belonged to Protestants; and whether he has any information showing that these cases were the outcome of the propaganda of the United Irish League.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have reported four such cases as having occurred in King's County within the past six months. No conviction has been had. Claims for compensation have been made in each case, the amounts claimed being £15, £40, £200, and £2,040 respectively. In the two first-named cases £10 and £25 respectively have been awarded; the other cases have not yet been decided. The property burnt belonged to a Protestant in one case only. The Inspector-General informs me that he is aware of no grounds for suggesting that these eases were the outcome of the propaganda of the United Irish League.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that public attention had been called by the King's County County Council and other local bodies, to the fires and other injuries to property, malicious in some cases and accidental in others, caused by tramps in no way connected with the county, and whether he would cause instructions to be issued to the constabulary with a view to preventing the classification of such outrages as agrarian outrages, and also whether it was brought to his notice that County Court Judge Curran at the last quarter sessions spoke in praise of the general condition of the county.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member seems to have a long list of Questions. I think he ought to put some of them down.
  MR. REDDYasked how many of the cases reported as malicious had been withdrawn in the King's County, and whether it was not a fact that Mr. Good body, a well-known Protestant gentleman, was not a member of the council, and whether the Member for the Tullamore division was not also a Protestant?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The same observation applies to the hon. Member's Questions.
  MR. REDDY: said it was scandalous that such reflections should be sought to be made upon the county.

  Ardagh Police Hut.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will say why a police hut for the accommodation of ten men of the Royal Irish Constabulary is in course of erection on a farm in the occupation of a man named Keane, being a portion of Crannagh Farm, Ardagh, in North Mayo.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police hut in question has been erected on the portion of the Crannagh farm which has been taken on lease by John Haire (not Keane). The hut has been built because the police authorities consider it necessary to afford protection to Haire, and the place is remote from a police station. The hut is occupied by five men.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Why is it considered necessary to afford this protection; against what sort of injury is the police hut to protect?
  MR. BIRRELL: First I am asked if protection will be given, and then I am asked why.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Yes, I want to know why it is considered necessary.
  MR. BIRRELL: Then I can only repeat the Answer to the original Question. The police authorities tell me the person in question has not been boycotted, but there has been some provocation.

  St. Patrick Celebration at Armagh.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. James Donnelly, of Armagh, on 19th March last, to the effect that the Ancient Order of Hibernians had the men and the guns and only wanted powder and shot to blow English rule out of Ireland, and if he has any information to show whether this body has imported any large quantity of arms for the purpose

  993
  indicated since the dropping of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act; and what steps, if any, he is taking in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: According to a local newspaper report Mr. Donnelly made a statement to the effect mentioned in the Question at a meeting on 18th March. The meeting was in commemoration of St. Patrick, and the somewhat intemperate language used by Mr. Donnelly may be accounted for by the festivities usually associated with the occasion. The police authorities have no information which would go to support the hon. Member's suggestion as to the importation of arms.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: The hon. Member has himself threatened to get up a bloody war in Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman search his house and see what arms he has there?

  Mr. Finucane and the Protection of Planters.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Finucane, Estates Commissioner, gave evidence on 9th November before the Congested Districts Board Commission to the effect that, if residents in those districts to which it was suggested that planters should be transferred resented such migration, he would be prepared to place the planters so transferred under police protection, and that there were morally greater grounds for doing so than in the case of a boycotted landlord; and, if so, will he say whether these, statements were made with the sanction of the Government.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have now seen Mr. Finucane's evidence to which the Question refers. Mr. Finucane appears to have expressed the opinion that migrants for whom the Estates Commissioners might provide farms on untenanted land purchased for the purpose should receive police protection in the event of local opposition. Of course the evidence of Mr. Finucane, and of all other witnesses before the Commission, was given of their own motion and without consultation with the Government.

  Elphin Disturbances
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  994
  of Ireland how many, if any, extra police have been required to maintain order in the districts of Shankhill, Caldramore, and The Palace, near Elphin, county Roscommon, within the last four weeks; whether he has any official information showing that the recent disturbances in that part of the country are the outcome of the propaganda of the United Irish League; and whether, on the 1st instant, the resident magistrate had to be sent for to read the Riot Act, but was not available owing to his being in another part of that district, about two miles away, where a disturbance was raging.
  MR. BIRRELL: The force at Elphin Police Station has been strengthened by the addition of six men from adjacent stations. A force of extra police has been brought into Elphin for the preservation of the peace on three occasions, namely, on 31st March, seventy men; on 6th instant, eighteen men; and on 14th instant, seventy men. I am informed that certain local branches of the United Irish League have organised demonstrations with the object of manifesting their opposition to the grazing system. It is not the fact that on the 1st instant or on any other day the resident magistrate was required to read the Riot Act.
  *VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if there is any connection between the Camberwell and Elphin branches of the League?
  MR. BIRRELL: I imagine not, Sir.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Upon whom will fall the cost of this large force of police?
  MR. BIRRELL: The case will follow the ordinary rule.

  Leitrim Police Barracks.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state why it is necessary to maintain police barracks at Garrison, county Fermanagh, Gublaun, county Leitrim, and Kiltyclogher, county Leitrim, as these places are only a mile and a-half apart.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police station at Garrison is two and a-half miles from Gublaun, and six miles from Kiltyclogher,

  995
  and the two last named stations are five miles apart. Though the Garrison station is comparatively near to Gublaun, the district policed from it extends nine miles to the north and embraces an area of thirty-one square miles. The police authorities are of opinion that each of these stations is necessary, and cannot at present be discontinued.

  Irish National Education Administration.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the date upon which the Commissioners of National Education adopted the new rule relating to the appointment of assistant teachers of the same faith as a substantial minority of the children in schools under Protestant management, and give the names of the Commissioners present at the meeting and assenting to this rule.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland upon what principle have the Commissioners of National Education decided 10 differentiate between schools under Protestant management and schools under Roman Catholic management, in requiring that where a substantial minority of the children belong to one religious denomination an assistant teacher of the denomination of that minority should be appointed.
  I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number of Protestant children attending primary schools in Ireland under Roman Catholic teachers at the 31st December, 1906, and explain why these children are not permitted to have assistant teachers of their own faith, seeing that Protestant school managers are required to provide assistant teachers of the faith of a substantial minority of the children attending their schools.
  May I likewise ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the province of Ulster there are 4,486 Protestant pupils in primary schools under Roman Catholic teachers, and 4,900 Roman Catholic children in primary, schools under Protestant teachers; and whether he can explain why Protestant managers are to be required to provide a Roman Catholic teacher for a substantial minority of
  996
  Roman Catholic children in a Protestant school, whilst Roman Catholic managers are not required to provide a Protestant teacher for the Protestant children attending school under their control.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they do not consider it desirable to give the information asked for in the first of these four Questions. The rule was promoted by the Protestant Commissioners, and was passed unanimously after being on the Agenda Paper for nearly two months. The object of the Commissioners was to remove obstacles to the combined education of Protestants of different denominations. The rule is not to be applied in schools under Protestant management in which there is a minority of Roman Catholic pupils. The total number of Protestant children in national schools under Roman Catholic teachers on 31st December, 1905, was 8,559 or 5·3 per cent. The figures for 1906 are not yet available. The figures quoted in the last Question are for the year ending 31st December, 1905.
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask whether the rule referred to in this Question does not apply to the minority of Protestant children in Irish schools, and whether it is entirely made by Protestant Commissioners?
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that to be so.
  MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman favour us with the name of the Protestant Commissioners?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have to be very delicate in handling questions connected with this matter, the Commissioners having informed me that they do not consider it desirable to supply this information.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is it not a matter of principle that, whatever the number, the minority of Protestants are quite as much entitled to protection of Protestant teachers as the Catholics are to Catholic teachers.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not a Member of the National Board and I cannot control the decisions at which they arrive. I understand that what they have done in

  997
  this matter is in obedience to the general desire of the Protestants in Ireland that there should be a combination of forces in educational matters.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further, and if he does so I think he will be able to see that no such Protestant decision was come to?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is any desire being expressed by the Protestant community in Ireland to have this distinction made?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think it must be so.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Absolutely none. Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will make such inquiries as I can.
  MR. BYLES: Would not all this be ended if we conceded the right to Irishmen to govern themselves?
  MR. SLOAN: May I ask whether in communicating with the National Commissioners the right hon. Gentleman will recommend them to give the same protection to the minority of Protestants as they do to the Catholics?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will put that before them, but I have no power to see that it is done.

  Baron de Robeck's County Dublin Estate.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the county Dublin estate of Baron de Robeck, of Naas, executed agreements for the purchase of their holdings so far back as the 18th April, 1905, and that the sale has not yet been completed, with the result that the tenants are still paying interest at 4 per cent. on the purchase money; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements in this case were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in June, 1905. The case has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with. It will be dealt with in order of priority, under the Regulations.

  North Dublin Council—Labourers' Cottage Advances.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have intimated to the North Dublin Rural District Council that the Treasury will not sanction the advance, under the new Labourers Act, of a greater sum than £180 or £185 to cover the entire cost of cottage and plot; if so, will he say on what authority the Treasury have put a limit on the amount of advances under the Labourers Act; and, in view of the fact that land in the neighbourhood of large centres of population costs much more than elsewhere, and that the cost of building is higher in such places than in the rural districts, if the Treasury intends to adhere to its decision in this matter, if it has given such a decision.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not conveyed to the Rural District Council any such intimation as mentioned in the Question. My predecessor stated in this House that he hoped that the four and a quarter millions named in the new Act would provide at least 25,000 cottages. To do this the average cost throughout Ireland should not exceed £170 on all heads. While it is expected that in certain districts cottages can be provided for less than that sum, the Local Government Board have no doubt that in other districts—those in the vicinity of Dublin for instance—the cost may be somewhat higher. In determining the amount per house which may be allowed in such districts the Board will take into consideration the average cost per cottage under the several schemes already carried out in the district. The object of the Board is to secure the erection of the greatest number of cottages possible with the money available, and in their efforts to attain this object they hope to be supported by local authorities and by Irish opinion generally.

  Mayo Inspector of National Schools.
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why an inspector of national schools, Mr. McMillan, who is hostile to the teaching of Irish, should be kept on duty in the Irish-speaking county of Mayo; and whether he will

  999
  make representations to occasion this gentleman's removal to another part of Ireland, and to secure that some restraint is put upon the referred to.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education, inform me that their inspectors are transferred periodically from one circuit to another. The question of the transfer of Mr. McMillan is at present under the Commissioners' consideration.

  Strokestown Union Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Inspector to the Local Government Board, in selecting a site for a labourer's cottage in Kilbarry, Rooskey, Dromod, Strokes-town Union, county Roscommon, passed over several comparatively large farms, and selected for the purpose a site upon a farm of 12 acres, 2 roods, 5 poles (valuation £5 18s.), made up for the most part of reclaimed land belonging to a tenant named James Beirne; and whether he will ask the Local Government Board to instruct their Inspector that in taking this action he is not carrying out the object of the Labourers Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The selection of sites for labourers' cottages is made by the Sites Committee of the Rural District Council in conjunction with the engineer employed by the Council, and not by an Inspector or other officer of the Local Government Board. An inquiry will be held by an Inspector as to the propriety of confirming the scheme made by the Rural District Council, and any person interested in a site proposed to be acquired by the Council may attend the inquiry and put forward any objections which he may have to make.

  O'Rourke Estate—Turbary Petition.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Land Commission has received a petition from a number of tenants residing at Clooncoose, Newtowngore, county Leitrim, with reference to a portion of turbary on the O'Rourke estate which was to be given to them, and which is now included in the holding of another
  1000
  tenant; and if any action will be taken-regarding the same.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of the petition referred to, or to identify any proceedings for the sale of the O'Rourke estate, county Leitrim, as having been instituted before them.

  Glen Boat Cove Slip
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the toe end of the boat cove slip, Glen, county Kerry, will shortly be completed by the Congested Districts Board, in view of the fact that, in its unfinished state, it is a source of danger to those engaged in the fishing industry.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are advised by their engineer that the work in question can only be done in very fine weather. It is hoped to commence the work in the middle of next month, if the weather should permit.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Veterinary Staff.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if a post to be called the Travelling Veterinary Surgeon for Ireland is about to be created by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; whether in view of the fact that the efficiency of the Department, its organisation and work, are at present the subject of inquiry by a Committee, he will consider the advisability of delaying the creation of this post until the Committee have reported, and the measure for the better government of Ireland is introduced; and whether he will also consider the advisability, in case such a post is created, of providing that no competent man will be denied the opportunity of competing for it.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that no now post of the description mentioned is to be created. The ordinary transit inspection staff of the Department of Agriculture is to be increased from four to five inspectors, in order to provide for the more effective discharge of the work to be done. It is proposed to fill this post by promotion from the veterinary

  1001
  staff already in the service of the Department. It does not appear to be necessary to await the Report of the Committee before making the appointment.

  Irish Officials—Professional Qualifications.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what professional qualifications were respectively possessed by the following heads of offices in the High Court in Ireland at the time of their appointments to their present positions, viz, the Registrar to the Court of Appeal, the Accountant General, the present chief clerk to the Lord Chancellor, the chief clerk to the Master of the Rolls, the chief clerk to Mr. Justice Barton, and the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court; whether he is aware that none of the following heads of offices in the High Court in Ireland ever practised either as a barrister or solicitor, but were promoted from subordinate positions on the staff, viz., the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, the Accountant General, the three chief clerks in Chancery, and the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court; and will he state the reasons why men entering the Supreme Court (Ireland) service by open competition are considered ineligible for promotion to be heads of offices, while those who, prior to the passing of The Judicature Act, 1877, entered through patronage and without professional qualifications have frequently been promoted to these posts.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give a list of the posts on the Chancery side of the High Court in Ireland above the rank of first-class clerk for which statute requires that the occupants thereof shall have professional qualifications, and also a list of those for which statute does not require such qualifications.
  MR. BIRRELL: These two Questions concern matters which are not under the control of the Irish Government; but in courtesy to the hon. Member I have referred the Questions to the Lord Chancellor, and have received answers from him which, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have circulated with
  1002
  to-night's Votes.† The Answers are of considerable length.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of limiting the power of patronage in Irish public departments, and throwing more posts open to public competition?
  MR. BIRRELL: That is under consideration.

  Doohooma National School Teacher.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause assigned in the last quarterly return to Mr. Cryan's absence as principal teacher in Doohooma national school, county Mayo, on the 25th and 26th of February last; whether he has satisfied himself that Cryan was assaulted on the 25th February and the key of the school taken from him; and whether, seeing that this teacher's character is marked on the return sheet as satisfactory, he can say what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners on National Education inform me that managers' returns are regarded as confidential, and they are, therefore, not prepared to answer the first part of the Question. In accordance with my promise to the hon. Member, I have endeavoured to ascertain whether any assault was committed on the teacher, and am informed that the police did not witness any assault, and that no complaint of an assault was made to them by the teacher. I have already informed the hon. Member that if the teacher complains of an assault or broach of contract, the usual legal remedies are open to him.
  MR. SLOAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the circumstances which caused this school to be closed on two days?
  MR. BIRRELL: That I cannot say.

  Dromina Evicted Tenant
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is
  † See col. 945.

  1003
  aware that in the case of Mrs. Ellin O'Shaughnessy, of Kilabraher, Dromina, near Charleville, negotiations were opened by the Estates Commissioners more than twelve months ago, with a view to her reinstatement on the farm from which her late husband had been evicted, and that the landlord, Captain Orpen, and the present occupier of the farm, Timothy Griffin, were both consenting to her reinstatement on condition of Griffin being provided with a farm in lieu of the one he occupies; whether the Estates Commissioners through their inspector, Mr. P. V. Guiry, have repeatedly promised to get a farm for Griffin, but have not yet done so; and whether he will state what further steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners intend to take in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are at present endeavouring to procure another farm for Timothy Griffin, in order to provide for the reinstatement of the evicted tenant's representative in the farm which Griffin now occupies.

  Muniglugh Evicted Tenants.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was agreed upon as one of the essential conditions of the sale of the estate of M. J. Barry, in lunacy, that the evicted tenants should be immediately reinstated; did the agents, Messrs. Nussy & Townsend, give their consent to this proposal; have applications for reinstatements been received by the Estates Commissioners from Timothy Shea, Rahalisk, and Timothy Cronin, Muniglugh; and, seeing that there is no objection whatever on the part of the owners to the reinstatement of these men, will he explain why no steps have been taken to bring about this result; and will he further state when their reinstatement may be expected.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the persons named, and have had the matter inquired into by their Inspector, but have not yet ruled on his report. Both of the tenants were evicted in 1906.

  Belfast Police—Medical Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether be is aware that the staff of medical attendants in Belfast was reduced from five to four, while the strength of the Belfast Constabulary has substantially increased; will he state how many of the four medical attendants reside within their districts; whether he is aware that in Cork City the police medical attendant for the northern portion of the city lives on the south side, and the medical attendant for the south side lives on the north side; will he say if the surgeon to the force exercises any supervision over the medical attendants to the Royal Irish Constabulary all over Ireland; and, seeing that the police themselves pay these attendants a gross sum of about £10,000 a year out of their salaries, whether he will arrange that they should have some voice in their selection.
  MR. BIRRELL: In 1904 the number of medical attendants upon the police in Belfast was reduced from five to four, upon a redistribution of stations in the city. Formerly there were but two medical attendants in Belfast. Three out of the four reside within their districts. In the remaining case this is not possible. The fact as to the places of residence of the medical attendants for Cork is as 3tated in the Question. The surgeon to the force, who is attached to the depot, does not exercise supervision over the medical attendants throughout the country. The cost of medical attendance on the constabulary is not provided by the men, but is borne on the Votes. In the circumstances there do not appear to be any grounds for giving the men a voice in the selection of the medical attendants.
  MR. SLOAN: Is it a fact that at least £10,000 are paid out of wages by these men in addition to what is given in the Vote?
  MR. BIRRELL: That may be so.
  MR. SLOAN: If it is so, and if £10,000 are paid, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving the men some voice in the appointment of doctors?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will look into it.

  Irish Police Depot Allowances
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether five reserve policemen, including a sergeant, stationed at the depot, in addition to their ordinary emoluments, draw allowances almost equivalent to those paid to seventeen sergeants in charge of stations; will he state what duties these policemen perform in return for such reward; whether the allowances referred to are stopped out of the recruits' pay; and, having regard to the salary paid to these officials, will he explain the cause of the allowances referred to.
  MR. BIRRELL: One sergeant receives an allowance of £3 a month, and five constables receive £1 each a month, for managing the catering arrangements for over 300 recruits at the constabulary depot. A sergeant in charge of a country station receives extra remuneration of 8s. 8d. a month. The catering allowances at the depot are paid out of the general mess expenses, to which recruits have to contribute. The duties are heavy and the hours long, and the Inspector-General considers the remuneration to be well earned.

  County Magistracy.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disparity between the numbers of Conservative and Liberal magistrates, and of the fact that in at least one county division there is not one single Liberal magistrate, except ex-office magistrates; and if he will take steps to provide the Lord Chancellor with sufficient assistance to enable him to put an end to the existence of a Bench selected almost entirely from one Party without further delay.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I cannot possibly know whether or not the fact is as suggested in regard to one division of a county which is not named, but the condition of things is well known. It is impossible to correct it all at once. The Lord Chancellor has, as I have already said on previous occasions, a duty in law which he cannot depute to others. He has no need of any assistance.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether for the future the Government intend to consider a seat on the Bench a reward for political virtue?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I think a seat on the Bench ought to be a reward for local public service, but not for either social rank, property connection, or any other consideration of that kind.
  MR. BOWLES: Do the Government think that in making selections for the exceedingly important post of Justice of the Peace the accident of a man's political opinions ought to be in any conceivable way considered?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I wish that had been the rule throughout. If that had been the rule in times past, we should not see the extraordinary condition of the Bench generally which we now see. We are engaged in redressing the inequality of the present condition of things. Owing to the extraordinary fullness of the Benches in almost every part of the country, that is a thing which can only be done gradually.
  LORD R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by redressing the inequality, recommending people for appointment to the position of Justice of the Peace because of their political opinions?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already said that I disclaim any intention of that sort or of keeping that in view; but what I assert is that men who have shown their capacity for acting as magistrates and done good public service in the locality, and are likely to have the confidence of their neighbours—these are the men we ought to recommend.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to ask on what the right hon. Gentleman bases his accusation that appointments to the magistracy—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going a very long way from the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that the present Lord Chancellor has appointed 700 Conservatives to the County Bench?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That really does not arise out of the Question.

  Imperial Defence—Mediterranean Stations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Military authorities at Malta were asked to give evidence before the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for War, in conjunction with the Admiralty, which visited the Mediterranean stations in 1906.
  SIR. H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the views of the Military authorities at Malta were embodied in a Memorandum of the 29th October by a local Committee presided over by the General Officer Commanding in Chief. This Memorandum was fully considered in connection with the Report of General Owen's Committee. It is evident that the general policy in regard to fixed defences throughout the Empire can only be determined by His Majesty's Government.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. Ashley,
  SIR H.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN said: The Committee reported to the Government, who have their Memorandum before them.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 113.]

