Sitting of 14 March 1907

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners for Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—Burnley Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill.—"To empower the London County Council to construct and work new tramways and to alter and reconstruct existing tramways and make street improvements and other works in the County of London; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders Confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
  London Government Scheme (Southwark Borough Market) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Scheme confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
  London and North-Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Basingstoke Gas Bill; Bide Gas Bill;
  188
  Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill; Falmouth Gas Bill.—Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table.
  Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill.—Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYreported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour. From Aldwarke; Auchinraith; Blantyre; Bolsover; Clay (No. 4) Pit; Grassmoor; Gwaunclawdd; Killamarsh; Manners; North Staveley; Oxcroft; Park Lane; Pleasley; Ripley; Silverwood; Tibshelf; Tyldesley; Waingroves; Warsop Main; Wellshot; West Hallam; and Windygates; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 13th March] to be printed. [No. 79.]

  ARMY RESERVE.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing (1) Actuarial Calculation of the Normal Strength of the 1st Class Army Reserve; and (2) Explanation of the Difference

  189
  between the Actual Strength of the 1st October, 1899, and the Normal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HONDURAS (ALIEN LAW) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the Alien Law of the Republic of Honduras, 8th February, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Copy presented, of Eighteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the County of Lancaster, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of shops within the urban districts of Royton, Failsworth, Compton, Lees, Little borough and Milnrow [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TEACHERS' PENSION FUND (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports on the Valuation of the Teachers' Pension Fund (Ireland) on 31st December, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
  Address for "Return showing, for each petty sessional Court in England and Wales, the number and disposal of children and young persons under sixteen who were charged with offences during the last three months of 1906, and showing whether the defendants would probably have been released on probation under supervision, if such a system had been available; and also what steps, if any, are taken to separate children and young persons in Court from adult prisoners.' "—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of foreign trawlers observed working in the Moray Firth since the decision in the High Court of Justiciary in respect of the Moray Firth foreign trawlers' case.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Since the decision in the High Court of Justiciary eighteen different foreign trawlers have been observed working in the Moray Firth on ninety different occasions.

  Municipal Milk Depôt.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with municipal milk depots.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Yes, Sir, I hope to do so.

  Reafforestation in the Midlands.
  MR. ALDENTo ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact that there is in existence in the Midlands a reafforesting association supported by voluntary subscriptions for reafforesting and beautifying the Black Country, which association has already done a considerable amount of work in this direction, he could see his way, if an application were made on behalf of any local distress committee, to make a grant for unemployed labour which could be utilised in this direction.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) If in a district where there is exceptional distress the distress committee applied to me for a grant in respect of the provision for the unemployed of work of the kind mentioned, I should be prepared to consider the application. No payment out of the grant, however, could be made after the 31st inst.

  Glensharrold Evicted Tenant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary

  191
  to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to reinstate Mrs. Margaret Windle, evicted tenant, on the O'Grady Delmege estate, at Glensharrold, in the county of Limerick, or to put her in possession of an equal portion of land on the estate, having regard to the fact that there are forty acres of untenanted land on it.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have investigated Mrs. Windle's application, and have decided that her case with others is to be considered in connection with any untenanted land which they may acquire. The Commissioners are approaching the owner on the subject of the untenanted land mentioned in the Question.

  Mercers Estate, Londonderry.
  MR. GORDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Mercers estate, in county Londonderry, agreed so far back as November, 1904, to purchase their holdings under the Land Act of 1903; that the Land Commission has had the estate inspected and surveyed a considerable time ago; whether he can state what is the cause of delay in having the sale carried out; and whether, if it is due to want of funds or insufficiency of staff, he will endeavour to have further funds provided and a sufficient staff employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The purchase agreements in this case were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in December, 1904, and January, 1905. The delay in making the inspection appears to be due to the inaccuracy of the maps lodged, necessitating their return for Amendment. The inspection will shortly take place.

  Moslems in Crete.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, when the Powers took over practical responsibility for the administration of Crete, they declared that they would guarantee the lives and property of the Moslems. Whether, in spite of this undertaking, the
  192
  Moslems have been abandoned to the cruelties of the so-called Christian community in Crete, who have forced them to fly from their properties and then taken possession of them; and what steps the Government are taking to protect the Moslems and secure for them some indemnity for the outrages and losses to which they have been subjected.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The Mussulman population cannot be said to have been abandoned to persecution by the Christian community in Crete, as one of the principal reasons for the retention of the international contingents is the protection of Mussulman lives and property. The Consuls of the protecting Powers have, moreover, frequently urged on the High Commissioner the necessity of safeguarding Mussulman interests, and Monsieur Zaimis has recently given an undertaking to this effect. It has been found impracticable at present to make any arrangement whereby the Mussulman population can be indemnified for any losses they may have sustained during the recent disturbances.

  Aliens Act.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended that the Aliens Act shall be so far retrospective that under it a man may be ordered to be deported, as happened in a case tried in Manchester last December, who came to this country when fourteen years of age; who has been here continuously for seventeen years; who has married a British-born wife, and has three English-speaking children; and who cannot speak the language of the country to which he is condemned to be deported.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The liability of an alien criminal to expulsion from the United Kingdom depends, not on the length or shortness of his residence here, but on his being convicted of an offence for which the Court which convicts him has power to impose imprisonment without the option of a fine. It can scarcely be argued that the offence is made less serious by the fact that the alien has long enjoyed the

  193
  hospitality of this country. If the case to which the hon. Member refers is that of one Simon Bernstein, who was convicted at Manchester, on the 5th December last, of receiving stolen property, sentenced to nine months imprisonment and recommended for expulsion, I may point out that, according to information supplied to me in the prisoner's behalf, the wife is not British born, though she is stated to have been in England ever since infancy, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no reason to suppose the man would have any difficulty in making himself understood in the country from which he came.

  Belfast Licence Duties.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of licence duty paid by Belfast licensed traders in the years ended 10th October, 1905, and 10th October, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The accounts kept by the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House do not show either the amounts for years ending 10th October or figures of duty paid "by Belfast licensed traders," as distinguished from licensed traders in the Belfast collection, which extends much beyond the City of Belfast. It would be possible to compile such a Return as is desired out of the local Belfast accounts, but its preparation would involve considerable expenditure of time and trouble.

  Officers' Grants and the London Gazette.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Prime Minister whether it is the rule that all Orders in Council conferring extra grants on officers of the Army and Navy, over and above the amounts laid down by regulations, should be published in the London Gazette; and whether in the case of the unprecedented increase of half-pay to the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty by Order in Council, 8th January, 1906, this rule was duly complied with.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) Yes, I believe it is the rule. But I understand that, during a long course of years, it has seldom been put
  194
  into practice. I propose to confer with my right hon. friend the Lord President of the Council as to the course to be adopted in future.

  Sir Andrew Fraser and Anglo-Indian Officials.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the speech of Sir Andrew Fraser before the Asiatic Society of Bengal, in. which he stated that at the present moment the Anglo-Indian officials know considerably less of the people than the officials of old, and whether, in view of this statement, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to bring forward legislation in the near future to give the peoples of India a greater share in the Government of India according to Indian ideas.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have seen a report of Sir Andrew Fraser's speech, but I am not on that account prepared to make any announcement of the kind suggested in the Question.

  Indian Railways' Rolling Stock.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of wagons on the Indian railways; and whether the Indian Government is responsible in any way for this shortage, or has curtailed any capital expenditure proposed to be incurred in this year's Indian Budget.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The question of the supply of rolling stock on Indian railways is receiving most careful attention. The responsibility for the amount allotted for the supply of rolling stock rests with the Secretary of State for India in Council; and the amount to be so alloted in 1907–8 will be considerably in excess of that which was devoted to this purpose in the year 1906–7.

  Indian Trade Grievances.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the deputations of European merchants interested in

  195
  Indian commerce and of English chairmen of Indian railways, who approached him last Tuesday to state certain trade grievances, did so through the regular official channels, that is, with the sanction of the Viceroy of India; and whether he will now reconsider his refusal to receive a deputation of Bengali noblemen and merchants, who desire to lay before him the injury to their properties and to the internal trade of the country, besides other grievances due to their being now placed, by the partition of Bengal, under two administrations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not aware of any reason why a body of English railway directors and English merchants, resident in this country, should address me on a financial question through the Government of India. I fail to see the connection of the second part of the Question with the first, but the Answer to it is in the negative.

  Nawab of Dacca's Estate.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the embarrassed condition of the estate of the Nawab of Dacca is now receiving the attention of the Government of Eastern Bengal; whether there is a proposal to advance a Government loan to meet his debts; and, if such is the case, whether he will explain why as a representative of that province he was appointed recently a member of the Legislative Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam are aware that the estate of the Nawab of Dacca is in an embarrassed condition, but no application for assistance has, so far as I know, been received by that Government, who would deal with the question, if it ever arises, in accordance with the ordinary laws applicable to such cases, which not infrequently occur. The Nawab, I may add, has already set in the Legislative Council of the Governor General.

  Instruction in the Irish Language.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in
  196
  opposition to a rule of the National Board requiring teachers appointed in Irish-speaking districts to know Irish, assistant teachers having no knowledge of Irish were appointed to the following schools, Lackagh boys school, Selerna boys school, Selerna girls school, Claregalway girls school, Spiddal girls school, all in districts where Irish is practically the universal language.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The provision to which the hon. Member refers requires that in the case of new appointments to schools in Irish-speaking districts the teacher must have an oral knowledge of Irish. This provision was for the first time included in the code issued in September last. The appointments in question were made before that date.

  Irish Intermediate Education Grant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much have the Intermediate Education Commissioners (Ireland) got yearly during the five years ended March, 1906, on account of Section 3 (ii.) of 53 and 54 Vic, c. 60; what are the other sources and annual amounts of income of the Board; whether any contribution is made from the Imperial Exchequer towards secondary education in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) During the five years mentioned, the average annual amount received by the Intermediate Education Board from Customs and Excise duties under the section quoted was £53,640. The average annual income derived from the Board's invested capital was £31,022; and from examination fees and other sources the Board received an average of £1,459. No contribution towards secondary education in Ireland is made from voted moneys, but the majority to the Board's income, namely, its receipts from the Customs and Excies duties, is derived from Imperial taxation.

  Christian Brothers Schools in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of pupils on the rolls of the

  197
  primary schools of the Christian Brothers in Ireland, and the amounts contributed from the Imperial Exchequer annually towards the maintenance of those schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education have no information as to the total number of pupils in the Christian Brothers primary schools. There are seventeen of such schools in receipt of grants from the Commissioners. The number of pupils on the rolls of these schools on 31st December last was 3,230, and the payments to the teaching staffs from the Vote for Primary Education in 1906 was £4,935.

  Irish Education Grant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the Education Act of 1902 a special aid grant of £2,485,000 is proposed to be given to England in the year 1907; and, seeing that, according to the amount proposed to be given to England this year, Ireland's equivalent share should be £325,000, will he state what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The equivalent for Ireland to the aid grant under the Education Act of 1902 is the £185,000 provided annally in the Ireland Development Grant. This latter sum was agreed upon as a final settlement of Ireland's claims, and I see no reason for reopening the decision. I may point out that the equivalent given to Ireland was not an equivalent for the total aid grant, but for the extra sum by which that grant exceeded the former grants which it replaced, in accordance with Section 10 of The Education Act, 1902.

  Carmichael—O'Ferrall Estate, Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of delay in the sale of the Carmichael-O'Ferrall estate at Carclara, county Longford; whether he is aware that the tenants are anxious to become tenant proprietors on fair terms; and will he direct that the inspector visits and reports on this case forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no originating application or request in respect of the sale of the estate referred to has been lodged with them.

  Irish Farmers' Housing Loans.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to helping poor struggling farmers in Ireland to build decent sanitary dwellings for their families, he would take into consideration a scheme which would enable county councils in Ireland to lend to small farmers, on the security of their holdings, sums not exceeding two-fifths of the assessed value of the interest on their holdings for the purpose of building such houses; whether he is aware that many farmers' houses, especially in congested areas, are quite as miserable and, from a sanitary point of view, uninhabitable as houses occupied by labourers and others; and whether he will consider the advisability of endeavouring to remedy a state of things which is at present a source of disease in many districts in Ireland by providing for the use of county councils money at the 3¼ per cent. rate, and arranging for repayment over a lengthened period.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under the Land Act of 1881 the Board of Works make loans to farmers for works of agricultural improvement, which I believe is interpreted to include farm dwellings. The loan is made on the security of the holding. It is not clear that any benefit would be derived from interposing the county council between the borrowers and the lenders.

  Land Purchase Dispute at Lisnageera.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that in the case of Charles Burnett, a tenant on Sir Walter Nugent's estate at Lisnageera, county Longford, who purchasd his holding, under the Land Act of 1901, in 1903, a statute acre of land was taken off this farm for a labourer's cottage for which landlord and tenant received compensation for severance, yet the Commissioners

  199
  insist on charging Burnett for the full area of his original farm, and refuse to deduct from the same the acre which he has lost, and which is now the property of Granard No. 1 District Council; whether he is aware that this has been going on for four years, so that four years annuity in respect of this acre which he does not possess have now been charged and recovered against him; and will he therefore direct that this case be inquired into, and that the necessary rebate and reimbursement be made forthwith to Burnett.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that this matter has been brought to their notice. No payment in reduction of the outstanding advance has yet been made to the Commissioners in respect of the plot stated to have been taken for a labourer's cottage, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to make a reduction in the annuity. They are, however, making inquiries into the case.

  Carbery Evicted Tenant.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Patrick M'Carthy, an evicted tenant on the Carbery estate, has yet been reinstated in his holding, and, if not, what is the cause of the delay; and will steps be taken to place him in immediate possession of his farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) So far as the Estates Commissioners are aware, M'Carthy has not yet been reinstated. On the 6th instant the Commissioners received a communication from the owner's solicitors accepting the price offered for the evicted farm, and stating that the present occupier would surrender on receiving the compensation offered to him. The matter is receiving the Commissioners' attention.

  Donegal Harbour Accommodation.
  MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the want of harbour accommodation in Downings Bay, county Donegal, where on 5th December, 1906, thirteen fishing boats were driven from their
  200
  anchorage and wrecked, His Majesty's Government contemplate constructing a shelter pier; and, if so, whether they propose to begin the work before next winter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A sum of £4,500 has already been expended under the Marine Works Act upon the extension of the existing pier at Downings Bay. My predecessor considered the question of constructing a harbour of refuge at this place, but was advised that the probable expenditure would be so great as to render the work practically prohibitive. Further inquiries are being made as to whether some such work could not be undertaken at a reasonable cost.

  Cavan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are about to proceed with the reinstatement of Patrick McConnell in the matter of the estate of J. H. Ingham, county of Cavan; and, as this evicted tenant fulfilled all the conditions required by the owner in March, 1906, will he say what has been the cause of the delay and when reinstatement is likely to take place.
  (Answered, by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an advance to McConnell to enable him to purchase his former holding, and are now in communication with the landlord with a view to securing McConnell's immediate reinstatement.

  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an increased grant has been made this year by the Department for Agriculture and Technical Instruction to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; if so, what is the amount of this year's grant; when and by what body was it voted; for what purposes was it voted; and whether any portion of this sum is to be used for raising the salaries of the officials of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No increased grant has been made this year. The Agricultural Board at its last meeting (27th February) decided that the grant from the Department for the scheme submitted for the current year should not exceed £3,700, the amount of last year's grant, without the matter being again considered by the Board. The grant was voted for promoting the adoption of co-operative methods by the agricultural classes, including the formation of co-operative societies for the manufacture and sale of butter, for the purchase of farm requisites, and for the scutching of flax, and the formation of agricultural credit societies. A portion of the amount was authorised to be applied to the increase of the salary of one official in consideration of his giving his whole time to the work of the society, and for slight increases to minor officers.

  Administration of Justice in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN- CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross, in the Land Judge's Court, Dublin, on Friday, the 8th instant, when he stated that Ireland suffered from a plague of cowardice to bring the persons who are doing wrong to justice; and whether he will bring these remarks under the notice of the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities with a view to urging greater efforts on their part to bring wrong doers to justice.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) According to the newspapers, Mr. Justice Ross said that the people were suffering from the plague of cowardice in not bringing wrong doers to justice. The learned Judge did not suggest that there was any laxity in this respect on the part of the police.

  Earl Park Outrage.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a report concerning the events which occurred at the house of Thomas Connolly, at Earl Park, on the 10th December last, when shots were fired into the house; whether this action was taken in consequence of Connolly having held a
  202
  farm, which had been in his family for seventy years, contrary to the orders of the local branch of the United Irish League; and whether Connolly is now receiving protection from the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This Question appears to refer to Mr. Thomas Conway (not Connolly), of Earl's Park. Mr. Conway's house was not fired into, but he and his family reported to the police that two shots were fired near his house on the date mentioned. The police authorities have no knowledge of the motive for firing the shots; Mr. Conway is receiving all necessary protection from the police.

  Intimidation in County Roscommon.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the charge of Mr. Justice Kenny to the grand jury of the county Roscommon, to the effect that the county inspector informed him that there was a considerable amount of veiled intimidation in connection with the grazing system; and what action he proposes taking in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have seen a newspaper report of Mr. Justice Kenny's statement to the effect mentioned in the Question. The police are taking all possible measures for the preservation of the peace and for bringing offenders to justice.

  Roscommon Jury's Action.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at the conclusion of the trial for unlawful assembly at Tonlagee, county Roscommon, when the jury acquitted the prisoners, Mr. Justice Kenny directed the Crown Solicitor that no member of that particular jury be permitted to act in any other case which came before him; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) At the request of my right hon. friend I beg to answer this Question. I am informed that the facts are as stated, but I do not think that the results of this trial affords any ground for altering the instructions

  203
  which I have already given to the Crown Solicitor as to the discharge of his duties. I do not, therefore, propose to take any action in the matter.

  Soldiers' Song Book.
  Captain CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will lay upon the Table a draft copy of the Soldiers' Song Book issued to officers commanding units of regular troops; and whether it includes the National Anthem, and any of the territorial (old county) songs of the county Down.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of compiling a book of songs for soldiers is now under consideration, and the War Officer is in communication with general officers commanding on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member is, however, mistaken in supposing that a book has yet been issued, and it will be time to consider his suggestions when the scheme is more advanced.

  Government Employees and Volunteer Camps.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Government employees who are members of the Auxiliary Forces are given any special facilities for attending camp.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member is apparently alluding to the extra week's leave granted for the extended training. As the latter is suspended, the necessity for the extra week has lapsed for the present.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Government employees, if called up for six months training on mobilisation under the new Army scheme, will have their appointments kept open for them and will be paid their salaries or wages during the time that their corps are under training or on active service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question on a similar subject put yesterday by the hon. and gallant
  204
  Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, which will give him all the information at present at my disposal.†

  Harrods' Packers Wages.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the War Office have entered into an arrangement with Harrods, Limited, to supply soldiers holding pensions as packers at 5s. per week wages; and whether he is aware that this firm a short time ago discharged over thirty packers earning 18s. per week and are now filling their places with soldiers at wages which make civilian labour impossible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Arrangements have been made with Messrs. Harrods for training as packers a few soldiers who are shortly completing their service with the colours, with a view to fitting them to obtain employment in civil life on passing to the Reserve. I am not aware that this arrangement has resulted in the discharge of skilled packers, but I am in communication with Messrs. Harrods on the subject. I need hardly add that we have no intention of allowing serving soldiers, under any scheme of technical instruction, to compete with civilians at wages below the market rate.

  Ireland and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill will be applicable to Ireland; and, if not, whether there will be neither county associations, nor special reservists, nor territorial Army in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Part I. of the Bill, which deals with county associations, can, by Order in Council, be made applicable to Ireland at any time and Part III. which relates to the special reservists does apply to Ireland as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom. The existing Militia in Ireland will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill as soon as it becomes Law.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi., 23.

  Musketry Practice for the Territorial Force.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether under his scheme of Army reform, it is contemplated that the territorial force shall carry out an annual course of musketry practice; whether, if so, that course is to be at times other than the eight or fifteen days of prescribed training; whether the men and officers are to receive pay when so employed; and whether the practice is to be under the command of the major-general commanding the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There will be an annual course of musketry, which will be carried out throughout the year and not during the annual camp, except in cases where special conditions may demand a relaxation of this rule. This practice will normally be under the control of the divisional commander. Officers and men will not receive pay for musketry practice carried out at times other than during the annual camp, but grants to cover necessary expenses in connection with the course will be provided on the same basis as such grants are now given to the Yeomanry and Volunteers.

  Slandering the Army.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a handbill circulated in Dublin which contains slanders and falsehoods as to the soldiers of the Irish regiments and of the British Army; and whether he will take the necessary steps not only to prohibit its further circulation, but also adequately to punish those responsible for its publication.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has not been specially drawn to the handbill alluded to, nor do I think it expedient in the interests of recruiting to take the action suggested.

  Standerton Garrison's Water Supply.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army in South Africa has undertaken to pay to
  206
  the municipality of Standerton for water a sum of not less than £1,460 a year for twenty years; whether this obligation would remain, under the contract, in case the garrison were reduced or altogether withdrawn before 1924; whether the daily requirements of the troops at Standerton are already below the fixed contract minimum of 80,000 gallons; whether this contract was approved by the War Office before completion; and, if not, on whose authority was it signed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Question deals with matter arising from the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the accounts for 1905–6. As these matters will come before the Public Accounts Committee I can hardly discuss them at the present time.

  Army Refunds.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the General Officer Commanding in South Africa has power to approve the refund of £14,988 6s. 1d. to Messrs. Wilson and Worthington shown on page 140 of the Army Appropriation Accounts for 1905–6; whether an approval of this refund by that officer would bind the War Office to allow it; and whether such approval has been given.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding had power to enter into the original agreement to sell the supplies, and the Law Officers advise that under the terms of that agreement the refund was justified. The Answer to the remaining inquiries is in the affirmative.

  Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the importance of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, he can postpone the Second Reading to the third week in April, instead of taking it directly after the recess.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A long period has already been given between the First and Second Reading for considering the Bill, and I do not think it would be convenient to extend it.
  Training Seamen for Foreign Mercantile Marines.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Governments of the United States or of Germany provide, out of public funds, steam or sailing ships for the training on voyage of officers and seamen for the merchant service.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I understand that in Germany no ships are provided out of the public funds for the purposes mentioned. I believe that three training ships have been maintained by the United States Government for the last few years, namely, one each at New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

  East African Protectorate.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received a Report from Mr. A. Macdonald on the agricultural possibilities of the East African Protectorate; and, if so, can he indicate its nature, or will he lay it before the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) A Report has been received from Mr. A. Macdonald which deals mainly with the steps to be taken for the reorganisation of the Agricultural Department of the East African Protectorate. A second Report, dealing with agriculture generally in the Protectorate, is being prepared by him; and when it has been received, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider the question of laying it before the House.

  Local Government Board Reports.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether seeing the Thirty-fifth Annual Report only carries us back to March 1906, and that some of the inspectors' Reports therein are one year old to date, he could say when the Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Board will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The complete Report for 1906–7 could not be published before the autumn, looking at
  208
  the date at which some of the information included in it will probably be received by the Board.

  London Mail Van Drivers' Wages.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is extending his inquiry respecting the wages and conditions of service for mail van drivers outside the metropolitan area.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have made inquiry respecting the wages and conditions of service of mail cart drivers at provincial towns in several cases to which my attention has been drawn, and I shall be glad to examine any other case which the hon. Member has in mind.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. BELLOC: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has any official information showing that the American gooseberry mildew is a new disease to Europe, imported from America about 1900, and since then introduced into England; and, if so, whether the Board will take immediate steps, by the issue of a new circular, or otherwise, to impress this fact on growers with the object of making them realise the necessity of treating the mildew as a new infectious disease of which they have hitherto had no experience.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It is generally agreed that the disease in question is a comparatively new one so far as Europe is concerned. The information in our possession shows that it has existed in Worcestershire for the last four years. We have already issued one circular advising fruit growers as to the best methods for preventing the spread of the disease, and we propose to issue another in the spring. The point to which my hon. friend draws attention will not be lost sight of, and, as he is aware, a Bill to confer further powers upon the Board and upon the local authorities to deal with insect and other pests generally will shortly be introduced by my noble friend.