IRISH TOBACCO BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 114.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 114.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
Sir BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing,) Shipping, and Manufactures: Sir Edward Strachey and Mr. Lloyd George; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Sir BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill; Mr. Glover, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. William Johnson, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Cochrane, Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Lambton, Mr. John Hope, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Mr. Billson, Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Raphael, and Mr. Cory.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  SHOP CLUBS ACT (1902) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To extend the provisions of Section 1 of the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, to membership of the trades unions and industrial and provident societies," presented by Mr. John Ward; supported by Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Brace, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Steadman; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill for the constitution of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and for extending the powers of our tribunals to review convictions on indictment for criminal offences. It is proposed to end a controversy which at recurrent intervals for sixty years has engaged the attention of Parliament. The settlement which I invite the House to adopt will create appellate rights against convictions for

  1009
  crime, similar to those which exist in relation to adverse verdicts in civil causes. Liberty will thus be put upon an equality with property, and the consequences of judicial miscarriage will receive in each case similar protection. The administration of our criminal law has attained its present unsurpassed reputation in spite of defects of procedure which are irreconcilable with the acknowledged principles of all sound jurisprudence. Various mitigating causes have tended to obviate the defective operation of an imperfect system. The generous bias of our courts towards the innocent until they have been shown to be guilty; the conscientious solicitude and high character of our Judges, and the tempering jurisdiction of the Home Office have done much to accomplish this result. But justice has blundered. Innocent men have been convicted, and the number of the victims of judicial miscarriage during the last few years has not been inconsiderable. This question, owing to recent incidents and developments, has been forced to the front. The Royal Commission recently reported that the resources of the Home Office were neither adequate nor satisfactory. The admissibility of the evidence of an accused person in his own behalf, tainted as it often is by falsehood in regard to collateral matters, tending to prejudice a good case and to confuse the issues to be tried, makes the conduct of criminal trials more difficult. Public sympathy in recent striking instances has been aroused by the misfortunes of men who have been called upon to suffer that most terrible form of moral torture which confounds the innocent with the guilty, and condemns them to a common fate. An enterprising Press has rushed in where jurists have feared to tread, and retrial by newspaper threatens to take the place which ought to be occupied by the process of rehearing before a judicial tribunal. Last, but not least, the delicate and difficult duties of the Home Secretary have been discharged under the pressure of public agitation, which has made calm and independent judgment well-nigh impossible. These considerations have led the Government to the conclusion that the time for some change has arrived. Last year a Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor and passed through the House of Lords, which will, I trust, ever associate his name honourably with this great change in our jurisprudence. The
  1010
  present measure, differs in material respects from that which then passed through the other House. In its present form, I trust it will not meet with those hostile Motions which threatened the introduction of its predecessor. I have given careful consideration to the criticisms, many of them most able and cogent, which have reached me from many quarters, and I trust that I shall be able to count former opponents of the measure among its present friends. The Court will be constituted of seven Judges of the King's Bench Division, selected and presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England. They will be invited to undertake the duties arising under this legislation, in addition to the functions which they now discharge. The right to appeal in matters of law will be unqualified; in matters of fact it will take place with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This proposal revives an ancient procedure, and it is attended by this great advantage, that the Court will be able to prevent the abuse of its process by the raising of unfounded and frivolous contentions. There will be no new trial. The scandals to justice, which must very often occur on the retrial of a criminal cause, will not happen in consequence of the provisions of this measure, and the accused person will be spared an ordeal which is consequent upon no misconduct on his part. The Court will have ample powers to get at the truth. They will be able, if necessary, to summon fresh evidence. When they have satisfied themselves, so far as they can, of the true merits of the case before them, it will be their duty to determine whether the conviction should stand, should be set aside, or should be modified, and whether the sentence which is challenged should remain as it was pronounced, or should be brought into harmony with principles of general application, by which the duration of the punishment is made to correspond with the gravity of the crime. This is not a rich man's Bill. It was said that the last measure possessed that character. It will not be said of this Bill. An official is appointed whose duty it will be to obtain the materials which it is necessary to place before the Court for the consideration of the petition of every appellant; and if professional assistance be required a solicitor and counsel will be appointed to argue his case. This

  1011
  Bill differs from the last in one respect which will be appreciated by my legal friends who are Members of this House. The machinery will not be left to be framed by ex post facto regulations. It is substantially embodied in the Bill itself, and the whole history of the litigation may be reviewed from beginning to end. A Rule Committee will be appointed, which will have power either to complete or to modify or amplify the procedure prescribed as experience may dictate. The Court of Crown Cases Reserved will have its jurisdiction transferred to this tribunal, but the economic and excellent machinery in connection with that tribunal will remain untouched. The prerogative of the Crown will be unaffected, but the Secretary of State will have the inestimable advantage of being able to take the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal upon any question on which his advice to the Sovereign may depend. This is the measure which I would like the House to consider. It is a non-Party Bill. I am sanguine enough to believe it will be non-contentious also. Notwithstanding, in my humble opinion, it yields to none in the order of its importance. It affects immediately and possibly for all time the administration of justice in that sphere of its operations in which it touches the defence of personal security, which is the absolute condition of individual happiness and welfare on the part of every member of the community throughout all classes of our population. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, and to amend the Law relating to Appeals in Criminal Cases"—put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Secretary Gladstone.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  "To establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, and to amend the Law relating to Appeals in Criminal Cases," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.].

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that early that morning, about 12.15, the Patronage Secretary put down certain Bills for discussion for "to-morrow." Amongst those Bills was the Patents Bill, which appeared in the Orders of the Day. What he desired to ask was whether when those Bills were put down by order of the House for one day it was competent for the Government after the House had adjourned to secure their advance by one day.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must take the responsibility for having made the alteration. The truth is that it escaped the Patronage Secretary and myself that it was past midnight, and consequently "to-morrow" became "today." I think the House generally understood that we should take this Bill on Wednesday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR F. CAWLEYin supporting the Second Reading, said the first patent, as far as he could discover, was granted in 1626 and recited that—
  "Because much time and labour and money has been spent by Walter Drummond, and because the invention may be of use and advantage to the State the King grants a monopoly, but should the said Walter Drummond fail to reduce to practice within three years his scheme of patent, the said patent shall then lapse."
  From that it was perfectly clear that the patent had not been granted to the inventor for his ingenuity alone, but also for his services to the State in introducing a new manufacture to the realm. It appeared to him that those conditions were just, and ought to govern our present practice, and that no patent should be granted without a patentee's being required to work his invention in this country. If, however, all countries did as we did, that was, grant a patent to anybody and everybody who applied, there would be nothing to object to; but when all other countries took a different view, he thought there

  1013
  was not much to be said for our present practice. In Germany, if a patent was not worked within three years, it could be revoked and declared void. In France, if a patent was not worked within two years it could be revoked. In fact, in practically every industrial country, including Japan, patentees had to work their patents, or to get them worked within a certain time of their being granted, or their grant might be revoked. We were the only country in Europe that allowed a patentee to take his grant away and work it where he liked, or sell it to whom he liked. The result of this careless liberality was that foreigners came here and got patents granted them without ever having the slightest intention of working them in this country. They not only did this, but, aided by powerful associations and syndicates, particularly in Germany, they used these patents to filch our trade away, and in this, he was sorry to have to say, they had often been successful. In 1903 we had granted nearly 8,000 patents or monopolies to persons residing outside this country, in fact, more than half the patents taken out here, and the most important ones had been taken out by foreigners. We granted a larger number of patents (about 5,000 more) than Germany did every year, although the population of Germany was one-third greater than our own. Some of these patents were only taken out for blocking purposes, and were unscrupulously used when our manufacturers wished to make any article which would compete with a German production. Others which were of importance were taken abroad and were used to start industries there by new and improved processes, and so superseded industries carried on in this country. Thus our manufacturers suffered great injury and our workpeople lost their employment. Although a patent lasted only fourteen years it was long enough to establish the industry abroad, and once established there, with trained labour, experience, and an organised system of distribution, it was no easy matter to get it back again. What they said was that the granting of a patent, which was really a monopoly, was in the nature of protection, and that for every monopoly granted there should be a quid pro quo to the State granting it. We got no quid pro quo
  1014
  for the monopolies we gave, but we allowed the person to whom the monopoly was granted to produce his patented articles solely abroad; in other words we ran contrary to the doctrine of free trade, not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of the foreigner. Most patents that were granted to Englishmen were probably worked in this country, but they had to remember that we had no monopoly of genius in this country, and that as the population of America and other European countries was 440,000,000 and that of the United Kingdom was only 40,000,000, we could not expect to produce the same number of inventions as they did; and when we considered also that they were advancing in their manufacturing capacity by leaps and bounds, it followed that the number of patents granted to foreigners would greatly increase, and that if the present state of affairs was allowed to continue we should not only lose our share of the new industries which were so rapidly springing up, but we stood a very great chance of losing the supremacy we still held in old ones. The great industrial progress of Germany had recently figured very largely in discussions on our fiscal system. That Germany had made enormous strides could not be denied, and in his opinion the advantages that she had enjoyed through our absurd leniency in regard to patents had been one great factor in the success which she had attained, in some degree at our expense. The chemical industry of Germany had increased rapidly, and now amounted, with allied industries, to something like 70,000,000 per annum, and part of that trade had been taken away from this country. Was it not quite time there should be some close investigation to see the cause? When it was considered that the process of manufacturing aniline colours from coal tar was discovered in this country, that the industry was commenced and flourished in this country, that we were the greatest producers of the raw material from which the colours were made, that we had cheap fuel and a favourable geographical position, and that we were also the greatest consumers of the finished article, and that we had allowed this enormous trade to be taken way from us, it was, he thought, humiliaing. There were in Germany engaged

  1015
  in this manufacture five firms, who employed something like 26,000 hands, and had an aggregate capital whose market value was something like £16,000,000 sterling. Most of the labour employed in these works was unskilled labour, and was the very kind of work which would absorb our unemployed if we only insisted that there should be a quid fro quo for the monopolies we granted and that they should not be taken away and used to find work for foreign labour in foreign countries at the expense of our fellow-countrymen. It was a well-known fact that the foundation of the aniline colour industry in Germany had been laid by the manufacture of alizarine, for which a number of patents for working it commercially had been obtained in this country, with the result that everyone was able to make and sell in that country, whilst in this country it was a close monopoly, and our dyers were charged an enormous price for an article which could be just as well made by us as by Germans. The patent for this article had now lapsed, but the business had been so firmly established in Germany both by the scientific process of manufacturing and by the organisations for distribution, that we had not been able to wrest the trade from them. But he would like to call the special attention of the House to the question of artificial indigo. We employed something like 200,000 people in India on the indigo plantations. The Germans had discovered an artificial indigo which, on account of its much lower price, was superseding the vegetable product. The capital employed would, he supposed, be lost, and German labour and German capital employed in its stead. In this case it would be seen that we were losing an industry, which had found employment for thousands of our Indian fellow-subjects, through granting the Germans a British patent or monopoly without imposing upon them any obligation to work it in this country. Had we said to them as they said to us: "If we grant you a patent or monopoly for the sale of this article, you must, in return, manufacture the article here," we would by now have had large works in this country giving employment to numbers of labourers. By our patent laws, as they were at present, we were
  1016
  benevolently fostering great industries in Germany, to the detriment of the manufacturers, consumers, and working-classes of this country. The supporters of this measure wanted no interference with free trade. All they asked was just and equitable treatment. They held that monopolies should not be granted to foreigners to be used to handicap us in that competition which was every day becoming more acute. Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that this was a question of protection. It was not a question of protection. We had been granting thousands of patents to foreigners and getting nothing in exchange. What was now proposed to be done was to say to the inventor: "We are going to grant you a monopoly of the strictest kind possible, but if we do that, the country at least ought to have some recompense for having done it." The patent ought not merely to be a prize to the inventor who applied for it. The country where the man was granted protection ought at least to have some share in the benefit. If a man obtained a patent in this country he ought to manufacture the goods here. He thought this Bill would go some distance towards stopping foreigners from obtaining an advantage in our markets and giving nothing in exchange.
  *MR. CAVEsaid that when the Second Reading of the Bill was moved many hon. Members waited to see whether the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil would move the Amendment of which he had given notice. Clause 10 of the Bill, against which the Amendment was obviously directed, appeared to most Members of the House to do nothing but justice to British inventors. But hon. Members opposite seemed to think that there might be found in it some trace of that fiscal reform or fair trade, of which they were so much afraid. However, it seemed that the hon. Member who had given notice of the Amendment was not bold enough to move it, and he therefore proposed to put before the House some general criticisms of the measure. Under the new Rules just passed the Bill would probably be sent to a Standing Committee, so that he and many others might have no chance of criticising the

  1017
  details. They must, therefore, call attention to the defects of the Bill on the Second Reading. He recognised that the intention of the Bill was to improve the patent laws, and also that there were many clauses which would be of real use to inventors in this country. He did not intend to vote against the Second Reading. But he was a little bit afraid that, in attempting to improve the patent laws and the position of the inventor, the Bill might make that position worse in some respects than it was now. There were clauses in the Bill which would cast on the inventor, and especially the inventor of moderate means, a heavy burden which he would not be very well able to bear. The effect of these clauses would be to discourage the taking out of patents, and thus many small inventors would be deprived of the benefits of their ingenuity. He instanced Clause 2 with respect to the "deposit of samples in the case of chemical inventions," as a serious matter. There were inventions in chemistry which related to intermediate processes and which could not be exemplified by samples; and there were other inventions of which samples could not be provided without considerable expense. Unless great care was taken that cause would be found impossible to work. Having taken the opinion of others on the question, he did not think that particular provision was necessary, and he was inclined to say that on the whole it would be better not to have it in the Bill. A matter of more importance was Clause 6 "Grounds of opposition." It provided that the grant of a patent might be opposed on the ground—
  "That the invention has been described or claimed in any complete specification for a British patent which is or will be of prior date to the patent the grant of which is opposed, or that the invention has been published in this country prior to the date which the patent would bear if granted, or on the ground that the nature of the invention or the manner in which it is to be performed is not sufficiently or fairly described and ascertained in the complete specification."
  If this provision were passed, almost any application for a patent might be opposed, there being thouands of old specifications lumbering up the patent office which might be cited in opposition to new applications. He was afraid that the
  1018
  clause might lead to many useful patents meeting with serious and formidable opposition. That would cause very serious expense which many small investors would not be able to bear. It would be found that an application for a patent, instead of being, as now, a simple and not very expensive matter, would become, in many cases, very expensive indeed, with the result that inventors would be discouraged from taking out patents. The same observation applied to Clause 9 with reference to "Power of comptroller to revoke patents on certain grounds." They knew what the competition in trade was—the competition of large firms against small ones, and of foreign against British firms. These firms would pay almost any sum in order to get rid of a patent which interfered with their operations. There would be a temptation to large firms to use Clause 9 as an engine of oppression against men who could not afford the cost of defending their inventions. If so, Clauses 6 and 9 would throw on inventors a very serious burden indeed. He knew that was not intended, but he thought that would be their effect, and they ought, therefore, to be carefully considered in Committee. Another important point was as to the tribunal which was to have the decision of these matters. Under the Bill, as it stood, questions as to the grant of patents, questions of revocation, and others, which involved a very careful consideration of facts and of law, and very often of scientific questions which could only be determined by a skilled Judge, or arbitrator, were to be decided by the Comptroller. He had not a single word to say against the Comptroller or against the way in which he exercised his functions at the present time, but he was an official with administrative duties. He had charge of a very important department in which he was certainly engaged in work mainly of an administrative character. He was appointed for that purpose, and no doubt he found the work heavy enough. Now it was proposed to throw on that official, who was not a Judge, the duty of deciding the difficult and intricate questions which arose on applications for, and revocations of patents. Only recently there was an application for revocation of a patent

  1019
  which occupied seven or eight, days in hearing before a learned Judge. Similar cases would arise under the clauses of this Bill, and was it really intended that cases of that kind should come before the Comptroller, who, though a very competent official, could not properly undertake the work? He did not think that inventors and others interested would be satisfied with that proposal. There was to be an appeal to one Judge, whose decision was to be final. He thought every case of importance would be appealed. There was no branch of the law where appeals were more frequent, or so certain to occur, as in patent cases. If in every important case there would be an appeal, why did not the Government take their courage in both hands and provide at once that those cases should come before a Judge? Half the expense would be saved, a hearing would be had once for all, and a decision would be obtained satisfactory to the litigants. Another point, was that it was not very satisfactory to have appeals taken from the Comptroller to a law officer. He did not think it was right to give judicial powers to the law officers of the Crown; only a Judge should exercise them. If a Patent Court, such as he had suggested, were set up, those appeals from the Comptroller's decision which now went to the law officers would also go direct to the Court. Again, let them take the question of actions for infringements of patents. As many Members knew, a person could bring an action for infringement and choose his Court—usually the Chancery Division. But the result was that those patent cases which were foreign to the ordinary work of the Chancery Division came now before one Judge and now before another; and although the cases were disposed of with great ability, still, that was not the best way of securing consistent decisions. These cases also should go to a Patent Court for which there would then be ample work. There were also the interlocutory applications in patent cases, which also ought to go before the Patent Judge. He did not say that the patent Court must necessarily be always presided over by the same Judge, who might in that case get into a groove; but the Judge might be appointed for a year, and another Judge for another year. He hoped that the Government would
  1020
  consider, before the Committee stage, the suggestions he had made, and discover a method by which they could be given effect to. It was true that Clause 17 provided that all appeals from a decision of the Comptroller should be made to such Judge of the High Court as the Lord Chancellor might select for the purpose, and that the decision of that Judge should be final. But that did not meet the matter at all, because that provision was confined to appeals under this Bill and would not apply to the existing patent litigation which was very heavy indeed. The views which he had expressed were, he knew, held by many men of experience in the legal profession and by commerical men who had a real interest in the matter.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he desired briefly to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to an aspect of the Bill which seemed to him been overlooked by the Board. Clause 16 made void conditions or contracts which extended far beyond use of a patented article and would in many cases most seriously hamper the licensee in his trade. He was not sure that Clause 16, as drawn, covered the whole ground, and he thought it should be amplified in Committee. His main point, however, was that Clause 16 was not retrospective. He wanted to point out how very serious would be the position in which those persons would be who were bound by existing contracts and by conditions similar to those which this Bill would make void in the case of future contracts. If the Bill became law those persons would be left in a much worse position than they were now in; that was to say, they would be bound by onerous and oppressive conditions and yet have to compete with men, who coming after the passing of this Bill, would not be hampered in a similar manner. Something ought to be done in the interests of those persons. Possibly a remedy might be found by extending Clause 11 which related to petitions for the revocation of patents. He suggested that upon a petition for the revocation of a patent the Court should take into account the conditions of existing contracts similar to those which this Bill would make void in the case of future contracts. That might

  1021
  be one of the grounds on which a patent might be revoked. Of course he was aware that the mere revocation of a patent would not, of itself, put an end to the existing contract, or relieve the party to the contract from the onerous conditions. But in the case he was supposing it would work out in this way. If Clause 11 were altered in the direction he had indicated the effect would be that, through fear of the patent being revoked, such pressure might be brought to bear on the owner of the patent that he would be willing to come to reasonable terms with the persons bound by these contracts. He hoped that, if not in this way in some other way, means would be found in Committee to meet the cases of many persons in the country, especially in the boot and shoe manufacturing industry, who at the present time were bound by the most onerous and oppressive conditions.
  *SIR F. CHANNINGsaid that he approved of some of the suggestions which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston in regard to Clauses 10 and 17, and as to the constitution of a Patent Court; and he hoped that the latter suggestion would, be embodied in the Bill at a later stage or in subsequent legislation. As to the general scope and character of the Bill he was convinced that the President of the Board of Trade had endeavoured in a comprehensive way to cover many of the difficulties that had arisen in regard to Patent Law and to adjust in an equitable manner conflicting interests. They were all anxious to give the greatest possible encouragement to invention. It was part of the life-blood of a free trade country to encourage invention, and there was no taint of protection in giving an inventor a guarantee that he would be protected in the use of his idea and his property rights in it during a reasonable period. The points which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green were of grave importance in framing a law dealing with patents in a free trade country. The manufacturers of a free trade country ought to, and he believed did, welcome every invention to which they could obtain access from abroad
  1022
  which would help to develop their industry, earn them larger profits, and help the community in which they lived. We in this country welcomed ideas and improvements from abroad, but the position of the boot and shoe industry at the present moment was of singular interest and vividly illustrated what might indeed happen in a free trade country in regard to other trades. They were all aware that the old-fashioned methods of hand-sewn work of twenty or thirty years ago had begun to disappear for some years past, and it became a matter of life and death to that industry to avail itself of all new inventions in machinery, and especially those produced in America. In the Eastern States of America, where this was the leading trade, the application of machinery to it had been carried to the highest possible point. It had become almost imperative that the manufacturers should acquire that machinery for use in this country at any cost and risk to themselves. In consequence of this necessity they had placed themselves, it might be said unwisely and without sufficient regard to their own interests or to the interest of the community, under the most onerous conditions to acquire the right to use this machinery. So restrictive and so prejudicial to the great industries of this country, and to the highest interests of trade and commerce generally were these conditions that he contended that there ought to be in a Bill like this some machinery for dealing with conditions which were wholly prejudicial to our trade. What had happened was this. These American manufacturers of machinery required for the purposes of the boot and shoe industry had bound themselves together and had accumulated a large amount of capital. They had brought their capital and their ideas to this country. Nobody grudged them that. He welcomed the access of American capital and manufactures to this country. But whilst we welcomed new ideas and fresh stores of raw material from every part of the world and the influx of capital and the products of industry, and whilst we wished to guarantee the fullest patent rights which the law granted the inventor for the use of his inventions, there was another

  1023
  side to the question. It was one thing to do that, but it was quite another for an American company or syndicate to come over here and patent not only its ideas but all the ideas of the American Protectionist trusts, and to introduce the most tyrannical form of monopoly, restricting the commercial and industrial enterprise and freedom of our manufacturers, and reducing them to the position of having sold all their liberties as industrial men. Our manufacturers would not grudge these men payment for the use of their ideas, or their full reward for that use. That would be wholly inconsistent with the law and traditions upon which the whole edifice of British trade had been founded. But the conditions which had been imposed in this coercive fashion, when it was almost a matter of life and death for the British manufacturer to accept anything which was in the nature of an improvement of the machinery imported, were most oppressive. Our manufacturers entered into agreements which were to last for twenty years, six years beyond the length of the life of a patent in this country, and they agreed to continue to pay the royalty on any improvement or new attachment whether it was patented or not, which might be added to that machinery solely at the will of the manufacturing company. Without the consent and without the leave of the manufacturer, the American syndicate might come and attach to the machinery any alleged improvement and they obtained a fresh lease of their royalty upon the machinery. Under their contract they not only took the right to have the royalty during the period of the patent, but they could prolong the life of their royalty and levy a toll upon the industry for an indefinite number of years. Another group of covenants was also very serious and gave the syndicates and companies far more extended privileges than those which the Patent Laws of this country had ever given to any inventor. The Patent Law debarred no one from any access to a new invention, but these companies not only provided that their machines should be used in a fair way, but the users of them were debarred from using any other machines in connection with the machines which had been leased by the company, and that again
  1024
  was extended by this process of adding improvements and attachments. If the business of a manufacturer was successful and some work came in he had no option. He could not go to a British maker of machinery or to one in Belgium, Germany, or elsewhere, but was bound for ever, or at least during the period of the lease or the prolongation which the syndicates obtained under these covenants, to go on obtaining machinery from and dealing with these companies. That seemed to him a tremendous and improper expansion of any right which it was intended to give to any invention by the Patent Laws of this country. Not only that, but if a firm of manufacturers under good advice had expended a large sum in obtaining machinery from Germany, that had to be stopped and machines used which came under the conditions of the hiring company. Furthermore, if one of these manufacturers had taken a machine from the company which only carried out one of the many operations of the industry he was bound to use no machinery from any other source for any of the other operations, but to obtain every detail of the machinery used from the syndicate, and any other machinery was agreed to be scrapped. Reference had been made to the revoking of patents and there were many processes for declaring them to be invalid, but under these contracts it was provided that a man should continue to pay fees and royalties in cases in which patents relating to the machine which he had hired had been revoked or otherwise declared to be invalid. It seemed to him that this was a monstrous and intolerable state of things which should be dealt with in a decisive manner by legislation. He had seen several leases of machinery containing these provisions, and he was assured that some of the leases actually contained covenants and provisions requiring the lessee to assent to any subsequent condition which the company might impose. He contended that these conditions which had been pressed on a great industry amounted to duress. There ought to be a full and entire remedy for this state of things, and his hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green had said that Clause 16 ought to

  1025
  be made retrospective. They who were old Members of the House of Commons were well aware how very difficult it would be to get the House of Commons, not to say another place, to assent to a proposal cancelling existing contracts. Of course, such a course presented great difficulty. In Clause 11 of this Bill some attempt, however, seemed to be made to move in that direction. If they had the power to revoke a patent, not only because the owner of it was not using it and affording proper advantages and facilities to the public who might use it, it seemed to him that they ought to have a clear and effective provision in this clause, and he hoped that in the course of the Bill through Committee such additions might be made to Clause 16, which seemed very good, as far as it went, to prevent as regarded future contracts all the injuries to which he had alluded. In regard to syndicates holding such a powerful position, they ought definitely and in terms to bar out such provisions as had been imported into these contracts. It was in the interest of the industry of the whole community that such a state of things should not exist. If the Bill were to pass in its present form there were points which some of his friends and himself thought were not covered by Clause 16, and if some of the other clauses were not amended the position would be intolerable. He appealed to his right hon. friend to exercise all the ingenuity in his power to defeat what seemed to be a protectionist conspiracy to utilise the open door and the generous hearts of a free trade country, and to endeavour to secure equal opportunity for the development of a great industry so far as it depended on the free use of inventions, whether of this country or abroad, to all men who carried on their business in this country.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURhoped he would not disturb the harmony which had been the feature of the discussion of the Bill that afternoon, by commenting on one or two remarks that had fallen from the hon. Member who opened the discussion. The hon. Member had assured them that many goods were sold more cheaply in Germany than in this country. His only comment
  1026
  on that was that it was a remarkable admission for a free trader and a member of the Free Trade Party to make in the House of Commons. He understood that one of the great planks of the free trade platform was that everything was sold more dearly in a protectionist than in a free trade country. Apparently however the hon. Member did not share the views of the great majority of his Party. The hon. Member went on to say that the House in passing this Bill would be saying in effect to the inventor, "We are giving you protection and we expect the country to obtain some advantage thereby." He quite agreed with the hon. Member, and he only hoped that at some future date the House in passing a fuller measure of protection would say the same thing to the manufacturers of this country. He thought the hon. Gentleman, if it was not impertinent to say so, had spoilt an otherwise excellent speech by the remarks he had made use of at the end in which he said this Bill had nothing whatever to do with fiscal reform, and he could not help thinking of the words used by the present Secretary of State for India in 1900 when he said—
  "In this era of militarism which they promise us, domestic reform, constitutional, fiscal, or any other reform, will be very slow in coming, but real and deep danger is the loss of our industrial supremacy. Great rivals are springing up against us in all the markets of the world."
  He did not treat any kind of fiscal reform as one would treat the plague, as the hon. Member who opened this discussion appeared to treat it. Then he thought they on that side of the House had listened with great interest to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and although he did not intend to follow him into all his arguments about the state of the boot trade in Northamptonshire, he could not help thinking that that was rather a doleful afternoon for the free importer's, because first they had the Member for Prestwich telling them that goods were sold more cheaply in Germany than in this country, and then they had the hon. Member for East Northants giving a doleful picture of the state of the boot trade in Northamptonshire and the way in which our American rivals

  1027
  had got the better of us. He did not wish to turn the debate into a free trade and protectionist discussion; he only desired to make a suggestion with regard to Clause 2 to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey objected to Clause 2 on the ground that it might inflict hardship on the poor inventor. He was not sure that he agreed with his hon. friend. It appeared to him that there could be no objection to Clause 2 if the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Comptroller full discretion in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: He has got it already.
  *VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had not seen it. If the Comptroller had discretion, it was discretion of a very limited character. His suggestion was that the Comptroller should be given an unfettered discretion in these matters, because he thought that would get over the difficulty which hon. Members on both sides of the House felt. The only other point he wished to refer to was on Clause 10. It was with diffidence that he made the remark, but it seemed to him that the effect of the clause would be to throw on the Comptroller the onus of defining the moaning of a treaty, with, of course, an appeal to the Judge. He believed that in previous Bills introduced into the House to amend the patent laws the promoters had been very careful to avoid putting that onus upon cither the Comptroller or the Judge. In his opinion it made it rather dangerous if it was intended to give this power to the Comptroller or the Judge, but no doubt the right hon. Member had good reason for putting what he had into the Bill. He hoped the Bill would pass through all its stages very quickly and become, law, and that it would remove one of the many unfair restrictions from which inventors and manufacturers in this country suffered at the present moment. If it was not impertinent to do so he would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on, he would not say the first, but one of the first steps which he had taken in the direction of protection.
  MR. MONDsaid the Bill made inroads on the rights of patentees
  1028
  in a manner which, he thought, was scarcely realised. He did not think there was any necessity to reply to the noble Lord opposite. The fact that certain goods might be produced more cheaply in a protectionist country, the general fiscal system of the country not being the only consideration in the case, was too elementary to be discussed. To his mind the Bill was in no way a step in the direction of protection. He wished to draw attention to Clause 9, which, as at present drafted, would lead to the curious result that part of the procedure under it would have to take place before the Comptroller and part before a Judge; that was to say, if it was desired to revoke a patent on some grounds, application would have to be made to the High Court, while, if certain other grounds were taken, the application would have to be made to the Comptroller, so that there would have to be two petitions floating at the same time. It was admitted that inventors were the most poorly-paid people in the country. What was really the grievance of members of the boot trade? They seemed to have entered into some imprudent arrangement, and now came and asked the House for a Bill to cancel that arrangement and to alter the law in a very important particular in order that they might get out of an unprofitable contract. Clause 16 referred to the avoidance of certain conditions attached to the sale of patented articles. A patented article in this Bill was defined as an article made by a patent process. A man made a bleaching powder with a patent, and another made it without a patent. Supposing the latter made a contract with a customer to sell to him for ten years, that contract was not included in the provision. But supposing the man who manufactured by a patented process made a similar contract, it could at any moment be cancelled as being void in law. He submitted with very great diffidence whether that was not the right interpretation of the very complicated language of Clause 16. It was a point to which he seriously drew the attention of his right hon. friend. Under the clause an article made under a process which happened to be patented thereby became a patented article. That might not be the intention of Clause 16, but the clause as it now stood was very dangerous

  1029
  indeed. An industry should not have more hardships placed upon it without very serious deliberation, and they ought not to interfere with the right of contract between business people exercised in a business way. Another important point was as to the compulsory working clauses. A great many people were very enthusiastic about the compulsory working clauses. He had some experience of similar clauses abroad, and he did not flatter himself that they would be any more effective here than they had teen elsewhere. Their effect abroad had been absolutely nil. He had taken the trouble to look up both the French and the German compulsory working clauses, which provided that where the inventor did not make efforts for the working of his invention in two years, or did not work it for two consecutive years, he lost the right to his patent. Surely, it ought to be that somebody should be allowed to continue the monopoly and right to the patent, if the patentee did not exercise it in his country, or refused to grant reasonable licences to somebody else. If he exercised the right in some other country that seemed to him to be a point quite apart, and one which seriously conflicted with Section 5 of the Convention of 1883. As far as he could see, the clause as now drafted seriously contravened that Convention; and it appeared to him that the Patent Office, already overworked, in making an order would have to study every Convention to find out whether the order affected anyone of the Conventions. He was an English patentee, and he carried on his manufacture in Sweden because of the water power obtained there; consequently he would be robbed of the benefit of his invention as far as England was concerned. The Bill took away the right of the patentee to go to the House of Lords on a question of the revocation of a patent. After all, patents were very valuable property, and why should the patentee, less than any other subject in England who had the right to go to the highest Court of Appeal, be under the control of one Judge, and debarred from taking his appeal to the House of Lords in order to get a decision on a point which might involve millions of money? He could understand its being done with the idea of saving expense, but
  1030
  patents which were worth anything were, as a rule, worth spending money upon. He thought that the powers of the Comptroller would really have to be altered, and if his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to constitute, once and for all, a competent Court to deal with patent cases, he would confer one of the greatest books on inventors, patentees, and commercial men, and he was sure it would save an enormous amount of money. At that stage of the Bill he would not go into further technical points. He thought the Bill could very well be referred to a Committee; but he hoped that the points he had raised would be very carefully considered, and that they would have, when the Bill was passed, something which would approach finality. They all knew that people connected with patents found it very difficult to understand the patent laws of the country, which were very expensive and discouraging. He hoped that some of the suggestions thrown out by the hon. and learned Member opposite would be carried out, and that on the Committee stage of the Bill the Government would carefully consider, as he had no doubt they would, the Amendments which would be placed before them by experts who had devoted the best part of their lives to the subject.
  *MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that anyone familiar with the working of the patent system had recognised the necessity of legislation along the lines of this Bill. In any legislation dealing with the relation of home and foreign patents it was necessary to bear in mind that we could not differentiate as against foreigners, because, by the International Convention of 1883, the subjects of States which were parties to that Convention, were to be treated on the same basis as our own people. With reference to the actual proposals of the Bill, he thought that a great deal was to be said in favour of the requirement, as regards certain chemical patents, that the Board of Trade should have power to require samples to be deposited. This would do a very considerable amount towards lessening the evils which arose from what were commonly called "paper anticipations." There was a difficulty

  1031
  which he was bound to point out, and it was that the Bill proposed that samples might be required to be deposited not merely with a complete specification, but also with a provisional specification. The object of the provisional specification system was to enable the inventor to obtain priority of time and to develop his invention, which he described subsequently at length in his complete specification, and until he had developed his invention he might be seriously hampered if he had to deposit a sample with his provisional specification. The clause relating to restrictive conditions in the use of patented articles was of great importance. It had been all along the case that the patentee had been regarded as having the field entirely to himself, and that if people used his patent he could impose upon them any conditions he liked. The hardship of that was that where restrictive conditions were imposed, and there was a breach of those conditions, it was treated by the Court not as a breach of contract, but as an infringement of the patent, and the whole system of injunction was brought to bear to strengthen the patentee in his position, which was a far stronger and more exclusive one than it was intended by the law to give him. He was glad that this Clause 16, which had been so much discussed, had been put into the Bill. He would suggest one Amendment for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The clause dealt only with the restrictions as regarded the use of an article by persons engaged in a trade or industry. It seemed to him that this was a highly undesirable limitation, and that there should be an end once and for all of these restrictive conditions as regards the use of patented articles, whether they were used in the case of a trade or industry, or in the ordinary course of daily life. He suggested that these words of limitation which limited the effect of the clause to articles used in trade or industry should be struck out. Clause 10 seemed to be one of the most important in the Bill, but he doubted whether he could support it as it stood. It referred to the revocation of patents worked outside the United Kingdom. He did not put his objection to the clause on the ground of free trade or protect-
  1032
  tion, because that question did not really come in, as patents were certainly not questions of free trade or protection but monopolies, which were necessary to protect inventors and experimenters in the result of their labours. Therefore as it was not a matter of free trade or protection he proposed to discuss it on other lines. In the first place, he would like to consider what would be the effect in this country. A large number of foreign inventions were brought over to this country. He instanced the case of typewriting machines from the United States. Those machines were sold here at about the same prices as in the United States. Had they any quarrel with that? If this clause were put into operation it might lead to certain parts of these American typewriting machines being made in this country, but it would increase the cost of production and the price of these articles to the general public. He ventured to think that very grave difficulties would arise under this clause in regard to articles manufactured exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom. He did not know what "mainly outside" meant, and probably they would require a long series of legal decisions to find out. The great difficulty which the inventor had to face was obtaining capital to work his invention. He was very much afraid that if this clause became law they would find powerful syndicates attempting to freeze out poor inventors by threatening that unless they sold their patents at breaking up prices they would take steps for an action for revocation. Those considerations weakened the argument in favour of Clause 10. He thought the object of that clause could be met sufficiently by a satisfactory system of compulsory licences. He wished to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on the changes he proposed to introduce in regard to compulsory licences in giving those who sought them an easier, cheaper, and more rapid tribunal than the Privy Council. That would in itself almost be enough. There was another thing which would do a great deal in the same direction, and he would commend it to his right hon. friend. As all those familiar with patent law actions knew, anyone bringing an action for infringement generally went for

  1033
  an injunction, and if an infringement was established an injunction was granted as a matter of course. In almost all other patent cases an injunction was looked upon as an exceptional remedy, and it was never granted unless the ordinary remedies would be inadequate. The Judges several centuries ago, in the reign of James I., treated the infringement of a patent as a contempt of the Royal prerogative upon which the patent was founded, and it was dealt with by the Star Chamber. The Star Chamber had long disappeared, but the injunction was still wielded by the Courts in the same wholesale fashion. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that the law should be altered in such a manner that an injunction should not be granted unless, for one thing, it could be shown that ordinary remedies would not meet the case. If this question of injunction were dealt with it would be an important contribution towards what they all desired. Supplemented by that, he thought the system of compulsory licences which was now proposed would effect the desired end. He was glad to see that the Government were dealing with several matters with reference to designs and were laying it down that no designs were to be marked as registered except where there was a subsisting copyright. He would like to go a step further. At present an article might be marked as registered just before the copyright expired. It seemed to him highly desirable that when any person marked a design as registered he should in addition give the year and the number of the registration. That would enable the public to verify the claim and to find out in a simple manner how long a design had still to run. The same arguments applied to the case of patents. He thought it was a rather serious oversight in the Government Bill that the provision which applied to designs did not apply to patents. Section 105 of the Act of 1883 applied to both patents and designs. As the law stood, people could not mark an article as patented unless the patent had been granted; but once granted, they could go on marking it patented, after the patent had expired. It would be a very good thing if this were so amended as to restrict the marking of
  1034
  any article as patented to an article which was covered by a subsisting patent, and when the patent expired, the right to mark an article as patented ought to cease. In all patents the date and number ought to be given as part of the marking, because without that information it was often impossible to find what particular patent was referred to. A typewriting machine might be marked as patented, although the only thing covered by the patent might be some simple adjustment for the ribbon. There was a patent case in the House of Lords not long ago concerning a bottle containing mineral water, ginger ale, which had been marked as patented. The patent did not refer to the bottle, which was of a common type, or to the liquid which, he might add, was well known to a large number of Members of the House. What was referred to was a part of the machinery used in aerating the liquid. How was it possible to find out under the present system what the patent really was? Therefore he thought anyone who marked an article as patented should be required to give the date and number in order that the public might be able without much trouble to ascertain its duration and scope. For many years we had treated the term "true and first inventor" as covering a person who imported an invention from a foreign country. The importation of inventions which the importer had come across abroad was a thing of the past, and the effect of that arrangement now was that a person abroad, instead of acting as a British applicant and making the required declaration as to his being the true and first inventor, had the alternative of communicating it to an agent in this country, who could then obtain a patent in his own name for the invention as a "communicated" one, and it had been held repeatedly that in the case of a "communicated," invention no inquiry could be made as to the circumstances under which the communicated invention had been obtained. In the result, if anyone stole an invention, and tried to patent it in the ordinary way, he would very rightly be defeated. But if he crossed the Channel and posted it to an agent, the agent could obtain in his own name a patent for it which could not be challenged on the ground of theft. He hoped that

  1035
  his hon. friends would not think that he was showing people how to steal patents. What was contrary to public morals was not calling the attention of the House to the evil, but the fact that the evil existed. He hoped that when the Bill went into Committee that evil might be removed, and that they might put applications from abroad on precisely the same level in respect of the requirements as to good faith and originality as applications from people in this country. He considered that a patent should not be granted unless the applicant, or one of the applicants, made the ordinary declaration that he believed himself to be the true and first inventor, and that the patent should be upset if a false declaration had been made. He had risen to commend the Bill, and hoped that his right hon. friend would not look upon him as a sort of inverted Balaam because he had tried to temper his commendation with suggestions for improvement. He congratulated his right hon. friend on the way in which he had undertaken the important and difficult task of reforming the patent laws and hoped that the measure would have the happy result of promoting the industrial development of the country.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that as this question was regarded as one of the greatest importance in the large manufacturing city which he represented, he would like to say a few words upon it. He congratulated the President of the Board of Trade upon dealing by an amending Bill with the present unsatisfactory state of the patent laws. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had not been frightened by the absurd cry of protection. The debate upon this and other Bills would be simplified if Liberal Members would; cease to describe themselves as free traders. They were nothing of the kind. They were simply free importers. He had always been for free trade, but we had not got it. It mystified the question when undue and misleading terms were used. The Bill was designed to secure, not protection but fair play for British traders against the unfair competition of foreigners. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire seemed to have protect-
  1036
  tion on the brain. The hon. Gentleman's speech satisfied the Opposition completely in the direction of protection as they understood it. Nothing could be more satisfactory to them than the principles the hon. Member had laid down. The hon. Member for Kingston had made an important speech, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give careful attention to the suggestions which he had made. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was alive to the importance of sparing the inventor, and especially the poor inventor, unnecessary expense in connection with legal proceedings. The poor inventor, when opposed by a rich rival, or by a syndicate, often had not only his purse but his heart broken. He hoped the Government would adhere to Clause 10 of the Bill, which required that articles patented should be manufactured largely, if not exclusively, in this country. If the British Government gave a man a monopoly to supply 42,000,000 of people in this country with a particular article, that man should be compelled to manufacture a large proportion, if not all of them here, so as to employ British labour in their production. That was absolutely fair. If that was protection, all who supported the Bill were protectionists. It would be advantageous if the Government would define more clearly than was done in the Bill what proportion of patented goods should be made in this country, so as to insure that the proportion was substantial. From the point of view of the British inventor and the British workman the arguments of the hon. Member for Chester were unsound, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would resist any blandishments as to alleged protection or anything else, and keep in view what would be fair to British inventors, traders, and workmen. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon taking this long-delayed amendment of the law in hand, and was confident that the ramifications of its benefits would extend to inventors, commercial men, and workmen. The inventor too often had the advantages which would reward his genius and inventive capacity filched from him by the power of gold. He hoped Parliament would protect the individual against that power.
  *MR. ASTBURYsaid that the hon. Member for the Kingston Division had raised a number of points which were deserving of consideration. The main object of the Bill so far as policy was concerned was contained substantially in the two clauses which provided for compulsory working and compulsory licenses; and so far as those two clauses were concerned, with the exception of some possible criticism as to the Court before which these matters were to come, he was of opinion that they supplied a long-needed want in connection with the great industries of the country. It was an extraordinary thing that from a land where Perkins' Mauve was invented, the colour industry should have passed to a foreign country, and that the country which produced the electro-magnet and the induction coil should have been passed by other countries in the race for the discovery, application, and completion of electrical inventions. He believed that very largely the reason for his was to be found in our patent system and its administration. Surely the object of our patent laws ought to be in the first place to encourage invention as far as possible, in order that scientific research and people who were acquainted with science should be more encouraged in the country and be induced to take move part in developing our industries. The next object, however, was that the monopoly given by a patent should be a monopoly which should be confined to carrying out the intention of the original framers of the Statute of Monopolies, that it should be subservient to the purpose of introducing and working these patented inventions in this country. At present the industries of this country were largely handicapped by the fact that patents could be obtained with great facility by foreign firms and rich corporations, and many minor patents could be taken out subsequent to the main invention, with the result that, having regard to the great expense of patent litigation, be the; patents good or bad, 99 out of 100 of the small traders of the country could not suffer the expense of fighting these great foreign corporations and the inventions remained for years unworked here. He wished to add his testimony to
  1038
  the courage and ability of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in taking up a subject which not only bristled with difficulty but on which there was an enormous difference of opinion. The question of compulsory working had two sides, and there were a large number of people in the country, many of them well qualified to speak, who were bitterly opposed to the notion that we should improve our position by putting the compulsory clause into operation. He was not one of those. He believed that the monopoly which the Crown granted to an inventor ought prima facie to be a monopoly which should be given to and utilised for the benefit of our own industries and our own land. It was said that if that were done it would be a hardship upon the English patentee. He had heard from the hon. Member for Chester and others outside the House that if patents could be revoked because they were only worked outside the country many English inventors who had facilities for working abroad and not at home would be deprived of their patents. The first answer to that was that they were absolutely negligible in number; and, secondly, that if that was the case they ought to be deprived of their grants on the same grounds as a foreigner, if the main object was that the industries of this country should benefit from the monopoly granted. He was far from saying that the Bill entirely carried out the object which the right hon. Gentleman had, but he knew from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had met the views of many who had seen him that he was only too anxious in Committee that any further improvements that could be suggested in this respect should be adopted. With regard to compulsory licences, there was a class of people who believed that the right way to effect what they desired was by way of compulsory licences rather than by way of compulsory working. His own view was that that was wrong. The right view, as it seemed to him, was that the best results would be obtained by a combination of the two remedies, because there was a vast difference between enforcing compulsory licences—after litigation and after difficulties which must arise in

  1039
  the case of a complicated invention—and the simple expedient which said that if the monopoly was granted and it turned out that at the end of three years this country had not benefited from it as it should that monopoly should cease. With regard to compulsory licences, a question had been raised with regard to the so-called unreasonable contracts which were said to have become a practice chiefly in the boot trade. He did not think the House ought to be asked to say that Clause 16 should be made retrospective. It was hardly in accordance with sound administration that the House should lay down that a large number of existing contracts should be made void. But so far as he could judge from the provisions of Clause 11, any person who was unable to obtain a licence except on terms which were unreasonable or injurious to trade could apply for and obtain a compulsory licence, and if the terms suggested in the contracts mentioned were of the character described the remedy for those who were bound by such existing contracts was to be found under Clause 11. With regard to the machinery of the Bill, under the Designs part of it there was a matter he desired to refer to which was of very great moment to Lancashire, and in which he believed most Lancashire Members took a great interest. More than 50 per cent. of the total designs registered in this country every year were textile designs under the last two classes in the Designs Act; in 1905 the House, in the Trade Marks Amendment Act, established a separate system of cotton marks with a keeper or registrar of those marks in Lancashire who was conversant with the requirements of the firms interested in these matters. The proportion that cotton marks bore to the total trade marks of the country was nothing like so large as the proportion which textile designs bore to designs as a whole. Textile designs were of two classes, either printed or woven, and every year there were registered 10,000 textile designs, of which 7,000 were printed designs. Of these 7,000, more than 6,000 were registered from Manchester, and more than half of the woven designs were from
  1040
  that centre. The universal desire in the textile industries was that there should be a branch registry for textile designs established in Manchester, on the same lines as was done in the case of cotton marks. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in Committee would allow a clause to be added to the Bill with that object. There was also another matter which he regarded as very important in the administration of the law and the clauses of this Bill in relation to patents. The hon. Member for Kingston had suggested with great force that this very difficult and constantly increasing matter of scientific litigation should now be placed in the hands of a tribunal which was especially conversant with the matters it would have to deal with, and designed for that purpose. The Bill as drawn provided that certain matters on appeal from the Comptroller of Patents should be taken to a Judge nominated by the Lord Chancellor, rather than to the law officers of the Crown. Their duties with regard to patents were really almost intolerable at the present time, and if the Bill passed in its present form the number of appeals would be quadrupled or more, making it quite impossible for the law officers to attempt to deal with them. He suggested that there should be established a scientific or patent and trade marks division of the High Court in the same way as there was established an Admiralty Division. Cases in the Admiralty Division were tried with great facility and dispatch, because of the constant practice there and the continuity in the administration of the law and in its interpretation. Some similar Court for scientific industrial matters would be a great step forward and a necessary step, if full advantage was to be obtained from the objects and provisions of this Bill. But he did not think that it would be desirable that one permanent Judge should be appointed to that Court. He agreed entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, and for this reason, that it was undesirable in these scientific matters that the law and its administration should get stereotyped and cramped. They wanted the elasticity of different minds coming to these matters from