  Customs Clerks' Salaries.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any department employing a large number of clerks whore the initial salaries of the lowest permanent class differs from the class next above to such an extent as is the case in the Customs Statistical Office, where the initial salaries are £55 and £190 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In the classification of a department regard must generally be paid to the maximum salary of one class when the minimum salary of the class above is fixed. But there is no necessity to maintain any particular relation between the minimum salary of one class and the minimum salary of another.

  Customs Assistant Clerks' Memorial.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain the cause of the delay with regard to the answering of memorials forwarded to the Treasury by the new class of assistant clerks in the Customs Statistical Department; and whether he is aware that a petition forwarded to the Treasury from this class on the 8th January last was still in the Customs Department on the 1st March.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The memorial referred to has just been received at the Treasury, but I have not yet had an opportunity of examining it. Two memorials from the assistant clerks in question were presented in the year 1906 and were carefully considered by the Board of Customs before they were sent on to the Treasury.

  Distribution of Oil on Heavy Seas.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any official inquiry has been held and report issued as to the efficacy of inventions for the distribution of oil from vessels on heavy seas, as a preventive of danger; if not, will he consider the advisability of instituting an inquiry on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) No official Inquiry has been held or report issued
  210
  as to the efficacy of particular inventions for the distribution of oil on heavy seas, but the general question was considered by the Life Saving Appliances Committee which issued its Report in 1889. As at present advised the Board of Trade see no advantage in instituting an inquiry.

  Dockyard Writers' Petitions.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is expected the reply to the petitions of the dockyards' writers will be communicated; and, seeing that no definite reply has been made to their petitions for over three years while those of other dockyard employees have been answered annually, whether some information as regards the intentions of the Admiralty towards the writers can be given forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The inquiry into the petitions of the dockyard writers has been concluded. The orders to the dockyards are now being prepared, and it is anticipated they will be isued in a few days.

  Assam Coolies' Children's Education.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps have been taken to secure the education of the children of tea-garden coolies in the province of Assam.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In June last the Government of India requested the Governments of Bengal and Eastern Bengal and Assam to depute special officers to inquire into the whole question of the education of children on tea plantations, and to submit proposals, in consultation with the planters, for improved arrangements. Reports have since been received, and the Government of India propose to address me on the subject as soon as they have received and considered the views of the local governments and of the district officers concerned.

  Bengal Chowkidari Tax.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact

  211
  that the Police Commission made recommendations some time since with a view to relieve the Bengal agriculturists of at least a portion of the chowkidari tax, which is levied for the remuneration of village watchmen, will he request the Government of Bengal to report as to the expediency of giving effect to the recommendation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I will inquire whether revised instructions for the assessment of the tax have been issued by the Government of Bengal.

  Doagh National School.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the grant promised in aid of the improvement of the national school at Doagh will be given; what the amount will be; and if he is aware that all preliminaries having been adjusted, there is a feeling in the district that no further delay should occur.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have provisionally approved of the erection of a new school-house at Doagh, but no grant has been promised, and they cannot yet state what the amount of the grant will be or when it will be possible to make it. The necessary preliminaries have not been completed, the required extension of the site has not been offered, nor has evidence of title been submitted. Moreover, the case is not as pressing as many others which have had to be suspended.

  Irish Land Purchase Delays.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications lodged as far back as 1st July, 1905, for the sale of properties to tenants under The Land Purchase Act, 1903, are still undealt with and have not been declared; and whether he will take some steps to ensure a decision being announced at an early date by the Commissioners and thus prevent the loss of income which both landlords and tenants are now suffering.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. All applications are dealt with in order of priority of lodgment, as laid down in the regulations. Interest in lieu of rent is collected by the Land Commission and paid to vendors pending the making of the advances.

  Charge against New Quay Policemen.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if Sergeant Crummy and Constable O'Shea of the New Quay police station, county Clare, were reported to District Inspector Hildebrand, of Ballyvaughan, for drinking and distributing drink on licensed premises on the 5th of last August, that, being Sunday; is he aware that these charges were supported by several independent witnesses in writing, and signed in the presence of the said district inspector; and will an inquiry be held.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A complaint to the effect stated was made to District Inspector Hildebrand, who fully investigated the matter and took statements from a large number of persons. Several of these supported the complaint, but the majority disproved it. The facts were fully reported to the Inspector-General, who was satisfied that there were no grounds for taking further action. The misconduct of the police was alleged to have taken place in August, while the complaint was not made till November, immediately after the person who complained and two of his supporters had been convicted for drunkenness and assaulting Constable; O'Shea.

  Fungicide as a Remedy for Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. BELLOC: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give any information as to whether spraying with a fungicide has been found to be efficacious in stopping the spread of the American mildew in Ireland during the past six years.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department of Agriculture are advised that spraying with fungicide has not hitherto

  213
  been found to be altogether efficacious in Ireland as a remedy for American mildew. At the same time the results have, in some cases, been sufficiently satisfactory to warrant the hope that better results will follow the use of a fungicide in the present year.

  Labourers Housing Accommodation at Castlebar.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the Castlebar, county Mayo, Urban District Council complaining of the hardships inflicted on the labourers of urban districts, owing to their being debarred from the benefits of the Labourers Act of 1906; and would he introduce legislation so to amend the Act of 1906 as to enable labourers of urban districts to participate in its benefits.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The resolution in question has been received. As to the possibility of legislation, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the Question of the hon. Member for Limerick on 26th February.†

  Irish Arterial Drainage.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Arterial Drainage Commission (Ireland) have reported that arterial drainage in Ireland is a vital necessity, page 15, and emphasise the need of early legislation on the subject, page 16; and, if so, whether the Government intend to act on the recommendation.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The recommendations of the Arterial Drainage Commission will receive full consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to possible legislation.

  Officers' Employment Regulations.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of Army Order No. 275, dealing with the promotion of officers beyond the rank of lieutenant-colonel, it will in future be possible to inform officers at the time of their com-
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 1447.
  214
  pleting their term of employment as lieutenant-colonel whether they are on the list of officers selected for further employment, and thus permit them to retire immediately if there is no intention of employing them in the rank of colonel.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The desirability of giving the information suggested in the Question is fully recognised by the War Office. It is hoped that when the new system of promotion is in full working order this will be found practicable, but until the present large list of colonels is considerably reduced it is feared that it will not be possible.

  Ballincollig Barracks.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that from £60,000 to £80,000 was spent between the years 1900 and 1906 in fitting up the Ballincollig Barracks for cavalry, that in the district adjoining stables and officers' houses were built, and also houses for lodging soldiers' families, and that inconvenience is caused to the owners of those houses as well as to the farmers and trading community in the surrounding district by the removal of the men; and whether, seeing that when the cavalry were removed from Edinburgh the inhabitants remonstrated, with the result that not alone was the former complement replaced, but the numbers were increased, he will take steps to restore, if possible, a cavalry regiment to Ballincollig.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Under the new scheme of Army organisation, Ballincollig will be garrisoned by a brigade of Royal Field Artillery who move there in May. The strength of the troops there, including the depot 6th Dragoons, will then approximate to 650 of all ranks. The cavalry regiment in Scotland to which the hon. Member alludes is leaving the Scottish command in July.

  The Butter Bill.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Butter Bill.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) On Monday.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will represent to the First Commissioner of Works that it would be a compliment to the Orangemen of Ireland if he would have the statue placed in one of the towns I have mentioned?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the arrangement can be changed, and I cannot imagine a more suitable situation.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Channel and Home Fleets.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the crews of the armoured ships of the Channel Fleet and the Nore division of the Home Fleet will remain with their ships for the full two years commission; if not what distinction is to be made between the two fleets in respect of the length of service in these ships; and whether the boys drafted into the Home Fleet to complete their training, instead of being sent to sea for four months in a training cruiser, are regarded as excess complement.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The system of two years commissions for the Channel, Atlantic and Foreign Fleets will not be abandoned. The length of time served by nucleus crews in the Home Fleet is not a fixed period, but must depend on the proportion of ships in the Home and Foreign Fleets respectively. The arrangements in regard to the drafting of boys to the Home Fleet are still so far incomplete that it is impossible to make any statement.

  Fleet Distribution.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention to replace ships in the Channel, Atlantic, and Mediterranean Fleets when requiring extensive refits; and, if so, will the fully-manned ships of the Nore Fleet be taken for this purpose.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The present intention is that the fully manned ships of the Nore Division of the Home Fleet will not be taken for this purpose.

  The Commander of the Home Fleet.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet, in addition to living in a house at Sheerness, will be frequently away from the Nore Division of the Home Fleet while inspecting the other ships under his command at Portsmouth and Plymouth.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is not anticipated that the absence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet from his flagship, or the absence of the flagship from the main fleet, will be more frequent or more prolonged than in any other seagoing fleets.
  MR. ARTHURLEE: Has the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet an official residence on shore?
  The reply was inaudible.

  Navy Hat Ribbon Tenders.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he is aware that though, in 1905, fresh tenders for the supply of hat ribbons were called for by the Admiralty, two-thirds of the total supply were thereafter obtained from the original contractor at prices higher than those quoted by another accepted tender; whether this course involved a loss, between 20th October, 1905, and 31st March, 1906, of over £500; and, if so, whether any steps have since been taken to prevent a continuance of such losses.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This question, which belongs to the previous administration, is now under review by the Public Accounts Committee, and it would therefore be contrary to the usual practice for me to make any statement.
  MR. BOWLES: Has anything been done to prevent a continuance of the practice?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should await the Report of the Committee.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the House have this session an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee? We have already been asked to defer several questions until we get that Report.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I am afraid that has not come within the scope of my vision yet.

  Colonial Conference and Disarmament.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the cost of armaments to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, it would be possible at the forthcoming Colonial Conference to obtain an expression of opinion as to the extent to which the Colonies themselves regard this expenditure as necessary for their protection.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): I do not see any prospect of obtaining from the Conference such an opinion as the hon. Gentleman would desire to have.

  Trinidad Labourers and the Panama Canal.
  MR. COURTHOPE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if His Majesty's Government sanctioned the contract under which labourers from Trinidad have been recruited to work on the Panama Canal, to which contract the Colonial Government assented at the end of October or beginning of November last.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The contract has not been submitted to His Majesty's Government. It was sanctioned by the Governor of Trinidad in the exercise of own discretion.

  Cost of Transvaal Election.
  MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a Return showing the votes cast at the recent Transvaal election for each candidate and the electorate in each division, and, if possible, the percentage that polled in each instance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Transvaal Government shall be asked to supply this information which shall be laid when received.

  Colonial Conference Correspondence.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that correspondence between
  218
  this country and Canada in reference to the Colonial Conference was published in Canada on 18th February, but was not ciculated to Members of this House till after the debate on the Colonial Office Vote on Account on 11th March, and that a despatch from Mr. Deak in to Lord Elgin of 4th December, relative to the New Hebrides Convention, was published in Australia on 8th March, and has not yet been published in England; and if there is any reason why such correspondence should not be published as soon in this country as in the Colonies; and if there was any sufficient reason for withholding the correspondence above referred to until after the debate on 11th March.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The publication in the Colonies of any correspondence with the Secretary of State not of a confidential character rests entirely with the Colonial Governments concerned. The Secretary of State was not aware until a few days ago when his attention was drawn to statements which appeared in the Press that the two despatches referred to by the hon. Member had been published in Canada and Australia respectively. The delay in publishing here the Canadian despatch arose from the necessity of consulting the Colonial Governments, as I explained in the Answer which I gave on the 20th February to a Question by the honss Member for Leicester,†before including in the Paper the final despatch of the Secretary of State. The Australian despatch can be published as soon as I receive a communication which is on its way from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, and which should form part of any published correspondence.
  In reply to a further Question,
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey, Northumberland, Berwick) said: It is always the desire of the Secretary of State to give the House the earliest possible information.

  Canadian Negotiations with Germany.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 830.

  219
  State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of Canadian Ministers pointing to an understanding with Germany, whereby the Canadian surtax would be removed; if he is aware what are the nature and scope of the direct negotiations between Canada and Germany implied in these statements; and what means are taken to keep the British Government advised of negotiations between self-governing Colonies and foreign countries.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen Mr. Fielding's speech of 29th November last, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, but I do not gather that Mr. Fielding indicated in that speech that any understanding with Germany had been arrived at, or that any negotiations had taken place between Canada and Germany. If any such negotiations had taken place, the Governor-General would have informed the Secretary of State. I would remind the hon. Member that so far as the surtax is concerned, this would be removed automatically under the Canadian law which imposed it as soon as Germany admits Canadian goods to the benefit of most favoured nation treatment.

  Canada and Austrian Trade.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have any knowledge as to whether Canada is negotiating with Austria in regard to a modification of tariff for Austrian goods entering Canada.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not aware of any such negotiations.

  Jamaica.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers referring to matters connected with the Jamaica earthquake and to Sir Alexander Swettenham's resignation will be issued.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is in communication with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the question of publication is receiving consideration. I cannot say more at the moment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Has not the hon. Gentleman already promised that Papers shall be laid?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any such promise. The only statement that has been made was that we would consider whether any, and if any, what Papers should be laid. That process is still going on.

  Egyptian Judicial Appointments.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Fathy Bey Zaglool, who acted as Judge in the Denshawi trial, has been appointed under-secretary at the Ministry of Justice; whether the British Representative in Egypt was in any way consulted in reference to the appointment; and whether the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have received any protests from Egypt against this appointment.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received one protest against the appointment purporting to be signed by thirty-one persons. For the rest, I can only refer to my previous Answer, to the effect that I had no information, and it was not a matter in which His Majesty's Government should interfere.
  MR. DILLONasked whether His Majesty's representative in Egypt was consulted in regard to all these appointments; and whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been directed to the extremely serious effect on public opinion in Egypt of the promotion of this Judge so soon after the trial.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This is a point on which I have perfect confidence in the discretion of His Majesty's representative.
  MR. DILLONsaid that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to answer the Question whether His Majesty's representative in Egypt was not, as a matter of fact, consulted with regard to all these appointments.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say whether he is consulted in regard to all these appointments. Very likely he

  221
  is consulted in regard to most of them, and, if so, I have no intention whatever of questioning the conclusion to which he comes.

  Egyption General Assembly.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the importance of the resolutions recently recorded by the Egyptian General Assembly, he will lay a copy of them upon the Table of the House.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not yet received a copy of the resolutions. Till then I cannot say whether they contain anything of importance beyond what has already appeared in the Press.
  *MR. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any resolutions from Alexandria and Cairo against these resolutions?
  SIR. EDWARD GREY: I cannot say.
  SIR H. COTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply for a copy of the resolutions?
  SIR. EDWARD GREY: From what I have seen of them in the Press they do not appear to be practical.

  Lunacy in Eygpt.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, it having been alleged in the Report of the director general of the Egyptian lunatic asylum for 1905 that many dangerous lunatics had to be discharged uncured owing to insufficiency of accommodation, he will state how far that condition of things has since been remedied; and how far the suggestions of the Report as to situation and space have been acted upon.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a lunacy law, as promised in Lord Cromer's Annual Report for 1903, has been introduced in Egypt; if so, what was the date of its promulgation; is it applicable alike to Europeans and Natives; and, if no such law exists, by what legal authority are lunatics and other persons mentally afflicted, and found at large, arrested and retained under control.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I venture to refer the hon. Member to Lord Cromer's Report for 1906 which will deal with the question.

  Lunatic Asylums in Eygpt.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is still only one lunatic asylum for the whole of Upper and Lower Egypt; what is the number of beds; what is the number of Europeans and Natives respectively mentally afflicted who have been annually placed under control during the last five years; and what proportion do those figures bear to the total number of persons of unsound mind throughout the country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer's Report for 1906, which will shortly be published, contains full information on the first two points raised by the hon. Member. I am not in possession of any statistics enabling me to deal with the last two points raised.

  Hague Conference.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is he yet able to give to the House the name of the delegate or delegates who will represent this country at the forthcoming Conference at The Hague.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not at present in a position to announce the names of the delegates who may be appointed.

  Commercial Attachés.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reason why, according to this year's Estimates, Diplomatic and Consular Services (Class 5, page 430), the Commercial Attachés previously stationed at Vienna, Berlin, and Madrid are in future to be stationed in London; for what reason a new item of £1,000 has been introduced into the same Estimates for allowance to secretaries for commercial work; and in what proportions and to which embassies is this sum to be allocated.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The new arrangements with regard to Commercial

  223
  Attachés were drawn up in consultation with the Board of Trade. The practice of stationing Commercial Attachés abroad was found to be not altogether satisfactory and it is hoped that under the new scheme greater assistance will be rendered to British trade and commerce. Allowances will be granted to secretaries in the Diplomatic Service in order to secure systematic and continuous attention to current commercial work on the part of a particular member of the staff. These allowances will at present be assigned as follows:—Berlin, £100; Washington, £100; Rome, £100; St. Petersburgh, £100; Vienna, £100; Madrid, £100; Brussels, £100; Lisbon, £50; Rio, £50; Buenos Aires, £50; Cairo, £50; Tehran, £50; The Hague, £25; Athens, £25.

  Cost of Collecting Commercial Intelligence.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reason for the reduction in this year's Estimates, Diplomatic and Consular Services, (Class 5, page 431) of the allowance for the collection of commercial intelligence from £1,000 to £700.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The provision under the sub-head for special services represents the cost of the Commercial Agents who were appointed experimentally—£700 is still provided for a Commercial Agent in the United States. The other temporary Agencies have been abolished. The Agent in Russia has been made a Commercial Attaché; the Agent in Switzerland now receives salary as a Vice-Consul; and an additional sum of £1,000 is included under Sub-head A for commercial work at Diplomatic Missions abroad. There is no decrease of the expenditure on commercial work, but a net increase of about £2,000.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: But the Estimates show a decrease.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: More is allowed under other heads. There is a net increase.

  German and American Trade Arrangements.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he
  224
  will take steps to ensure that any arrangement between Germany and the United States shall not operate adversely to British trade.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Should any arrangement be come to between the United States and Germany affecting British trade, His Majesty's Government will, of course, enter into such communication with the United States Government as may be required.

  New Servian Treaty.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Servian Treaty binds the Colonies to grant to the products of Servia the same tariff rates which they may grant to any other foreign country; and if so, whether the views of the self-governing Colonies have been obtained on this question.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Treaty in no way binds British Colonies or Possessions in the sense indicated by the hon. Member. They are free to adhere to the Treaty or not. There has consequently been no occasion to consult the self-governing Colonies in the matter.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 13 of the new Servian Treaty means that Servia has agreed to grant the same terms to the products of any British Colony as are granted to the United Kingdom, irrespective of any inter-Imperial arrangement of tariffs which are now or may be hereafter in force.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Under Article 13 of the Treaty, Servia will grant most-favoured-nation treatment to the products of any British Colony or possession so long as that Colony or possession treats Servian goods as favourably as those of any foreign country. The Treaty therefore in no way interferes with an inter-Imperial arrangement of tariffs.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does this Servian Treaty rest on the assumption that the preferential treatment of British goods by British Colonies is in accordance with the obligations of the most-favoured-nation clause?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Treaty does not interfere with any inter-Imperial or inter-Colonial arrangements. It leaves all parts of the British Empire free to make what arrangements they please between themselves.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the provision of Article 13 of the new Servian Treaty, requiring Servia to extend most-favoured-nation treatment to the products of all parts of the British Empire, whether such part adheres to the Treaty or not, has been included in any other treaty with the United Kingdom.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A similar provision is included in the Commercial Convention between the United Kingdom and Roumania. signed 31st October, 1905, and in the Commercial Convention between the United Kingdom and Bulgaria, signed 9th December 1905. The latter Convention has not yet been ratified, but it is expected that the ratifications will be exchanged in the course of a few days.

  British Vice-Consul at Antwerp.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Mr. Neville Kearney was appointed Vice-Consul at Antwerp; what was his age when appointed; whether he had passed any examinations, and what qualifications he had for the post; and how many men are employed on the staff of the Consul-General in Antwerp, giving their names, ages, and length of service.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Mr. Kearney, who has been a clerk in the Consulate-General at Antwerp since August, 1903, was given the rank of Vice-Consul on the 9th instant on the recommendation of the Consul-General, so as to enable him to sign ships' papers and other official documents. He and one other Vice-Consul, Mr. Robert Cox, are paid out of the allowance for Office Expenses. Mr. W. Lydcotte, who also has the rank of Vice-Consul at Antwerp, receives an allowance of £200. His appointment dates from 1st April, 1891, and that of Mr. Cox from 18th January of that year. These gentlemen are not called upon to pass an examination, as they are not members of the salaried consular ser-
  226
  vice nominated by the Secretary of State, but form part of the staff selected by the Consul-General. None of these gentlemen will be qualified for pensions.

  Turkish Import Duties and the Baghdad Railway.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the acceptance by the Porte and the Powers of the conditions proposed by His Majesty's Government as to the Turkish Customs duties, and the consequent acceptance of the extra 3 per cent. duty on imports into Turkey, will forward the construction of the Baghdad Railway.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The proceeds of the additional Customs duties of 3 per cent. would be devoted to the requirements of the Macedonian Budget and would not, therefore, be available for any other purpose. To what purposes the financial requirements of the Turkish Empire will allow any of the rest of the Turkish revenue to be devoted must remain a matter of opinion or conjecture.
  MR. BOWLESasked whether there was anything in the conditions imposed by His Majesty's Government which would prevent the allocation of the sum set free by the imposition of these duties to the purpose he had mentioned.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is a question as to what sum would be set free. The deficit of the Macedonian Budget, so far, has not been met out of revenue.

  Macedonian Reforms.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is contemplated that the formulating of reforms in Macedonia shall continue to rest with the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments after the proceeds of the proposed new Customs duties, leviable mainly upon British goods, have been applied to the financing of such reforms.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government understand that any projects for reforms which may be formulated by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments will be submitted

  227
  to all the Powers concerned, and considered by them all. The initiative is, therefore, not so important as that the reforms should be formulated upon a principle which is acceptable to all the Powers, and this I trust is secured.
  MR. LYNCHasked whether the initiative was not a matter of great importance, considering that the whole judicial reform of Macedonia rested at present with the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments.
  SIR EDWARD GEEYsaid he did not say the initiative was of no importance, but what was more important was that when that initiative was taken the reforms should be upon principles which were acceptable. The question of who took the initiative was then much more a matter of form than of substance.

  The Jamaican Incident.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is in accordance with International law and International etiquette for the admiral of a foreign ship to land an armed force in a British Colony without the permission of the Governor of that colony.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. And I may add that in the incident to which the right hon. Gentleman has previously referred no such right was ever claimed.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the right, or supposed right, was not exercised.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I said the right was not claimed, and you cannot say that a right that has not been claimed has been exercised. What I am convinced of is this, that there was naturally in the presence of such a catastrophe a certain amount of misunderstanding. The action of the American admiral was inspired by a single-minded motive of humanity and a desire to relieve suffering, and any other construction placed upon his action was both unworthy and untrue.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask whether the fact remains that, in opposi-
  228
  tion to the Governor of a British Colony, these armed forces were landed, and that there was no disorder that would, warrant any such action?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir. According to my information, the Question of the right hon. Gentleman conveys a statement of facts which is not borne out by the true accounts of the occurrence.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when he is considering the question of his ability to allow an Exchequer contribution towards granting pensions to the aged deserving poor, he will take into consideration the suggestion that such contribution shall, as a tentative measure, in the first instance be of a limited amount to be met by an equal or larger sum from local sources.
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.): The suggestion will be duly considered.