  1041
  time to time, and if a Division could be established and a Judge nominated to sit in it annually by the Lord Chancellor, it would mark a very great step forward in the administration of our patent laws. If that were done, that Judge, sitting in Chambers, could take all the matters that the law officers at present took, and the same people would have the same right of audience before him when exercising this jurisdiction. It was considered very undesirable by many who were acquainted with the administration of the patent law that the Comptroller should have extended powers, such as were suggested in Clause 6, of refusing the original grant of a patent. He suggested that there the law should remain as it was, and that under Clause 9 the Comptroller should not have power to revoke any patent except on the grounds on which at the present time he could refuse the original grant. He would suggest further that the questions under Clause 10 should go before a Judge of the High Court, and not before the Comptroller. It would be a most delicate and difficult jurisdiction to administer, and he believed it would be cheaper and much more efficient in the long run that these matters should go, in the first instance, before a Judge of the High Court instead of before the Comptroller.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid he rose in no spirit of opposition to the Bill. There was so much that he thought good in it that he desired not to obstruct it but to help it forward and make it as effective as possible. He saw, in looking through the Bill, that there was no provision for extending the period of protection to the patentee, and he urged that something should be done in that direction. He was quite aware that a patentee could apply to the Court for such an extension, but he had no guarantee that he would get it. That bore very hardly, especially on the poor patentee with no great weight of capital with which to bring his invention forward. It took some time to perfect his invention, and a considerable time to bring it before the public, and just about the time when it began to pay, his patent lapsed and somebody else got the benefit of his brains, energy, and
  1042
  enterprise. The benefits accruing from the inventor's brains, energy and enterprise should, however, be secured to him, and he asked the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether it would be possible to introduce a clause increasing the facilities for, and reducing the cost of, obtaining an extended period of protection.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)thought the Government had every reason to be satisfied with the reception accorded to the Bill in the course of the discussion. There had been substantially no criticism of any leading principle of the Bill. The criticism had been directed against points of detail—very important points, no doubt, but all points which, he thought, could be successfully attended to without in any way destroying the general structure of the measure. He might say, for his part, that he would welcome any suggestions in Committee, and no pride of paternity would prevent him from giving them favourable consideration so long as the leading principle of the Bill was not altogether exterminated. He would refer to only two or three leading points that had been raised in the course of the debate. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Handsworth, it seemed to be fair, under the circumstances he had mentioned, that they should have, at any rate, the power to apply to some tribunal to grant an extension of the patentee's monopoly and privilege. The patentee could now, under Section 25 of the Consolidating Act, apply to the Privy Council. The only criticism that might be passed on that process was that it was a very expensive tribunal, and he was prepared to consider whether it was possible to simplify and cheapen the method of applying for an extension under these circumstances. They wanted, if it were possible, to cheapen the whole process. At the present moment it was almost prohibitive, and it was certainly prohibitive for the poor inventor, who was either denied justice altogether or compelled to part with his patent to the first capitalist that came along. That was a very unfortunate state of things. He was glad to observe that legal gentlemen inside and outside the

  1043
  House showed for the poor inventor a keen anxiety which was very creditable, and he was very glad to see that the hon. Member for Chester had also joined them. He desired to say, before he proceeded to any of the other criticisms, how much he thanked his hon. and learned friend the Member for Southport, than whom there was no higher authority, either inside the House or out of it, on these matters, not only for the suggestions he had made that afternoon, but also for the very great assistance he rendered to him before he introduced the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham had suggested that they should not make the deposit of samples under Clause 2 compulsory in all cases. As a matter of fact, that was provided for already. It was never intended that every patentee of a chemical invention should be compelled to deposit samples. It was left entirely in the discretion of the Registrar, and the provision was much more elastic than the German regulations in that respect. Clause 6, which had been criticised, was entirely in the interests of the inventor. It was intended to cover a case of this kind. They might have an application for a patent which had not been covered by any previous grant. It was, however, thoroughly well known that it was a process in respect of which a patent had been issued in another country and full particulars of which had been published in this country. But, although that was known to all the parties, it could not be referred to in the hearing before the Comptroller, and the result was that the Comptroller was obliged to grant a patent which was in itself an invalid patent, and when they came to the subsequent hearing before the Court, the whole grant had to be revoked. It would be better if, in the first instance, a patent of that kind could be alluded to, and that the Comptroller should have discretion, in a clear case of that sort, to refuse a patent. The present system was simply a premium on litigation.
  SIR E. CARSONasked whether the appeal in that case would go to the law officers or to the Judge.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his own interpretation was that it would go before
  1044
  the law officers; but he was prepared favourably to consider the suggestion which had been thrown out that it would be far better if the whole of the appeals were taken before the special Judge who was to be allocated to this purpose. He might say that it was rather his intention, even before the debate of that afternoon, to introduce an Amendment to that effect in the Bill. He thought it would be an improvement. With regard to Clause 10, there again the criticism had not been directed against the principle. The hon. Member for Merthyr had put down an Amendment, and then, very characteristically, if he might say so, having seen it well advertised in the Press, ran away from it. He was not at all surprised, because he knew his hon. friend pretty well. But apart from this firing at a long distance there had been no hostile criticism. The hon. Member for Chester brushed aside at once very effectively the suggestion that this had anything whatever to do with the merits of the great fiscal controversy. Therefore he would not go into that, as he had not been challenged. All the criticisms against Section 10 had been criticisms upon points of detail. Those would be threshed out in Committee, and he did not think it would serve any useful purpose for him now to give a final answer to suggestions which had been thrown out, and which he had to consider very carefully, because he agreed with the hon. Member for Southport that this was a very difficult problem altogether. Then he came to the point with regard to the allocation of a special Judge. He was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Richmond did not agree altogether upon that, because it would be a very serious thing if they had a Judge who was not quite adapted to the work—and accidents of that kind had happened—a Judge who would be set up in a kind of special statutory Court, and who could not well be moved. The point would be considered very carefully; but they had felt that on the whole the best plan was to proceed experimentally, and to get a special Judge assigned for the purpose. Of course he could see the advantage of it. If they went to different Judges to try patent cases, they had to waste an enormous amount of time in explaining to

  1045
  them the very elements which a Judge trying these things constantly would take for granted. Having a special Judge they would save time, and that meant saving expense. He was sure they would save at least two-thirds of the time spent on these cases if they had a Judge specially versed in them. They proposed, therefore, to start by allocating a Judge especically for the purpose, and he was not sure that something might not be done during the Committee stage in the way of altering the rules and things of that kind, which would in effect set up a special Court, without doing it in so many words. Now he came to the important question which had been raised with regard to Clause 16—the avoidance of certain conditions attached to the sale, etc., of patented articles. It was no secret that that was put in very largely owing to the remarkable character of the contract which was forced upon the boot and shoe industry by an American firm. Nine-tenths of the boot and shoe manufacturers of this country were practically bound hand and foot by that contract. It would be a very serious matter if another invention was to come in, effecting a great saving of time and expense, and they could not take advantage of it, for they might be beaten out of the market altogether. That was a state of things which they could not possibly contemplate, and it made no difference at all whether the firm was British or American. After all, a patent was a privilege granted by the Crown, and Parliament had a right to declare the conditions under which the monopoly should be granted. He had been pressed to make the clause retrospective, but it was a very serious thing to introduce into an Act of Parliament a provision which would invalidate contracts, and nothing but a great public necessity would justify it. In this case he did not think it ought to be done, except wilder conditions which would protect the inventor as well. The possessor of these patents had entered into a large number of contracts with manufacturers, and no doubt when he came to settle the terms upon which he let his machines be made he would take into account the security which that contract gave him for a good many years to come. It was an asset. He might have raised a
  1046
  considerable amount of capital, and if he knew that the contract he was entering into was void, he probably would have asked for a bigger royalty, and at any rate he was entitled to reconsider his position with those who entered into the contract with him. After all, they must be fair to all parties. He was not sure that, if they said that certain clauses in a contract should be void, it would be quite fair to future purchasers of that machine. When the syndicate owning the patent knew that they could not enter into a similar contract they might say that in future they would demand a higher royalty. It would be unfair to those who entered into contracts in future if they had to pay more for the machine than those who had entered into the contract already and had been liberated by Act of Parliament. He agreed that something ought to be done. His hon. and learned friend thought that Clause 11 met the case, but he was not sure that it met the whole case, and he was prepared to consider any Amendments that might be moved to meet it so long as those contracts were invalidated under conditions which would be perfectly fair to both parties. In regard to a special office in Manchester, though he could not at present give a pledge, he rather thought they would be able to meet the case. It would be a great convenience to the Manchester manufacturers to be able on the spot to examine the designs instead of coming up to London. He would consider it very fully, and he thought it could be accomplished. He had now dealt with nearly all the criticisms passed on the Bill, including those of the hon. Member for Bordesley. He agreed with the right hon. Member that what they wanted was fair play and justice to British industries. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear.] He thought that would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At present some of the powerful foreign trusts were able to bring pressure to bear, by their great financial resources, to prevent bona fide inventions taking root in this country to begin with. They crushed them in their infancy by legal action. It was a case where they practically drove some branches of British industry out of the field altogether, as it were, because they were never allowed

  1047
  to start at all. He trusted that when this Bill was passed they would be able to put an end to that practice for ever.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that, as the only Member on the Opposition side of the House who had been connected with the Board of Trade, he naturally followed closely measures which came from that Department. On personal grounds he had legitimate cause of grievance against the President of the Board of Trade. It was the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and his colleagues had no reason to complain that their activity in that respect had been interfered with by the members of the Government. His colleagues had opposed, and had enjoyed their opposition. He also would have enjoyed opposing, but he had not had the opportunity, for hitherto he had only been able to play the very uninteresting rôle of supporting the measures brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. That really pointed to what was a recognised fact, that trade questions were not in any sense Party questions; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit that from the Opposition he had received not only no factious obstruction on trade questions, but a measure of support which was not usual. In regard to this Bill, he entirely approved of the objects which the right hon. Gentleman aimed at, and to a very large extent of the methods by which he intended to carry them out. In regard to the Court before which these patent cases were to be tried there was a good deal to be said for the view of the hon. Member for Chester. The issues involved in these cases were often enormously large, they could be taken from one Court to another, and it seemed unfit that a question that involved millions should be finally settled by one Judge. But in all these cases there was a balance of advantage and disadvantage, and personally he thought the balance of advantage on the whole distinctly was that the cost of securing patents should be made as low as possible. Therefore, it was at least worth while trying to have such cases tried before one Judge, who, as the right hon. Gentleman had promised, would be specially devoted to the work and specially competent
  1048
  to develop it. The second point to which he wished to refer was that mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill, which had relation to the conditions on which patents for chemicals were to be granted in future. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly just to his noble friend on this point. He did not think the Bill, as it at present stood, gave the protection which the right hon. Gentleman thought it gave. What ought to be done was to give the Comptroller power, provisionally at least, to grant protection long enough to enable the inventor to secure sufficient financial support from capitalists. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out in introducing the Bill, Germany had practically a monopoly in many branches of the chemical industry. Where that monopoly was due to superior methods, there was no ground for complaint. It was the fair spoil of Germany's bow and spear. But, however obtained, that monopoly had been confirmed and strengthened by this country's patent laws. They had this effect—that a syndicate or large capitalist would take out a patent to cover much ground without working it at all. Therefore, inventors were prevented from going in that direction at all. In Germany the patentee was not allowed to cover the same amount of ground, and, therefore, the field was left much more open to competition. We should adopt the same system in this country. As to the clause preventing contracts similar to those which now prevailed in the boot trade in this country, he admitted that it was a strong measure to interfere with contracts deliberately entered into by business men who knew what they were doing. But these contracts were in a special position. The man who made these conditions was only able to make them by means of the special privilege given by our laws; and, therefore, it was reasonable to take care that that especial privilege was not used detrimentally to the interests of this country. But he agreed that it would be unfair to make the clause retrospective, and it seemed to go further than was necessary to meet such cases. If that were true, and if he was right in his view, the industries affected would certainly make representations to the Board of Trade,

  1049
  and he was sure that the Department would give them every consideration. The only other point in the Bill was as to compulsory working. The right hon. Gentleman showed that he was disappointed that the hon. Member for Merthyr had not brought forward his Amendment, but if the President of the Board of Trade was disappointed, he himself was much more disappointed. If the President of the Board of Trade had not made an epoch-making invention, he had certainly become the apostle of a new faith on the other side of the House. He had looked forward in this debate to something in the nature of a heresy-hunt; and it would have been very interesting if the hon. Member for Merthyr had persisted, for a heresy, to be effective, must come from one's own household. With the best will in the world towards the right hon. Gentleman, he was bound to say that he could not see his way to defend him against the hon. Member for Merthyr, for in this matter the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly a heretic. This was essentially a Bill that sapped the whole theory on which our present fiscal system rested. What was the root theory of our present fiscal system? That it was our interest to get any products consumed in this country from any quarter of the world where they were produced to the best advantage, without regard to whether or not they were produced in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said that a patent was entirely different; that it was a monopoly, and that we had a right in granting the monopoly to see that it was used to the advantage of this country. That was true. But the question was not one of right. We had a right to put on an import duty if we thought it to our advantage. It was merely a question of interest. Apply that principle to a patented article. Leave it to the free play of economic forces, and what happened? The foreign patentee produced in this country if it paid him, and he produced abroad if it paid him. Let him produce abroad, and let us pay for it by those goods which we could produce with advantage here—since goods must always be paid for with goods. If that were sound theory, why compel the foreign patentee to produce here? There could be only one answer—that, in the opinion
  1050
  of the right hon. Gentleman, it was in the interest of this country that these things should be produced at home. If that were so as regarded the question of principle, there was no difference whatever whether the result were produced in one way or another. If it were right to produce the result by patent laws, it was equally right to produce it by import duties. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that America alone had not insisted upon patents being worked in America. He felt sure that everyone in the House knew the reason for that, because it was perfectly obvious. When he was at the Board of Trade he happened to see a document which came from a member of the American Government dealing with the compulsory working of patents. This was the substance of what the writer said—"What is your object," asked the writer, "in having things compulsorily made? It is to get them made in the United States. What is the most effective way of securing that end? Why fool about with patent laws? If you want them made in the United States put on a duty, and the things will be made in the United States." The right hon. Gentleman's system, then, was more protective than the system of the United States, for he made the production in this country universal. The right hon. Gentleman really adopted the principle which insisted that the system should be applied not only to the articles which we were adapted to produce, but that the articles which we were not able to produce should be made in this country provided they were the objects of a patent. ["No."] For the views which he personally held on this question he had received the greatest possible encouragement from the present Government. That encouragement had come from two quarters. First, from the Secretary of State for War, who was supposed to represent high thinking in the Cabinet, although he did not know whether his colleagues in the Cabinet took that view. A few weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman made the curious statement that the law of free trade depended on circumstances; it was not applied at all times; it was a question of the conditions of the country that imposed it and the conditions of the country which wished

  1051
  to trade. That was an important admission. Let hon. Members cast their minds back to their election speeches at the general election. [Cries of "Order."] Was that too great an effort? Then let them try to imagine what those speeches would be like if subject to the condition laid down by the Secretary for War. They could not talk about the consumer paying the duty, nor about the universal advantages of free trade; and then he would like to hear a speech from the right hon. Gentleman and to enjoy the privilege of answering him. Secondly, the Opposition had received another encouragement from the President of the Board of Trade, who represented the practical spirit in the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had lived up to the precept of the Secretary for War. He had treated every Question in his department as being one of expediency; he had looked at every question and had dealt with it from its own point of view, and nothing else. What was the result? Last session the right hon. Gentleman passed a Bill, a beautiful Bill, which had the effect, and it was intended to have the effect, of protecting the shipping industry, not against foreign competition, but against unfair foreign competition, which was the only kind of protection the opponents of the Government had any sympathy with. Now in this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman was piloting through the House he had gone a long step further, for it undoubtedly, in principle, sapped the foundation on which the whole of our fiscal system was based. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No, no."]
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that in this Bill the Government were concerned about the general trade of the country, and they were dealing with the patent law, which was essentially a protectionist law, with sufficient and excellent excuse. It was necessary to give a particular kind of protection here in order to stimulate invention; and the fact was that the patent law was protectionist in a more severe degree than any tariff could possibly be, because it was practically prohibitive against the manufacture of certain things except under certain conditions. That being so, this Bill proposed to restrict the rights of monopolists
  1052
  whom the patent law had created; yet because the Government proposed to restrict the rights of monopoly they were told that they were deserting the cause of free trade.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Never mind that.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the hon. Gentleman asked for an application of the free, play of economic forces to patent articles; but patent articles were wholly withdrawn from the free play of such forces. That was one of the reasons why the Government had introduced these clauses. Under the existing law proprietors of foreign patents had attached as conditions in the exercise and use of inventions in this country certain very onerous terms, such as—
  "If you use our machine you can use no other for creating this particular commodity;"
  and—
  "You shall not avail yourself of any other invention."
  There might be a new device invented which would revolutionise the trade of the country, but many manufacturers were incapacitated from availing themselves of that invention. There was not only this prohibition of the free play of economic forces, but there was also a serious impediment to trade and invention, by the use to which a particular class of foreign monopolist had put his patent. It could not be said, therefore, that the Government were deserting the cause of free trade when they restricted the power of such a monopolist as that, and asked for a fairer latitude to be given to the trader who was obliged by law to go to that particular vendor for the machinery that he wanted. On one occasion he had seen an agreement which imposed restrictions on the British users of a particular class of machine. The contract was made for twenty years, though the period of the patent was for fourteen years only, so that the American inventor by that device had in effect secured a prolongation of his patent. It was clear, therefore, that this legislation of the Government made for more freedom and less protection.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that he did not care what the Party supporting the Government called themselves as long as they brought in Bills like this, designed to assist the manufacturing industry of the country. He thought that the whole-hearted support of the Opposition should go out to the Government in their present effort, and he thanked the President of the Board of Trade for the great pains he had taken to master a difficult subject and to protect our inventors. Nothing could be more unfortunate in our manufacturing industry than to see how impossible it was for our inventors to derive profit from their inventions, especially in the case of men with restricted means. Any measure which simplified the patent law and secured to a man the product of his own invention was one to be approved. He was quite sure that the great mass of the people of Sheffield would be grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for the pains he had taken in regard to this matter.
  *MR. RADFORDsaid that as nearly all the things he had intended to say had been already said he had very little to trouble the House with. He did not propose to discuss whether Clause 10 was free trade or protection, but he wished to point out one or two important results of it. For the first time in this country there was going to be introduced what was known as compulsory working. That system had been tried in many countries abroad, but it had been abandoned as a failure where tried. There was no compulsory working in the United States nor in the Commonwealth of Australia. If manufacture or compulsory working of the patent was to be enforced in this country, he thought it would be a serious matter for the poor inventor. He would like to remind the House how far they had advanced since 1902. In that year a Conservative Government passed a Patents Act under which it was provided that if a manufactured article was manufactured mainly or exclusively outside the United Kingdom the patent might be revoked, but only in cases where the reasonable requirements of the public had not been satisfied. It was left for a Liberal Government in
  1054
  1907 to bring forward a proposal, with the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley division, that a patent should be revoked, although the demands of the public were satisfied, simply because the patented article was manufactured abroad, and he thought that was an advance which ought to be noted by the House. It was the habit of our Colonies periodically to go through our Statute-book and adopt those measures which they thought advantageous to themselves, and it was extremely likely, if this Bill became law, that in the course of a few years nearly all our Colonies would adopt it. Then in our Colonies a condition of the validity of a patent would be that the patented article should be manufactured in the Colony where it was granted. He did not know whether manufacturers here were prepared to face that contingency. It appeared to him to be a heavy responsibility to take. Further than that, foreign countries would retaliate by having an equivalent of Clause 10 in their patent laws. The result would be that every manufacturer who set out with the intention of supplying the world would have to be prepared to establish a factory in every British Colony and in every foreign country. That would involve a great addition to the cost of manufacture, and, of course, an enhancement of the price to the consumer. He doubted whether Clause 10 was well advised, and he hoped that it would receive further consideration. Clauses 6 and 9 afforded grounds for litigation which made him shudder, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the interest of the poor inventor to reconsider that matter. He had known poor inventors who had become rich as the result of their ingenuity and prudence, but he was satisfied that if Clauses 6 and 9 remained in the Bill in their present form, the fortunes which inventors had hitherto made would in future be transferred to rich corporations.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Referring to the following instruction of which the hon. Member for Kingston

  1055
  had given notice, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert in the Bill provisions for establishing a special tribunal for the hearing of all actions and proceedings relating to patents "—
  *MR. SPEAKER said: If by that the hon. Member intends the allocation of all patent matters to one particular Judge, that can be done under the Bill as it stands now, but if he goes beyond that, and intends to constitute a special division of the High Court of Justice to deal with patent matters, that would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
  In reference to the following notices—
  MR. WATSON RUTHERFORD: After Second Reading of Patents and Designs Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions that the patent granted in the United Kingdom to or on trust for any foreigner as a communication from abroad shall be ipso facto determined on the determination of the patent in the foreigner's own country from any cause whatever.
  LORD BALCARRES: After Second Reading of Patents and Designs Bill, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they consider the desirability of hearing counsel and examining witnesses with regard to Part II. of the Bill—
  *MR. SPEAKER said: These instructions being mandatory are both out of order. No mandatory instructions can be given to a Committee of the Whole House, or to a Standing Committee.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he understood that the Bill did not give power to relegate all patent matters to a Judge. The present state of the law was that every application for a revocation was bound to go before a Judge. This Bill proposed to abolish that system and invest the Comptroller with power to deal with such cases. The instruction of which his hon. and learned friend had given notice was that there should be a Judge to whom all matters under this Bill should be referred. At present the Bill only gave the Judge power to deal with certain cases under the Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: An Amendment can be moved in the Committee Stage to
  1056
  transfer to a Judge those matters proposed to be sent to the Comptroller.
  MR. CAVEsaid that what he desired was that the Committee should have power to consider the question of referring to a Judge, or a Division of the High Court, not only arising matters under this Bill, but all patent matters. While that was no doubt outside the clauses of the Bill, he thought it was within the general scope and intention of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that is beyond the scope of the Bill which is to "amend the law relating to patents and designs." The hon. Member proposes to go beyond that.

  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,),in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said he believed he was right in saying that of all the numerous Bills which had been introduced on this subject, only one went before a Standing Committee, and that no Bill had ever got any further than that stage. He hoped that a more fortunate fate awaited this Bill. The present measure differed a good deal from the Bills which had been introduced into the House each year from 1902 to 1905. It was a more far-reaching Bill than any of its predecessors, and, though it went much further, he hoped that it would meet with a better fate. It was founded upon the Report of a Select Committee over which he had presided last session. That Committee sat a great number of times and heard a great deal of evidence, and made a practically unanimous Report to the House. While previous Bills simply dealt with the addition of moisture to butter this Bill went much further. There had been, he regretted to say, a great deal of adulteration and "faking" of butter. In fact the present state of things was so critical that unless something was done very soon to prevent natural butter from being adulterated, the people of this country would have no choice but to eat adulterated or faked butter

  1057
  made either at home or abroad. Some of the evidence given before the Committee was of the most extraordinary nature, showing how it paid to adulterate butter. Mr. Butler, who represented the Wilts United Creamery Company of Devizes, stated that overtures had been made to him offering a process of adulteration which should not be open to detection, but which would increase their present profits by £5,000 a year. Further Mr. Butler said that his company in face of such competition must either themselves fake butter or close their creamery. In a case taken against the Bridgewater Creamery Company only recently, it was admitted that the profits made by adding lardine to butter were £5,650 in fifteen months. Such a state of things proved that there was a very real need for this Bill, which aimed at stopping the adulteration of butter at its source. Previous Bills were aimed at the seller or retailer; this measure went to the source. The innocent retailer was the man who first of all was shot at in previous Bills; he had to prove that he was innocent; he had to prove that it was through no fault of his own that the adulteration had taken place. Even if he did prove his innocence and was able to throw back the blame on the right person, yet he had all the trouble of proving his innocence. It was in the interest of the retailers of the country who were liable to be unjustly accused of adulterating their butter that adulteration should be stopped at its source. The principle of the Bill had been approved of by the producers of butter throughout the country. The Central Chamber of Agriculture had unanimously approved of the principle of the Bill, and he might say that practically the same attitude had been taken up by the Grocers' Federation and the Butter Association, while objecting to some of its provisions. The Nottingham District Association at first strongly objected to the Bill and asked its local Members to oppose it. After the provisions had been explained to the Association, they passed a Resolution rescinding a previous Resolution, and being now content with the Bill as it stood, they had asked their Members to support it. He would explain very shortly the clauses, for there had been a good deal of misunderstanding as to what was the
  1058
  real effect of the Bill. The first clause provided that the existing law as regarded the registration of margarine factories should be applied to butter factory premises for the manufacture of butter substitutes. The second subsection of the clause provided that in the case of imitation butters, or butter substitutes, a register should be kept as to where these were sent to. Sub-section 3, following out a recommendation made by the Select Committee, provided that no premises could be used as a butter factory which formed any part of or communicated with a margarine factory. It had been pointed out to him that in certain cases of creameries in Scotland they would be treated harshly under that particular provision because they might become butter factories. He thought that it might be possible to give exemption to those existing creameries in Scotland, under certain conditions, to be made by the Board of Agriculture on the ground that they had proved a great advantage to the farmers in the neighbourhood who sent their milk to these creameries. It had been represented to him that unless these exemptions were given, the alterations on the premises otherwise required would be so expensive that they would have to be shut up altogether. That proposal of his showed that they did not wish to deal harshly with such creameries. Clause 2, as to the inspection of factories by an officer of the Board of Agriculture was important. The powers of inspection of premises under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act would apply to factories for the manufacture of butter, margarine, margarine cheese, or other imitation butter. Provision was also made that officers duly authorised by the local authority, such as the medical officer, the sanitary inspector, or the inspector of weights and measures, or a police constable, to procure samples under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, might enter the premises used as a butter factory. That was a provision recommended by the Select Committee on the butter trade. No such power was proposed in the case of premises referred to in (b) of Sub-clause(1) of Clause 1, so that there might be no risk of revealing the trade secrets of these places. Sub-section 3 of Clause 2

  1059
  was the only part of the Bill which applied to creameries and farm houses. That sub-section enabled the Board of Agriculture, where they had reason to suppose that an illegitimate business was being done, to send an officer with special authorisation to inspect the premises in order to see that no fraudulent trade was being carried on there. Clause 3 dealt with another recommendation of the Select Committee. An adulterant was produced by adding a certain amount of acid to milk, by which 8 lbs. of curd were obtained from 100 lbs. of milk at a cost of 7d. per lb. That curd could be used as a cheap adulterant. The object of this clause was to prevent any such curd, or oil, or fat capable of being used as an adulterant being brought into or kept in a butter factory. Clause 4, as indeed nearly all the other clauses in the Bill, was based on the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee, and dealt with the limit of water permissible in factory butter and margarine, and other butter substitutes. No butter or margarine which contained more than 16 per cent, of water could be sent out of a butter or margarine factory. Valid objection had been taken to the wording of this clause, and it was proposed that it should be altered so as to make it plain that it applied only to the finished article which was packed and ready for consignment. The existing law in regard to farmhouse and creamery butter was not altered, either for Great Britain or Ireland.
  MR. FLAVINasked if the hon. Gentleman was aware that under the instructions of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland farmers in that country had actually been prosecuted for having in their possession butter containing more than 16 per cent, of water.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that those prosecutions must have taken place under regulations made under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899. It was a complete misapprehension that it was proposed to alter by this Bill the law in regard to farmhouse butter; the Bill as it stood did not alter the law in any respect as to farmhouse or creamery butter. It was only in
  1060
  the case of wilfully increasing the moisture himself that the farmer was liable to a penalty. Clause 8, which dealt with the sale of butter mixtures and imitation butter, was based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee. The sale of these substances, which met the wants and suited the tastes of certain sections of the public, was not prohibited, but precautions were taken that they were not sold under the name of butter. The description and name would have to be approved by the Board. They had no right to refuse permission to traders to deal in an article which was not subject to the objection that it was unwholesome, and the Committee's view was expressed in Paragraph 30 which he would read—
  "Your Committee think it would not be desirable to prohibit the manufacture or sale of the substance known as milk blended butter, as it appears that this substance meets the wants or suits the tastes of a certain section of the community; but they consider that it is not butter; that it and other substances (not being margarine) containing butter fat, should only be allowed to be manufactured for sale under a special name and regulations approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and that when sold by retail it should be delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper, also approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. It would be necessary that factories where this mixture is made, and the premises of wholesale dealers who deal in it, should be registered, and that books should be kept on these factories and premises by which consignments of this mixture could be traced to the retailer."
  The Government agreed with that view of the Committee, that the public had a right to buy any article if they knew what they were buying and what was its true value, but it should not be sold to them as butter. Therefore precautions were taken in the Bill, in regard to the sale and description of butter substitutes, to prevent them being sold under the name of butter. The description and name would have to be approved by the Board, and it would then be impossible to describe "milk-blended" butter in various forms as butter. The ignorant consumer who knew nothing about percentages, might think the fact of the blending with pure English full-cream milk increased the value as butter. The fact that it contained 24 per cent, of water would convey nothing to his mind. He could assure the House that under the provisions of the Bill no

  1061
  description or name which would lead the public to believe that a butter substitute was genuine butter would be allowed by the Board of Agriculture. Under the proposal of the Bill every man would have to produce his butter substitute and give his description of it and the name would have to be approved by the Board. There was no idea of allowing men who applied to register butter substitutes to place all their articles under the same name and description. Every case would have to be dealt with on its merits, and while the article would not be allowed to be sold as butter he could assure the House that it was not intended that the name should be such as would unfairly prejudice the sale of an article. The object was that the butter substitute should be sold as what it really was and not as butter, and that the farmer should have a right to his own trade mark of "butter" which ought not to be infringed by the sale as butter of a substance which was not the genuine article. Clause 5, dealing with imported butter, increased the maximum penalty in certain cases from £20 for the first offence to a fine of three times the value of the butter. In view of the large consignments imported this was advisable as a consignment might be so large as to make the £20 fine inadequate. The more stringent provisions in regard to imported butter had provoked some criticisms. The presumption would be against the importer in the event of the Government chemist certifying against the butter, and he would have to prove that the butter was not adulterated. In regard to imported butter, that was not unfair, because there was no power of inspection during its manufacture as in the case of English butter. Clause 7 contained a new provision requiring that margarine should be so described in advertisements, and Clause 9 applied the penalties of the Food and Drugs Act to offences under this Act. There would, he hoped, be general agreement on the principle of the Bill to which he asked the House to give a Second Reading in order that it might go to the Standing Committee, where its details could be thoroughly threshed out and discussed. As to those details he did not pretend that the Bill was an inspired document, and he was quite ready to be convinced
  1062
  in regard to any alterations which it might be desirable to make. He could assure the House that the only object of the Government was to put down the gross frauds now being perpetrated in the butter trade. He begged to move.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. FLYNNhad no doubt there would be a majority in favour of the Bill, because it had the practically unanimous recommendation of the Committee; but he took the opportunity of saying there were grave defects in it; for instance, the unnecessary stringent and restrictive clauses in regard to factory butter and the extraordinary provision for 24 per cent., not 16 per cent., of moisture in butter substitutes.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Not sold as butter.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the Department of Agriculture took power by regulation to prevent the sale as butter. The Bill was to protect the consumer against fraud, corruption and dishonesty, and against unfair foreign competition; but the provision in respect to milk-blended butter was not drawn in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee, and certainly not with the overwhelming evidence given before the Committee, because with the exception of one or two specious witnesses who tried to prove that this water-logged butter was not so bad after all and that the poor people who bought it were not misled, the evidence was all the other way. In Committee Irish Members would do their best to improve the Bill in that respect. As to margarine, there would not be much difference of opinion. The evidence given of ingenious malpractices showed that, though the advocates of margarine contended that it was wholesome, nutritious, and palatable, yet they wanted to sell it under some other name. The whole idea was to mislead the consumer. Beyond question there was a difference of opinion among Irish Members and farmers as to the percentage of moisture that should be allowed in butter and what was called Irish salt firkin butter. Some of his

  1063
  colleagues were very pertinacious in regard to that subject, but he, as a representative of a butter-producing constituency, asked the Government to stand firm and not to allow the exclusion of any Irish-made butter from the 16 per cent, limit. No friend of the Irish farmer or of the Irish dairy trade would consent to place such a stigma upon Irish butter, which had such a high reputation and character among the butters of the world. All the efforts of modern manufacturers had been in the direction of producing butter with less moisture in it. And every representative of that school of thought who twelve months ago was in favour of 20 per cent. of moisture was now in favour of the smaller percentage of 15 or 16. Only recently Members of the Irish Butter Trade Association had seen the necessity of protecting their butter from unfair competition, and were now prepared to accept 16 per cent, all round.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he did not intend to take up the valuable time of the House with a lengthy discourse on the Bill, but as one of the Members of the Committee who sat on this question for three months of last year under the Chairmanship of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset, who with such patience, such clearheadness, and such ability, discharged his, onerous duties, he might be able to place a few useful facts before the House. The main outlines of the Bill were based on the recommendations of the Committee, and were it not for the speech of the hon. Member for North Cork, he would not have risen on that occasion. Clause 19 of the Committee's recommendations said—
  "In this connection, the exemption of Irish salt firkin butter from the 16 per cent, standard of moisture, frequent references were made by witnesses to the manufacture of salt firkin butter by Trish farmers on hill-side farms. This butter is a special article made with brine. The object of adding brine is to preserve the butter and to give it a flavour which is appreciated by consumers in certain districts.
  "Numerous witnesses expressed the opinion that no special exemption as to salt firkin butter manufactured by Irish farmers is desirable. Your Committee concur in this view.
  "They think that the existing law should be sufficient to prevent the manufacture by farmers in Ireland of salt firkin butter containing an unreasonable or fraudulent
  1064
  amount of moisture, and so far as this kind of butter is concerned they do not recommend any further legislation."
  The provisions of the Bill as it now stood were not too stringent in dealing with the dangerous and evil practices of those counterfeiting butter. Some of the witnesses examined in Committee gave very sad evidence of the terrible doings resorted to by designing, dishonest traders. The Bill, with some slight modifications, or perhaps changes, to express more clearly the import of some of its provisions, was a very good Bill. The hon. Member for North Cork seemed to think he had a right to speak for Ireland all over, but he represented only the views of the merchants, the go been merchants, of Cork, and the majority of the farmers of his own constituency, if the truth were known, would prefer that both systems, the old one of farmers making the butter in their own dairies, and the new system of the creameries, should run concurrent; and naturally so, as the competition would create higher prices. He (Mr. Lundon) spoke for the farmers of the county Limerick, for those of Clare, Tipperary, and of other counties, who had, through their county councils, their district councils, corporations, and other public bodies, sent, from time to time, resolutions passed unanimously by, in the majority of cases, practical farmers, repudiating the hard and fast line of a 16 per cent, standard of moisture in Irish salt firkin butter. Would the House make a law depriving the honest farmers of the county Clare, in which from Killaloe to Loop Head only two creameries existed, of the right of making their butter in the best way they could so as to meet their requirements and pay their rents? In the county Tipperary, just outside where he lived, from the eastern boundary of his constituency to Toomevara, and from Dundrum to Nenagh, about forty miles either way, in that sixteen hundred square miles of elevated tableau of mountain ranges, some twenty miles away from railways, there were only about a half-dozen creameries, one in Reigh, one in Kilcommon, one in Hollyford, and one near Upperchurch or Glastragan, with one or two others farther east. If this 16 per cent, standard was to be adopted according to the great genius of the hon. Member for North Cork, what became of the brave and

  1065
  industrious men of north and mid Tipperary? It was the butter merchants of Cork who first attempted the ruin of the Irish butter trade. Some years ago they shipped first-class Irish butter to Denmark, and under a Copenhagen brand transhipped it to London, placing it on the counters in the latter place as Danish butter, and exposing alongside it third class Irish butter in firkins with a first-class brand: thus, by a mean trade dodge, ruining the reputation of a splendid article so as to make money by a fraudulent transaction. This thing soon came to an end, but they next resorted to the bringing over to Cork of Copenhagen firkins, which in turn went down, and the third move resulted in branding in the stores the Cork made firkins as Copenhagen, and sending them down even to county Limerick with money in advance to secure the trade in that county in opposition to the butter-buyers of Limerick and Tipperary. So much for the magnanimity of the Cork butter merchants, now so strenuously championed by the hon. Member for North Cork. The real meaning of this advocacy of the 16 per cent, standard was that, if it should become law, the farmers of the south and west of Ireland, not having modern appliances to ensure their being capable of bringing their butter below the legal requirement, would be driven to the alternative of selling their commodity in the lump butter markets. The unsalted butter being a perishable article would, on occasions, be bought by the agents from Cork at perhaps 25 per cent, below its value, and thence taken to the Cork factories, would be rehashed up and exported to London when butter might be in demand, but at slack times cold stored without any date on the labels and sent out, only to meet the high prices when the quality might have deteriorated. So much for the paternal care of a splendid Irish product on the part of the Cork merchants and their worthy representative in that House. So persistently did they hold out that Cork was everything that their conduct would aptly fit in with the rhyme—
  Cork above and Cork below,
  Cork so high and Cork so low;
  Cork so tender and Cork so tough,
  Of Cork, God knows, we have got enough.
  The solicitude of the Cork men over the character of Irish butter was mainly in their breeches pocket. He hoped that
  1066
  the hon. Baronet, with some slight but necessary alterations in the Bill, would succeed in stopping the flood of villainy being practiced under the mixing of margarine, milk-blended butter, and other counterfeits, to the detriment of the pure and genuine article.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  ADMIRALTY ADMINISTRATION.
  *MR. BELLAIRSrose to call attention to the Admiralty administration, and to move: "That this House, while recognising the services rendered by the Admiralty, regrets to observe evidence of ill-considered changes vitally affecting the war readiness of the Navy; the House is of opinion that its control over the Navy in recent years has been, and is being, weakened by the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty from the House of Commons, by undue secrecy, by sudden changes of policy, and by Admiralty officials resorting to novel methods for the purpose of influencing public opinion." In moving this Resolution, he desired to state that he had not the slightest personal hostility to the Board of Admiralty, though he had been informed that feelings of hostility had been imputed to him. If that charge were really true, he would be guilty of great ingratitude after the kindness, courtesy, and consideration with which he had been treated by the Board. Because he had asked a Question about Sir John Fisher it did not follow that he was prompted by hostile feeling towards that distinguished Admiral. He objected to the Admiralty resorting to secret methods, and had the House been asked to vote a salary of £5,000 a year to Sir John Fisher he would gladly have supported it; but he was opposed to the secret method by which an Order in Council was passed which did not appear in the London Gazette, and about which they knew nothing in the House, until he happened to find out by accident what had been done and asked a Question over a year after the event. This secrecy was very detrimental to the House's control over

  1067
  the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty. The method of secrecy was being extended, for naval men were giving less and less information. During 1905 there was as care about the guns, and they were therefore interested in getting all the information they could about guns from the Government in 1906. The Admiralty had replied by removing all information about the guns ordered from the Estimates of 1906. Then the question of training was raised last year, and they wanted all information in the Estimates as to how the nucleus crews were distributed and trained. In 1907, on opening the Estimates, he found that this information was removed, and he believed that, the Admiralty had only done that because of the general belief that the sea training of the Navy was suffering. The official reason given was that it was impossible to give the usual information, as the nucleus crews of the Home Fleet had not been settled when the Estimates were framed. But surely the Secretary to the Admiralty might have given him a more frank assurance in answer to the question which he had put to him that day, that he would have all the information reinserted in next year's Estimates—information of such great value. That policy of secrecy had been condemned by previous First Lords of the Admiralty. It was strongly condemned by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1902. The policy, as far as he could gather, was to shelve discussion as much as possible in that House and in the country. At the same time another process went on, of giving one-sided information to favoured newspapers. The result had been that in the Royal United Service Institution, the official debating place, there had been no naval discussions at all, except one lecture by a retired officer; no officer on the active list got up there at all. He regretted very much this want of discussion in the United Service Institution. Sir John Colomb, a very able member of the Conservative Party in the last Parliament, once read a paper which led to the formation of the Naval Intelligence Department and the Admiralty at the time did everything they could to stop his doing so. He thought any attempt to suppress discussion was most mischievous. He had two quotations,
  1068
  one from the late Lord Salisbury, and the other from a Cabinet Minister of that time. Lord Salisbury said—
  "The defence of the country is not the business of the War Office or the Government, but the business of the people themselves."
  The Cabinet Minister said—speaking at a dinner in 1902—
  "If the Government had made mistakes it was largely because the people of the country had failed to impress on Governments what they ought to do."
  He submitted that it was absolutely impossible for the people to exercise any control over Imperial defence unless the fullest possible information was given; they could not criticise mistakes when they lacked full information. He believed that secrecy was only used to conceal the poverty of the defence. He remembered the story told by the present First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher, when Admiral superintendent at Portsmouth. He took the French Naval officers round the dockyard on the occasion of their visit. There was an empty store, and when the superintendent came to it, after having shown the party the places of interest, he pointed to the locked door, and the sentry stationed near, and said to the French Admiral, Admiral Gervais—
  "I have shown you everything, but I have the most imperative orders not to show you what is going on in that store."
  That illustrated the value of secrecy; it was an empty store. But he was afraid that the policy of empty stores was one which had been liberally applied for some years past. They had never had a thorough investigation, for instance, of the personnel of the Navy, or of what Lord Selborne called the far-reaching reforms which he carried out in 1902, and which had since been developed. There had been various methods of justifying the changes, and they had been asked by Lord Tweedmouth to wait seven or eight years to see the result of the experiments which were being carried out. Personally he was not prepared to wait for eight years if the changes were bad changes. If the changes were good changes he thought the Government could very well grant the prayer of the 225 Members who had asked for an inquiry into the whole of those changes, without any executive authority asked for, but simply that the

  1069
  House might be informed as to whether the changes were good or bad. In reference to the scheme of changes effected in 1905 by Lord Cawdor, they were told for a long time that the Douglas Committee were making a very full inquiry and a very full Report. It turned out to be practically a Departmental Committee, and the Report was first of all refused to them by the Secretary of the Admiralty, but subsequently granted in the House of Lords in response to an appeal by Lord Goschen, who pointed out that the Report had been quoted in official documents. That Committee lasted exactly six weeks. Its inquiry was supposed to be in regard to this great revolution in the training and distribution of officers of the whole Navy. It sat once a week, and it devoted two days to the engineers, one day to the marines, and one day to an artificer and a stoker. This artificer was hostile, and the stoker said that he would like to see the position of the stokers improved. It was a very perfunctory inquiry. The one day devoted to the marines elicited the fact that all the marine witnesses thought that under this scheme they were to be abolished. The inquiry was really a bogus inquiry altogether, and the fact that they were refused this Report, and that it was a bogus inquiry, he thought justified their demand for a very full inquiry into these changes. He should add that the evidence submitted to the Committee was very conflicting, and that there was a minority Report of which they had never heard, this condemnation of the scheme being signed by the representative of the Royal Marines. It was very unfortunate, as showing the atmosphere of suspicion which existed. An officer who signed that minority Report, after being a few months at his billet in the Intelligence Department, a post which he ought to have held three years, was sent to a cruiser on the China station, immediately after signing that Report. That created a bad effect That was in 1905. He did not say that it was done as a punishment, but he could not ignore the belief of the service that the officer had dared to express an opinion differing from the opinion of those in authority who had formed that Committee, and therefore
  1070
  he was sent out by the Admiralty to me China station. He was by no means contending that many useful reforms had not been carried out by the Board of Admiralty. The introduction of the French nucleus crew system was decidedly good, but it was being carried too far when nucleus crews were put in charge of practically new ships; they were never full crews, but partly-manned crews which were called nucleus crews. The nucleus crews system was creating a great deal of discontent. They had officers devoting themselves for six or seven months to the training of men, and it was heart-breaking at the end of that time to see those men sent away to another ship. Not long ago he asked how many captains and crews the "Barfleur" had had, and he was informed that she had had six captains and five crews during a period of two years. Would any business man change the manager of his works six times and his staff five times in two years and call it good business? It was very bad business, and it was creating a good deal of discontent in the Navy. There was no doubt that the reason so many men were deserting from the Navy was that they objected to being shifted about so much; they did not get a chance of knowing their officers. He thought the improvement in the gunnery was very much to the credit of the Admiralty. It was only fair that if they blamed the Admiralty when things went wrong and harm was done they should praise them when good work was done. He had been told that this was due to the zeal of the sea officer and improvements in the telescope. One of the service papers which acted as a sort of semi-official organ for the Government, the Naval and Military Record, stated that with the new telescope, which possessed 23 magnifying power, they could see the dimple on a fair girl's cheek 2,000 yards away. The Board system, as it existed, had received very high praise from the Esher Committee. The essence of the Board system was that the Prime Minister chose a broad-minded and capable administrator who could estimate the value of evidence and choose good advisers, and under those circumstances the Board had always worked well. If on the other hand they chose a First Lord who was a fool and did away with equality in regard to the advisers,