  Income Tax.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of income tax due for the year ending 31st March, 1906,was unpaid at that date in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively; and what percentage of costs had been charged to the taxpayers in each of these countries for non-payment to the same date.
  MR. ASQUITH: The information asked for is not available, and could only be obtained, and that with difficulty and great labour, by calling for returns from the many thousand collectors by whom the tax is gathered in. An approximate statement could be given of the payments to the Exchequer up to 31st March, 1906, in respect of tax for the year to 5th April, 1906, as collected in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively. But this would represent collection only up to about 20th March on an average, and would be very imperfect in certain respects, and misleading in others. The exact amount of tax due for a year to 5th April (not 21st March) is not ascertained until all appeals for the year have been determined; the interval between "collection" and "payment to the Exchequer" varies greatly from a few days

  229
  to three weeks, according to circumstances; and the amount not "due" until after 31st March is very much greater in England than in Scotland or Ireland (e.g., the tax on the April dividends on consols).
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman procure such figures as will satisfy us that the taxpayers in England are treated equally with the Scottish? The impression is that the Scottish taxpayer is dealt with unfairly.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am doing my very best to bring England up to the Scottish standard.
  *MR. YOUNGER: Why not adopt the Scottish system of collection in England by employing the officers of Inland Revenue?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is one of the points under consideration.

  Naval Votes Deficits.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon what Parliamentary authority the Treasury acted when, in their communication to the Admiralty of the 31st December last, they assumed to authorise that Department to defray the deficits on certain Naval Votes out of moneys partly derived from surplus receipts beyond the sums appropriated in aid.
  MR. ASQUITH: Following the uniform practice of many years, the authority cited was that of the Appropriation Acts. The question whether the application of Navy (or Army) Appropriations in Aid can be varied like that of Supply Grants is one which is now before the Public Accounts Committee, who will no doubt express their opinion in due course. I may remind the hon. Member that any action which the Treasury can take under the Appropriation Acts is temporary only, requiring Parliamentary ratification; and that the Treasury has no power to authorise even temporarily any expenditure which might cause an excess upon the aggregate sums appropriated by Parliament for Navy (or Army) services.
  MR. BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has reported that in his opinion the Treasury had no Parliamentary sanction whatever for its action, and had been guilty of the usurpation of a power belonging alone to this House? Under these circumstances will the right hon. Gentleman see that this £120,000 is surrendered to the Exchequer?
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand that the question is before the Public Accounts Committee now.

  National Physical Laboratory.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Committee inquiring into the National Physical Laboratory is likely to issue its Report.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): I learn that the Committee is engaged in taking evidence, but I am not able at the present time to say when it will find itself in a position to issue its Report.

  Licensing Legislation.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statements made by the chairmen of numerous benches at the recent annual licensing meetings in Yorkshire on the subject of clubs; whether he is aware that the justices have referred in strong terms to the urgent need for further legislation in regard to clubs where intoxicants are supplied; whether the general purport of the opinions expressed by the justices is that any new enactment which might be made by Parliament on the licensing question would be futile in promoting temperance if it did not provide for the further regulation and supervision of clubs, in order to guard against abuses of the club system; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he is now in a position to make a further statement as to the question of further legislation in regard to clubs.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I am aware that the

  231
  first three paragraphs of the Question substantially represent the views generally held by Benches of licensing magistrates throughout the country. As regards the last paragraph, I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Have not statements been made on behalf of the Government dealing with other important questions touching licensing, and cannot I have a more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have said the matter is still under consideration.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Do the Government intend to deal with it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, that is what I wished to convey.

  Charitable Institutions and the Truck Acts.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the system adopted, in contravention of the Truck Acts, in Church Army homes and other institutions in West London, of paying wages in kind, by way of supplying food, and also by deductions for sleeping accommodation; whether such places are supervised by factory inspectors; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to bring these factories into conformity with the law.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the system to which the hon. Member calls attention. As I stated in reply to a similar Question last year, I am advised that it is by no means clear that the Truck Acts would apply to the case of persons seeking aid from charitable institutions, and the extension of the Act to cover such cases would involve considerable difficulties. I understand the point has been brought to the notice of the Committee on the Truck Acts which is now sitting, and it will no doubt receive their consideration.

  Metropolitan Police Day of Rest.
  *MR. REES: On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, E., I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the fact
  232
  that he cannot see his way to giving the Metropolitan Police one day's rest in seven, in common with all other Government servants, on the ground that it would cost an extra £150,000 per annum, he will extend their annual holiday from ten days to fourteen days.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The cost even of this extension of holiday would be considerable, and I doubt if there are sufficient funds available to allow of my granting it, but I will consider the point in connection with the Estimates for the next financial year.

  Dangerous Performances.
  *MR. REES: On behalf of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, E., I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of his Answer on the 19th March last,†he has yet considered whether it is desirable to extend the provisions of the Dangerous Performances Acts, 1879 and 1897, to dangerous performances by women of any age; and, if so, can he make any statement as to the introduction of legislation on the subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: A Bill was introduced by the Government last year with this purpose, but did not succeed in passing. I see no prospect of legislation on the subject this session.

  Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. WARD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, S., I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of issuing rules showing whether compensation claims should be settled after July, 1907, the date the amended Workmen's Compensation Act comes into operation, upon the basis of the amended Compensation Act or the old Compensation Act, in cases in which the injuries or accident happened upon a date prior to the new law becoming operative.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no power to make rules on this subject, and the state of the law is quite clear. All cases where the accident happens after 1st July, 1907, will be under the new Act. All cases where the accident happened before
  †See (4) Debates, cliv., 76.

  233
  1st July, 1907, will be under the old Acts, except with respect to references to medical referees, as to which the new provisions will apply.

  Defence of Prisoners.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a young man of the name of Quarter man, of Chinnor, in Oxfordshire, who was recently sentenced to one month's imprisonment by the petty sessions at Watlington, without having had the advantage of any legal defence; whether he is aware that the police failed to comply with the regulations of the Home Office by not asking him if he wished to be defended, although they knew that a short time before, when tried for the same offence, he had been so defended; and whether full inquiry will be made into all the circumstances of this case.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already made inquiry into the case, and in view of all the circumstances I have felt justified in advising a remission of the sentence; but the grounds on which I have done so do not in any way reflect on the police officer concerned in the case. Defendant appears to have had full opportunity of obtaining legal advice for his defence if he had wished to do so. I know of no rule requiring the police to ask defendants whether they wish to be defended. The police have instructions to give prisoners who wish to be defended every facility for communicating with their legal advisers.

  Disinfectants.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the prevalence of the sale of disinfectants which do not disinfect, he proposes to take any steps towards the standardisation of disinfectants.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): I am not empowered to fix standards of disinfectants, and it does not at present appear to me that I could usefully take action in the matter.

  German Farm Colony at Ware.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Govern-
  234
  ment Board whether his attention has been called to the Report of the German farm colony at Ware, Herts, in which it is stated that during 1901–6 out of 2,875 destitute but able-bodied German-speaking men who were admitted into the colony, 1,057 had earned sufficient during their stay to defray all expenses connected with their return home, 1,027 secured situations or received monetary assistance from abroad and were thus enabled to earn their own living, and only 709 left the colony to continue a life more or less dependent upon begging and vagrancy; and whether this farm colony is recognised financially or otherwise by his Department.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a statement issued by the council of this farm colony containing the particulars mentioned in the Question. The colony is established for the benefit of German-speaking persons who are out of employment and is supported by voluntary contributions. There does not appear to have been any occasion for the recognition of it by the Local Government Board.

  Unemployed Workmen Act.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the near expiration of the time during which assistance may be given to distress committees from the grant of£200,000, and the amount of unemployment still existent, it is the intention of the Government to make a further grant for next year; and whether he can state when the Bill to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act, promised in the King's Speech of last year, will be introduced.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to a grant in the next financial year. For reasons I have previously explained, I do not contemplate proposing legislation to amend the Act.

  Registers of Pauper Illegitimates.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will cause registers to be kept by the medical officers of all workhouses and infirmaries of feeble-minded females who are delivered therein of illegitimate children; and whether he will lay upon

  235
  the Table, or otherwise publish, an annual summary of such registers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will take note of the suggestion of my hon. friend, but I think it will be desirable to defer any action in the matter pending the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feebleminded. I understand that the Commissioners are now engaged on their Report.

  Whisky.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have been taken by his Department to appoint a Committee to inquire into and settle the question of what is whisky, having in view the postponement of the appeal against Mr. Fordham's decision.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: It appeared to me to be desirable that before I determined to take action of the kind referred to in the Question, the decision of the Court of quarter sessions on a re-hearing of the appeal should be given, and I expressed an opinion to this effect. Further representations have, however, recently been made to me on the subject, and these are now receiving my consideration. I may add that any Committee appointed by me could only inquire into the matter. They would have no power to settle it.

  Insanitation in Somers Town.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet received a Report from the medical officer of health for the borough of St. Pancras on the in sanitary conditions of Little Clarendon Street, Somers Town, which Report he stated, on the 12th March, 1906, that he had called for; also, what action, if any, has been taken by the borough council to deal with this insanitary property under the Housing of Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903; and, if no action has been taken, either by the borough council referred to or the Local Government Board, will he explain the cause of the delay.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received the Report referred to. It shows that the houses in question are in fair structural condition, and that no fault is to be found with the supply of light
  236
  and air. Overcrowding, however, exists in the street, and a large number of notices for its abatement are served from time to time. The case appears to be one for action under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, rather than under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and I gather that the borough council are exercising their powers under the former Act.

  Unemployed Grant.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what portion of the grant of £200,000 for the unemployed has been given to Wales, and in what counties such portion has been expended.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The object of the grant was to supplement the voluntary contributions account of distress committees where there appeared to be exceptional need for assistance in the winter in meeting the cost of providing or contributing to the provision of necessary work. I am happy to say that no such need appeared to exist in the districts in Wales for which distress committees have been appointed, and that no application has been made by these committees for payments out of the grant. Consequently no such payments have been made.

  Wages Inquiry.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the inquiry now being made as to wages paid in certain occupations will include particulars of employment in mines and quarries, and also on railways and tramway services; and when the information is likely to be presented to the House.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): Yes. The inquiry will extend to the industries named by my hon. friend. The results will be published in sections from time to time, but it is impossible to say when the information will be complete.
  MR. J. WARD: Will it include railway and tram servants on systems in course of construction?
  MR. KEARLEY: I will inquire.

  Railway Clerks' Hours.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing railway clerks are being worked excessive hours, amounting in some cases to sixteen hours per day, especially in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of extending the Hours Act so as to include these men.
  MR. KEARLEY: The power of regulating the hours of labour of certain classes of railway servants conferred by the Act of 1893 was mainly based on the interests of public safety. The Board of Trade are not at present prepared to propose the extension of the Act to classes of employees like clerks who cannot be distinguished from employees of private firms whose hours are unregulated by law.

  Patent Laws.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to introduce the Patent Law Amendment Bill before Easter.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce a Bill to amend the patent laws and to protect British industry from the foreign competition which prevails under the existing system of patent law in this country.
  MR. KEARLEY: My right hon. friend hopes to introduce this Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Training for the Merchant Service.
  MR. L. HASLAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had brought under his notice schemes for providing the training, considered necessary by the promoters, of officers and men for the merchant service; and whether, in view of the commercial and Imperial advantages to be gained by the increase in the number of adequately trained officers and seamen, he will consider the advisability of assisting, by means of public funds, such scheme or schemes as may be approved by the Board of Trade.
  MR. KEARLEY: The whole subject is now under the consideration of a Board of Trade Committee of which I am chairman, and which has been appointed to report upon the most practicable scheme for the supply and training of boy seamen of British nationality for the mercantile marine.

  Railway Companies' Election Expenditure.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no heading in the published accounts of the London and North Western Railway under which the item appears of a subscription of £200 to the London Municipal Society; and whether he will use the powers and influence of his Department to enforce a full publication of all accounts so as to prevent the possibility of the concealment by the directors of such expenditure.
  MR. KEARLEY: I notice that in the railway company's accounts their subscription is not entered separately; whether it should have been so shown would seem to be a matter for the auditors to whom the accounts were submitted. The question of alterations in the form of the accounts to be rendered by railway companies is at the present moment under the consideration of a Departmental Committee.
  MR. CROOKS: Will this money be paid out of dividends or capital account?
  MR. FENWICK: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that large sums of money were pooled by other companies and expended for the purpose of the recent County Council election in order to avoid the connection of agency as between those spending the money and the respective candidates, and whether, in consequence of such action, he does not contemplate legislation to tighten up the Corrupt Practices Act?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of any such act as my hon. friend refers to, but I quite agree that the Corrupt Practices Act wants some renewal and revision.

  Bristol Trams and Miners.
  MR. HOWELL DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Bristol Tramways Company to allow miners to ride inside workmen's cars; also if he is aware that the Bristol Trades Council has had the matter before them and have unanimously expressed their desire that miners should be permitted to travel in like comfort with their fellow workers; and whether he can take any action to meet this case.
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade have communicated the views of the trades council to the tramways company, and requested the company to consider whether, in the circumstances, some amendment of their by-laws should not be made so far as workmen's cars are concerned.

  Railway Servants—Hours of Labour Return.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that returns were obtained from all the railway companies for the hours worked by their men exceeding ten hours consecutive duty on any one day during the years 1891 and 1892; and whether he will order a Return to be made for all hours of duty above ten per day for January, 1907.
  MR. KEARLEY: Returns of the nature described were obtained for the month of December, 1891. As regards the obtaining of further Returns on the same basis I would refer to the reply given to my hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire on the 22nd ultimo.†The whole question of the form and frequency of the Returns is now being carefully considered.

  Aberdeen Postal Arrangements.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the promised consideration of the question of giving to the Woodside district of Aberdeen the advantages of a late postal delivery enjoyed by other parts of the city, if he can now state whether this benefit can be initiated on the revision of
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 1146–7.
  240
  the postal delivery arrangements in Aberdeen which is to take place on the occupation of the new post office buildings.
  I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that no less than four applications from the public have been made for a post and telegraph office at Belmont Road, Kill Brewster, Aberdeen; and, in view of the increase of business and population in that district since 1901, when the first application was made, if he can now see his way to comply with the application.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I will look into both the cases referred to by the hon. Member.

  Radio-Telegraphic Convention.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the amount of preparatory work which will have to be done in order to bring the Radio-Telegraphic Convention into operation, and to the fact that the deliberations of the Parliamentary Committee must be prolonged, His Majesty's Government will definitely postpone Great Britain's adhesion to the Convention for a further period of twelve months or more.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Radio-Telegraphic Convention does not come into force till 1st July, 1908, a date which allows ample time, after the Committee has reported, to make all necessary arrangements consequent on ratification.

  Postal Addresses.
  MR. FENWICK: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Hackney, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the number of frauds perpetrated through the medium of the post by persons who pay for the use of addresses at which to receive letters; and whether he will consider the desirableness of formulating a regulation prohibiting the granting of the use for payment of postal addresses.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers. Its use is in most cases perfectly

  241
  legitimate, but in some cases it may lend itself to the perpetration of frauds. I regret, however, that I have no legal power to intervene in such cases.

  New Zealand Mail Service.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what steps he is taking to re-establish the broken-down postal arrangements with New Zealand via San Francisco; what is the age of the American contract packet which has been withdrawn for repairs; is there no other steamer which can be substituted in such cases; and who is to blame for the policy of sending the mails by a route that takes thirty-nine days in place of one that takes thirty days.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am informed that the United States Post Office has the matter under consideration; but I am not myself in a position to furnish the hon. Member with the details for which he asks concerning a service in no way under my control. It has long been the practice to despatch mails for New Zealand via San Francisco by every opportunity, that is, in normal circumstances, once in three weeks. In the intervening weeks mails are despatched via Suez, because it is found in practice that they thereby reach their destination sooner than if retained for the next San Francisco despatch.

  Canadian Postal Rates.
  MR. W. PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if negotiations are taking place with the Postmaster-General of Canada with the object of reducing the postal rates between Great Britain and Canada upon newspapers, magazines, and periodicals; and, if so, can he state the present position of the question.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As my hon. friend is, I think, aware, negotiations are proceeding between the Imperial and Canadian Governments on the question of a reduction in the postage to Canada on newspapers, periodicals, and magazines from this country. I hope shortly to be able to make a statement on the subject, but cannot do so at present.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In view of the keen interest
  242
  taken in this matter cannot the right hon. Gentleman lay some Papers on the Table of the House?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was fully aware of the great interest taken, but the negotiations were still going on.

  Llanychan School.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he has received any application from the local education authority for Denbighshire for permission to cease maintaining the church school at Llanychan; and, if so, on what grounds the appplication has been made, and what steps the Board of Education intend to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT of THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The authority's application is made on the ground that the school is unnecessary; but, as it was only received yesterday, I cannot yet say what action the Board will take.

  Teachers' Compensation.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what compensation will be paid to those teachers who may lose their employment in the event of schools being closed owing to the Special Religious Instruction Bill.
  MR. McKenna: On the hypothesis mentioned by the hon. Member the scholars in the closed schools will require instruction elsewhere, and I do not, therefore, anticipate any diminution in the demand for teachers.

  Education (Special Instruction) Bill.
  MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the desire that the Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill shall be proceeded with without delay; and can he name an early date for its further consideration.
  MR. McKENNA: I am very anxious o proceed with this measure and I hope it may be possible to take the Second Reading next Monday.

  Education Grant Application Form.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the draft form of application by local education authorities for their proportionate share of the £100,000 to be voted for the provision of new buildings in single school areas.
  MR. McKENNA: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that each local authority will be entitled to a proportionate share in the grant referred to. I explained, in reply to the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on Monday, the purpose and limitations of the grant.†No form of application has been drafted. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
  LORD BALCARRES: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to tell the House something about this money, some of which was included in the Vote on account?
  MR. McKENNA: When the Estimates are reached I will do so.

  Educational Administration.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what steps will be taken to secure, on the part of the two departments of the Board of Education, identity of administrative interpretation of the Education Acts.
  MR. McKENNA: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "identity of administrative interpretation." A statute, it appears to me, may be interpreted correctly or incorrectly, and I trust it will not be necessary to take any extraordinary steps to secure that the interpretation placed upon the Education Acts by all Departments of the Board will be a correct one.

  Holy Trinity Church, Broadstairs, and St. Barnabas Church, Tunbridge Wells—Illegal Practices alleged.
  SIR D. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to a public service held on Sunday,
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 1261.
  244
  3rd March, 1907, at Holy Trinity Church, Broadstairs, in the diocese of Canterbury, in the course of which the following illegal acts were committed, the wearing of one or more of the mass vestments, the use of portable lights, the ceremonial mixing of the chalice, the introduction of a ceremonial closely resembling the lavabo, the elevation of a consecrated wafer with the words, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world," the introduction of secret prayers, and the secret reading of the Last Gospel, and at which there was no communicant except the celebrant; whether he is aware that among the ornaments of that church there are the the illegal ornaments known as the Stations of the Cross; whether his attention has also been drawn to a public service held on the same Sunday at St. Barnabas Church, Tunbridge Wells, in the diocese of Rochester, at which illegalities of a generally similar character were committed; and whether he can see his way to taking proceedings on behalf of the Crown against the incumbents of the above-mentioned churches.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the illegal practices referred to in this Question. The duty of enforcing compliance with ecclesiastical law rests upon the bishop of the diocese. I cannot discover any authority for the proposition that it is part of the office of the Attorney-General. If my hon. and learned friend, who is a most competent judge, considers there are grounds for an opposite opinion and will bring the case formally before the Director of Public Prosecutions, the subject will be fully considered.

  Married Women's Property Bill.
  MR. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Bill to amend The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which was brought from the Lords on 4th April, 1905, as well as in the session of 1904, or some new measure to remedy the present position whereby, while a married women can convey her own property without the consent of her husband, she cannot convey property held by her in trust without her husband joining in such conveyance.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: Yes, Sir, I am informed that the Lord Chancellor proposes to introduce a Bill with this object in the other House during the present session.

  Page's Estate.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a categorical statement of the legal history of the Page's estate; whether he has inquired into the accuracy or otherwise of such statement, and the other evidence already in the possession of his Department; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to protect the interests of the Crown in this matter.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I have received a number of lengthy communications upon the subject referred to in this Question. It is impossible to form any final opinion on the matter until the accuracy of the statements contained in these documents has been established. The Treasury are, I believe, now conducting the necessary investigation and they will, no doubt, furnish the hon. Member with any information he may desire.

  Beet Cultivation.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will lay any Papers that may be available relating to the cultivation of sugar beet in the British Isles, in order that information may be available for experiments contemplated in the county of Montgomery.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have no Papers on this subject that could usefully be presented to Parliament, but we shall be glad to supply such information as we possess respecting it to any persons interested.

  Agricultural Labour Employment Bureau.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his Department has any list of employers seeking agricultural labourers, to whom young men, aged about twenty years, who seek to get employed on the land can apply.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir.
  MR. FELL: Is there no possibility of such a bureau being established by the Board of Agriculture?
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It is very improbable. The difficulty is not for such men to get employment, but for farmers to get young men in country districts.

  Lord Egerton and his Tenants.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the reasons which have led Lord Egerton of Tatton to serve notices to quit on his tenants in Cheshire in consequence of the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act of last session.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My noble friend has received the following letter on this subject from Lord Egerton.
  "Helouan,
  "Cairo,
  "26th February, 1907.
  "Dear Lord Carrington,
  "I am glad of the opportunity (given me by your letter of February 15th which I have just received) of contradicting the assumption made by Mr. Fullerton in his Question on the Paper of the House of Commons.
  "I had no intention in giving formal notice to my tenants (on February 2nd, the first legal day in the North of England) to defeat the measure intended for the benefit of tenant farmers.
  "If I had intended to defeat a measure, which, speaking generally, carries out the long-established practice of my estate, I should not have written a circular to my tenants that it was necessary under the new Agricultural Holdings Act to cancel the existing agreement, which was out of date, 'and to substitute for it a simpler form "in harmony with recent legislation.' "
  "My tenants know well that I am as anxious as ever to maintain the cordial relations which have long existed between

  247
  us, and which will not in any way be affected by the recent Act.
  "I shall be glad if you will give the same publicity to this letter as has been given to the question before the House of Commons.
  "Believe me,
  "Yours sincerely,
  "(Signed) EGERTON OF TATTON."

  Protection of Ancient Monuments.
  MR. COURTHOPE: On behalf of the Junior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what are the principal items accounting for the estimated increase of £3,645, required during the next financial year for the maintenance and protection of ancient monuments in Great Britain.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS Mr. Harcourt, Lancashire, Rossendale): The excess is mainly accounted for by necessary works of maintenance and repair at Carnarvon Castle and Stirling Castle, which we have recently taken over, and by the provision of lightning conductors on many buildings already in our charge. I hope the hon. Baronet will allow me to postpone the further details till I give them in the discussion of these Estimates shortly after Easter.

  Insanitary Water Supply at Ardler.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the reports concerning the bad sanitary state of the water supply of the village of Ardler, in Perthshire; whether he in aware of a particular form of disease prevalent in the village, known as the Ardler scab, said to be due to the poisonous nature of the water supply; and whether he proposes to take any steps to compel the local landlord to have a proper supply procured in the interest of the villagers.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire): My attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory state of the water supply of the village of Ardler. The county medical officer reported that in the autumn of 1905 a number of the children in Ardler and other parts of the county suffered from "broken-out faces," but that there was no
  248
  reason to connect these with the water supply. The Local Government Board are in communication with the local authority with a view to an improved supply.
  MR. LUPTON: Did these "broken-out faces" come before or after vaccination?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Moray Firth.
  CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps, if any, are being taken at the present time to prevent illegal trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Fishery Board for Scotland has instructions to watch for and report all cases of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth and is doing so to the full extent of its resources.

  Scottish Churches Dispute.
  MR. FINDLAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing in Ayr and Campbeltown, over the delay in coming to a decision in connection with the United Free Churches there, where large congregations have been long evicted by small minorities unable to carry on the work of these churches, he can say the cause of the delay, and if a settlement may be expected soon.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the inconvenience caused by the existing circumstances in this and other cases. As to she reasons why a final settlement of outstanding cases has not yet been reached, I have nothing to add to the contents of the reply to my hon. friend the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross which was furnished by the Chairman of the Commission on 26th February.†

  Right-of-Way Case Dunkeld.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the expenses in the recent Dunkeld right-of-way case amounted to no less sum than £2,400, all of which fall upon the single individual who was personally responsible for the action; and what steps he proposes to take to amend the
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 1443–4.

  249
  law so as to place this public duty on a public authority and to diminish the cost of these actions.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am unable to add to the Answer I gave on the 5th instant to the hon. Member for Leicester in reply to a Question on the same case†.The Government have every sympathy with the desire to preserve and vindicate existing rights-of-way, but I cannot at present give any undertaking as to legislation.

  Moray Firth—Fishery Protection.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether there are now any trawl vessels working in the Moray Firth; whether any have been detected since 2nd March; and whether the Fishery Board (Scotland) have adequate means at their command to discover and detect such trawling.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have received information that the Commander of the fishery cruiser "Freya" reported on the 7th instant that he had observed six trawlers at work between Helmsdale and Buckie during the past two days. I hope to receive to-morrow further information as to the period since 7th instant.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question.
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is a matter of opinion.

  Finn v. Campbell.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Finn v. Campbell, and the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, upholding the decision of the police magistrate to the effect that the 13th section of the Act of 1871 was not repealed by the General Dealers' Act, 1903; and, whether, in view of the fact that it was generally considered that this section was repealed, and of the hardship to dealers by the Law as now laid down, he will consider the advisability of bringing in a short Bill to remove this hardship.
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 645.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry,): I am informed that the decision of the King's Bench Division was as stated in the Question. The conviction referred to was under the 13th section of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, which is a general Act applying to the whole United Kingdom, and not to Ireland alone. Any alteration in it, applicable to Ireland only, would not, I think, be advisable.

  Irish Land Purchase Delays.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice of the Board of Works in Ireland to refuse to advance money for hay barns, etc., to tenants who have signed purchase agreements under the Land Act of 1903, until the sale is completed; and whether in view of the delay, extending over some years, between the agreement to purchase and the issue of the vesting order by the Land Commission, he will advise the Board of Works to abolish this practice.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the reply given by my predecessor to a similar Question on the 28th March last,‡he will find the practice of the Board of Works very clearly stated. Like my right hon. friend I do not think any change is called for.

  Tuam and Limerick Postal Service.
  MR. JOHNROCHE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in Tuam, directed to Limerick, are sent to Dublin by the Midland line and thence by Great Southern and Western Railway to Limerick; that parcels posted at 6 p.m. at Ballyglunin on a Monday are not delivered in Limerick until Wednesday morning; that to letters posted at Ballyglunin at the same time and directed to firms in Dublin and Limerick a reply can be had from Dublin before the Limerick letters reach Limerick; and whether he can see his way to have this state of affairs remedied by running a night mail from Claremorris to Limerick, taking in the mails at intermediate stations.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cliv, 1244.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have called for a report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Statue of William III.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will recommend that the statue of William III., Prince of Orange, about to be presented by the German Emperor, be erected in Belfast, Lisburn, or Londonderry, where the memory of that king's services in the cause of civil and religious liberty in Ireland is treasured.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works has decided upon a site which is to be in front of Kensington Palace—in the neighbourhood of the Orangery.

Case of Mr. Charles George Hunt.
MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a grant was made from the Royal bounty, special service, or compassionate funds, in the case of a previous clerk of the county court of Clerkenwell, who was in the position for a much shorter period, he will reconsider his decision that these funds are not applicable to the case of Mr. Charles George Hunt, of Danesbury, Warwick Road, New Barnet, who held the same position at the same court for a period of nearly 60 years, until 30th September, 1906, and who is now in failing health and in impoverished circumstances.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No such grant has been made by me, nor (so far as I am able to discover) by any of my predecessors in office; and I remain of opinion that there are no sufficient
252
reasons for a grant of public money to Mr. Hunt.
MR. CARLILE: May I send the right hon. gentleman the particulars of a grant that was made?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot hold out any hope that any precedent will alter my opinion with regard to this case.
MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that this gentleman is in failing health and very impoverished circumstances?
[No Answer was returned.]

The Butter Bill.
MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Butter and Margarine Bill will be proceeded with.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On Monday.

Woman Suffrage.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to give facilities to the Bill for extending the Parliamentary franchise to women introduced by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it would have been more usual if a Question of this kind had been asked by one of the promoters of the Bill, but I may say that under the circumstances in which this Bill is now before the House it is quite impossible and would be unprecedented to give further time for the Second Reading debate; and in addition to that the pressure of Government business would preclude us from offering facilities for any private Bill.
MR. CORBETT: It was owing to the lack of ardour on the part of the promoters that I put the Question.

Berks and Bucks Staghounds.
MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that on 2nd January last a deer, turned out to be hunted by the Berks and Bucks stag-hounds, in trying to clear a wall near

253
Bisham, after a long run, fell and broke its neck; that on 26th February last a deer turned out near Taplow by the same hunt, after a long run, took refuge in a cottage at Farnham Royal, and, having been captured by villagers with a rope, was strangled in its efforts to escape; that on 28th February last a deer turned out by the Surrey stag-hounds took refuge in a millpond at I field, where it was drowned; that on the same day a deer turned out by the Berks and Bucks hunt was captured, bleeding and in a state of exhaustion, by villagers, and was strangled in its efforts to escape; that on 8th March last a deer turned out by the same hunt, after a run of some fifteen miles, was driven into Waterloo Place Lake, near Wokingham, where it was set upon by the hounds and drowned; that at least six carted deer are known to have been killed by the Berks and Bucks hunt since 26th November last; and if, in view of the frequent occurrence of such incidents, and of the public feeling in the matter, and to prevent cruelty to animals, he will give facilities to enable the Spurious Sports Bill to be passed into law.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already told my hon. friend my opinion of this kind of sport, and expressed my desire to find a means of putting a stop to it. But at this stage of the session it is, I am afraid, quite out of the question to offer facilities for the Spurious Sports Bill.

South Devon Fisheries.
MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the state of affairs in connection with the fishing industry of Plymouth and South Devon, which has been brought about by the repeated depredations of foreign trawlers; and whether he will consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, as suggested by the Admiralty.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The whole matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. T cannot say more at present.
MR. MILDMAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to expedite matters, as many fishermen are becoming a charge
254
on the rates because of the refusal of owners to send their boats out while this state of affairs lasts.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I am fully aware of the pressing nature of the matter.

Scottish Land Legislation.
MR. MORTON:I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of bringing in a separate Land Bill dealing with the extension of small holdings in the crofting districts of Scotland, as promised in His Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament last year.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Small Landowners Bill, which covers this subject, will be introduced next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the Leader of the House say how he proposes to allocate the time up to Easter?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was proposed on Monday to introduce the Patents Bill under the ten minutes rule. They would then take the Ways and Means Report and the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill, if they did not obtain these that night, as he hoped. The next business would be the introduction of the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill, the second reading of the Butter Bill, the Post Office Sites Bill, Probation of Offenders Bill, Released Prisoners Bill, and others. These, he thought, were mostly agreed measures. On Tuesday they would take the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. On Wednesday they would make certain proposals as to the alteration of the rules of procedure, and take the Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. On Thursday it was proposed to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates, and take the third reading on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The business in the following week would depend a little on circumstances, but he hoped that the Motion for the rising of the House for the Easter recess might be made on Wednesday, the 27th inst. He would propose that the House

255
should reassemble on Monday, April 8th. [Cries of "Tuesday."]
MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that it had been customary to give a whole day to the discussion of the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, whereas only half a day would be available for Government business on Tuesday. That was, he thought, rather a violent change, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. He believed it was also asking the House to exceed their practice to grant the third reading of that Bill and get the Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates on the same day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the pressure next week arose from the fact that they must get the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill by Thursday next.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was surprised at that, as he would have thought that Monday week would be soon enough. If the Ways and Means Report were passed that night, could not the right hon. Gentleman give a whole day to the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he did not wish to make any tyranical use of the power of the Government, and he would consider the point. But they must get the Third Reading of the Bill by Thursday next, as the Royal Assent Could not be obtained quite so easily just now, for reasons of which they were all aware.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why is it necessary to get the Third Reading next Thursday?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are reasons we all know of in connection with getting the Royal Assent.
MR. STANLEY WILSON (E. R., Holderness)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform the House during the next fortnight what he was going to do with the House of Lords.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it did not rest with him to do
256
anything with the House of Lords. He did not know that the actual course to be taken by the Government would be announced before Easter, but it was pretty well known what that course would be.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked when the Government proposed to take the Second Reading of the Special Religious Instruction Bill.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it would be taken before Easter if the other Bills he had mentioned were disposed of in time.

THE STANDING ORDERS.
MR. A. J. BALFOURcalled attention to an apparent discrepancy in the Standing Order by which it was intended to provide that not more than one day should be allotted to the Vote on account or to the Report of that Vote.
*Mr. SPEAKERsaid that possibly there might be a little confusion in consequence of the words "sitting" and "day" being used in the same Standing Order, both, in his judgment, being now equivalents. In the last Parliament there were two sittings per diem; now there was only one. Therefore, to take a concrete case, if, yesterday, the Report of Supply had not come to an end at 8.15, when a private Member's Motion was taken, it would have been his duty at eleven o'clock, when the order was again called, to put the Question.

NEW BILLS.
  CROFTERS' (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts, and to consolidate the Crofters Commission with the Congested Districts Commissioners in Scotland," presented by Mr. Munro Ferguson; supported by Sir Edward Tennant; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  NURSES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  "To regulate the qualifications of trained nurses and to provide for their registration," presented by Mr. Munro

  257
  Ferguson; supported by Sir John Dickson-Poynder, Mr. Rose, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Eve, Mr. Fell, Mr. Crooks, Sir George Robertson, Dr. Rutherford, Mr. Jowett, and Mr. McKillop; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 106].

  SUPPLY [7TH MARCH] REPORT.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Resolution reported;

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  1. "That 128,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Service for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, including 18,595 Royal Marines."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,869,700, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."

  First Resolution read a second time.
  *Mr. ARTHUR LEEsaid that it would be remembered that when these two Votes were in Committee there were certain questions addressed to the Secretary for the Admiralty which at the time he was unable to answer. The right hon. Gentleman said, in replying to the Leader of the Opposition, who addressed the particular questions to him, that he could not be expected to give full answers to all questions without due notice. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said that if he failed to give satisfactory answers to the questions at the time he would supplement them at a later date. He hoped that as the later day had arrived the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to give the answers he had promised. For example, several questions had been put about the Home Fleet, but before calling attention again to those very important questions he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no desire to criticise the Board of Admiralty adversely in this matter. He did not think that anyone who had had the privilege of serving on that Board would wish to do otherwise than
  258
  support it generally when continuity of policy was being maintained. But he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish them to give it intelligent support, and they were only anxious for certain definite information. He did not wish to ask for any information which could be classed as confidential, but there were certain points which he ventured to think it would be in the interests of the Admiralty to clear up as well as in the interests of the country generally. There was one question which the right hon. Gentleman had not yet answered, with regard to the proposal to draft the newest and best ships, he meant ships of the "Dreadnought" and later classes, to the Home Fleet as soon as completed, rather than to draft them to the first fighting line—in other words to place those newest and best ships in the second line or reserve. He was well aware that it had been proposed to maintain the Nore Division, which had been described as the "fighting tip" of the Home Fleet, in the same state of efficiency as the sea-going fleets, and if that was intended he would not be inclined to press the point, because it would then perhaps come under the head of mere strategic distribution of the ships which were available; and that, of course, must be left to the discretion of the Board of Admiralty. But it had been said in the course of the debates that the Nore Division was not intended to be as efficient as the sea-going fleets, and it had been admitted that it would have only 70 per cent. of their sea time. And a very important question, as he thought, was put by the Leader of the Opposition, when he asked whether the ships of the Nore Division would cost as much per annum as the corresponding ships of the sea-going fleets, with the exception of the expenditure on coal. They knew that they were only to have 70 per cent. as much sea time. The question, therefore, arose whether the economy to be effected on the one item of coal was sufficient to compensate for the loss of efficiency of those ships as compared with those of sea-going fleets. He would like to put this further question—as he could not possibly see that the economy in money was intended to be for coal only—whether it was intended that there should be economy

  259
  in the matter of ammunition also. Then he would like to put a question with reference to the ships of the Fifth Cruiser Squadron, which consisted of six first-class cruisers, and would be attached to the Nore Division. If hon. Gentlemen looked at the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty for the present year they would see that those six cruisers, like the six battleships of the Nore Division, were especially referred to as belonging to the Home Fleet, and the statement was added that they would not leave home waters. That was of course to give the public confidence in the constant presence of the Home Fleet. A little further down, however, it stated that the Nore cruisers would exercise with the Channel and other Fleets, as was thought desirable. If that was so, they could not always be kept in home waters and also be detached to operate with the Channel Fleet and other fleets, which, as they knew, were frequently absent from home waters. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the Fifth Cruiser Squadron would never operate with the Channel or other Fleets when absent from home waters, then he thought the provision became of very little use at all, because the operations of the Channel and Atlantic Fleets caused them to be generally absent from home waters. When operating together the other day they were three days steam from home waters, and there was not a single battleship at home. If they operated with the Channel Fleet, what became of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet when his cruisers were taken away from him to operate under another commander-in-chief?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Vote under discussion is as to the number of men, and the distribution of the fleet does not arise on this Vote. The hon. Member is at liberty to discuss the number of men.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired to know exactly the effect of the ruling. When the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair, it was understood that the question of general policy could be raised on Vote A or Vote 1, but not on both. He himself had understood, broadly
  260
  speaking, that to be the rule. He would ask whether a similar rule did not apply on Report, or what were the precise limitations under which they were to guide the course of the discussion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The rule in Committee is not applicable on Report. In Committee on Vote A or Vote 1, possibly by arrangement on both, a general discussion may take place on the Navy Estimates. But on Report the discussion must be limited to the number of officers and men on Vote A, and, on Report of the Second Vote, to the expenses and wages of officers and seamen and boys. Hon. Members can make observations on those subjects.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I think I understand your ruling, Sir. There is this inconvenience resulting, that the promised answers of the right hon. Gentleman cannot now be given.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON Dundee)said no answer was promised on Report. He had said that at some later day he would endeavour to answer the questions, if he could not answer them on that day; but he had not said that he would answer them on Report, because he knew quite well that they could not be answered on Report, except so far as they were relevant to Votes A and 1.
  *MR. ARTHURLEEsaid that in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling, it was impossible that they could expect the answers which the right hon. Gentleman had promised at a later day, and it was quite obvious that the later day could never arrive. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had secured for himself immunity from answering questions as he had promised. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he could not be expected to give full answers to questions without notice, obviously showing that he recognised that he had to give full Answers. It would be in the recollection of the House that as a matter of fact on that occasion he did not answer the questions put to him by his right hon. friend. In view of the ruling they were reduced to the extremely narrow question of the reduction of Vote A by 1,000 men. He had no observations whatever to offer

  261
  on that subject, and he would imagine it to be extremely difficult for any debate to be conducted on that extremely narrow point.
  *MR. BELLAIRSsaid that, in view of Mr. Speaker's ruling restricting the discussion to the number of men, he begged only to call attention to the large number of collisions and groundings as the result of the employment of officers being so restricted in consequence of the redistribution of the fleets. The Secretary to the Admiralty some time ago, in answer to a Question of his, stated that in 1902 only 17 per cent. of the commanders were in command of sea-going ships. After the lapse of five years, and before the new redistribution scheme came into operation, he found that there were only 10 per cent. of commanders in command of sea-going ships, or the very large reduction in five years of 7 per cent. Turning to the captains' list, the official answer told him that in 1902, 44·4 per cent. of captains were in command of sea-going ships. That 44·4 per cent. had been reduced in five years only to 32·5 per cent. Those were ships that were exercising in sea-going fleets; he did not refer to nucleus crew ships, which went to sea for the day, and the bringing in of nucleus crew ships only confused the issue. Taking the case of the Portsmouth Division of battleships, it only went to sea one night in the whole of last year; the Chatham Division only went to sea by day. During the grand manœuvres the Chatham Division went to Portsmouth by daylight, and remained at anchor in the Solent the whole of the time of the manœuvres, and then proceeded back to Chatham. On the way two ships rammed each other. The "Resolution" ran into the "Ramillies" and the "Ramillies" ran into dock. For two years the average of collisions and groundings of men-of-war had been three a fortnight, or seventy-eight in one year, and the effect of the number of officers for the command of ships being so few would be that they would get more collisions and groundings. He did not wish to enlarge upon the training scheme, because he hoped that the Prime Minister would grant an in
  262
  quiry into the whole subject. The feeling of dissatisfaction in the Navy was becoming very intense. The Marines believed that they were to be abolished under that scheme of service. He did not know of a single officer in command of the fleets, except the two officers in command of the Mediterranean Fleet, who was in favour of the scheme. All the admirals were against it, and yet they had, so far, absolutely failed to get from the Admiralty any form of inquiry, showing that they had no confidence in the scheme, because if they had confidence in it, they would be willing to submit it to investigation. The effect of an inquiry would be to allay the sore feeling in the Service, and stop all criticism in that House. They would, however, bring the matter up until they had some form of inquiry, because they would sooner bore the House than see a Navy that was not fit for war owing to the deterioration which would come if the scheme were proceeded with.
  CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid that on page 5 of the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty he noticed a statement that the present number of seamen was in excess of requirements. He would like to know what were the requirements of the Service? He took it that they had 1,000 seamen in excess of requirements for manning the Fleet at a two-Power standard. Then there was the statement that as far as stokers were concerned the number was under the necessities of the Fleet, and he understood that the full number of stokers required would not be provided until the number of seamen had been reduced. He could not see any connection between the two. Were the surplus seamen going to be used to supplement the stokers in the stokehole? When a ship was commissioned as it would be for war it would be necessary to have full control of the men on board working the ship. They wanted all the seamen drilled in order to bring them up to the efficiency of a ship in commission. He wished to refer to the reduction in the number of boys for shipwrights and coopers. In the report of the Douglas Committee for the year before last, on page 157 there was an article upon the future

  263
  development of the scheme of training. The House would remember that it was intended that all the workshop business of the stokehole department should be done by a special class. The engine-room artificers were to be entered as boy artificers and trained to carryout the workshop business. When a survey was taken of the Navy Services it was found that they had two separate sets of workshop people, one employed under the carpenters of the Fleet and the other under the engineers of the Fleet. In the Douglas Report it was suggested that in future the carpenters, as far as a great many of their trades were concerned, more especially in regard to shipwrights and blacksmiths, might very usefully be trained as boy artificers and so come under the engine-room department in future. He noticed in the scheme before them a rednction in the number of shipwrights, and he asked whether it was in the carrying out of the recommendation of that Report that that reduction came in. If so, he was not averse to the scheme at all, because it was only a natural sequence of the new system of training that had been introduced. He would like to know whether it was to be considered as the beginning of the development of the scheme for shipwrights.
  MR. G. CROYDON MARKSthought the inability to obtain a sufficient number of stokers in the Navy was due to the unfavourable conditions under which the men had to work. Instead of being given duties which they could do without any special skill they were now to be trained for six and a half years in order to do work which could be done by men upon whom the nation had not spent anything. Men were taken from the stokehole to learn a trade in three months, and after that they were to be sent to sea to take charge of engines. Then they were to be taken back again and educated for two years. If at the end of six and a half years they were found to be incompetent they were to be sent back to the stokehole after the money spent upon them had been wasted in trying to replace men who at present fulfilled all the purposes required from experience gained outside the Service. The number to be promoted
  264
  from the stokehole every year was 100 There were 30,000 men in the Navy, and 100 men every year were to have the opportunity of promotion. They were to be made into skilled tradesmen, and they had to be twenty-five years of age before they started. Everyone knew it was almost impossible to teach a man a trade after he was twenty-five years of age. They were taking a man who had had no previous mechanical training, and it was perfectly certain that he would prove to be incompetent to take charge of the engines. The man in the engine-room must be a man of resource, because difficulties would crop up which only engineers could deal with. The boy who had been through the workshop would obtain engineering knowledge which would enable him to foresee what might be a trouble and remedy it before it became serious. The man taken from the stokehole to the engine-room would not understand the little difficulties, and they might reasonably expect more breakdowns, and consequently more repairs would be required when such men were in charge of the engines. The plan had been tried in the American Navy and had failed. With regard to the stokehole being undermanned and the number of stokers short of requirements, it was not at all surprising when the avenue for promotion amongst stokers was limited to an educational service which they had to take up and in regard to which they had had no previous experience. The same with the boys. The artificers who joined the Navy came fully armed with five years experience of the workshop acquired at no expense to the country. They were about to train up men at great expense to take the place of those who under the present system came in already trained at their own expense, and what was more, they would not get such good men trained under Navy conditions. The men they were about to introduce into the engine-room would be less efficient than the same service in the mercantile marine. The Board of Trade were being pressed to make the period of service five years before a boy should be considered to have learned his trade, and fit to go into the engine-room. In the Navy they were going to give them three months training and then turn them into

  265
  the engine-room. If that sort of thing went on they might expect more trouble with the engines than they had had in the past. They would at the same time be eliminating from the service the most practical men and placing in the engine-room men who had not been trained as engineers. The system of common entry was good in breaking down prejudices between one part of the service and another, but it was extremely bad for producing a good engineer. To produce a good engineer a man must have a desire and an aptitude for the work. When at Dartmouth he asked 100 boys what part of the service they proposed to go into, and less than ten expressed a preference to become engineers. Those were the officers who would by-and-bye mann our ships. As a matter of fact, out of every eight officers in the service three would have to be engineers, and in future those three would not be specially trained. There were a number of artificers detached from their ordinary work to train stokers who by-and-bye would take the places of those who were teaching them, and consequently the feeling between the artificers and the stokers was very acute indeed. The discontent existing in the ranks of the stokers was due to the fact that all avenues of promotion had gone, and they had no possibility of advancement except by becoming tradesmen and mechanics, and then after six and a half years they might be sent back again into the stokehole if they were not competent. He was sure such a system was not in the interests of His Majesty's Navy.
  MR. COBBOLDsaid it was to the personnel of the Navy as well as to the Army that they should really look if there was to be any reduction in armaments. He regretted to say he did not find from the First Lord's Memorandum that there was any desire on the part of the Government to reduce our bloated armaments so far as the Navy was concerned. His hon. friend behind him had suggested when this question was formerly before the House that there might be a reduction of 8,000 men, but great anxiety was shown to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair and they were requested not to make any remarks then. He did not say that
  266
  things were hurried through Committee, but the questions which came up for discussion on the Navy Estimates and also on the Army Estimates were such that he did not think too long time could be spent on their consideration. The Prime Minister had stated that we, having such an enormous Navy, had above all other Powers an opportunity of playing a noble rôle in leading the way in the reduction of armaments. The first way to reduce the Navy was to reduce the personnel. It was generally admitted that we were to have a two-Power standard with a margin over. The Government had not said that we ought to have, as we had at present, a three-Power standard. The French and German navies had a personnel, according to the Secretary to the Admiralty, of under 100,000—it might be 94,000 to 98,000—while we had 128,000. We were therefore far beyond the two-Power standard in personnel. It appeared to him from the First Lord's Memorandum that we had too many men altogether, though we had not enough stokers. He would be glad to hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of seamen and stokers living in barracks. He believed there were a good many thousands of so-called sea-faring men who lived a land life in barracks. That pointed to the fact that we were already over-burdened with personnel. Second thoughts were often better than first, and he hoped that the Government would find before the Navy Votes for the year were finally passed that it would be a very good thing to go into The Hague Conference with a considerably reduced personnel, in order to show to other nations that we had really made an important step forward and to ask them honestly whether they could not see their way to make similar reductions in their personnel. If a substantial reduction were made in the personnel of the Navy it would be seen that the Ministry were really in earnest in trying to reduce these bloated armaments and in trying to provide the means by which reforms in connection with domestic policy could be forwarded—reforms which were so dear to the Labour Members. He would like to see those hon. Members, one and all, doing their best