  1071
  that was the way to wreck the Board. Many evils had resulted from the fact that the equality of the Naval advisers had been done away with by the Order in Council issued under Lord Selborne in regard to the distribution of business on October 20th, 1904. There had been one necessary change by which the First Sea Lord for the first time, through the Committee of Defence, had access to other Cabinet Ministers besides the First Lord of the Admiralty. This extra power should, however, have made Lord Selborne more careful not to extend further the primacy of the First Sea Lord. Instead of this course being taken the First Sea Lord had been made Chairman of the Designs Committee and the Dockyards Committee, giving power over the matériel of the Navy such as Moltke never possessed over the equipment of the German Army; and Chairman of the Estimates Committee. Lord Selborne had also introduced this distribution of business by which all the other Sea Lords and the Civil Lords were ordered to submit any important changes to the First Sea Lord, who had the power of deciding whether those important changes should come before the Board. That change was carried out when Parliament was not sitting. He had detected a tendency to carry out changes at a time of the year when Parliament was not sitting. He thought the tendency of the First Lord's being in the House of Lords was to make the representatives of the Admiralty in the House of Commons quite irresponsible. For instance, the Secretary to the Admiralty on 24th May last year had expressed himself as decidedly hostile to the early entry of officers, whereas early entry lay at the root of all the changes in naval training to which he objected, and if it were abolished then all Lord Selborne's and Lord Cawdor's changes in naval training would go with it. If a First Lord was in the House of Commons and had made that criticism he would have immediately been called upon to justify his views. If he were in that House he would have to stand the whole racket of debate, of answering Questions and Motions, and defending the Estimates, and then Members could find out whether he was a capable administrator or not. Again, they could not in the least bring to book the First Lord's statements in another
  1072
  place. By way of illustration he referred to the statement of the First Lord that the nucleus crews had diminished the number of ships out of repair in the most extraordinary manner, a statement which the First Lord based on a comparison between January 1904 and 1907, which left out material factors so as not to spoil the percentage of 1907. He would take that statement as a test case. The statement had gone forth in the First Lord's speech in the other place and also in the explanatory statement of the Navy Estimates, that in the third week of January, 1904, out of sixty battleships, thirty-eight were unavailable owing to the need of repairs, or 63 per cent, of the whole, and that on the 21st of January, 1907, out of fifty-one battleships only eight, or 16 per cent., were unavailable. Let the House mark the words "unavailable owing to the need of repair." After that Lord Tweedmouth said—
  "The Admiralty took the official returns from the dockyards, which gave the dates of taking in hand, completion, etc."
  Hon. Members would know the difference between ships needing repair and taking those repairs in hand. Complaint had been made that the Admiralty were not taking the repairs in hand to the extent they were leading them to believe. The "Goliath" was put down for £48,000 and the "Canopus" for £25,000, and neither of those ships figured in the eight ships which the First Lord of the Admiralty included as needing repair. He had been furnished through the kindness of the First Lord with a list of the thirty-eight battleships needing repair in 1904, and he found amongst them the "Monarch" which was simply a depot ship being used to house the crews of ships. Amongst others he also found the "Rupert," which never in her history had been a battleship. No officer of the Admiralty could possibly have made the mistake of putting the "Rupert" in the list of battleships needing repair, and it looked very much like hoaxing the public. It had been acknowledged that ten ships in 1907 were utterly out of repair, and yet they were included in the list of first-class battleships in order to swell the strength statistics. In the First Lord's list of ships needing repair they were, however, excluded as they would spoil the percentage.

  1073
  In 1904 there was a very extensive policy of reconstruction in progress by which ten battleships and fifteen cruisers were being reconstructed. All those ships which were being reconstructed in 1904 were included in the First Lord's list as needing repair, whereas no ships were being reconstructed now. It was one of the complaints against the Admiralty that whilst rival Powers were reconstructing the Admiralty were doing nothing in the way of reconstruction, because it made no show and enabled them to use obsolete ships to swell the statistics. Another instance of a misleading statement was the First Lord's reference in another place to the mobilisation of the ships on 14th June last year and the wonderful rapidity with which it was carried out. The First Lord insisted that it was a surprise mobilisation, whereas if he had consulted The Times he would have seen that the mobilisation was fully anticipated. Lord Tweedmouth, in the same speech, said—
  "These ships responded to the test put upon them. There was no necessity for a proclamation to call out the Reserves or anything of that sort. They went to sea with full crews with the extreme rapidity I have indicated."
  If Lord Tweedmouth would consult The Times he would find:(1) that on 7th June, seven days before, the Admiralty issued the appointments of officers; (2) that on 9th June the arrival of reserve men at the ports took place; (3) that on June 12th a complete official list of vessels for the manœuvres appeared in The Times, and also the order that all leave in the ships was to be stopped, and all offices concerned with mobilisation to be kept open day and night; (4) that on 13th June The Times contained the intimation that the reserve squadron would be mobilised the following day. The Times added—
  "The numbers required to bring the vessels up to war strength are held in readiness at the naval bararcks, with steam-boats in attendance to embark immediately the order to mobilise comes to hand."
  Such manœuvres might be called Zanzig manœuvres, because every officer knew that they were coming off. There was another hoax which had been played off on the House, namely, the distribution hoax. They had been told that the new distribution was going to increase the fighting efficiency of the
  1074
  Fleet. If that statement had not been made it would not have been necessary to attack it. The statement was most misleading. Lord Cawdor's Memorandum of November, 1905, stated that there were seventeen battleships in the Channel Fleet. Lord Tweedmouth had met the increase in the German Fleet by reducing the number of battleships in the Channel Fleet to fourteen. It had for some days been cruising with only eleven battleships. Lord Cawdor's Memorandum stated that there were thirty-three battleships in full commission in 1905. The number had now been reduced to thirty-two. In 1905 they were distributed over three Fleets, whereas now they were distributed over four Fleets, and he had yet to learn from any historical teaching that dispersion was better than concentration. Of the thirty-two battle ships in full commission, six were only nominally under the new arrangement of the Nore Division, having only two-fifths of their complements, who were to be assisted by boys, youths, and second-class stokers. To say that such methods increased the fighting efficiency of the Fleet was most misleading. The only real increase in efficiency which he had been able to trace had been in the torpedo flotillas. They were undoubtedly increased. He deprecated the concentration by which so many men were employed on torpedo craft, which, as experience had shown, was only secondary work in actual warfare. He would like to see the concentration work devoted to battleships and cruisers rather than to destroyers. On the question of shipbuilding he was not going to deal with matters which could be discussed on the Estimates, but he protested against the enormous fluctuations which occurred in the shipbuilding programmes of this country. The House hardly realised how enormous these fluctuations were. In the Estimates of 1899 they laid down fourteen armoured vessels, while this year the number was three. In the two years 1889 and 1890 thirty-six protected cruisers were laid down, while for the years 1905 and 1906 there were none. In the three years 1894 to 1896 seventy-nine destroyers were laid down, and for the three years 1905 to 1907 the number was eleven. These enormous fluctuations from abnormal

  1075
  programmes to programmes which were very small were very detrimental to the country, and very bad for all the shipbuilding interests. There were similar variations of policy in regard to the types of ships. One year they built enormous cruisers, and in another year very small cruisers. He was told that Lewis Carroll used to compose his humorous books by writing sentences on little strips of paper, then putting all the bits of paper into a hat, shaking them up, and letting the sentences run on just as they chanced to come out. The Admiralty might just as well make up their ship-building programme that way—put a number of types into the First Lord's bowler, and let the Secretary to the Admiralty take out the first that came. In that way they might arrive at a programme like the present year's—three battleships, one scout, five destroyers. There had been too little consistent policy, too much experimenting in the Navy. He begged to move.
  *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it was with very considerable hesitation that he accepted the invitation of his hon. and gallant friend to second this Motion. It might easily be supposed that he did not possess any of that expert and strategical knowledge which alone could qualify any Member of the House to take part in debates on this particular subject with authority, and the reasons which had induced him to accede to the request made to him were the reflection in the first place that all Members of the House, and indeed the whole community, were under obligation to the hon. Member for the time and industry which he had devoted to naval questions; and in the second place, he was influenced by the consideration that if, after all, the question of naval policy was to be left entirely to the discussion of experts who claimed to have particular knowledge, the number of those who could take part in a debate must be strictly limited. It would be admitted that those who were not experts were under obligation to form the best judgment they could on the extremely important question involved in Motions such as that before the House, and there was no more obvious method of resolving doubts than that of asking
  1076
  the Secretary to the Admiralty, when occasions for doing so were presented, questions such as made it difficult for the hon. Gentleman to avoid giving an answer. He ventured to think that very few of the questions which had been addressed to the Secretary to the Admiralty in the last few months would have been necessary, and that the greater part of the debates on the Navy would have been avoided, if it had not been for certain extremely ambiguous references to the maintenance of the two-Power standard made by the Prime Minister last year, and also the Secretary to the Admiralty during the present session. Every unprejudiced observer would agree that, whether or not at a given moment there had been apprehension that the two-Power standard was being deviated from, persons of all political views had until this Parliament held that the two-Power standard should be maintained as the criterion of our naval strength. The Prime Minister was the first to give rise to serious doubt as to the view which the Government entertained on the two-Power standard, when in July last year he said—
  "When you talk of the two-Power standard after all you cannot keep out of your mind what the two Powers are. I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard of almost a preposterous kind."
  The definition of the two-Power standard admittedly was not dependent on any strictly logical principle, and among the different definitions which had been offered, the one which had held the field premised that there should be no inquiry as to what the two Powers were. The Secretary to the Admiralty speaking on 5th March said—
  "Originally the two-Power standard meant two specified European Powers. It was not a standard in the abstract, but at best it was only a rule of thumb—a rough and ready test. There might be conceivable circumstances in which the two-Power standard was too much, and imaginable circumstances in which too little."
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONexplained that what he had said was that while under certain circumstances a two-Power standard might be too much, there were conceivable circumstances in which a three-Power standard would be too little.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he meant to say that, and he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Did or did not the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement of the Prime Minister that they should not keep out of their mind what the two Powers were? Even last month the Prime Minister used this expression—
  "Supposing we were at any time to be in close alliance with the two Powers with the largest navies, however close that alliance may be, should we rigidly adhere to the two-Power standard?"
  He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House explicitly whether it was the view of the Government that the two-Power standard might vary according to the view the Government formed at a given moment in regard to our alliances with other Powers? The preamble of the German Navy Bill might possibly supply some assistance in answering the question what a two-Power standard ought to be. The words were—
  "Germany must have a fleet of such strength that a war even against the mightiest naval Power would involve risks threatening the supremacy of that Power."
  The debate was a strictly non-Party one, and he did not desire to make any attack on the Government. But he would remind the Secretary to the Admiralty that in 1904–5 the expenditure on the Fleet was £42,000,000, while in 1906–7; it was £36,000,000, or a reduction of £6,000,000. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] He did not in the least quarrel with the cheers with which those figures were received. He was rather disposed to think that the temporary paralysis of shipbuilding abroad, which had been occasioned by the building of the "Dreadnought" might be sufficient justification for that reduction. Yet it should be remembered that in 1904–5, when the expenditure of the Navy was higher than in any single year of our history, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said at a meeting of the Eighty Club—
  "I want to see the British Navy still stronger than it is, a fighting instrument always ready to strike, for then, it is almost certain, it will not be called upon to strike."
  He had listened with interest to the explanation of the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the relative strength of the great maritime Powers to-day. At first
  1078
  sight it appeared that his explanation was a complete and persuasive one; but there were one or two points, not clear to his mind, on which some further information might be given. It was stated that if they took battleships less than eighteen years old, Great Britain had fifty-two as compared with forty-nine possessed by France and Germany. Great Britain had thirty-seven battleships less than thirteen years old, and France and Germany had forty-one. Great Britain had nineteen battleships less than eight years old, as contrasted with twenty-eight possessed by France and Germany. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty what difference in the judgment of his advisers the comparative age of our battleships and those of France and Germany made in estimating the relative strength. As he understood, at the present time the total number of battleships in our Navy was sixty-three, if those built, building, and projected were counted. Of these, forty-seven were unarmoured over the portion of the water-line, while in the Fleets of France and Germany, none of the battleships were unarmoured over the water-line. What deductions did expert opinion allow under this head in the consideration of relative strength? Of our sixty-three battleships, he understood that two were building, that nine were admittedly obsolete, thirteen were to have no more repairs bestowed upon them, and six were at the present time under repair. That left thirty-three battleships in full commission. The statement was very frequently made, when a comparison was drawn between the battleships of this country and France and Germany, that we built, or had facilities for building, vessels better than any other country in the world. He wished to know whether that statement was accurate in the opinion of those who to-day advised the Admiralty? The Cawdor Memorandum laid it down that every ship ought to be completed in twenty-four months, yet the "Minotaur" and "Defence" would take three years and two months. Why was the time so greatly exceeded in these instances in relation to the time mentioned in the Cawdor Memorandum? Was there any similar instance in Germany? He did not propose to ask any questions as to the

  1079
  strategical distribution of the Fleet, but he would put one or two in regard to the non-strategical distribution of the Fleet. He understood that when the late Government left office, there were thirty-two battleships always at sea, and fourteen battleships in reserve with nucleus crews, or forty-six in all. At present, there were six battleships in the Mediterranean instead of eight as before; in the Channel fourteen, instead of sixteen; and in the Atlantic, six instead of eight. In the result, there were at present only twenty-six sea-going battleships, instead of thirty-two. If however, the hon. Gentleman said that the Nore Fleet was a fully sea-going Fleet, then as against fourteen vessels in reserve at that date there were only seven in reserve now. In the words of Admiral Sir W. May—
  "What the sailor needs is the sea, the sea and manœuvres at whatever cost, and they are very expensive. But it is useless to have a Navy unless we are prepared to pay all the expenses of training at sea."
  In 1904 the right hon. Member for Dundee stated that the Admiralty formed the view that the strength of the sea-going Fleet was greater than strategy demanded, but his hon. friend the Member for Fareham, who had considerable opportunity of ascertaining what was the opinion of the Admiralty at that time, denied that and said that he had never heard at the Admiralty the opinion that the strength of the sea-going Fleet was too great. He wanted to know if there was any truth in statements which had been made that to some extent at least the complements of the Fleet at the Nore were made up of boys, and that the ships were going to be used as training colleges? If the change was dictated by economy, what was the economy likely to be obtained? He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether or not it was the view of the Admiralty that 70 per cent, of sea-going time of the men at the Nore would make them effective? An extremely interesting discussion had been raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, as to the policy of the Government in regard to cruisers. The right hon. Gentleman said it was ancient history now to build cruisers, as far as the protection and destroying of commerce were concerned and that we could
  1080
  hold our hands in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman said the whole policy of naval experts had been revolutionised as far as the building of cruisers was concerned. He would like to know if that view was shared by the Government, and whether the Secretary to the Admiralty had reason to believe it was shared by foreign Powers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he founded his statement entirely upon the action of foreign Powers and on the estimates of foreign Powers.
  *MR. F. E. SMITHwas obliged to the right hon. Baronet and had no doubt the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell him whether he was right in gathering from the German naval estimates that that Power intended to build two new fast cruisers annually. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether that view was correct or whether the view the right hon. Baronet had brought forward was well founded. But there was a more important consideration in reference to this question of building cruisers, as to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty might be able to give some information to the House, and that was the proposals which the Government were likely to lay before The Hague Conference, or rather what was the position which the representatives of this country were likely to take at that Conference in regard to the proposal to forbid the capture of private property at sea. He asked what the position of our representatives would be and what effect the proposal would have, if adopted, upon the shipbuilding programme of the future. It was an extremely important question whether it was the intention of the Government to support that proposal. In conclusion there was one further branch of his hon. friend's Resolution upon which he wished to make a few observations. It was that part in which he complained of the methods of secrecy which had been adopted by the Admiralty. He did not think his hon. friend limited that complaint to the present Government or to the last twelve months or was desirous of treating the question as a Party one, nor did he wish to treat it as such,

  1081
  but he would recall the words of Mr. W. H. Smith who, he believed, was formerly a very capable and clear-sighted First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Smith said—
  "There was nothing in the objection that inquiry would give information to foreign Powers. For those who had the management of their navies knew a great deal more about our Navy than many of us did. The Government might suppress printed documents, but if he wanted information on the Navy he could get, it at Berlin, Copenhagen or Paris if he chose to pay. The only effect of withholding information from England was to create the impression that it could not be given without damage to responsible, officials."
  The observation was profoundly true, and he therefore urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should be more communicative to hon. Members in all parts of the House. On 18th July 1906, the hon. Member for King's Lynn asked the Secretary to the Admiralty—
  "What reserve of heavy guns was maintained by the German navy for battleships carrying four heavy guns each; and whether the guns in German fortifications generally corresponded to the guns on board the ships."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty replied—
  "So many questions have recently been addressed to me on the subject of foreign navy estimates, programmes and policy that I am constrained to ask my hon. friend and other hon. Members to excuse me from making statements on subjects as to which the Board of Admiralty have no official knowledge and can take no responsibility."
  He would have thought, in the first place, that the Board of Admiralty ought to have official knowledge, and he was glad to call to his aid as a formidable ally in this contention the right hon. Gentleman himself, who when in opposition delivered a telling indictment of the Admiralty because they were not able to give him information as to the Russian Admiralty's policy. To take another Question which had been asked, and, in his judgment, had not been sufficiently answered, on 19th February, 1907, the hon. Member for Ludlow asked the Secretary to the Admiralty—
  "If he has received any official report from Admiral Lord Charles Beresford as to the sufficiency of the Channel Fleet; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in consequence of the report."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty replied—
  "The Admiralty must, in the interest of the public service, decline to allow their confidential
  1082
  communications with the officers of the Fleet to be the subject, of Parliamentary inquiry."
  He quite assented to that in so far as the declaration in reference to Parliamentary inquiry was concerned, but he thought it could hardly have been very injurious either to admit or to deny the receipt of a report. Again, on 21st February 1907, the hon. Member for King's Lynn asked—
  "How many skilled and how many unskilled ratings are embraced in the two-fifths complement of nucleus crews, and how many will there be in the new skeleton crews; and how many battleships and cruisers which, on 1st March 1906, were fully manned or partially manned, will, under the new scheme of distribution, be degraded to ships with skeleton crews."
  In answer the Secretary to the Admiralty said—
  "It has been the practice of the Admiralty to treat details of complement as strictly confidential, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot give my hon. friend the information asked for."
  To be perfectly candid with the House, after he had read the Answer about Lord Charles Beresford he came to the conclusion that that was an instance in which the Secretary was justified, but what he complained of was that while information was refused to the House it was given to the Press to whom inspired communications were made. There was another Question to which, and the Answer to it, he would call attention. On 17th July 1906, the hon. Member for King's Lynn asked the Secretary to the Admiralty—
  "Whether he can give an approximate estimate of the relative cost of eight battleships in full commission, such as the Atlantic Fleet, and eight battleships with nucleus crews on board ready for mobilisation, under the system established by Lord Selborne's Memorandum, 6th December, 1904."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty replied—
  "The Board of Admiralty are of opinion that it is not in the interests of the public service to give the information for which the hon. Member asks."
  There was no question of strategy there, and it was eminently one for men of business in this House to consider, yet they were told that the information could not be given. Another Question, asked on 21st December, 1906, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn of the Secretary to the Admiralty, was—
  "How many armoured cruisers during the present year have been in collision; how many

  1083
  have grounded with or without injury; and how many have been put out of commission in order to enable engine-room or gun defects to he taken in hand."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty replied—
  "It does not appear to be in the public interest that the information asked for by the hon. Member should be published."
  In his opinion it had a ways been in the interests of the Navy that any errors or alleged errors of seamanship should be ventilated in the House, but on this occasion the information necessary for them to form a judgment upon the matter had been refused. On Wednesday, 27th March, 1907, the hon. Member for King's Lynn asked the Secretary to the Admiralty—
  "How many signatures are required to make an order of the Admiralty executive in reference to the removal of an officer in command of his fleet, ship or barracks, or whether this power can be exercised by the First Lord of the Admiralty without the concurrence of the Sea Lords forming the Board of Admiralty; and whether he can state in what respects the practice is a variation, and under what Patent or Order in Council, from that pursued in April, 1795, when the decision of Lord Spencer to supersede Admiral Lord Hood in the command of the Mediterranean Fleet could not be carried into effect until he obtained the signature of two of the Sea Lords."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty replied—
  "The Board of Admiralty are not prepared to discuss their present methods of administration of Admiralty business, and the methods practised by their predecessors in 1795. The hon. Member may rest assured that provisions contained in the Letters Patent under which the Lords Commissioners exercise their authority are duly observed."
  He could not see why that Question should not have been answered. The utmost importance was attached by the Select Committee of 1861 to the question of signatures in order to prevent an individual acting for the whole Board in any important matter that was not of the, most urgent character. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been well advised to answer it with the greatest frankness. What made the matter more galling and annoying was that, as he had indicated, side by side with deliberate and repeated refusals to give information in the House, there had grown a system under which inspired communications had been made not only to the Press but to persons organising agitation. The Financial
  1084
  Secretary to the Treasury, asked for an explanation of the increase in the Vote for Naval literature from £73,299 in 1901–2 to £117,774 in 1904–5, said it was due to the expansion of the "intelligence publications." No one who had read the publications of the Admiralty during the last four or five years would be in any real doubt as to what was meant by the "intelligence publications" which had been expanded. It was common knowledge amongst those who had been reading these publications that there was a most deplorable change of tone in them some four or five years ago—that they were now marked by great levity, and that documents had been circulated at the public charge which had no claim to be paid for by the nation. These documents, some of which had come into his hands, were marked "Private and confidential." No one had a right to mark documents "Private and confidenttial" and then send them to the Press in the hope that, by so marking them, one might be discouraged in that House or elsewhere from discussing their contents. In one of these publications a deliberate request had been made that outside agitation should be conducted. It was written—
  "The Board of Admiralty would welcome outside pressure to enable them to nominate to Keyham as you suggest; but the outcry would be tremendous. We should be glad of the support of the engineering associations of the country, as doubtless we shall have to face much hostility, but we do not fear anyone. Do right and damn the odds."
  In a letter on this subject obligingly supplied in an official memorandum an illustrious person wrote—
  "The Frenchman's Fleet appears now by the Gods,
  We'll fight them as of old, and damn the odds."
  Of course distinguished persons might be guilty of levity, but their utterances of that character ought not to be printed and sent round at the public expense. The result of these publications had been that for the last four years Press cuttings had been printed and published by the Admiralty which should never have been printed and published by a Department of the State. There had recently appeared an extremely controversial pamphlet called