  267
  to get reductions in the Army and Navy, and first of all in the personnel of the Navy.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for the Launceston Division had stated that this country should play a "noble part" in the reduction of the armaments of the world. That sentiment was cheered, though faintly, by hon. Members on the other side of the House. It might be a great thing to play a noble part, but it might also be extremely dangerous, and he thought the majority of the inhabitants of these islands would be inclined before they played that noble part to ascertain that the other countries in the world were also going to play a noble part and reduce the number of men in their navies. As far as he could see there was not a single country in the world which was prepared to follow us in that particular work. He was inclined to think that the Government had reduced the number of men too largely. It should be remembered that though it took a considerable time to build a ship, it took a longer time to provide trained men to man the ship. It was, therefore, most essential that there should be a reserve of trained capable men. What nobler service than the Navy could men enter? It might to a certain extent solve the question of the unemployed, because the larger the number of men in the Navy the smaller would be the number of men seeking employment in other directions. He understood the hon. Member for the Launceston Division to say that because the artificers and stokers learned their work the one from the other there was friction between them. All had to learn from somebody; no one was born with a knowledge of any particular subject. He failed to see how the fact that one man learned his business from another should cause discontent either to the man who was taught or to the man who taught, unless, of course, the lesson was badly given. The hon. Member had also said that those men were under the impression that all avenues of future promotion would be closed to them. He was informed that the reverse was the case, and that stokers would be able to rise to the rank of warrant officers, a position to which they had never been
  268
  able to rise before. If that were true, where was the foundation for the hon. Member's complaint? As to the artificers, he understood that instead of being imported from the outside after learning their business they would be taken in as boys and taught their work in the Navy. Everybody knew that the younger a lad entered the Navy the better it was for him and for the Navy. And so it was in every walk of life. He did not know whether to congratulate the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on having made this alteration, because he did not, as a rule, view with any great favour anything which emanated from that bench; but if he had really made this change, he and the hon. Members behind him were to be congratulated on having done the right thing for once. The only fault that could be found with this particular Vote was the reduction of the number of men in the Navy. The reduction was of the wrong sort: a reduction of the number of boys who entered the Navy and looked forward to take the place of older men who were discharged or left. One of the reasons why it had been so much easier to obtain recruits for the Navy than for the Army was that they were taken into the Navy as boys. The boys liked the profession and they remained there; and therefore it was a great thing that that excellent beginning should be continued. He hoped that when the Conference at The Hague took place and, as everybody knew would be the case, bore no result, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would remember that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Hear, hear.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Did the Prime Minister cheer that?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, I cheered the frankness of your expectation.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he had always found throughout his life that it was a great advantage to be practical. He hoped, as he had said just now, that, if the result of The Hague Conference was nil, the Government would take their courage in both hands, disregard the advice of their supporters below the

  269
  gangway, and endeavour to keep up the strength and the personnel of the Navy to the level at which they had received them from their predecessors.
  *MR. BRAMSDONsaid he wished to ask for an assurance from the Secretary to the Admiralty with regard to the carpenter warrant officers in the Navy. He understood from the "Douglas" Report that they were to be done away with altogether. These men were very much concerned as to their future. They were an admirable body of men and would like to know whether they could qualify for the position of "Warrant Artificer." As to the seamen, he trusted that the Admiralty would take into consideration what they considered a serious grievance. They were the only class in His Majesty's service who had to find their own kit. The Government provided the kit for the men employed in the Army; the Post Office, the Police, and the County Councils, for their employees; and if a man employed a footman or a coachman he provided him with a uniform. It seemed to him, therefore, hard that seamen should be compelled out of their meagre pay to provide their own kit. He wished to call attention to what was called short or special service men employed in the Navy. These men entered as seamen as well as stokers up to the age of twenty-two years; they were employed for five years in the service, and then passed into the reserve, where they remained for seven years, and afterwards got a small pension. What could these men learn of seamanship in five years? During that time they were mere apprentices, and the worst of it was that they could get practically no promotion whatever. These short-service men were only entitled to reach the position of leading seamen in the Navy. He had, moreover, not been able to ascertain that there was a single man under the short-service system who had ever reached the position of leading seaman in the Navy. He had made diligent inquiries among officers and men, and he found that the system was condemned root and branch by everybody he had spoken to about it. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty let them know whether the question had been considered seriously by any Com-
  270
  mittee or any competent body of persons? The short-service system was a weakness to the Navy and he would like to see it discontinued. It had no doubt been instituted for the sake of cheapness. But we did not want cheapness in the Navy unless it were accompanied by efficiency. So far as he could ascertain, these short-service men, although perhaps cheap, were not efficient. He hoped therefore that something would be done either to make them more efficient or to abandon them altogether.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: heartily congratulated the Member for Ipswich upon being the only consistent Member of the Radical Party. The expression "bloated armaments" occurred over and over again through his speech. The hon. Gentleman had seemed to feel that the Prime Minister was falling short of the ideal of the Radical Party in respect to reduction in armaments. He imagined that various groups of the Radical Party were beginning to find out that the Prime Minister was falling short of their ideals in more than one respect. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench had at all events some little idea of the responsibility attaching to their office; their followers had absolutely none. They were inebriated by the exuberance of their own virtue. They had got hold of a catch phrase that they used largely at election time about "bloated armaments," but they altogether forgot that a powerful Navy was not only the best and surest means of preserving our Empire, but one of the greatest instruments for peace. During the Japanese War it was because we had a powerful Navy at our disposal that Europe was preserved from the general conflagration of war. He heartily contratulated one Member of the Radical Party at all events upon being consistent in using the term "bloated armaments" and in the desire apparently of handing the defence of the Empire over to the steamboats of the London County Council.
  *MR. REESsaid that he profoundly disagreed from the hon. Member for Ipswich, whose arguments, if carried to their logical conclusion, would apply equally well

  271
  not only to the reduction of the Navy but to our having no Navy at all. The hon. Member had forgotten that ours was a voluntary service, as was also that of America, and yet the cost was not more in proportion to ships and men than that of Germany. In regard to the question of Naval insurance, it was the duty of every Member of the House to see that we were on the safe side. He had read with the greatest care the articles in The Times and he had come to the conclusion that the reduction recommended by the Government was such as could be properly accepted; although he believed that more men were required in certain parts of the Empire rather than less men. The hon. Member for Cardiff had stated that 300,000 men could be placed on our Indian frontier. He did not believe that we could send so many men, and his hon. friend had forgotten that the policing and guarding of India would need greater not less attention while there was war on the frontier. Nobody who studied the question ever believed that India could be invaded by land across the Hindoo Koosh except the Emperor Paul of Russia who was mad, and Napoleon the Great who was a genius, and indeed perhaps himself overstepped the "thin partition." The danger to be anticipated was invasion through the Persian Gulf. For the object of Russia was to come down through Seistan to a port on what was in fact a British lake. Therefore we should always require a ship in the Persian Gulf and in the Arabian Sea, and it was absolutely essential that our flag should be flying in and that our ships should be sent to those waters. At the present moment the reduction with regard to the old ships which had been scrapped would mean, he believed, the disappearance of our flag from the Persian Gulf, towards which two powerful nations, Russia and Germany, were trending. We had for a number of years policed that Gulf and we had destroyed a system of slavery there,—he meant a system of real slavery in which unwilling men were seized and held against their own wishes and were taken from one place and deported elsewhere. He hoped the size of the fleet would be sufficient to provide for a war-ship's being kept on that station. His hon. friends behind him
  272
  thought that the number of men in the Navy was too large, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, on the last occasion upon which these questions were under discussion, suddenly proposed a reduction of 8,000 men. Why the reduction should have been fixed at 8,000 he did not know; it might have been 18,000, or 80,000 so far as any argument went, or any considerations of the needs of our world-wide power and commerce were concerned. In his view of the necessities of the nation what we needed was paramount naval and sufficient military armaments, and the proposed reduction of the number of men in the Navy seemed to him to be a most irresponsible and reckless Motion. He could only attribute it to the fact that secretaries of the Cobden Club were too logical for life. He had always noticed that every principle was ridden to death by them. It was the only fault in the otherwise perfect character of his hon. friend the Member for Preston that if he got hold of a logical idea he rode it to death. On the same principle the Member for Falkirk moved the reduction of 8,000 men; but he was glad that he had had the grace to withdraw the Motion. It was said that we could reduce our men wholesale because of the present condition of alliances, but alliances were fugitive, and the position might change any day, and at that very time there were proposals to close the Baltic, a step which would require us to keep more men and ships than we had now. If his hon. friend said he moved his reduction in order to further peace he would ask how it was that President Roosevelt, the greatest peacemaker in the world, proposed to call the biggest battleship which the United States were now building, "The Pacificator," and that he had also said that the best way of securing peace among the nations was to learn to shoot straight. How was it possible for us to keep all the fairest spots on the world's surface unless we were so strong and redoubtable that nobody would dare to attack us? Our Navy was our only form of insurance, and if it were reduced it would lead to the ruin of the country, the consequences of which would first of all fall upon the working men, whose cause hon.

  273
  Members on the Labour Benches championed. Those who lived on interest on their capital might survive the disaster; but what would become of the wage-earning class he could not imagine. He challenged anybody to give any reason why at this period of the world's history we were able to cut down our armaments, while everybody else was increasing theirs. He did not see how The Hague Conference could affect the question, because we could not expect other nations to remain still while we were relatively superior in strength, and it would be folly for us to remain inactive while they were creeping up to our standard. He would like to know how the programme of building ships compared with the annual wastage. He felt that there was difficulty in discussing such a matter from the position where he stood, but he thought that any suspicion of cutting down the Navy, or any idea of reducing it below the limit which was incontestably safe, would mean the destruction of the Party at the polls. He thought the English electorate was against any risky reduction of the Navy; and when they looked at the round world and the great power we had in it he could not understand how any hon. Member could think of imperilling that power by making rash reductions in the very force which was necessary for the salvation of the country. He had some reason to think that a Welsh Member was allowed to quote poetry, and if he might do so he would, with the indulgence of the House, quote the English poet who wrote—
  "Time and the ocean, and some fostering star,
  In high cabal have made us what we are."
  He hoped the spirit of those lines would enter into the minds of his hon. friends on that side of the House rather than the ideas of the hon. Member for Ipswich who had just spoken. When he saw these Motions for reduction of thousands of sailors as he thought foolishly, and without sufficient reason, recklessly moved, and saw supporters of the Government who would rather lead it than follow it—when he noted the attitude adopted towards the Government at home, and towards Governors abroad, men, who like Lord Clive, had rendered great and
  274
  meritorious services to their country, a feeling of fear came over him, lost some poet in some future years might add—
  "False sentiment, suspicion and distrust,
  Have levelled that fair fabric with the dust."
  *MR. HAROLD COXwas sorry if his hon. friend thought he carried logic too far, because on that occasion he was in general agreement with him. He regretted that some of his hon. friends, by means of a Motion for reduction, should seek to censure the Government for proposing what their advisors thought to be a sufficient naval strength. He thought all sides would agree that we wanted a strong Navy, but we did not want a stronger Navy than was necessary for our needs. That was common ground. The Government, acting upon the advice of the Admiralty, came down and said that such and such a Navy was necessary for our needs, and it seemed to him impossible for the House to go behind that, without asking the Government to produce material which he thought most Governments would refuse to give. He did not see how it was possible for them to argue for a reduction of naval strength without discussing matters which could not be judiciously debated in the House. He would point out to his hon. friends behind him that we could not get a reduced Army unless we had a supremely powerful Navy. The Navy was our one strength which defended not only these islands but the Empire. So long as we had a strong Navy not only was our commerce safe but our shores and our Empire were safe, and therefore they ought to insist that the Navy should be maintained at the standard of strength necessary for our needs.
  MR. C. DUNCANcalled attention to the case of the engine-room artificers who, he believed, had in the past given every satisfaction in regard to their work. They were trained in workshops throughout the country, and in that way they gained a large experience of the engineering trade, and a greater knowledge of attending to the engines of a war vessel than they would if they were trained in one particular ship. To substitute stokers for those men seemed to be to fly in the

  275
  face of the argument of the Member for the City of London that they should train the child up in the way he should go. In the mercantile marine the man who took charge of the engine was a man who had served his time in an engineering shop, and then joined his ship as fourth or third officer. Then gradually, by study and by passing examinations of the Board of Trade, he might rise in his profession until he became chief engineer in one of the largest and costliest vessels afloat. The artificers in the Navy were the same class of men as were to-day running the engines of ships in the mercantile marine, and what was good enough for the latter was good enough for the Navy. It appeared to be thought that because a man had served his time in the engineering trade he could not have the capacity to take a high place in the Navy. It seemed easier to become a Member of Parliament than to obtain a high position in the Army or Navy. It ought, however, to be the business of the nation not to choose the sons of rich parents for high positions in the Army or Navy simply because they had been given an expensive education, but to select young men of mental capacity and initiative, and, in that way, to get better value for the money expended on the services than was at present obtained. They were told that one of the great sins which the men for whom he spoke had committed was that of joining a trade union. That, surely, ought to be the last thing to complain of in that House, at any rate. He thought that if the men engaged in the Navy as engine-room artificers had shown any evidence of good sense it was in joining a trade union. It might be argued by some that that was a dangerous, element to have in the Navy, but he disagreed entirely with any such argument. It was an evidence of a man's capacity to think, and there was no reason to fear that the body which he had joined would ever use its intelligence and influence in such a way as to bring harm to the Navy. It seemed to him disloyal and unfair that those men should be broken and young men trained to take their place. Knowing as he
  276
  did that there was a considerable amount of feeling between the various sections of men in the Navy, and that the artificers strongly objected to being used as catspaws to teach other men their trade in order that they themselves might be displaced, he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter. If the engine-room artificers possessed sufficient intelligence to become the teachers of others, that was surely sufficient evidence of their capacity to remain in the Navy. And if the Navy was to be such a great element in the defence of the country, if the blue-water school of thought was to prevail in the House, and the Navy was to be strong, it would require men who had served their time as engineers and knew their business. He ventured to say that the Navy would have to depend more and more on the efficiency of its machinery. It was no use to have good guns, good ships, and good sailors, if the ships would not move, and therefore it was necessary to have a staff of men who, if anything happened to the machinery, could put it right in the shortest space of time. The men who had workshop experience were the men to do that, and therefore he hoped the Admiralty would see to it that those men were not displaced in the future.
  *DR. RUTHERFORDexpressed his surprise that it should have been suggested by the hon. Baronet opposite that if the Government reduced the personnel of the Navy they would increase the numbers of the unemployed, because in the first place, as he understood, the reduction in the personnel would take place in those to be recruited, and by such a reduction no increase whatever could be made in the numbers of the unemployed. He had always understood that increased and extravagant taxation always led to depression in trade and to a number of men being thrown out of work, and, after all, large armaments had always tended to increase the numbers of unemployed. One argument used for a large Navy was that the Navy was the great factor in the insurance of the country. But there was such a thing as over-insurance, as dipping too deeply into capital. He might for

  277
  the benefit of hon. Members opposite quote what Mr. Disraeli said in 1867—
  "You may have your garrisons at foreign ports and your fleets of commanding power, but if you have also omitted the principal cause of your power, viz., a sound state of finance, you may find that you have omitted one of the most important elements of your influence abroad."
  Were they bold enough to suggest that we had "a sound state of finance," with expenditure of £70,000,000 a year on armaments, an income tax of 1s., taxes on sugar, tea, etc.? One of the great indictments at the last general election, brought by the Liberal Party against the late Government, was the reckless extravagance with which they had dealt with the national finances. It was then said that it was essential and necessary for the well-being and prosperity of the country to produce employment and stimulate trade, and to cut down the vast expenditure on the Army and the Navy. We had only got a snowdrop from the Army and a dew-drop from the Navy, which was not the principle upon which the people of the country desired to go. They had been told that no sufficient reason had been given for a great reduction, but he would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the Navy was equivalent not to a two-Power standard but a three-Power standard, and that so far as tonnage was concerned we had 240,000 tons afloat in battleships more than any other three countries. They were further told that so far as the new type of battleships was concerned we were quite safe for another three years. The Prime Minister had concurred in those facts, and had said we were far beyond a two-Power standard. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition practically agreed and said that—
  "Owing to a pause in foreign shipbuilding the two-Power standard does not come up at present."
  The right hon. Gentleman could have gone further and said it would not come up for a considerable time to come. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, our Navy was three to one in superiority to any Navy in the world. We therefore had a Navy equal to those of three or four Powers, and he thought it was high time
  278
  we placed ourselves in a satisfactory and reasonable position. So far as rapidity in building was concerned we could beat any other nation in the world, and therefore it was only natural that the Government should be asked why they had not reduced more than they had the expenditure on armaments. The Prime Minister at the Albert Hall said—
  "We want relief from the pressure of excessive taxation, and at the same time we want money to meet our own domestic needs at home, which have been too long starved and neglected owing to the demands on the taxpayers for military purposes abroad. How are these desirable things to be secured if in the time of peace our armaments are maintained on a war footing?"
  Could any member of the Ministry honestly say that what they had to do was not to put our armaments on a peace footing? As to the decrease of cost, the treatment by the Government was in the right direction, but what he complained of was that that treatment was only given in homœopathic doses. He did not know what position the Prime Minister was in with regard to the Cabinet, but they knew that in 1893 Mr. Gladstone had a severe trial. Lord Spencer had introduced large Estimates, and Mr. Gladstone tried his best to reduce them, but unfortunately failed. Mr. Morley in his "Life of Gladstone" used these words with regard to that—
  "He laboured hard at the task of conversion, and though some of his colleagues needed no conversion, with the majority he did not prevail."
  He trusted that the Prime Minister, in whom they had the greatest confidence, was not in the same position as Mr. Gladstone in 1893. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would use the great powers and capabilities he possessed to secure reductions; he would have the support of the vast majority of his Party in every effort he made in that direction. We were going to The Hague Conference, but he feared not in so happy, strong, and powerful a way as we should do, though he rejoiced that this country was going to take the initiative at that Conference with regard to the question of the reduction of armaments. He thought it was our duty, to use the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition, to see that the "balance

  279
  of criminality" in the mad race for armaments was not upon this country, and that we should try to lead the nations of the world to peace and righteousness. He felt that if we went to The Hague Conference with, so to speak, one battleship up our sleeve, it would not be good enough. He thought the Government should say that they were prepared not to stop at one battleship, but were ready to cut off two or more "Dreadnoughts" if other nations of the world would cut down their shipbuilding in proportion. He thought the suggested proposals for The Hague Conference were not brave enough or bold enough to command the respect of the nations of the world, and he trusted that they would go into it with greater confidence and greater faith in their own ideals. He trusted that instead of rivalry in the science of destruction, they would find among the nations rivalry in the arts of peace, manufacture, commerce, and the intellectual and moral development of peoples.
  *MR. G. H. FABERsaid that fifty years had passed since we were last engaged in a European war, and in the interim, as the chances of war had diminished, pari passu the cost of armaments, military and naval, had increased. Fifty years ago opposite our own shores was a great military Empire based on military tradition, and resting on the Napoleonic legend. That had passed away, and in its place we had a democratic Republic, and where the power rested with the people the danger of war was minimised. Some years ago he returned from India with an eminent Frenchman who showed him how changed the conditions of France were since 1870. Before that time the articulate classes of France had no vital interest in the question of peace or war, seeing that the well-to-do could buy a substitute for a few thousand francs. Now everyone had to serve, and they had to figure to themselves their children dying of thirst and misery on the field of battle. The old Jewish Talmud told them, "The soldiers fight and the Princes are heroes;" but now the soldiers were the people themselves. They would find that throughout all the world, as the power of the people increased, so war would cease. The world
  280
  prospered under democratic government. He was not there that night to vote against the Government. He believed they had a good Government, which was doing all it could to reduce armaments; and when that was done, then no longer would any great scheme of social reform, involving immense expenditure, be an impossibility. Little by little they would reduce their debts, increase the comfort of the people, and raise a store of money. He hoped the Government would continue in its good work, and decrease the expenditure and increase the prosperity of the poorer classes of the country.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERthought every Member of the House must recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member who had just sat down. They who perhaps took a different view from his recognised that he and many of his colleagues believed in an era of universal peace and prosperity, and that they could go to The Hague Conference and receive to their appeal for reduced armaments a response which would mean that other nations would agree that we should have a preponderance of power. But did they think that Germany and the United States and all the other countries of the world, who were desirous of placing themselves in a strong position, would consent that we should continue to have our present preponderance of power? Those who shared the views of the hon. Member for Boston apparently did not realise the risks we should incur by arresting our naval development under any such arrangement with foreign Powers. One war ship had been cut off the Estimates this year, owing to the fact that foreign Powers had arrested their naval development. But the Secretary to the Admiralty knew that it was only for the moment. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He thought that most naval experts held the opinion that foreign Powers were only waiting to lay down a type of ship which would best compete with the new ships which we had built. He believed that the majority of the Liberal Party outside the House, as well as the vast majority of the Unionist Party, did not want to see our armaments decreased unless they knew positively

  281
  that other nations were arresting their armaments for the purpose of peace. But, they did not know that. Might he call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the reduction of a thousand men in the Navy? He thought that was a very serious thing. They could arrange for delaying repairs, they could arrest building without any great disturbance of the national position, but they could not get trained men at a moment's notice in a time of crisis.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Supposing you do not want them.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it was not for him to suggest. He was only putting the point to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, everyone acquainted with naval matters knew that men were hard to get, and when got were slow to train. In a time of stress they could get their men, but they would be obtained with greater difficulty than increasing the Navy, bringing in ships with nucleus crews and building up the war strength. The right hon. Gentleman in one of his previous speeches, and also in answer to a question, had rather led the House to suppose that the question of sending a ship, or two or three ships, to the West Indies was not beyond the reconsideration of the Admiralty.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that Question is relevant to the Vote.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERwished to know if it was the intention to send to the West Indies ships with nucleus crews taken from the Home Fleet. If that were so more men would be required.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that if ships were sent to the West Indies he understood that they would be taken from the Home Fleet and would require to have their full complements made up. Of course, if there was nothing in that point he would not press it. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues knew that the reductions which had been made were such as had
  282
  followed from the natural and logical policy which the present Leader of the Opposition had initiated. He did not suggest that the Secretary to the Admiralty and his colleagues ought not to have full credit for any reductions they had made which were not of a cheeseparing character, but it should not be overlooked that it was the policy of the Leader of the Opposition which had made such reductions possible. The saving had been made by the co-operation of both sides of the House, and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway must not take too much credit to their Party for those reductions, or believe that any violence was going to be used towards the naval policy which was inaugurated five years ago. One thing was certain—that there never would be any violent reduction in the Navy unless there was absolute co-operation on both sides of the House. No matter how small might be the body of Unionist opinion in the House, he believed that so far as the Navy was concerned it represented the bulk of the opinion of the people of the country.
  *MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: desired to say a word or two with regard to the Royal Naval Reserves. They had heard a good deal about the personnel of the Navy, but his opinion was that they might dispense with a large number of those 127,000 men. He thought 100,000 men would be quite sufficient for the Royal Navy if they established a Naval Reserve of 50,000 men. It was only about fifteen years ago that a Parliament voted that the strength of the Navy should be 100,000 men, but the total was now 127,000. If they could strengthen the Royal Naval Reserve and make it 50,000 men it would be quite sufficient for all the requirements of the Navy in time of emergency. At present the Royal Naval Reserve was only 26,000 men, and he wished to know if it was the intention of the Admiralty to dispense with the Royal Naval Reserve altogether. It appeared from what had taken place that some effort was being made to do away with the Naval Reserve. For the last twenty-five or thirty years in almost every port of the United Kingdom a Royal Naval Reservist had been able to

  283
  perform his drill on board a drill ship, but the Admiralty had now dispensed with those ships and established batteries instead, and now frequently the Reservists had to travel 200 or 300 miles in order to perform their drill. Many were married men, and they could not afford to do the month's drill and pay board and lodging, and the result was that many of them were leaving the Reserve. What policy did the Admiralty intend to pursue, and why was it that they had only got 6,000 stokers belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve in the mercantile marine? This country had the largest mercantile marine of any country in the world, and no nation ought to possess a better reserve of stokers. Let the House note what a saving it would be to the nation. A Naval Reservist stoker would receive £6 or £7 a year, and as far as efficiency was concerned he would be superior to the naval stoker in every sense of the word. He did not say that the naval stokers were not good enough for the duties required of them, but the mercantile marine stokers had had more experience of different kinds of boilers and they were better men by far. They would cost about £6 or £7 a year, and in case of emergency they could be called upon to make up the complements on board the warships. As a fighting force he knew that during the late war in South Africa thousands of the Naval Reserve men deserted merchant ships and joined the different regiments at the Cape, and did a great amount of fighting. They were a body of men who would be available in all parts of the Empire for the Royal Navy in time of emergency, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him some assurance that the Admiralty did not intend to reduce the Royal Naval Reserve.
  *MR. VERNEYsaid the hon. Member for Gravesend had warned them against taking too much credit to themselves for the reduction which had been made in the Navy Estimates. He wished to point out that the very strength of their position lay in the fact that they were not inaugurating but continuing a policy of reduction. Who inaugurated that policy? Surely it was inaugurated by a statesman who was acknowledged by the whole of
  284
  Europe to be one of the most far-seeing Ministers they had ever known, Lord Salisbury. The question of the reduction in the Navy was brought to the front in August, 1898, when they first heard of that celebrated Memorandum drawn up by the Emperor of Russia which was sent to all the foreign representatives attending at St. Petersburg. What was the gist of that Memorandum? It began in this way—
  "The maintenance of a universal peace and a possible reduction of excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations represent, in the present condition of affairs all over the world, the ideal towards which the efforts of all Governments should be directed."
  How did Lord Salisbury receive that Memorandum? He accepted it in the most sympathetic spirit, but not in a hurry, for he waited practically until the beginning of the following year. It was true that in October Lord Salisbury wrote a letter to Sir Charles Scott, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, in which he said that careful consideration had been given to the Memorandum of the Emperor suggesting that some limit should be put to the increase of armaments, and then he went on to say that the cordial sympathy of the Government would be given to the objects and intentions of His Imperial Majesty. In that letter to Sir Charles Scott, Lord Salisbury said that the sympathy was not confined to the Government, because there had been very remarkable proof given of it by popular opinion by meetings held and resolutions passed all over the country in favour of that reduction. Lord Salisbury went on to say—
  "Unfortunately it is true that there has been a constant tendency on the part of almost every nation to increase its armed forces, and to add to an already vast expenditure on appliances of war. His Majesty's Government will gladly co-operate in the proposed effort to provide a remedy for this evil."
  On February 14th in the following year, 1899, after certain correspondence had passed they found that Lord Salisbury definitely said to Sir Charles Scott in a letter which our Ambassador was instructed to lay before the Russian Government that—
  "Her Majesty's Government will gladly accept the invitation which Count Mouravief contemplates for a conference to discuss the best method of attaining the two objects specified in His Excellency's note, viz., the diminution of armaments by land and sea, and

  285
  the prevention of armed conflicts by pacific diplomatic procedure."
  He wished to remind the House that the reduction of armaments of which the Prime Minister spoke the other day, with the enthusiastic sympathy of his supporters and of many who could not perhaps be placed in that category, was a proof that the Government desired a policy of continuity in the matter. That was the strongest possible position they could take up. It was not the wild dream of some visionary who talked of the millennium and universal peace. It was the heritage handed on to us by the most far-seeing statesman, in regard to foreign affairs, who had been seen in Europe within the memory of living man—a statesman who maintained the dignity and honour of the country under very difficult circumstances. Lord Salisbury's foreign policy was not always admired by members of the Liberal Party, but they recognised that he was the last man in the world to speak rashly of the reduction of armaments if he did not mean to carry out the proposal. There could be no doubt that the Conservative Party, at the time referred to, had in their mind a reduction of military and naval armaments, and that would necessarily include a very considerable reduction in personnel. Considering the origin of the policy of reduction, there ought to be no difficulty whatever in securing the support of, at all events, a large majority of Members on the other side of the House.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid that, after the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, he felt bound as a lay Member to enter his protest. If criticism on the Navy Estimates was dangerous because it could not properly be put forward, save on the basis of information which the Government would naturally not give, he did not see why they should have any time devoted to the discussion of the Estimates at all. When the hon. Member spoke of criticism being excluded he expected he was disposed to "compound for sins he was inclined to" by, for the moment, "damning those he had no mind to." He was bound to say that there had been no justification offered of the general objections made to the reasonable proposal that there should be a further limitation of the personnel of
  286
  the Navy, which was obviously the means of reducing the general expenditure. There had been nothing but general and vague considerations, taking sometimes the form of menace as to the danger we ran if we did not remain the supreme naval Power. We were supreme at the present moment. There never had been such a navy as that which we now possessed. They were sometimes told from the other side of the House that the greatest necessity for the security of peace of mind in the country was the possession of great power. The country appeared to get no security for its peace of mind from the fact that it was in possession of an enormous superiority of sea power, and at present there was raging around them propaganda for conscription. No amount of naval preparation had ever secured to the nation any sense of security whatever. What was the reason of the crusades for naval expansion which worked on the minds of those who did not calculate? He once before described some of the crusaders as monomaniacs. He used that word not in a physiological but in a purely sociological sense. They were men who sought blindly to increase the Navy without any sense of its proportion to other navies. He did not suppose that there ever was got together any body of naval men who would admit that at any period of our history our Navy was sufficiently strong. When he heard naval experts say that our Navy was far below the ostensible power of other navies, and that it was insufficient to cope with them, he turned to the newspapers of the continent and saw that the experts there gave exactly the same criticisms in regard to their navies. The suggestion that the House must just vote what the Admiralty asked as necessary for the naval strength of the country, without comparing our strength with that of other nations, had nothing to justify it at all. The Admiralty always desired to have as strong a Navy as possible, and he did not believe that the Estimates at any time represented what was asked for; it was the resistance of men with some sense of proportion which kept the demands within approximately reasonable bounds. The excuse always made was that other Powers were increasing, but the fact was that we were still increasing faster than any other Power. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had argued for increasing the strength of our

  287
  Navy by referring to the projected shipbuilding in connection with foreign navies. Because Germany was doing something at the present moment, that was to him a reason why we should also do something.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman compare the Navy Estimates of 1904 with those of 1907?
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid the hon. Member always fell back into the region of projects.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid that, while there was a reduction in the British Navy, there was an increase in that of Germany. The only other country except ourselves which had reduced her Navy was Russia.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid the Russian Navy had been to a large extent annihilated either by being sent to the bottom of the sea or by passing into the hands of the Japanese. Had we acquired nothing from the entente cordiale with France that we should still go on increasing our Navy? The Leader of the Opposition had said that the making of an ally was no justification for a reduction of armaments, because the ally would expect us to remain as strong as before, or to make ourselves stronger.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that what he stated was that the making of alliances could be no justification for a reduction of armaments, because our allies would expect us to keep up our strength. If the hon. Member had said that alone, he would have had no quarrel with his argument, but he went on to say that his argument was that the making of alliances was a ground for increasing armaments. That was putting an illegitimate load on his argument.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid it was a legitimate inference. Armaments could not always remain at the same point of strength, and it followed from the argument that there could not be reduction, and the more allies the closer the approach to bankruptcy. The increase of foreign navies was a consequence of the increase of the British Navy. Only one Power talked of supremacy on the sea, and that was taken as a perpetual menace. There was much to be said for the opinion expressed by the Prime
  288
  Minister, that many people had reason to know that our aspirations were not hostile; but still a great many people, seeing our Navy increasing, and hearing our national song setting up dominion of the sea, would feel that our naval strength was a menace, and would increase their own navies. The Power to begin to set some pause, some check, to the mad expansion of armaments was the Power with the greatest naval armament, and which could most easily stop the increase. He remembered that the Leader of the Opposition did once offer a demonstration which accounted for much at the time of the peace of Europe. There was a kind of panic among his friends as to the risk of landing a raiding force on our shores, and the right hon. Gentleman showed that it was so idle a risk and so idle a fear that such an event could not happen without our knowing beforehand what a foreign Power was going to do and without our taking precautions. The right hon. Gentleman showed how unreasonable were the the fears on which the panic mongers were constantly preceeding; but as soon as we came to any practical measure in the way of inducing other Powers to restrain the growth of their armaments, the right hon. Gentleman immediately allowed the spirit of Party to dominate him, and he exclaimed: "What a danger it is to propose to cut down our Navy!" The right hon. Gentleman played upon the two words "efficiency" and "strength"; but it was possible that the strength as well as the efficiency of the Navy might be increased by reducing the number of ships. Surely, after all, the practical question was the reduction of cost all round. He had tried, during the past year, to think out some reasonable, businesslike basis on which the Powers might come together and agree to reduce their outlay on armaments. He thought there was a very general feeling now that the fairest test was the test of cost, and that a beginning should be made in the reduction of the cost of armaments from year to year. He believed that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite, (the Labour Members) had a clearer vision on this subject than the occupants of the benches above the gangway. Old-age pensions could never be obtained so long as we had this enormous expenditure on the Army and Navy.
  *MR. HUNTsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had forgotten that our very existence depended upon our supremacy at sea. We apparently had got only fourteen battleships really ready at any moment to fight a possible enemy, which possible enemy would in six months time have sixteen to eighteen battleships instantly ready for immediate war. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the dockyards were not short of several thousand men at the present time, and why it was that the plumbers and blacksmiths at sea got only about half the wages which were paid to the similar class of workmen in the dockyards? Was not that also the case with the carpenters' crew and joiners? He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that that was especially hard on married men who, when at sea, had to keep an establishment on shore and had to pay rates and taxes, whilst for their own food and drink on board the Admiralty only allowed the magnificent sum of 10½d. a day, while they had also to pay for the upkeep of their uniform, which cost from £3 to £5 per year.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid that the navlconstruction in the last year for which they had the figures of the United States and France combined was £17,000,000, as against our expenditure of between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000 for the same year; so that it was a vain aspiration that this country should maintain a Navy of equal strength to any other two Powers. We had never entered into a naval combat without alliance with other Powers, though it was true that we had once engaged in a successful land campaign in South Africa—an Empire of 400,000,000 against 400,000 people—1,000 to 1. He thought that in the future we should make sure that when we went to war we should not do so without allies. It was an altogether vain idea that we were for ever to rule the sea. We could be very happy if we were a little humble. Holland, Norway, Sweden had not a two-Power standard; nor had France and Germany, and yet they were happy! The two-Power standard was a barbarous idea, contrary to all the teaching of modern philosophy. [Interruption
  290
  and laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but the two-Power standard took money out of their pockets in the shape of taxes. An hon. Member had spoken about a warship's being sent to sea, in 1897, under a Conservative Government, short of fifty officers, and with a crew partly made up of 300 boys of nineteen years of age and under. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to the number of collisions and groundings; that showed that our Navy was still inefficient, because we had more men and ships than we could effectually manage; and he was told that the guns in the Navy were not properly sighted.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There are no guns on this Estimate.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid that if they reduced the Estimate for men and ships they would have more money to spend in making the Navy efficient. There was a battleship which ran ashore on Lundy Island. How did that happen?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself more closely to the discussion of the Estimate before the House.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid that owing to the excessive number of men and, consequently, of ships, proper care was not taken, and so a great battleship was ordered to steam at night and in a fog direct for Lundy Island. The expenses on the Navy should be cut down to £20,000,000.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert, Devonshire, South Molton)said he was sure the House would forgive him if he did not follow his hon. friend the Member for Sleaford in his discussion of the two-Power Standard, which was not relevant to this Vote. Numerous references had been made to the forthcoming Hague Conference, but all he desired to say in regard to that was that they, on that side of the House, were loyal and devoted to the Prime Minister in his efforts to arrest the growth of European armaments. He wished to bring the House back to the various criticisms that had been made on the Admiralty policy. The hon.

  291
  Member for King's Lynn commenced by calling attention to the excessive number of groundings and collisions which had taken place in the Navy. He was sorry that his hon. friend should have made that reference, which really implied that our Naval officers had a lack of executive ability.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid that what he implied was that the existing system providing for the training of officers and their distribution was at fault.
  *MR. LAMBERTsaid that he could not help thinking that the words used by the hon. Member, taken logically, implied a lack of executive ability on the part of the officers. He believed that he would be unworthy of the position which he occupied if he did not defend British officers against such a charge. From his experience at the Admiralty he did not think any body of men could be found in the Empire who were more devoted and loyal or who served their country with more ability than Naval officers and men. The Admiralty would watch with the greatest possible interest the development of the new system of training of officers; if it could be improved they would have an open mind; but so far as they had been able to ascertain, the new system at Osborne and Dartmouth was giving every satisfaction. As to the complaints about the reduction of men, they had sufficient to meet the requirements of the Navy. The explanation of the fewer boy shipwrights who were being enlisted was very simple; it was that the modern battleship was becoming more and more a complex machine, and therefore there were not so many shipwrights; but more mechanicians and such like were required. It was not the fact that they were getting insufficient stokers; indeed, this year they were estimating for 1,227 stokers more than last year. The growing increase was called for by the greater machine power of the battleships. In 1895 in the old "Majestic" class there was one stoker to three seamen; in the "Invincible" class there would be three stokers to two seamen. Taking another criticism he could not but think that to give some avenue of advancement to the 30,000
  292
  stokers in the Navy was a very laudable object. Nor could he admit that the new rank of mechanic an would be a failure. Up to now the reports did not bear out that prophecy; but, on the contrary, the experts' opinions had been universally favourable. He defended the system under which boy artificers were trained to do mechanical repairs in the ship. It was essential that engine-room artificers should be trained in the use of marine engines when young. Hitherto, they had had largely to pick up their knowledge in the ship. Out of seventy-two engine-room artificers entered from October, 1905, to May, 1906, eighteen only had any knowledge whatever of marine engines. They had to be taught, therefore, by the officers on board ship. There was not the smallest idea of crippling or aiming any blow at the trade unions. All they wished to do was to add to the efficiency of the Navy. Of course, as they got more efficient artificers to repair the ships at sea there would be fewer repairs to be done in the dockyards, and that must add to the efficiency of the Navy. On that subject too, however, the Admiralty would keep an open mind, but in the meantime the opinion was that the experiment would prove a success. With regard to the kit of seamen and other matters connected with the lower deck, they were matters on which the Admiralty would be prepared to have an informal conference with dockyard Members. A free kit would cost about £350,000 a year. With regard to the short-service men, of whom there were about 2,000, he reminded the House that the best of those men might be selected for continuous service, and anything calculated to improve their condition the Admiralty would be glad to consider. Recruiting for the Naval Reserve had been reopened. The fact that the Estimates had been attacked on both sides—on the ground that the reduction was too much and, on the other hand, that it was not enough—showed, he thought, that the Admiralty were pursuing a safe middle course. They had in this matter special responsibilities. He did not believe the country or the House of Commons would begrudge the Admiralty any money essential for the defence of the country, and their duty was to give the country full

  293
  fighting value for the money which was entrusted to them to spend.
  MR. A.J.BALFOUR: As is customary on occasions like these, the debate has varied between questions of rather minute administrative detail and those of the largest national policy. I propose to touch upon both branches, although the comments I have to make upon administrative matters are not of a very elaborate description, nor are they urged against the Government in any hostile sense. The first question I have to put is with regard to the nucleus crew. The hon. Member for King's Lynn told us that the ships with nucleus crews did not as a matter of fact have that kind of sea training which would make them thoroughly competent to deal with any emergency. He told us specifically that they seldom went, out except by day, and did not have those navigating opportunities and responsibilities which are, of course, essential elements in the efficiency of any fleet which may be called on active service. I should hope the criticism is ill-founded. I had always understood that the nucleus crew differed only from the complete crew, not in the absence of practice in essential matters of navigation and so forth, and not in the absence of really skilled and expert members of the crew, but chiefly in the fact that the less skilled members of the crew were not kept on board—that the skilled ratings, not for a long voyage, but for the purposes of a short voyage, were adequately filled, and that to all intents and purposes a ship with a nucleus crew was as efficient for a short spurt as a ship which is completely manned. The second question relates to economies in the matter of repairs. It was always held by the Board of Admiralty when we were in office that in the matter of repairs nucleus crews are often far more economical than the system for which the nucleus crew was substituted. I am quite disposed to accept that view. The only thing that makes me hesitate is that the argument used in the First Lord's Memorandum appears to be a fallacious one. The argument I am now going to present is one which my hon. friend would have presented had he been able to make the speech this afternoon which he desired to make. On page 8 of the
  294
  First Lord's Memorandum there is an argument showing the economy in matters of repair due to nucleus crews based on a comparison of the repairs required now and the repairs that were undertaken in 1904, just before the new system came into operation. My hon. friend points out to me that that comparison is very unfair, because in 1904 under the old system a great and costly effort was made by the Admiralty to put the existing ships of the Fleet as it then stood in a state of complete repair The cost was undertaken. That makes the year 1904 a very bad standard year of comparison, a very insufficient ground for thinking that nucleus crews are really more economical in the matter of repairs than their predecessors. The new system is not shown by that argument to be better in this respect than the old one. I should not have felt disposed to ask the question at all except that when an argument is advanced in favour of a course which you are predisposed to believe good, and that argument appears to be bad, suspicions are excited which might not otherwise be aroused. These are the only two points of detail on which I ask for enlightenment. The more general question I cannot avoid, though I shall treat it briefly. It is inevitable that on Vote 1—the strength of the Navy—the different schools of thought in this House as to the strength of the Fleet we ought to maintain should give voice to their respective opinions. I am rather surprised at the number of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side of the House who seem to think the Government are erring in the direction of extravagance. I think the attack made upon them by four or five speakers on those benches was begun by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He made a brief speech, in which he used the old argument, or the old rhetoric it would be more accurate to say, against what he called bloated armaments. By bloated armaments I suppose he means armaments in excess of our requirements. I do not think "bloated" expresses that. It was evidently a term originally used for purely rhetorical purposes, and I daresay that when it was first used it was a good one. I think by constant wear and tear it has become a bad one; at any rate, it conveys no precise or

  295
  clear meaning. It is open to any one to say we have too large a fleet, but we do not help the matter by saying that the fleet is not only too large, but bloated. It is a matter of the first importance for us to come to sound and clear views. Let us argue the question as a business matter. It should be capable, I do not say of mathematical demonstration, but of fairly clear proof, whether we have or have not the Army or Navy required to meet the accidents, difficulties, and dangers with which every country, be its policy as pacific as you please, may find itself face to face amid the changes of this changing world. But you must not count on being able to increase those armaments to meet a necessity unless you can show that that necessity is so far off that you can build ships, enlist the men, train the officers, and go through the elaborate processes required to augment the fleet till it can meet the particular contingency you have in your mind. When hon. Gentlemen glibly say we ought to reduce our fleet, on what arguments do they base that statement? Two hon. Members who made speeches said the magnitude of the armaments under which the world now suffers was due primarily to the fact that this country insisted on taking up the arrogant position of being mistress of the seas. I daresay the phrase is more suited for home consumption than foreign use. I daresay it may be used in a provocative sense. I myself never use it; I think it is open to misinterpretation. But what is the vital truth that lies behind the phrase? It is that we depend as no other nation in the world depends, not for offence, but for defence and safety, upon having a Navy which is so preponderant that we need not be afraid of any alliance of two Powers against us. Will anybody say that that proposition, stated as I have stated it, is aggressive or untrue? If it is neither, is it not folly for us to hold that we are able materially to diminish our Naval Estimates when we know there are other countries who are building or have building programmes and intentions which certainly seem to imply that they do not mean to leave that position wholly unchallenged? One hon. Member, criticising the Member for King's Lynn, said that that hon. Member based his calcu-
  296
  lations not on what foreign nations do, but on what they say they are going to do. If the hon. Member for King's Lynn does that, I think he is open to some criticism. I, for my own part, would not advise the Government to take that course; I believe they are right in doing what I believe they do, which is to base their programme not upon paper threats, but upon the realities of the situation. That is why I have not been one of those who criticised the Admiralty last year for dropping two battleships; because I have always understood that the diminution of their programme was due to the fact that other nations had not gone on with the ships they had intended to go on with, and that the actual ships we were building were enough to meet the actual ships of other people. It is only on what other people are doing and not on what they say they are going to do, that our policy should be based. With that qualification I would venture to say that this House could do nothing more fatal to the interests of that peace of the world we all desire to see maintained than to let it at once be understood that with our small Army we were prepared to accept the position of having a Navy which, if not small, was so small that some alliance or other could crush it. In this connection The Hague Conference has been brought up, not I think illegitimately, by more than one speaker. It was brought up in an interesting speech by the Member for Buckinghamshire, who reminded the House that the first proposal for The Hague Conference happened while the late Government were in office and Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister. I remember it well, at the moment I was in charge of the Foreign Office, and it was by me as Foreign Minister at the moment that the proposals of the Emperor of Russia had first to be dealt with. When Lord Salisbury said on behalf of the then Government that we looked with sympathy upon any attempt that could successfully be made to diminish the immense burden which armaments throw on the nations of the world, he expressed no policy which we have abandoned on this side of the House, or to which we attach less value than we did in 1898. We have, indeed, thought a more fruitful direction of

  297
  diplomatic effort to be in the direction of framing those treaties of arbitration, of so many of which we were the fortunate authors, and which have already done much for the peace of the world which the general public are acquainted with, and much for the peace of the world in matters which have never come before public attention. Though I confess I look more hopefully in connection with the preservation of peace to these treaties of arbitration, I do not deny that the diminution of armaments, if you could effect it, would be an invaluable boon to mankind. But the diminution of armaments must, so far as naval strength is concerned, leave naval strength in the proportion in which it finds it, because if you are going to abandon the two-Power standard and fall below that relative naval strength which we have hitherto maintained and still maintain, then all the evils familiar to the House, all the arguments which I ventured to address to the House, regain their force, and we lose that position of pacific security which we now possess. Therefore, do not let hon. Gentlemen suppose that The Hague Conference can, or ought to be permitted to make us less navally secure than we are at the present moment. The object sought could be attained, no doubt, theoretically—I do not know whether it is practicable, that is another matter—by a pro rata diminution in the strength of the armaments of the great naval Powers, and if other people would abandon their building programme the first thing any Government of this country would do would be proportionately to diminish its programme. But we should be committing a great mistake if we allured anybody in this country to build their hopes of economy upon The Hague Conference, unless it be understood that The Hague Conference can only produce economy in these naval matters by insisting that our security by sea shall not be less, inconsequence of the decision of The Hague Conference, than it is at the present time. Nothing less than that could be tolerated by the inhabitants of this country. If other nations are prepared to concede that, then, but only then, should we be in a position to build anything in the nature of practical hopes on the debates which are shortly to
  298
  ensue at The Hague. If I may venture to say so, at the present time, we ought to rely on the common-sense view of the matter. There is no use in exaggerating the burden which the Naval Estimates throw upon us. Great as it is, it does not crush us. The Estimates are. heavy, and I wish they could be reduced; but we can bear them, and we must bear them so long as foreign nations insist on bringing their fleets up to a strength which renders it impossible to reduce ours, if we are to maintain, not merely the peace of the world, but the security of our own shores and of our Colonies—so long as they insist on building fleets which require us to see, on our side, that our defensive forces remain at that level which will enable us to feel that the immense responsibilities which our position throws upon us are responsibilities which we are quite able adequately and honourably to sustain.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down raised three questions, with two of which he has invited me to deal. The third question he did not ask me to answer, and I do not propose to deal with it, for on questions arising out of The Hague Conference I do not think I can add anything to what I have said in previous debates or to what has been said by the Prime Minister. Nor will I deal with the large general question of our proper numerical proportion of naval strength in regard to other nations, as that question will be more properly and more effectively dealt with on Vote 8. But with regard to the two specific points arising on Vote A, I ask leave to say a few words. With regard to the nucleus crew system, of which the right hon. Gentleman's Government were the originators, I think they are entitled to the credit of having originally invented it. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me whether it has succeeded, and I might put my answer in this way, that it has fulfilled the intentions of the Government as regards efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman has founded himself on an observation made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Let me remind the House what is the history of the nucleus crew system. It is a great

  299
  improvement on the old system of reserves, under which the ships were of no use at all. It is a great advance on that, but it is not an advance calculated to make the nucleus crew ship equal to the ship fully manned. I cannot say that, but I may reassure the right hon. Gentleman by telling him that, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, the nucleus crew system has succeeded and has fulfilled the intentions of those who originated it. I do not know that I can go beyond that point. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically for assurances as to the efficiency of the system with respect to repairs. The system is only a stage on the high road. As it is a great advance in itself, so it is preparatory and intermediary to the system to be established in the constitution of the Home Fleet, under which the nucleus crew of every ship will be increased to a maximum of three-fifths instead of two-fifths. The nucleus crew system has succeeded, so I am assured by those whose opinion is entitled to consideration. I do not speak on my own authority; but from what I have gathered from official opinion at the Admiralty the system has succeeded. As to repairs, that is a point which might possibly draw me a little beyond the confines of this Vote. I do not look upon the building of new ships as being more important than, if so important as, the securing that all necessary repairs are made good year by year. That is my own personal opinion, in which I think the right hon. Gentleman concurs. The right hon. Gentleman said that the period mentioned by the First Lord in his statement was, accidentally or otherwise, an unfortunate period to select—that it was not a fair period. I do not know that. The period was selected at random. There was no intention of selecting a period more favourable to this system than to any other. It was absolutely a random inquiry made by the First Lord himself, and I am not prepared to deny that there may have been subsequent circumstances which made the period not absolutely accurate in all respects; but I am assured that the general result is that the idea that there should be a provision of skilled hands in the nucleus crews to do the repairs of the ships has worked
  300
  well, and that the comparison made by the First Lord, though it may not be true of all periods, is generally true for the purpose for which it was made. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with what I have said, and that I may now ask that this unusually long debate on Vote A may be brought to a close.
  First Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution read a second time.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he would like the right hon. Gentleman to give some information with regard to the rate of wages of stokers and seamen. The rate of pay for seamen in the Navy had been the same for the last forty or fifty years, and it was time a change was made. The Admiralty could not expect to get men for £2 15s. a month, especially when an able seaman or a stoker had to pay out of that wage 15s. or £1 a month for additional rations. That was bound to cause dissatisfaction, and the matter ought to be put right. If the right hon. Gentlemen did not see his way to clear up the point himself, he might appoint a Committee, but not of experts, of whom he had a dread, to inquire into the subject. It was one of the reasons why men left the Navy at the end of ten years and went into the American Navy, where they got£8 and £9 a month. It cost us £400 or £500 to train a man, and the American Navy got the benefit of the cost of that training. That was a question which should be carefully considered. With regard to the canteens, the right hon. Gentleman had promised a Committee to inquire into the matter. His only fear was that it would consist of naval men. He did not wish to speak with any disrespect of them; many of them were very good men in every way; but they were naval men, and were not likely to give the subject the attention which it ought to receive. He had been told that the canteen system on board ship was altogether wrong. The contractor was paid about £500 to supply the ship with stores, and the sailors, stokers, and petty officers had to suffer in consequence. Why could not the Admiralty do their own contracting? Why should they go to outside people to put stores on board ship to sell again?
  *THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that the canteen question can be better discussed on Vote 2 than on Vote 1.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he had thought to save time by discussing the two questions together; but he would say no more about it, and leave the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider it. There was also the question of the rate of pay to carpenters. A good way to get the business settled would be to appoint a Committee to meet the different Members who had taken an interest in the matter, in order that they might have the subject discussed, probably next year, when the Admiralty might be in a position to make some changes that would give satisfaction.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that a promise had been given on behalf of the Admiralty that the First Lord would be willing to see hon. Members interested in all lower-deck grievances.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid that upon the wages he would like the Secretary to the Admiralty to give the House a little information in regard to the nucleus crews.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. We are on the question of wages now, and the question of nucleus crews is not in order.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [28th FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported:—

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 190,000, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."