  1085
  "The Truth About the Navy;" and of this the Admiralty had bought a great number of copies at the public expense and distributed them through every vessel in the Fleets. The Admiral of the Mediterranean Fleet, in response to the representations of his captains, refused to circulate the pamphlet on the ground that such publication was not in the interests of the service. As to the "Dreadnought," when he asked for certain information it was refused in the public interest. But very shortly afterwards a document was circulated to the Press, "not for official publication, but to serve as a guide to members of the Press, and not to be quoted verbatim." This document contained the very information which he had desired to obtain, information much in advance of any that had been published. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persuade the Admiralty neither to allow their controversial methods to degenerate into a species of gasconade, nor to continuo their gratuitous contributions to an economical Press.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, while recognising the services rendered by the Admiralty, regrets to observe evidence of ill-considered changes vitally affecting the war readiness of the Navy; the House is of opinion that its control over the Navy in recent years has been, and is being, weakened by the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty from the House of Commons, by undue secrecy, by sudden changes of policy, and by Admiralty officials resorting to novel methods for the purpose of influencing public opinion."—(Mr. Bellairs.)
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)admitted that this was an embarrassing Motion, for it was moved by a supporter of the Government, and seconded by one of their determined opponents. It was at once a Motion of confidence and a Motion of censure, and he accepted it for what it was worth. The second dubious characteristic attaching to the Motion was that it was an attack on two Administrations. Personally he was only responsible for one Administration. The Leader of the Opposition had laid down the sound proposition that the responsibility for acts done by officials
  1086
  rested not on them, but on the Government of the day; and, though the Government and the Admiralty were responsible for all that the officials did in their departments, they could not accept responsibility for what had been done by their predecessors. There were four charges contained in the Motion. The main charges made were to be found in the second part of the resolution. The question of the House of Commons' control over the Navy and the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty from a place in the House was one really for the Prime Minister; but he might point out that the present First Lord of the Admiralty and his two immediate predecessors had enjoyed long experience in the House of Commons, and knew the House of Commons point of view as well as any Member sitting in it. In the last twenty-five years out of nine First Lords six had been Members of the House of Lords and three Members of the House of Commons; but really this particular point might be more properly raised on Vote 12 of the Estimates. The second charge made was one of undue secrecy, amounting to a want of veracity on the part of the Admiralty and its representatives. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had been permitted to say in the columns of the Spectator that " we do not got the truth; we seldom do in regard to Naval matters," and at the United Service Institution the hon. Member permitted himself to use language calling in question the good faith of the Admiralty. His hon. friend was the last man in the world who ought to complain of want of information or of attempts at secrecy. In the short time his hon. friend had been a Member of the House the amount of information that he had extracted from the Admiralty was incredible. In the one year and a quarter he had been in office the hon. Member for King's Lynn had asked 196 Questions altogether. As the representative of the Admiralty, he was, of course, dependent upon official assistance. He instructed those who assisted him to give to every specific Question a specific Answer, without evasion, without argument, and in the fewest possible words. He appealed to the House whether the whole tenor of his replies had not been consistent in that respect. He could only charge himself, on looking back on the Questions which had been asked, with three important categories

  1087
  in which secrecy had been maintained. The first was as to the reserve of guns. He had refused altogether to give information about that, and he still adhered to that resolution. In the opinion of the Admiralty it was not desirable that our reserve of guns should be made known to the whole world. The necessity for that secrecy had increased since the Russo-Japanese war. Other nations also observed secrecy in this matter, and if the information was given we should be giving them a benefit which they took care not to give to us. He had also refused to answer certain Questions about foreign navies. They were apt to be invidious Questions. He had answered them as far as he could, but he ought not to be asked to give information about facts of which he had no official knowledge. Nor had he given Answers to Questions relating to the Home Fleet. The Home Fleet was experimental; it was still growing, and to make statements at this early stage as to future developments would only be to tie the hands of the Admiralty. He did not gather from the hon. and learned Member opposite that he complained of secrecy which had been maintained with regard to the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible."
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I did complain that at the time information was not given to the House it was given in the Memorandum.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would only say, that so much did he desire to give the House all the information that could possibly be given that he put in last year's Estimates rather fuller information about both the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible," and he had not been asked to give more. He had not refused to give more, and he did not say that to give more was impossible, but so far it was rather fuller than had been asked for. He was sure that both hon. Members would accept what he said, when he stated that it was the belief of certain Naval authorities that the secrecy which had been maintained with regard to the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible" resulted in a postponement of building by foreign Powers, which was a casual benefit to this country. He was not prepared to say more than that.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that when in opposition he had himself complained because this very information was refused to him.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had asked for details which had been refused to him, but which had been given to Engineering. He had not made that a complaint. All he asked, if he remembered rightly, was whether the details published in the Engineering newspaper were correct. There was one occasion on which he had given the hon. and gallant Gentleman an inaccurate Answer, and he wished to be allowed to explain it away. It was a curious story. In August the hon. and gallant Member put a Question to him as to the number of German ships that were projected for the next two years. It was an unstarred Question, and in the official reply, prepared by an official at the Admiralty, instead of the figure "6," which was the correct figure, the figure "5" was inserted. By a pure clerical error "5" was given instead of "6." The hon. Member for King's Lynn called his attention to it and asked whether it was correct, and he told the hon. Member that it was wrong—that a wrong figure had been inserted by a slip of the pen; it was a pure blunder on the part of one of the subordinates. The hon. Member sent this correspondence to the newspapers, and one of them — he would content himself with calling it a Tory paper—received the explanation with derision and suggested that it was a false explanation. He could not correct the Answer because, as it happened, it was not printed in "Hansard"; and the incident passed out of his mind. To his surprise, four months later, a Question was put to him by a Tory Member, asking him whether he had not made an erroneous statement, why he had made it, and whether he proposed to correct it? On inquiry he found that this accidentally erroneous statement, made in August last year, which at the time was not printed by the official reporter at all, had actually made its appearance as an official Answer three months afterwards. He asked the official reporter how that had come about without any consultation with him. The reply of the official reporter was that he had been asked to print it by the hon. Member for King's Lynn; and the hon.

  1089
  Member took that step, knowing that by a clerical slip the Answer was erroneous, and without giving him the opportunity of correcting it.
  MR. BELLAIRS: May I explain?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I decline to give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Member.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Mr. Speaker, have I not the right to reply?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have the opportunity of making a personal explanation.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that disposed of the charge of undue secrecy. Then he came to the other head of indictment—about the changes. It was said that changes had been made vitally affecting the readiness of the Navy for war. But no allegation had been made that the present Government had introduced any changes at all, good or bad, except in the case of the Home Fleet, which had already been discussed, Reference had been made to changes in the training of officers and men. As to these changes, the present Government continued the system they found in operation, or about to come into operation, as devised by their predecessors in office. They were not absolutely committed to these changes, but they determined to give them a full and fair trial and were watching and waiting as to the result. He was bound to say, speaking for himself, that in connection with Naval matters he was a good deal conservative. His own belief was that, after the very serious and important changes which had taken place, what the Navy wanted now was a period of rest and reflection during which the experiments might be left to work out their own development. He came to the last head of the indictment on which the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Motion had spoken in a tone to which, seriously and frankly, he took no exception whatever. The greater part of his speech was a discussion of Vote 8, but he preferred to stick to the text of the Motion, and defer answering all those questions. He preferred to confine himself to the very important observations which the
  1090
  hon. and learned Member made, as he supposed, in justification of the last head of the indictment, as to the novel methods pursued by officials of the Admiralty in order to influence public opinion. Some of the statements made about these methods came to him for the first time. As to the document marked "private and confidential" he had never heard of it; and with regard to the pamphlet, "The Truth About the Navy," he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept his statement when he said that he had never read a line of it. He preferred to get his information officially. He did not know what the contents of the document were, but all he knew about it was that he had been told inside the office that, on the whole, with one exception, it was a fairly accurate account of what had taken place. He was asked if it was written by an Admiralty official, and had given the answer "No," and he did that upon information volunteered to him by a gentleman, who was certainly not an official, that he was the author. "The Truth About the Navy" was circulated to a certain extent among the Fleet by order of the Admiralty at a cost of £25. He might say also that their action in this matter had not been all on one side, because he found to his astonishment and disgust that the money for which he was responsible had been expended upon similar publications and that a publication in quite a different direction, "The Naval Annual," containing a long article attacking the policy of the Government by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the motion, was circulated at a cost of £127. There was also the Royal Naval List, which contained, not only an attack on the Admiralty, but a partisan attack on the Government of the day, and that was circulated at a cost of £11 18s. Again the United Service Institute—or Institution—had afforded a platform for attacks against the Admiralty, and that body was subsidised by the Admiralty to the extent of £375 a year. Looking at the matter seriously, he really thought it would be better to ignore all such publications and all journalistic writings, whether in attack or defence of the Admiralty. One other matter he wished to refer to in reference to the Motion, and he called the attention of the House to the terms. First, "ill-considered

  1091
  changes" were condemned, and this must refer to the action of the late Government, for the present Government had made none; but the allegation he wished to come to close quarters with was that these changes—ill-considered or sudden they might be, he would say nothing about that—had impaired the readiness for war of his Majesty's Navy. That was the imputation, and if that was not its meaning he did not know what meaning it could have. That was a grave statement to make, but did the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite concur in the statement, the more serious as coming from an hon. Gentleman who had been connected with the service? If he intended to say that, it was a most dangerous statement to make. He believed he was justified in saying that never in the history of the British Navy had it been so ready for war as it was at the present moment. Some allusion had been made to the question of repairs. On that point he might be permitted to say that the Admiralty increased the provision for repairs last year to the extent of more than a quarter of a million—£266,000—beyond the sum originally provided for by the Estimates, and they had increased the provision this year to the extent of £200,000 over last year. That provision was considered by the naval advisers of the Admiralty to be ample. Then as to the two-Power standard, let him say—he believed it had been already stated elsewhere by his noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—that it was the determination of the Government to maintain our Naval supremacy as it stood now, and, in the event of The Hague Conference proving abortive, to hold themselves ready to take steps to maintain our relative position. That was all he would say on that point, and, in conclusion, he thanked the House for the hearing they had given him, and invited them to reject the Motion.
  MR. BELLAIRSin making a personal explanation, said he thought that every Member of the House who asked a Question and got an Answer had the right to have the Question and Answer printed in The Parliamentary Debates. Finding his Question was not printed, he went to to the official reporter, who consented to print it. He told the official reporter at the same time that the Answer was
  1092
  erroneous, and that it ought to be six battleships instead of five. He asked him whether he should make the correction, and he said no, as he had no right to edit the right hon. Gentleman's replies.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEthought that this Motion amounted to a vote of censure on the Board of Admiralty, and would, if carried, lead to their resignation. He wanted to give the reasons why he found himself unable to support the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would be the height of presumption for him to attempt to defend the late Board of Admiralty, but he hoped it would not be considered presuming on his part if be attempted to deal with the question of the continuity of policy of the two Boards, and gave that as his chief reason for not committing himself to the support of this Motion. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would realise that dissent from this Motion did not commit him and his friends in any way to a general support of the policy of the Admiralty, or preclude them from embarking on serious criticism of Admiralty administration on many points of detail when the proper occasion arose. But if they had grave doubts on certain recent developments of naval administration, he thought the attack should not be directed so much against the Board of Admiralty as against the Government itself, and particularly against the Prime Minister, for tampering with the shipbuilding programme in a fit of sentimentality and in the desire to assist The Hague Conference. He thought they had plenty of justification for attacking the Government along that line, but this sweeping condemnation of the Board of Admiralty was, he thought, not politic, and he would remind some of his hon. friends that the resolution, as a weapon of attack, might prove to have some of the peculiar and inconvenient qualities of the boomerang. What they ought to strive for was continuity of naval policy. They did not mean that kind of continuity which was now favoured by the Secretary of State for War, which consisted apparently in repudiating all the acts of his predecessor and in claiming that continuity of policy should only be prospective, and built only on the foundations which he

  1093
  himself had laid. They meant that the present Board of Admiralty should maintain generally the naval policy initiated by Lord Selborne and developed by Lord Cawdor, and handed on to Lord Tweedmouth. He wished he could say that the Government had lived up to its duty in that respect, quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. The Opposition would like to take a non - Party view of this matter, and to give a general support to the Board of Admiralty that evening, but such a course was made very difficult for them by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. The Opposition had been denied proper and reasonable Answers to important Questions. They were, however, unwilling to join in a direct vote of censure on the Admiralty. One naturally hesitated to give a verdict in the absence of the full and authoritative information which alone could enable a competent judgment to be formed. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been better advised if he had made a clean breast of it in answering the Questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition in the recent debate. As he was apparently unwilling to do so, an early opportunity would betaken in another place of asking the Government to reply on the points which had been raised. Those inquiries would be made under circumstances which would make it impossible for them to be evaded by the rules of debate. Meanwhile the Opposition were anxious to give the Board of Admiralty the benefit of the doubt. They were willing to assume that, subject to the financial restrictions imposed upon it by the Government, it had endeavoured to carry out in its broad outlines, at any rate, the general policy bequeathed by its predecessors. He did not wish to differentiate between the Civil and Naval members of the Board, for each member must bear the full responsibility for all Admiralty policy. He was sorry that the hon. Member for King's Lynn should have stated that the quality of the Naval advisers of the Admiralty had greatly deteriorated during the last few years.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid he did not remember making such a statement. What he said was that the First Sea Lord Was no longer the first among equals, but was superior to others.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he accepted the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but he strongly deprecated the singling out of any Member of the Board for special attack or denunciation as the hon. Member had in the case of the First Sea Lord.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I made no attack to-day.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEadmitted that the hon. Gentleman had come before them to-day more in the guise of a sucking-dove than of a roaring lion; but he thought that when the hon. Member read on the morrow his remarks he would see that he had singled out the First Sea Lord for attack.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid he had never singled out the First Sea Lord for consideratian. What he had said was that the First Sea Lord had been conceded too much power.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the impression of the hon. Member's remarks made upon his mind was as he had stated. But he did not think it was necessary for him, or anyone else to take up the cudgels on behalf of the First Sea Lord. He would do that for himself when, and if, his opponents appeared in the open. But that was a digression. What the Resolution invited the House to do was to attack, not an individual, but the Board of Admiralty in its corporate capacity. He had already explained why he personally was not prepared to join in an attack of that nature. He could only say that in the absence of definite and authoritative information he felt bound to refrain from giving a hostile vote and to suspend judgment on the latest developments of Admiralty policy. But, looking at the results as a whole, and mainly owing to the reforms introduced by the late Government, he was certain that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying there had been a great advance in the general efficiency of the Navy, and in the readiness of the Fleet for purposes of war. That was the true test after all, and perhaps the best critical summary of the present position of the Admiralty was that made by The Times Correspondent, who had been writing a series of articles during the last few months, wherein he said that

  1095
  the real question was what had been done not how, and that they might overlook some eccentricities of method if, on the whole, the right thing had been done strenuously and faithfully. Some mistakes had no doubt been made, and some steps had been retrieved, but the country would judge the Admiralty not by occasional mistakes, but by solid and substantial achievements. That was friendly, shrewd, and, he thought, reasonable criticism. He wished the hon. Member for Kings Lynn's Motion had been couched in a similar strain, but it contained within it several propositions to which the Opposition could not possibly agree. The hon. Member had also spoken of the demand pub forward by 225 members of the House, for an inquiry into the administration of the Board of Admiralty; but if even 670 members had petitioned the Government of the day for such an inquiry, he hoped they would refuse it. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps he had exaggerated the numbers; but he appealed to both sides of the House that it was altogether out of the question that an outside body should inquire into the policy of the Admiralty.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid that 225 Members had never signed any application for an inquiry into the policy of the Admiralty, but as to certain changes proposed to be made in Naval training.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid certainly the impression he had stated was held at the Admiralty some time ago. In conclusion he hoped that he had succeeded in making his position, which was a somewhat difficult one, perfectly plain. Although he thought that the Admiralty during the last twelve months had done many things and shown many tendencies which were causing anxiety to friends of the Navy, yet at the same time many who sat on the Opposition side of the House could not support a direct vote of censure of this kind, which in its form he believed to be both in opportune and unwise, because its main effect, would be to excite sympathy with the Board of. Admiralty, at a time, too, when it was not sympathy they required, but the closest and most vigilant watching.
  MR. JENKINScomplained that he had received no answer from the
  1096
  Secretary to the Admiralty in reply to a Question on Tuesday in reference to the sale of obsolete ships that had been scrapped. At all times up to this occasion he had found the right hon. Gentleman very courteous in his replies, but in this instance, although he asked a specific question, no reply was given. If the right hon. Gentleman had not the information at his command at the moment, any hon. Member would be only too delighted to put down the Question and submit it again, because they were all aware that the replies to Questions were drawn up by the permanent officials at the Department. He had no desire to criticise the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman except in that respect, and he thought he should have been asked to submit the Question again. Pertinent replies should in his opinion be given to pertinent questions. He put the case of three ships, the tonnage displacement of which he estimated at between thirty and forty thousand tons. He had been informed that scrapped steel was worth £4 per ton. He estimated that these vessels should have realised £171,000, but they were sold for £57,800. That was a loss of £116,000 to the country. He urged that when ships were about to be sold they should be broken up in the Royal dockyards. There was every convenience, and few tools were required for the purpose. That would to some extent prevent the wholly senseless discharges at Woolwich and our other dockyards, which were national institutions, by giving employment to the men. Those dockyards furnished the stable industry of the places where they were situated, which in many cases like Woolwich were going to wreck and ruin through those discharges. He did not join with the mover and seconder in their criticisms as to the policy of the Admiralty, because on the various Estimates he would have opportunities of bringing forward any points he had to raise; but he protested that when a Member raised a question over which the nation was losing thousands of pounds, he ought to have a reply and if it could not then be given he should be asked to repeat the Question.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid it seemed to him that of all the ill-considered changes that might vitally affect the war readiness of the

  1097
  Navy the insane desire of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite to reduce expenditure on the Navy in the interests of economy, without due regard to the interests of efficiency was the worst. He hoped that course of action would not be pursued after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it was the settled policy of the Board of Admiralty to keep the Navy in the same condition of preponderance in the future that it was now in. If that was the case, he hoped in the future they would hear no more of any reductions in the number of men belonging to the Fleet, because we could not possibly have the same preponderance and the same efficiency that we had now if the number were reduced. He was afraid they would be going back to the bad old days before 1889 if they made further reduction—the days when the Sea Lords of the Admiralty, instead of making their programme on the basis of what was required for the needs of the service, and stating what money was wanted, only gave consideration to the question of how best to use such money as was doled out to them by the Admiralty. What were the changes that had been introduced in the last few years? First, rapid shipbuilding had been introduced. That did not seem to be a very bad change, and if the present Admiralty were responsible in any degree for that change they were to be congratulated. The building of the "Dreadnought" in so short a time had proved a great success, and he hoped the Admiralty would continue to make that sort of change. The next change was the reorganisation of the Fleet. He disagreed with those who thought it was bad chat our main squadrons should be organised in four fleets instead of three, because so long as the four fleets were effective they were stronger for war purposes than three could ever be. And why? The Atlantic Squadron might be regarded as a reinforcing squadron for either the Mediterranean or Home Fleet in case the political situation abroad altered from what it was now. The formation of nucleus
  1098
  crews also was a most useful thing, so long as there were not fewer ships kept in full commission. Hon. Members must not forget that before these nucleus crows were organised, ships in reserve were to a large extent allowed to rot, but now, by putting officers and a certain number of men on board those ships, they stood a better chance of being kept in proper condition. It was for such reasons as these that he could not support this Motion. The elimination of old and small ships on foreign stations was also a good thing. He was aware that it was said that the elimination of these ships gave less chance for training officers, but there were other ships, such as torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers, in which young officers could be adequately trained, and in which they could attain a high state of efficiency. He therefore did not believe that it would be satisfactory to continue to build these small ships at great cost, and to keep them in commission on foreign stations. He had had a good deal of experience at the Admiralty, and he was convinced that the system of nucleus crews would tend to keep the ships which were in reserve in good condition and not allow them to rot through want of personal attention as they used to do. They wished to have as many torpedo boats and destroyers in commission as possible, so that the officers might get that sea training which was so essential to them, and which they could hardly get in any other way. The hon. Member had referred to the 225 signatories who wished to approach the Prime Minister with a view to getting the Admiralty to reconsider their decision on the question of naval training. They knew by past experience what had happened in regard to the reconsideration of decisions of that sort. It was within the memory of many of them, he dared say, how a reconsideration was come to over the question of water-tube boilers. The Admiralty were foolish enough to accede to the request of those who asked for an

  1099
  inquiry into that matter. What was the result? The only people who benefited by it were the Committee, who, by the time they had finished, had learned what were the real needs of the service with regard to water-tube boilers. During the time they were sitting they partially humbugged about eighteen of our then newest and best battleships and cruisers, by experimentally putting into them partly ordinary cylindrical boilers and partly water-tube boilers. The Committee was appointed to consider the advisability of the installation of water-tube boilers, and afterwards it was found that there was no necessity for the Committee as everyone was aware now of the efficiency of that class, of boiler. He believed himself that the Committee which was asked for now was not necessary. If they would only allow the rules which were being evolved by the present Board of Admiralty with reference to training gradually to develop, if they would allow the Admiralty a reasonably free hand to see a gradual development in the right direction, he believed that the new system of training would be a thorough success. He did not believe that a Committee sitting to examine into the methods of the Admiralty would recommend anything of practical benefit which the Admiralty would not concede on the advice of their experts, and he did not think it desirable that such a Committee should be granted at all.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked leave to withdraw the Motion after the discussion which had taken place. [Cries of "No, no."]
  Leave to withdraw being refused,
  Question put, and negatived.