  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,835,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at home and abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of
  302
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908."

  First Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAcalled attention to the unsatisfactory working of the present system of supplying cavalry drafts for India. The regiments at home were, as a rule, below strength, and had a small establishment of horses. The home establishment was unequal to the responsibility of training the large number of recruits that had accumulated for the Indian regiments, and some of the young soldiers were sent out who had never been on a horse, or at all events had only had a very limited knowledge of equitation. That, of course, was most unsatisfactory. The Scots Greys, he believed, at present recruited for the Royal Dragoons as well as their own regiment. All recruits were enlisted in the Greys, and it was common to hear the remark, where the 2nd Dragoons were quartered, that the Greys were mostly Irishmen, owing to the number of district recruits sent to their headquarters, enlisted with the idea of joining the Royals, and probably to be sent out as drafts to that gallant regiment. There was a danger, human nature being what it was, of colonels commanding the regiment at home to keep all the good recruits to make good the normal wastage in their own regiment. Under that system the Indian regiments did not get the best of the recruits and there must arrive in India at twenty years of age men who were only half trained; whereas if they had been trained at a depot they would arrive in India formed soldiers. The re-establishment of the old cavalry depot system would give great satisfaction to the commanding officers of regiments, and would be a great advantage to the service both in India and at home. During his service, which began more years ago than he liked to recall, the cavalry depot had been twice disestablished, and within a few years had been again establishd. It only failed because it was starved and had not a sufficient staff of instructors

  303
  to deal with the large number of recruits who, at the time, more than exhausted their slender resources. The Secretary of State for War, in his speech a few days ago on the Army, said that the cavalry had been dependent upon a system of large depots for which there was not accommodation. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Canterbury, the old home of the cavalry depot, still existed, with ample room to accommodate the cavalry depot, although it was now otherwise employed. There was no lack of old cavalry barracks which were now either empty or being utilised for the accommodation of other branches of the service, and which might very well be again devoted to cavalry use. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his unbounded confidence in soldiers and his determination to act upon their advice. He was sure he might say without presumption that in arriving at that determination he was acting on the right lines. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well carefully to reconsider whether it would not be wise again to re-establish the cavalry depot.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid he was very glad to hear the suggestions made by the noble Viscount in regard to the cavalry depot system. He supported those suggestions not because he was in any way specially qualified to speak with reference to the advantages of cavalry depots, but because he was strongly in favour of keeping up the system of depots for every branch of the service. Every branch, whether cavalry, artillery, or infantry, should have some rallying point from which it could draw its recruits, where they could be trained, and where the time-expired men could go when they were no longer able to fulfil their services. There ought to be such a foundation for every unit of the service in the country, and in the event of war it could be extended to a battalion to take the place of any losses which might occur in the field. The system of depots for battalions of infantry answered well during the Peninsular War under the Duke of Wellington, and it stood well the strain of war at that time. He regretted that in later days the depots had, to a considerable extent, been set aside. The
  304
  system had never been thoroughly tried. An efficient officer had never been placed at the head of the depot. The depot had never been a real depot. It had been a mere skeleton. He was sure that under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman a way could be found out of that difficulty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman under his new scheme would consider the advisability of having a system of depots capable of expansion and of stepping into the first line when that line became too much attenuated by force of circumstances. The policy of the Government was to reduce Army expenditure. He wished to point out one matter which had possibly escaped attention. He never could understand why there should be four majors in a regiment. Originally there were only two. There were places for two and no more; the other two were about as useful as a fifth wheel to a coach. They walked about with spurs and used to be called "mud majors." Two majors were all that were necessary for the carrying on of the work of a battalion, and when considering questions of efficiency and economy the right hon. Gentleman might do away with the other two and save their pay. There was, however, one exception. If the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to have real depots behind the Regular Army there should be a major in command of each depot when a battalion was at home. When a battalion went abroad there should be only two majors.
  *MR. MURRAY MACDONALDsaid he regarded the Estimate for men as being unnecessarily large. The Secretary of State for War had justified the number proposed only on the ground that they were required for the purpose of supplying drafts for the battalions in the Colonies and in India. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say what the requirements of the Colonies and India actually were. He said that the Secretary of State for India had not indicated to him that he intended to ask for any fewer battalions than he had at present to meet the needs of India. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on that occasion merely as the Secretary of State for War, but he represented in the House not the War Office only, but also the

  305
  Government of which he was a prominent member. It seemed to him from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Cabinet as a whole had never considered what the requirements of the Colonies and India were, or even what our home requirements were. If that was really the case, he thought the position in which the followers of the Government stood was rather a curious one. They were pledged to effect economy in the expenditure on both the Army and the Navy, and he and many of his friends certainly understood that that economy would be secured by a reduction in strength. It was not to be merely an economy due to improved administration—they were not ungrateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what had been effected in that way—but their view, and the view which they laid before the country, was that economy was to be effected by means of reductions in the strength. They felt that the outlook in the world at the present moment amply justified such a reduction. No one denied that our relations with foreign Powers were at present much better than five years ago. Whatever might have been the justification for increasing our military armaments to the present strength a few years ago, that justification did not now exist. On those general grounds he felt very strongly that there was no justification for the maintenance of the strength proposed in the Vote under discussion. He had been commissioned by a very considerable body of those who sat on the Ministerial benches to say that though they would not press their opposition to the present Estimates, recognising that the re-organisation scheme brought in by the right hon. Gentleman over-shadowed them, and not wishing to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, they nevertheless desired to make it clear that they did not willingly accept them.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid the Board of Selection had the duty of selecting officers for promotion. The board consisted of officers of high rank, and he understood that after they had made their selections of those who ought to be promoted their recommendations were subject to revision by the Army Council.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington)said that was not so.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid that in. that case the question he was going to ask would be unnecessary. It was so until a year or eighteen months ago.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the recommendations were subject to revision by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Sovereign, and by no other authority.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid he would change the form of his question. He wished to know if any recommendations of the board charged with the selection of officers for promotion had been vetoed by the Secretary of State when they came before him. He had listened with amazement to the remarks of the hon. Member who had preceded him in the debate. He had spoken as if there had been no reduction in the number of men in the Army during the last twelve months, and as if there was not going to be any reduction in the coming year. According to the Estimates they were asked to vote 14,000 fewer men during the next financial year than during the past year. During the past year some nine or ten battalions were disbanded, and the right hon. Gentleman had recently foreshadowed the reduction or disbandment of another five line battalions, and also of the Third Cold streams. When he was in Egypt there was a general impression in the regiment that it might be allowed to remain on. It would be a very good thing for the Army if it were. A more efficient battalion had not existed in the Army for a long time. Were the House aware that they were asked to vote only as many men as were thought necessary for the defence of the country in 1899, before the South African War? He could not conceive how it could be argued that we did not want a larger force than we had then. Did we find that we had too many Regular Troops during that War? We had increased the Empire considerably since then, had added the Transvaal and Orange River Republics, and had increased our responsibilities in Egypt. There was, moreover, one form of reduction to which he particularly objected—he referred to the reduction

  307
  of the garrison artillery at Gibraltar, Malta, and the Straits Settlements. Last year there were at Malta fifty-six officers and 1,700 non-commissioned officers and men of the garrison artillery. They were asked to vote this financial year 250 fewer men than last year. He had had the advantage of discussing the situation there in January last with several distinguished officers, who had expressed their opinion that if the reduction was carried out there would not be a sufficient number of men to man the guns. That would be a very serious state of affairs in our naval and coaling station in the Mediterranean. The reduction at Gibraltar amounted to 450 officers and men, and he would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the reason for that enormous reduction, when, owing to the redistribution of the Fleet, Gibraltar was to be made the headquarters of the Atlantic Squadron. At the Straits Settlements the reduction was 150 officers and men, and the reason for that he could not understand. The Royal Engineers were to be reduced by 700. That was a large decrease in such a highly skilled and highly technical body. If they were going to reduce the numbers in the unskilled branches of the Army, it was all the more reason why they should keep up the technical branches to the fullest number possible. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the great advantage to us, as a Colonial power, of having a considerable body of troops stationed at Malta and Gibraltar. Last year, when a difficulty arose in Egypt, the garrison there was reinforced from those two stations instead of having to wait a fortnight for reinforcements from home. He understood that there was a considerable doubt amongst the higher military authorities whether we had a sufficient number of infantry in Malta to man the land defences of the island in case of emergency, and he thought that that was a dangerous state of things. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Government had not gone far enough in the way of reductions in the regular forces; but they ought to consider the needs of the Empire.
  MR. MENZIESdid not think that the reduction in
  308
  Army expenditure was nearly enough. The Estimates for Army expenditure at the present time were not nearly as low as they were prior to the Boer war. The contention for the increase in the Army expenditure some years ago was that there was an alliance between France and Russia, from which considerable danger might be expected; but we had now an entente cordiale with France, and surely not even hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House would allege that we ran at present the same danger on the Indian frontier as prior to the Russo-Japanese war. While he thought that considerable reductions should be made in the expenditure on the Army, he would be satisfied if they were made gradually. He did not agree with the suggestion that the deficiency of officers should be made up by extra recruiting at the big public schools, such as Eton and Rugby. Those, of course, were the present sources from which the war office obtained their officers, but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to amplify them. The privates in the Army were generally young men out of work, and he held that with a class system of officers, and a rank and file recruited from young men who were not able to find work, they could never make a popular Army. It they wanted to have a really national Army they must give a possible career to all classes who joined it; and the ladders to the highest positions in the Army must be by the way of merit, and by merit alone. He was quite aware that the suggestion which he was making was far-reaching, but he maintained that the national greatness of the country had been reached by the possibility of every man rising from the lowest to the highest positions in the country's service. It was well known that honest tradesmen exercised considerable self-denial in order to give their sons a good education, in the hope that they would rise in the world. Many of those young men became barristers, and it was even possible for them to reach the Woolsack.
  MR. ASHLEYcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
  House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
  MR. MENZIESsaid he was quite aware that there were great difficulties in the way of removing the barrier which prevented a man from entering the Army as a private and, through his ability and capacity, emerging as a colonel or even as a general. He quite admitted that the Secretary of State could not make such modifications in his Army scheme now; but if the right hon. Gentleman would give some hope that he would keep that ideal before him he should be quite content. The carrying out of that ideal would be a great gain to the Liberal Party, and if there was equality of treatment he was quite sure, that as regarded efficiency there would be a very great gain indeed.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the report on the reserve of officers contemplated the chances of promotion of non-commissioned officers as a possible source of supplying the deficiency. That system existed in the Army. It was a very good system, and it would have operated, very largely but for the educational test, which was increasingly high. It was very good for the Army that a man should feel he could rise from the position of a private to that of a field-marshal. It was equally certain that there should not be any privilege given to any class; each man must conform to the standards of efficiency, and they were not diminishing standards, for officers in the Army. He thought they had done pretty well in the matter of reductions, and the state of things was now more efficient than it was before the Boer War. As to the pay of the soldiers, they had in the Army a great mass of men, and it was important that they should level up the common soldier just as much as any other class of the community. If their pay and their conditions of life cost more, they were contributing towards the solution of the social problem by that increase of expenditure. With regard to the reduction of the garrison artillery at the Mediterranean stations and elsewhere, the Admiralty and the Army had been working in co-operation in that matter. The question of the proper defence of those places had undergone a searching investigation by one of the most highly skilled naval and military committees
  310
  that had sat for a long time; and the reports of that committee had been submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The result had been that they found that the defences of those places had been arranged on an utterly unscientific principle. The guns were useless, and useless men were kept there. They had substituted for them other guns of greater penetrating power and range, which had been put in different places from those occupied by the old guns. That policy had been carried on all over the Empire, and he believed the Empire was now more powerfully defended than it had ever been. They had a smaller number of guns, with larger penetrating power and range, and just as many men as were wanted. There was nothing which contributed so little to military efficiency as to have too much in one place, and too little in another. They had been acting under the highest naval and military advice, and in each case the results had been scrutinised by the Defence Committee. That re-arrangement was begun under the late Government. The present Government were only carrying out the very good principles that were then laid down.
  LORD BALCARRES: asked whether the military authorities of Malta had expressed their approval of the scheme.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he could not say. But the highest naval and military talent of the Empire had been employed, and to ask the opinion of some military officer in a remote place would be like putting a problem in higher mathematics to some elementary schoolmaster. They had a large surplus of engineers beyond what they required for mobilisation. There was nothing that made for inefficiency in the Army so much as having too much in the wrong place. The Selection Board was a Committee that advised him on the advice which he gave to the Sovereign. He had not interfered with decisions of the Committee. He attached the highest importance to the Committee, and even if he differed from their opinion he would think it a great evil in the long run to dissent from their view, because it would create a sense of unrest. The Army Council had never reviewed the procedure of the Selection

  311
  Committee, but three members of the Army Council sat on the Selection Board. As to the drafts to the Colonies and India, what the Colonies required had been considered very carefully, with the result that the Colonial battalions had been reduced. India was a big problem. He could only say that the responsibility rested primarily with the Secretary of State for India, and then with himself as a Cabinet Minister. They were both giving the question most anxious consideration. The problem of cavalry recruiting was perhaps the most difficult they had to deal with. Change of view had succeeded change of view in the last three or four years. The difficulty about depots was that unless they kept the recruit for a very long time he did not get a training equal to what he would get in the regiment. There was a great deal of training that could only be got by working with soldiers living their normal life. He was not at all convinced that depot training was the equivalent of regimental training. The matter would undergo scrutiny before they came to a decision about it. But it would have to be decided, because the present state of things was far from settled. As to whether there was sufficient cavalry advice at the War Office, the new Director of Military Training was one of the most distinguished cavalry soldiers in the Army—General D. Haig.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: He is not a member of the Army Council.
  MR. HALDANEsaid General Haig was a member of the General Staff, and of course training belonged to the General Staff. As to the question of depots in connexion with the infantry, one formidable objection to the depot system as distinct from battalion training was not merely that it was not quite as good, but that in order to put up the necessary depots there would have to be an to the question of battalion majors, there was the possibility of the double company system being put into operation in time of war; it existed in time of peace. A major was a very convenient person to command a double company. The system they had now was not one he would willingly depart from.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood that the Malta military authorities had not been consulted.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he understood the hon. Member was speaking about the garrison artillery. If the hon. Member asked about the infantry, he would reply that what had been done was done under the advice of the Defence Committee.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not yet understand whether the supreme military authorities in Malta had or had not given their sanction to the reduction.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that he did not consult every person in some remote part of the Empire about military policy.
  LORD BALCARRES: denied that Malta was a remote part of the Empire. Malta was becoming a very important feature in military policy, and he considered that the reduction of the garrison artillery was an extremely dangerous course.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 167 relating to Private Business, read.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: (Mr. Emmott, Oldham) moved an Amendment to Standing Order No. 167, which, he explained, dealt with the payment of interest out of capital during the construction of railways. It empowered committees to allow the payment of interest during the construction of new lines under certain restrictions. The first restriction at present was that the rate of interest allowed by the committee should not exceed3 per cent. per annum. He proposed that 3 per cent. should be altered to 4 per cent., and he was prompted to that course by the alteration in the value of money. If hon. Members looked at the Bank rate they would see that during 1906 it averaged over 4 per cent. whilst during 1896 it averaged 2½ per cent. He did not think the Bank rate for any one year was any great criterion. For his calculation he had taken the four years 1892–3–4–5

  313
  and then the average of the years 1902 to 1905. While the average for the earlier period had been 2·51, the Bank rate for the later period had been 3·3. In addition, he had taken a typical gilt-edge stock—the London and North-Western Railway 3 per cent. debentures. In 1895 they stood at 120. He had reason to remember that because he was one of those who purchased some of that stock at that price. The value of that stock yesterday was 90. People who, like himself, bought that stock in 1895 at 120 were receiving £2 10s. for their money, but anyone purchasing now would receive £3 6s. 8d., or a difference of 331·3 per cent., and that was exactly the difference he was recommending the House to make in altering the Standing Order. The rate of interest sanctioned by that Order was originally 4 per cent., and it remained at that rate until 1896, when the rate of interest on money was extremely low and it was thought that it should be reduced to 3 per cent. But at the present time 3 per cent. interest was inadequate, and 4 per cent. would be a reasonable rate. One factor which weighed with him in suggesting the change was that promoters of enterprises which were not of a grossly speculative character were quite unable to obtain the money they wanted, although the enterprises for which it was required were reasonably sound. The House was not now discussing whether it was right or wrong to allow interest at all. In such a discussion he would find himself an opponent to allowing interest, because he regarded the payment of interest out of capital was equivalent to watering stock. He was not defending the principle underlying the Standing Order. All he said was that for the last twenty or thirty years the House had adopted that principle, and that if they were to continue that principle the interest allowed ought to be adequate for the purpose. In his opinion 3 per cent. was inadequate and 4 per cent. was a reasonable amount. In dealing with the Private Bill legislation he had been a little appalled at seeing how few new schemes were going through. Promoters were unable to get the necessary money at 3 per cent. Enterprises really required and reasonably sound failed for lack of capital. Committees of the House, therefore, should be allowed to sanction the payment of interest up to, but not
  314
  exceeding, 4 per cent. They should consider each case on its merits. To raise the limit to 3½ per cent. he did not think would be effective.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 11, to leave out the word 'three' and insert the word 'four.' "—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Standing Order."
  SIR F. BANBURY: opposed the Amendment. If the rate of interest were raised to 7 per cent. it would not attract more capital for new schemes. What was keeping new schemes back was the programme of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the Ministerial side. Investors were not philanthropists, and they were not going to invest their savings in concerns which might be interfered with by the House of Commons, and all the fruits of their labour swept away. The Chairman of Committees had said that railway companies desired the alteration of the Standing Order. He would like to know what railway company had asked for it. As a railway director he did not agree. So far as he knew, the amount of money to be raised for railway schemes was very small, and the companies who desired to raise the money did not at all desire the proposed change. Who had brought forward the change? He did not suppose it was the hon. Gentleman himself. There must be somebody behind him. The hon. Gentleman had said that if they passed the scheme, it would only be the maximum charge, and that Committees upstairs would be able to alter it. He had great faith in the Committees upstairs, but he thought that that was rather an obligation to put upon them. An ordinary Committee went on the Standing Orders, and if a clerk was asked whether 4 per cent. was always charged, and he replied, "Yes, that is the rate which has been charged for the last year or two," the Committee would at once say, "That is the proper rate which Parliament has determined upon." It was true that there had been a change in the value of money, but how long was it going to last? Were they going to make the alteration because there had been a rise in the value of money? Personally, he was inclined to

  315
  think that dear money would last for the next two or three years. He thought there were other circumstances to be considered. [An Hon. Member: A Radical Government.] No; he would not go so far as that; he always endeavoured to be fair. He did not quite agree with the interruption of his hon. friend. The rise in the value of money would not last. Was it not absurd to make an alteration which was of a very far-reaching character—because once made it could not be altered for ten or twelve years—simply on the ground that for two or three years there was a high bank rate? He would make the admission that the payment of interest out of capital was a wrong thing to do, and great authorities in the House for many years had refused to allow it. Could the hon. Gentleman tell him when the principle was first adopted? He believed it was a mistake to allow interest to be paid out of capital, because the result was that when the works were completed the cost of those works meant the sum paid for them plus the interest, and, therefore, to a certain extent the capital was overloaded as soon as the enterprise began to bear fruit. But he quite admitted, from his experience in the City, that if they wished to attract small investors they must allow them sonic rate of interest pending construction. He could only remember one big company, the Great Central, that had ever done it. When the Great Central came to London they raised £11,000,000. The hon. Gentleman had remarked that the ordinary stock of railway companies was paying, and that therefore the rate ought to be increased. But it did not always follow that railway companies raised money in the form of ordinary stock. The Great Central Company raised their £11,000,000 in three categories—debenture, preference, and ordinary stocks. That was the only company which he could remember that had availed itself of this particular clause. The real reason for the provision was that when a promoter was desirous of raising money for a new railway—as was done in the case of the Hull and Barnsley Company he believed; they availed themselves of this particular clause, but that was a new railway—theyused the clause because to invest
  316
  money and lose the interest during construction in the hope of being recouped when the line earned money was the proper business way of looking at the matter. But small investors, who ought to be encouraged, could not afford to wait for interest during construction, and therefore it was that the rate of 3 per cent. interest out of capital was permitted, and that had been the rate for the last ten years. Although he did not think it was a good thing, still he thought there was some necessity for it. But his contention was that 3 per cent. was enough for people to live upon for the time being. But it was not enough to attract the person who liked 4 per cent. Such a person said, "I believe the railway will be four years under construction; I cannot get more than 4 per cent. anywhere else; I know I can get this safely, and I shall run the chance of the railway turning out well." That was just what the promoter of shady enterprises wanted to encourage, but that was not what the House of Commons should encourage. He would really like to know what was at the bottom of the proposal. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any desire to make insinuations. They knew that the Channel Tunnel was under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade laughed. The right hon. Gentleman's experience, he admitted, was very great; but the right hon. Gentleman had not been in the City thirty-five years as he had. He could not help thinking that the proposal would give a very great boon to the promoters of the Channel Tunnel. The estimates of the engineers for it amounted to £16,000,000, but he had never known estimates of engineers which were not exceeded, and, therefore, they would be much more likely to raise £20,000,000 or £24,000,000—which, at the present moment, would be a practical impossibility. If anybody contemplated raising £20,000,000 in the next three or four years for a new enterprise this alteration would enable them to raise the money very much more easily.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he fully endorsed the observations of the hon. Baronet. The Chairman of Ways and Means had introduced the matter as