  HOURS OF LABOUR (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Captain Hervey.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LUPTONthought that they could not enter upon a consideration of the regulation of the hours of work in bakehouses without time for a full discussion of the subject. If they began to regulate the hours of bakehouses they would also have to consider the price of bread.
  MR. REESsaid he had received representations from his constituents, who pointed out that the Bill introduced regulations for which they did not ask, and which would prevent their commencing their labours before a certain hour in the morning, and compel them to cease at a certain hour at night. The regulations which were proposed would, if carried out, be extremely hard upon men in a small way of trade. It was quite possible that some regulations might be required for big manufactories, but he was only speaking for his constituents in pursuance of his duty, and he submitted that it was not desirable that a Bill affecting a trade, whether in a large or small way, all over the country, should be rushed through the Second Reading stage at the last moment of the sitting, when the matter could not receive that attention which it deserved, though it was one which affected a great many people in all constituencies.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey),in moving the adjournment, gave notice that to-morrow he would move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Llandrindod Wells Gas; Bude Gas; Falmouth Gas; Annfield Plain and District Gas; Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions); Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited [H.L.];
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.] Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a(according to order).
Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
Tyne Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a. An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oxford and District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; The Order made on the 18th of March last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
Glasgow Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [H.L]; Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Clinton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Faber; read, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1) Bill [H.L.] A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts. Was presented by the Lord President (E. Crewe); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 31.)

LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (SOUTHWARK BOROUGH MARKET) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this Bill is one which arises out of the London Government Act of 1899, and relates to the Borough Market of Southwark, which was originally founded under an old Act passed in the year 1764 in the reign of George III. By that Act the wardens of the parish of St. Saviour, the overseers of that parish, and eleven elected inhabitant ratepayers were constituted trustees for the purpose of this market. To make a long story short, owing to various changes in local government, for instance the fact that overseers are no longer appointed and that their powers are vested in the borough council, and also owing to some doubts which have arisen as to the possibility of electing the eleven inhabitant ratepayers since the Act of 1899, it has been found necessary to form a new scheme for this purpose. The effect of this Bill is that the trustees are in future to be appointed by the borough council on the nomination of the councillors of the ward, which is co-extensive with the parish of St. Saviour. At first there was some opposition to this Bill both from the London County Council and from the borough council of Southwark, but I am glad to say that the objections have been entirely withdrawn and that the Bill passed through another place without opposition. If your Lordships will give it a Second Reading it will then go, in accordance with the new, and, as I think, very valuable Standing Order, to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, where it will receive due consideration. I hope in

923
these circumstances your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EGYPT, No. 2. (1907.)
  Despatch from the Earl of Cromer respecting the water supply of Egypt.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3763. France: (Trade and agriculture of French West Africa for 1905–1906);
  No. 3764. France: (Réunion);
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  University Court Ordinance, No. XIX. (Glasgow No. 5). Foundation of James S. Dixon Chair of Mining: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 29.)
  CROFTING PARISHES (SCOTLAND).
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of the 18th of March last), and to be printed. (No. 30.)
  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  The Lord Balfour appointed to take the chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHrose to move that there be laid before this House a complete list, with dates of issue, of the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and of the appendices thereto; together with an alphabetical index of the collections examined and reported on, giving a reference to the Report and appendix wherein
  924
  the result of the examination may be found.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name will, I believe, be accepted by the noble Earl who represents the Home Office. It requires no explanation, because it is a Motion which has to be made from time to time to secure a continuance of this index. I have been in communication with the representatives of the Home Office, and I understand they are willing that the House should pass this Motion. In moving it I venture to make two suggestions which I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept—namely, that some of the volumes which have been already printed, but are out of print, should be incorporated with the Return now asked for, and that the Return when printed should be on quarto paper, the same size paper as the volumes of which it is the index.
  Moved, That an humble address be presented to His Majesty for a complete list, with dates of issue, of the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and of the appendices thereto; together with an alphabetical index of the collections examined and reported on, giving a reference to the Report and appendix wherein the result of the examination may be found.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are quite ready to give the Return asked for by the noble Lord. With regard to the special points to which he has referred, there are, I know, some Members of the Commission who are in favour of what he has suggested, and I have very little doubt that, with their support, the Commission will give effect to his request.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the programme of shipbuilding for the Navy as proposed for 1907–1908. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before dealing with shipbuilding, I may offer one observation with which my noble

  925
  friend will certainly agree. He will admit that he is not unduly troubled with interpellations from these benches. Noble Lords in opposition are patriotic. They are silent because they are satisfied with the general administration of the Navy. The supporters of the Government know that the strength of the Navy in men and ships is being adequately maintained. Where economy has been possible Votes have been cut down. No pains have been spared to perfect the training of the Navy. The manœuvres recently carried out have been on a scale unprecedented in time of peace. The advance in gunnery has been notable, reflecting credit both on the gunnery officers of the Fleet and the seamen. Better provision has been made for the instruction of officers in naval strategy, in navigation, and in other subjects. The education of cadets has been revised and adapted to modern requirements.
  The country has confidence, and rightly so, in the general administration of the Navy. There are always points on which suggestions may be offered. Briefly, I propose to deal with shipbuilding. The relative strength of Navies depends essentially on battleships. Looking back over a long term of years, our battleships, whether constructed by Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, Sir William White, or Sir Philip Watts, have been always equal, and often superior, to the ships of even date laid down for other Powers. Our latest battleships are those of the "Dreadnought" type. They show a great advance in armament and speed, and also in size and cost. The building of the "Dreadnought" type is commended by an overwhelming weight of authority—by the naval advisors and the technical advisers of the Admiralty, and by a Report obtained from a strong independent committee of naval officers, shipbuilders and men of science. There is testimony perhaps even more conclusive. Ships of the " Dreadnought" type are being laid down by nearly every maritime Power—by Russia and Japan, by France and the United States. We have been the first to lay them down and have stolen a march.
  There must always be need for some ships of less dimensions than the "Dreadnought." The cost of the "Dreadnought" may be put in round figures at £2,000,000. Such ships must be few.
  926
  And there are operations of war which can be more effectively performed by many ships than by few. The forces with which a superior fleet may have to deal may be widely scattered. There are the tactical considerations on which Admiral Sir Reginald Custance has insisted—
  "No ship" (he contends), " however large, can stand up against the fire of two or three battleships."
  There are the many risks from which size will not secure immunity. There is the risk of instantaneous destruction by the submarine mine, fatal to both sides in the war in the Far East. There are the risks of navigation. Casualties have been numerous in the British Navy. We have lately lost a battleship. It would not be well to build ships for the British Navy inferior as to calibre of guns, armour, speed or endurance. We may adopt the suggestion put forward by Sir William White. We may lay down a type in which the armament of two "Dreadnoughts" may be distributed between three vessels, equal in speed, armament and defence, and possibly superior in fighting power to the larger ships.
  If it is difficult to produce a type of battleship which shall be in all respects satisfactory, the difficulty is greater still in the case of cruisers. In the endeavour to combine offensive and defensive power, speed and endurance, our latest cruisers have become as large and costly as battleships. It has been contended that as armoured cruisers come nearer to battleships in armour and armament, it will be difficult to limit their sphere of action to that strictly belonging to cruisers. In the line of battle their speed would give no advantage, while in fighting power they would be inferior to the battleships to which they were opposed. It seems clear that the Admiralty should concentrate their resources as far as possible on battleships. By adopting this policy the fleet of Germany has been created with estimates relatively moderate in amount. Our cruisers must be sufficient to meet those of other Powers. There has been no neglect in this respect on the part of the Admiralty. As against armoured vessels, the protected cruisers must be reckoned as non-combatants. They are necessary to protect commerce. The British Navy has, in this class, an overwhelming superiority.

  927
  Vessels are necessary for scouting duties. They are the eyes of the fleet. Eight scouts have lately been built. They are costly, but not satisfactory, flimsy in construction, weak in armour and armament. Speed is the only merit. The scouts are too small for ocean service. No more vessels of this class are being laid down. A new and enlarged destroyer, the "Swift," has, however, been proposed. The estimated cost is £250,000, or nearly that of the scouts. The building of ships of this class is, I submit, open to question. In fine weather their speed will only slightly exceed that of the ocean destroyers now building; and the estimated cost of a destroyer is half that of the "Swift."
  In view of the failure of the ablest constructors, both in the Admiralty and out of doors, to produce an effective cruiser for scouting duties, the policy of subventions to mail steamers merits attention. After the close of the War of Secession the policy of subsidies to auxiliary cruisers was strongly advocated by the Secretary for the United States Navy. It was recommended later by Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, and approved by the highest naval authorities of the day—by Sir Spencer Robinson, Controller; and Sir Frederick Grey, First Sea Lord of the Admiralty. Similar proposals were renewed by Sir Donald Currie, and again approved by the naval advisers of the Admiralty—by Sir Cooper Key and Sir Anthony Hawkins.
  The latest testimony to the value of the ocean greyhounds as auxiliaries to the Navy is that of Lord Charles Beresford, who appeared as a witness before the Committee on Subsidies. He urged that a reserve of auxiliaries to the Navy should be formed by the enrolment of subsidised mail steamers in our Admiralty list. The auxiliaries would be used to keep open long lines of communication. It is not necessary that all the ships on the Admiralty list should have the speed of the two vessels now completing for the Cunard Company. Extreme speed is most costly. At a comparatively moderate cost we may secure auxiliaries with more enduring speed than has ever yet been attained in vessels of war, encumbered as they must be with the weight of armour and armament. The policy recommended by Lord Charles Beresford has been adopted
  928
  by all foreign Governments, by France, Germany, Italy, and the United States. It has lately been advocated by President Roosevelt. The British Navy is ill-supplied with auxiliaries.
  The mercantile auxiliary offers a twofold advantage. In peace it can be usefully employed. Swift communications are bonds of Empire. We are at this time seeking with one heart to make those bonds, by every practicable means, closer. Action must depend on opportunity. New services have recently been established between Canada and the mother country. Others are being proposed. A liberal policy on the part of the Home Government in giving aid to such undertakings would be wise. It should lead to economy by removing the necessity for laying down special vessels as scouts. It would strengthen the Navy; it would promote the unity of the Empire.
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, there is one remark I should like to make arising out of what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite on the subject of scouts. The whole practice of scouting has been altered by the invention of wireless telegraphy, and is now being worked out and studied on a totally different basis from what it was ten years ago. There is also the question of submarine bells which come in as a secondary method of communication with ships at sea. In consequence of this ships will not now require a large chain of scouts consisting of many vessels more or less in sight of one another, but considerably fewer vessels using wireless telegraphy. The demand, therefore, for scouting cruisers is less than it was ten or fifteen years ago. As regards the construction of smaller battleships, there is one point against putting the armament of two "Dreadnoughts" into three vessels, and it is that as your line will be longer you will not have your power concentrated so well.
  Questions have arisen about the reduction of the Cawdor programme, and I think myself that that reduction was a mistake, not because the preponderance of the British Navy has actually been impaired by that reduction, but because it was a financial mistake. I was in Germany last autumn. The comments of the Germans sounded like a

  929
  pæan of victory. England was showing signs of giving up the struggle. The feeling there, in view of that reduction, resembled very much the feeling of a jockey who, knowing that his own horse has plenty of running left in him, sees the only horse in front of him swerving across the course and faltering in his stride. He is thereby encouraged to fresh efforts. We have encouraged Germany in this respect to fresh efforts, and we shall have to meet them with corresponding exertions on our own part. I am afraid that, for every £100,000 we have saved this year we may have to spend £1,000,000 afterwards.
  Though foreign programmes are important, what is actually being done in foreign dockyards is still more important. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Admiralty of late years have been very watchful on this subject. A modern battleship requires so many persons to construct it that it is impossible to build it with any degree of speed without its being generally known. This does not apply to submarines and torpedo boats. The theory that Great Britain can build battleships so much faster than Germany, that we can let them have a start and then catch them up whenever we choose, is not at all accepted in German shipbuilding circles. They know all that we did when we built the "Dreadnought" so well and so quickly, and they think they could improve upon our methods, and build at least as fast if they felt themselves compelled to do so. At least six German firms undertake to build battleships, and between them they say they could put twelve battleships on the stocks every year; in addition to that there are the Imperial yards at Kiel and Wilhelms-haven.
  Again, our method of voting Estimates is, to my mind, rather antiquated and unbusinesslike, as it exposes the country to a certain amount of risk if, when Parliament is not sitting, foreign countries start shipbuilding programmes. In that case they get a start of us. I think this might be remedied if the First Lord of the Admiralty had power, when any exceptional activity was noticed in foreign dockyards, to lay down fresh ships at once without waiting for Parliament to pass the Votes. A still better plan would be for both Houses of
  930
  Parliament to pass Resolutions requesting the First Lord to do so. I think such a Resolution might be moved from one Front Bench and seconded from the other. It would not cost the country money in the long run, and it would lessen any risks to which we might be exposed. I venture to think that such a policy would be far better than waiting to pass Estimates on or about the 1st April, when they might be too late to achieve their object. I also think it would do more to check the activity of foreign countries in this direction than paper resolutions passed at the Hague and elsewhere.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend who initiated this discussion has had a long experience of the Navy and of ships generally, and always speaks with great authority in this House. I was very much pleased to hear from him that he approves of what the Admiralty have done up to the present time. He approved of our shipbuilding programme, although he made certain suggestions by which it might be supplemented. Before I go into details I should like to state in a few sentences what is the policy of the Admiralty, for during the last four or five months we have been subjected to some criticism which did not altogether take into account all the action which the Admiralty have taken with regard to our shipbuilding programme.
  The Admiralty policy is practically founded upon three grounds which I think are accepted by every Party in the State. In the first place, this axiom will be accepted by every one, namely, that our country must at all events keep the command of the sea, without having any regard to the cost at which that may be done. The second ground is that at the present moment we are in an unquestionable command. Our position is one which it is impossible for any one to dispute. I claim for the present Board of Admiralty no credit for that. It is the result of twenty years of various Administrations, and to them the credit is due. There is the third point, upon which, with a reservation or two, all parties will agree—namely, that the burden of naval expenditure is a very heavy one. There has been already too keen a competition amongst the various Naval

  931
  Powers. On those principles we founded the present Admiralty policy.
  I will not attempt to give the House long details with regard to the comparative strength of the British Navy and the navies of foreign Powers. That I believe to be an unnecessary thing, and a method which is unnecessarily agressive, and which may be misunderstood, by flaunting before the world what is our position as regards predominance. It is perfectly clear to anybody who will refer to the very many works published in this country, in Germany, and in France,—such works as the Dilke Return, Lord Brassey's" Navy Annual," Jane's "Fighting Ships," the German book, and an excellent little book published by the French. Anybody studying the returns published in those books will be satisfied that at this moment the British Navy is in a very predominant position.
  Then it is said, "Oh, but at some early future period we shall find ourselves caught up by our rivals, and we shall find ourselves in a weaker position than we ought to be." I do not think there is any fear of that in the near future. In the course of the next two years we shall have nine big ships. We shall have the four vessels of the "Dreadnought" type, the "Lord Nelson" and the "Agamemnon," and the throe big armoured cruisers of the "Invincible" type, all ready by the spring of 1909; and I do not believe by that time one single European Power will have one vessel constructed and on the sea equal to those vessels. The only Power that is likely by that time to have a vessel of the type of the "Dreadnought" is our ally, Japan.
  The policy that we have adopted this year is to reduce slightly our battleship programme. I do not think that is really differing from the policy of those who preceded us. In 1904 and 1905 there Were considerable reductions in the Naval Votes, and the reduction was continued last year. No doubt we struck off one "Dreadnought." That was thoroughly justified, because, at this moment, the new class of ship is still largely under trial. It would have been a matter of very great and unnecessary risk for us to have entered into a very large or a very long programme. The fact of the matter is that the programmes of foreign countries which are so often brought against us are programmes on paper—they are pro-
  932
  grammes extended over a great number of years—and it is not the view of the Admiralty that these long programmes should be adopted by this country. We believe it is a wiser plan to go on the lines that sufficient unto the day is the programme thereof, and that it is far better to have a programme limited to a comparatively short time, and then from time to time to change that programme, making additions to it if necessary, but not to enter into a long programme spread over a great number of years.
  It is desirable, if possible, to put a check upon naval programmes throughout the whole world. His Majesty's Government have taken that line. They have endeavoured to show that they, at any rate, are willing to agree either to propose such a thing at The Hague Conference, or to assent to any proposals to that effect that might be made. So far as The Hague Conference is concerned, His Majesty's Government have distinctly said that, whilst they are ready to enter into an arrangement of that sort with other Powers, if other Powers are ready to discuss it, or to be bound by the decision of The Hague Conference, yet, if the other Powers refuse to do so, we go into the Conference absolutely unpledged, or pledged only to this —that if foreign countries do extend their programme, we, in our turn, will also extend our programme in order to keep our relative position amongst Naval Powers. I believe that to be a thoroughly sound method of action, and one that will generally commend itself to the people of this country.
  I come now to some of the points raised by my noble friend. He began by arguing in favour of greater attention being paid to smaller ships. He suggested, as Sir William White has suggested, that our battleships of the future might to some extent be designed on lines not quite so big as the "Dreadnought." There are many things to be said on both sides of that question, but I should like to point out to my noble friend that we should not be able for the cost of two " Dreadnoughts " to build more than what is now represented by three cruisers of the "Shannon" class. If it is attempted to build three battleships to command the same armaments as two "Dreadnoughts," the three ships would cost a very much larger sum of money to

  933
  construct than two "Dreadnoughts," and they would also be much more expensive to keep up. They would require more men to man them, and it is difficult to believe that such vessels would be of the same power or efficiency as the "Dreadnought" class itself. We believe the concentration of armaments on a big ship is very important. We believe the four great desiderata are speed, coal endurance, armour, and armaments.
  The opinion formed by the Admiralty and adopted by all the other nations of the world is that the big ship, with its largo number of guns, is most likely to be effective if it has the speed to make the best use of its armament. The proposal to go back to a smaller ship is, I believe, a mistake. For us, battleships must be of great size and speed. I agree that the designing of cruisers is a very difficult matter; but here again the whole tendency of naval opinion is that the big armoured cruiser is more likely to be of advantage in war than the smaller cruiser. No foreign cruiser, I believe, would be able to stand up against cruisers of the "Invincible" class.
  I agree that the Admiralty should concentrate in future on battleships. Battleships must be the first consideration, and in these days battleships and big armoured cruisers must go very much together and must be worked on very much the same lines. As the noble Lord said, the protected cruiser is nowadays almost a non-combatant ship. Mercantile cruisers can be relied on very doubtfully; they must be extremely fast or they will not be able to escape from ships of more formidable type. As to the two great ships which the Cunard Company launched in the present year, they were beyond any others in size and speed; and, if any mercantile cruisers were capable of being of service in war, it would be cruisers of this type, with great speed and coal endurance. As to the power which Lord Ellenborough proposed to give to the First Lord of extending the shipbuilding programme of the Estimates, I am afraid that Parliament would not be ready to grant such a power. I am afraid we shall always have the duty thrown upon us of putting forward Estimates year by year, and of being guided by what is accepted by the two Houses of Parliament. I believe that
  934
  the present programme is one which the the House might accept.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two with regard to what has fallen from the noble Lord, because in some respects the statement he has just made appears to me to be of vital importance. As to the programmes of foreign countries, the noble Lord is right in saying that what should guide us is not the paper programmes but the work that is actually being carried out in foreign dockyards. At the present time, the noble Lord said, the strength of this country is absolutely measured by the two-Power standard, and I believe that the noble Lord is right. But out of the present shipbuilding programme one battleship is to be dropped and perhaps others, if certain things take place at The Hague Conference. I hope the negotiations at The Hague will come to a successful issue; but I note with pleasure what the noble Lord said with regard to what our position might be after The Hague Conference, and also what his view is, and I assume that it is also the view of the Government, as to the duty of the Admiralty in maintaining the naval strength of this country.
  I confess—and I have stated it in your Lordships' House before—that statements have been made in another place by the Prime Minister which have given rise to considerable anxiety in the country. In discussing the two-Power standard, the Prime Minister said that although he accepted it as a rough and ready basis of our strength, yet to consider it as incumbent on us, if it referred to Germany and France, was almost preposterous. Such words from such a source were very alarming; but the Prime Minister went further. Later on he said that, assuming France and Germany to be the two Powers with which comparison was made, it was not to be supposed that we in this country could go on laying down ship after ship to maintain such a standard. I should have thought there was only one possible answer to that proposition—that those responsible for the Navy would have to see to the laying down of the necessary ships, ship after ship, in order to maintain our two-Power standard. Therefore, I hail two observations which the First Lord has just made as specially important

  935
  after those statements by the Prime Minister. The noble Lord has declared that the policy of the Admiralty is to keep the command of the sea regardless of cost; and he went further, in discussing the possible action of this country with regard to The Hague Conference. He said that if other countries increased their building programmes and their works, we should build so as to maintain our present position. My Lords, I hail that declaration as an absolute assurance from His Majesty's Government that they pledge themselves, under all conditions and at whatever cost, to maintain the two-Power standard. That is a most satisfactory statement, and I accept it absolutely, as it is doubtless intended to be accepted. If the noble Lord who originated this discussion has succeeded in nothing else, he has succeeded in drawing this most satisfactory declaration from His Majesty's Government.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  [Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, there are no Amendments to this Bill, but I should like to make reference to a clause on which there has been some misunderstanding. I have had a letter on the subject from my noble friend Lord Falkland, and I desire to explain to him that Clause 8 does not in any way affect the soldier's hot meal. That is secured to him under the schedule of this Act. The object of Clause 8 is to give the soldier certain facilities in billeting.
  *VISCOUNT FALKLAND: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his explanation, which is quite satisfactory.
  Bill passed through Committee, and reported to the House without Amendment.
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, there
  936
  are down for to-morrow only two small Government Bills which we propose to postpone. In these circumstances there will be no business of any importance to-morrow, and I therefore beg to move that the House do adjourn until Monday next except for judicial business.
  Moved, "That the House do adjourn until Monday next except for judicial business."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: As I understand there will be an important debate on the Motion standing on the Paper for Monday, and that it will take some time, I desire to give notice that I shall postpone until Tuesday the Second Reading of the Municipal Representation Bill, which is down in my name for Monday.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.