  317
  being simply the omission of one word, but the President of the Board of Trade would himself agree that the one word was worthy of weighty consideration from the financial point of view. He did not know whether hon. Members opposite had taken the trouble to inquire into the far-reaching effect of the proposal. He had taken the trouble to work out a calculation in connection with a scheme which had been completed for many years. He applied to it the 3 per cent. and the 4 per cent. rate for the purpose of ascertaining what would be the effect of the Amendment. He took the round figure £1,000,000, and after making all the necessary provision for payments during construction, he found that under the 4 per cent. rate all his money would have been expended, whereas under the 3 per cent. rate he got the same amount of work for £887,000, the actual saving being £112,628. Those were very striking figures. He had worked out the figures for the Channel Tunnel scheme, and he found that it would mean an annual charge of £112,620. The capital subscribed for new enterprises must be tempted, but his point was that it was unwise to tempt it by a high rate of interest during construction. He thought it would be wiser to adopt the policy of giving the poorer class of investors 3 per cent. during construction with the knowledge that at the end of that time the concern would be established on a much sounder basis. He wished to secure for small investors a sure and a proper return for their hard-earned savings. The large capitalists were guided by the best possible advice from the City and the large towns, and were able to look much further ahead and study the various large schemes of railway development, docks, or other commercial enterprises much better than the poorer class of small investors who generally invested on the strength of statements made in prospectuses. Those were the people who would have to bear the burden of the extra 1 per cent. now proposed. It would be better to have a fixed rate of interest applicable to all railway schemes. If the Committee to which a railway Bill was referred had the option of fixing any rate of interest between 3 per cent. and 4 per
  318
  cent. there would be the danger that a promoting company would obtain an advantage over a rival company by being authorised to pay a higher rate of interest than the rate paid by its competitor. He thought a strong case had been made out for sticking to the old bank rate, which he did not suppose anyone had ever found to be inconsistent with good business transactions, because it was based on good and sound finance. Why was the present Motion being made? What had given rise to it? A clear exposition of the effect it would have upon the money market had been given to the House. He did not go so far as to say that there were any Bills promoting bogus or shaky undertakings, but he was afraid that there must be some moving element which had impelled the taking of the course they were now discussing. He hoped that before the discussion closed some evidence would be forth-coming to show where that motive came from. Was this particular move to be adopted every session of Parliament? On the assembly of Parliament each year were they going to consider the price of Consols, the bank rate, and the state of the money market generally, and then alter the rate so as to suit that particular period? He thought they were proposing a very dangerous innovation. The greatest security which small investors had at the present time was not so much a high rate of interest as a certainty of return, and so long as they got that there would be very little grumbling about the rate. This proposal was only adding to the uncertainty of the investors' return, and the House ought not to meddle with the mattter unless a very strong case was made out. He was aware that this particular alteration was to be entirely devoted to the railway system, but that made it all the more serious because such huge sums would be involved. If it was proposed by the Motion to encourage the opening up of railways, canals, bridges, or tunnels, it was a futile way of going to work. The proposed system of book-keeping was not consistent with British caution in money matters. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that 3 per cent. was too low, and that 4 per cent. was the proper rate. If he thought 3 per cent. too low, and genuinely desired to

  319
  raise it to anything like the bank figure, a figure consistent with the price of Consols and other Government securities, 3¼ per cent. would suit him just as well. He (Captain Craig) therefore suggested that 3¼ per cent. should be substituted for 4 per cent.
  MR. GORDONsaid he really could not understand the object for proposing the change. What was the motive power behind the hon. Gentleman? If, for instance, the Motion had reference to the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel was ten years in course of construction, and during the whole of that period 4 per cent. was to be paid on the capital, it would mean that 40 per cent. would be paid away.
  MR. EMMOTTexplained that there was no case in which anything like ten years had ever been allowed. The time was usually five years at the most, and the payment of interest for only half that period.
  MR. GORDONsaid he had had some experience of railway Bills the promoters of which had come to the House for an extension of time, and the extension had been sometimes as great as the time they had got in the original Bill. If honest members of the public wished to take shares in companies they ought to be content to take a reasonable and fair remuneration for their money, viz., 3 per cent. during the time of construction. The public had a right to see that the work intended to be done was carried out as promptly as possible. Four per cent. could not be got on a reasonably safe investment. They could not get that rate of interest on a trustee security. If an investor got 3 per cent. from an undertaking during construction he ought to be amply satisfied. If the investor was going to be induced to put money in an undertaking because 4 per cent. was offered during construction and while not a shilling was being earned he thought it would be a dangerous experiment. It would be put into the glowing prospectuses which were brought before the public in order to induce them to put their money in concerns of that kind. If investors got 4 per cent. during construction they thought they would get a great deal more after the undertaking was completed and in working
  320
  order. It might afterwards be found that the undertaking did not earn any dividend for the shareholders. The House ought to pause before it agreed to the proposal. He had had some connection with the applications made to Parliament in regard to railway concerns, and he had never known a case in which any desire had been shown to exceed 3 per cent. People who took a true view of the financial situation would feel that the House was doing something to the detriment of the investing public if it exceeded 3 per cent.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid it had always seemed to him that the proposal to pay interest on an undertaking while it was in course of construction was unnecessary. If an investor had £500 available for investment, and if he desired to invest it in a new railway and to have interest during construction, he ought only to invest £450 in such an undertaking, and retain £50 in his pocket. He would thus save £50 as the interest on his capital and perhaps it would be the only part of his capital he would save. If no interest were payable by the company out of capital the £450 would earn as large an income as the £500 if £50 were spent in interest during construction. He had always thought that the payment of interest out of capital during the construction of works was unsound business. It was a kind of finance which auditors would not allow in connection with any private enterprise. Parliamentary concerns were the only investments in which people could get interest during construction. It was a system which weighed with ignorant people who did not understand such matters. They invested in the undertakings thinking that when the work was completed similar interest would be continued. Much as he was impressed with the reasons put forward for the alteration, he thought, as business men, they should not encourage the class if investors who relied upon that inducement in the prospectus; those poor people ought only to invest in railways already earning a dividend. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman in viewing with alarm the lack of enterprise shown by the state of business before Committees of the House, but did not think the difference between 3 and 4 per cent. would remedy that. It was the

  321
  system of blackmail levied in connection with Second Readings which made promoters feel that it was exceedingly risky to come before, the House at all.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 44.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex. F

  Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Eeelesall)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Balcarres, Lord

  Glover, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Haddock, George R.

  Snowden, P.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Summerbell, T.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hodge, John

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hudson, Walter

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

  Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lupton, Arnold

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Moore, William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Craig.

  Cross, Alexander

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Agnew, George William

  Cox, Harold

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Alden, Percy

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Crombie, John William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dillon, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George. D.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beale, W. P.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lambert, George

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bertram, Julius

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Billson, Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Branch, James

  Fuller, John Michael, F.

  Lundon, W.

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

  Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ginnell, L.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Cullum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harvey, W. E. Derbyshire, N. E.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Menzies, Walter

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Morse, L. L.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset, E

  Murray, James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tomkinson, James

  Myer, Horatio

  Rees, J. D.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Napier, T. B.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Verney, F. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Robinson, S.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Williamson, A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thoma F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Partington, Oswald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Young, Samuel

  Paul, Herbert

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

  Word "four" there inserted in the Standing Order.

  SUPPLY [28TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 190,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908," resumed.
  LORD BALCARRES,: resuming his speech, said he was not quite clear as to the exact proposal of the Secretary for War in his statement in respect to the proposed reduction in horse, field, and garrison artillery by 2,630 men during the coming financial year. The right hon. Gentleman said in his Memorandum attached to Estimates that—
  "No reduction of the establishments of the regular artillery can properly be made until personnel, trained on a non-Regular basis to the requisite extent, is ready to fill the gap."
  He contended that the substitute was not available at present, and that the small number of men forthcoming now were not trained sufficiently to fill the gap. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be anticipating in his reduction of men the development of his Territorial Army. He thought it was a dangerous thing at any time to reduce the artillery.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the men would be trained with eighteen-and-a-half pounders.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him that the reduction in the Field and Garrison Artillery was justified by the substitute which was proposed to be found for the men in the Regular forces. The right hon. Gentleman promised, in his memorandum, not to deal with that force until an efficient substitute had been found, and he had not satisfied him that he had found such a substitute. It must be remembered that that was a most difficult force to improvise in time of need, and he thought if the reduction was to be carried out it would be found to be entirely premature.
  MR. COBBOLD: wished to repeat the protest of the hon. Member for Falkirk against the very large Army that the Estimates provided for. The Secretary of State in introducing the Estimates did not deal very much with the Regular Army, but spent his time in explaining about the Auxiliary Army. But the right hon. Gentleman said that they were to have an Army of 160,000 men, and that the reason for such a large Army was that he had been compelled by the Secretary of State for India to keep the present number of troops there, although they were commensurate with the number of Indian troops after the Mutiny. He urged upon the Government that, having regard to our present policy in India, as we were not now making the aggressive frontier wars that we did a few years ago, and, having found in the Ameer of Afghanistan a safe and sure ally, were not likely

  325
  to embark upon them again, this large Army was not necessary. [An Hon. Member: What wars?] He should say that the wars in Afghanistan were foolish wars. He did not recollect any war in which he could not say with Lord Salisbury that we "put our money on the wrong horse."
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that he must remind the hon. Member that this Resolution expressly excluded His Majesty's Indian possessions. The Army in India was not before the House.
  MR. COBBOLDexpressed regret for his ignorance of the forms of the House. He had noticed in Vote A that there was a statement to the effect that there were in India 76,000 men. He therefore thought he was permitted to speak on India. The Secretary of State had stated that they had reduced the number of troops in the Colonies by eight battalions and that they might be more largely reduced in future also. The eight battalions was a tale gone by, and he hoped that in the present year they would see a very considerable reduction in the Army in regard to the requirements of the Colonies. In South Africa alone provision was made for upwards of 16,000 troops. It had been truly stated that we were not going to dragoon South Africa into patriotism, and in present circumstances an army of upwards of 16,000 men in South Africa was a menace to peace. In Malta, too, although the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the garrison there, and although hon. Members said he was imperilling our position by that reduction, there were still 7,500 troops, and it was not a place in which a large army ought to be concentrated, because it was not healthy. If there was a war with the Mediterranean Powers it would probably become a fever camp. The right hon. Gentleman had twice said that he was not certain whether in the Colonies there was not still a margin for further reductions. If, therefore, they made their protest on that occasion they might persuade the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Malta, where so many troops were congested together, also Gibraltar, where there was a force of 3,800 men, and Eygpt, where there were 5,100, and
  326
  elsewhere, that the forces might be diminished under present conditions in the course of the year. He hoped that their protest would be, as it were, recorded by the Secretary of State, and that they would not be assumed to assent to the maintenance of the present military forces which they thought were more than sufficient for the safety of the Empire.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid that while the hon. Member considered that the troops provided for in the Estimates were too many, he considered that they were far too few. He was afraid that there were some hon. Members who would be content if they had a two-Power standard equal to the Navy of Switzerland and Servia, and an army equal to that of Monte Carlo. It was almost pitiful to hear little Englanders making one speech after another, trying to pull down the flag of old England. We had tremendous responsibilities, and if hon. Members on the other side of the House would go round the world—he thought some of them could go round twice with great advantage—and see our great possessions and appreciate them, and if they saw foreign armies manœuvring, they would come to the conclusion that our Army was not big enough. It was only by years of travel that one got an idea of what the British Army ought to be, and what our responsibilities were. What was our Army of 190,000 in comparison with that of Russia, Germany, France, or even Japan? Heaven help us if we had to fight any of those countries, because if we did we should be beaten. He doubted whether the Territorial Army would have sufficient stiffening with their training to stand shot and shell—although they might be if the enemy was good enough to give us six months' notice of war.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question of the Territorial Army does not arise on this Estimate.
  MAJOR ANSTRITTHER-GRAYsaid that Malta had before now proved a very convenient half-way house. It was so in the Egyptian Campaign, and a number of Indian troops were quartered

  327
  there when we were on the brink of war with Russia, and perhaps their presence averted it. Malta was a great possession, and the troops there were a great help towards peace. Those who remembered the trying times the Britons went through in Egypt about a year ago would not, he thought, grudge the few troops we had there. The only way to rule those Eastern Powers was to show that we were just and strong, and the more the troops were reduced in our dependencies or Colonies, the greater danger would there be of insults to our flag.
  *MR. LUPTONdid not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, He had seen the great armies of France, Germany, Russia and Italy; he had seen a great review of 250,000 men, a most magnificent sight, but 30,000 of those men were cuirassiers with front and back plates and therefore unfit for battle. One thousand mounted infantry would have beaten them all. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the reduction he had made in the Army in the last two years. The Army now was 190,000 men, a reduction of some 30,000 on what it was two years ago. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should continue to reduce it for the next five years in the same ratio of 16,000 a year. That would result in a reduction of a further 80,000 men, and they would then get the Army down to what it ought to be, 100,000 the highest degree effective, not birds of strong. They might then have an Army in passage as now, but all highly trained, every soldier an expert in his business and fit to be an officer, and every man entering the ranks with the object of being an officer. No one should be an officer unless he passed through the ranks. That would attract the intellect of the country, and the right hon. Gentleman would have such a force as had not been seen for a long time. There had been times in history when similar armies had existed, and when 1,000 of such men were as good as 10,000 of the insufficiently trained troops of to-day. It had been truly said that training was necessary before an efficient soldier could be obtained, but he would point out to the hon. and gallant Member opposite that the soldiers of to-day were amateurs. Engineers, lawyers and doctors practised their professions every day, but as we fortunately did
  328
  not have a war every day military men for the most part never practised their profession, and were mere amateurs, who got into what might be called a college groove and thought they knew something. When, however, they came into the field they were totally smashed by a body of farmers gathered hurriedly together. That happened in America 130 years ago and in Africa recently, and it would happen again, so long as we had officers who were proud in their own conceit, and without a really sound training. Of course he had a great respect for men who had seenservice—real veterans. They ought to reduce the Army until they got it efficient. After all, we had not such a small defensive force for the Empire. There were 1,300,000 armed men who were subject to the orders of the King. What was wanted was not more troops, but more application on the part of the soldier to his business, and a large, Territorial Army to defend the county against raids. What good purpose did the 16,000 troops we had in South Africa serve? That was now an independent Colony. Supposing the Boers rose again, what would become of those 16,000 men? They would not be safe, because the Boers would take possession of the communications, and those 16,000 men would be prisoners. Sixteen thousand men were too many to be lost in that way, and the sooner they got home the safer they would be. The object of the Government should be to get the Army officered only by those people who had passed through the ranks of the Army. The Secretary of State for War had confessed that he was in a difficulty with regard to the officers—then why did he not adopt the course of passing them through the ranks? Of course there was the old tradition, the old social objection, that the soldiers would not obey a man unless he came from a superior rank. He did not believe it for a moment. In the mines of the country the discipline was of the strictest, and the men cheerfully obeyed the man who knew his business who was put over them. It did not matter where that man came from, whether he came from the ranks or from above; and in the mines the men would obey to the last letter any instruction of the officials in dangerous enterprises. As it was in the mines, so it would be in

  329
  the Army. Let them have good men who had passed through the ranks and the troops would cheerfully obey them.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he would not follow the hon. Member for Sleaford into his novel form of recruiting whether from the heights above or from the depths below. He often thought how exceptionally fortunate the House was in having more Army reformers and strategists than any other such assembly in the world. He was quite certain that if foreign nations only realised the immense amount of latent power at our command in the House in the way of the organisation of our naval and military forces they would disarm to-morrow. He simply desired to put a few questions to the right hon. Gentleman, not as an official, but as an old soldier who for thirty years had had to study Army circulars and War Office documents which, however they might encourage young soldiers in the hope of something they were going to get or create disappointment because of something they were going to lose, gave neither encouragement nor disappointment to the old soldier, because he knew he would get nothing. The question he desired to put was with regard to the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards. The right hon. Gentleman would agree that in all cases of reduction great hardship fell upon the private soldier, the non-commissioned, and the commissioned officers, for the reason that though the private soldier might be absorbed in the other battalions he must necessarily lose his chance of promotion to non-commissioned rank, because, though the battalion was increased, the establishment of non-commissioned officers was not. The number of non-commissioned officers was limited. As with the non-commissioned officers so with the commissioned ranks. Every keen subaltern looked forward to the time when he would become a captain and command his company, and to the time when having passed through his majority he occupied the proudest position that a soldier could fill and became the colonel of a really good regiment. Everybody would see by the reduction of the number of battalions that hardship was being cast upon all ranks alike. The 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards was in this
  330
  curious position; it was the only battalion in the Army which figured in the Estimates as a battalion. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, there was no finer battalion in the Army. They were sent to Egypt at a critical moment. No regiment could drill or shoot better, or had a better character. They deserved better of His Majesty's Government than to be put into the Army Estimates as a battalion in a state of suspended animation. Those who had joined that battalion were now to be deprived of the chance of that promotion to which they looked forward when they enlisted. The right hon. Gentleman well knew, as every soldier in the House knew, that the success of the scheme on which he had embarked depended, first of all, on whether he could get the necessary number of men; and, secondly, on whether he could get the right and the best sort of officers. It was not a great encouragement to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, when they had taken up the most difficult duty of forming a new battalion of an old and historic regiment, and had succeeded in making it as efficient as either of the two preceding battalions, to find themselves disbanded. He be longed to a battalion of the Guards, and he held that these officers had formed a battalion as efficient as any battalion of the Guards. It was on esprit de corps that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme depended, and he did not think that the Secretary for War had helped himself by throwing this very wet blanket on officers, non-commissioned officers and men, who had done their best for King and country. There were many posts in our Colonies—he did not mean the self-governing Colonies, but Nigeria and others of our possessions under the Crown—which could be filled by officers, non-commissioned officers and men. It was in those Colonies, in unhealthy climates, and amid uncertain, savage warfare, that many of our most distinguished soldiers had received their military training and laid the foundation of their great reputations. He urged that where vacancies occurred in those Colonies the first offer of them should be made to officers, non commissioned officers, and men of experience and training, who were now supernumerary to the establishment at home because the battalions were disbanded.

  331
  If the right hon. Gentleman would take that suggestion into consideration, he would do something to mitigate what was undoubtedly felt by many officers in the Army to be a very serious blow indeed.
  MR. CARLILEsaid it was difficult for Members sitting on that side side of the House to listen to the hon. Member for Ipswich without protesting against his attitude of mind on the subject of the Army. The hon. Member had told them that the presence of troops in South Africa was a menace to peace. He thought that the hon. Member was not aware that the troops in South Africa were put in a centre where they could be trained exceptionally well under semi-service conditions for the duties which naturally devolved upon them. The hon. Member seemed to think that 16,000 troops were a source of danger to the peace of the country where they were. He (Mr. Carlile) was sure that was not the mind of most of the people of the country, certainly not the mind of the people in South Africa, who were more immediately concerned. The troops were in the midst of a country where hostilities had recently been in progress, and they were halfway between us and India, where they might at any time be required. He was afraid that the protests of the hon. Members for Ipswich and Sleaford, raised within hearing of the Minister for War, had fallen on ready ears. They had to regret that the right hon. Gentleman, trying to meet the views of a small section of the community, had taken very efficient steps towards reducing the number of our soldiers, to the manifest loss of service in all its ranks. Reference had been made to the presence of troops in Malta and in Egypt. Their presence in those places was of the same advantage as their presence in South Africa; it was where they could be trained, and where they were halfway to those great centres of military responsibility which lay about the British Empire. The hon. Member for the Sleaford Division said that we did not have a war every year. Of course, that condition of things was never likely to obtain, but at any rate if such minds as those of the hon. Members to
  332
  whom he had referred were in control of the affairs of the country, then, should we have even one war, it would wipe us out so far as being a first or second or third class Power was concerned. But those hon. Members knew perfectly well that their homes were safe. They knew that they represented a small minority, and that they could indulge in that sort of talk against the Army and its interests with impunity; and they could go home to their beds knowing that, although they raised their voices against the power of the Army, yet others looked after the interests of the Empire.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid the hon. Member for St. Albans had stated that those who were advocating so strongly a reduction in the Army represented only an insignificant number of people in the country. He knew that a great majority not only of Labour Members but also of the Liberal Party, put in their programme at the last election retrenchment in regard to both the Army and the Navy. He could assure the hon. Member for St. Albans that although he had hurled against them the charge of cowardice—
  MR. CARLILEsaid he had used no such expression with regard to the hon. Member or any other hon. Member. He had charged nobody with cowardice. He asked that the hon. Member should be called upon to withdraw the statement, which was altogether unwarranted.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid that if the expression had offended the hon. Member he would willingly withdraw it.
  MR. CARLILE: Do you withdraw it? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the offensive expression.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Burnley did not accuse the hon. Member of cowardice. All the hon. Member said was that the hon. Member charged certain friends of his with cowardice. If the hon. Member says that he did not make use of such an expression there is an end of it.
  MR. CARLILEsaid the hon. Member accused him of using an expression which

  333
  he never used, and upon that ground he asked for the withdrawal of the accusation.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member for Burnley intended by using the word "cowardice" to imply that the hon. Member actually used that word.
  MR. CARLILE: But he said so.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think he intended to say so. What he intended to summarise was that the general trend of the speech of the hon. Member would lead people to suppose that his friends had shown cowardice.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid he was quite willing to withdraw the word if it was offensive to the hon. Member. They did not yield one inch to hon. Members opposite in their recognition of the bravery, devotion, and self-denial of the Army, nor would they be slack in defending the country which was to them everything, and which they loved with as intense a devotion as those who wanted to keep up the present bloated armaments. So far from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War having listened to the voice of Labour Members, as the hon. Member for St. Albans appeared to think he had done, they did not think he had gone far enough, and they asked him to continue the method of safe reduction until the Army had been brought down to something like reasonable proportions. After all, it was not military experts who ought to decide the number of the British Army; that had to be determined by policy. They had every reason so far to trust implicitly the policy of the Government. They had read with delight the speeches of the Prime Minister in which he had shown an intense interest in the promotion of international peace. They all remembered the great ideal he had held up to the nation to form part of a League of Peace. They were pleased with all those expressions and believed in their sincerity, but they wanted the reduction of the Army to follow those expressions. They had just granted a Constitution to the Transvaal, and at the head of that Government was General Botha, whose presence in that capacity was one of the best securities for peace they could possibly have. They expected His
  334
  Majesty's Government to remember what had happened in the Transvaal, and they would not expect to have an Army quite so large when a saner and a truer policy had been adopted in the Transvaal. Without occupying further the time of the House, he would make a strong plea to the right hon. Gentleman to go on reducing the Army, and to make it more substantial than it had hitherto been. He believed that they were still a long way ahead of the margin of safety in regard to the Army. Hon. Members on the Opposition side seemed to think that they were now getting somewhere near the danger point in regard to reductions. He hoped the Government would not allow themselves to be led too much by military experts. The hon. and gallant Member for Somerset had made an appeal on behalf of the men who had been disbanded. He agreed that they should look after such men and do what they could for them. In such matters Labour Members were as much alive to the interest of the country as hon. Members opposite, but he wished the Government to remember that every man in the Army had to be kept by some man working outside the Army. Not one of their soldiers earned his breakfast or a button on his uniform. Someone was working in the mill or in the mine to provide, the uniform and the meals for the soldier. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] That was an economic truth which could not be disputed. The Army was unproductive, and it had to be kept by those in the productive sphere. There must be an Army, he admitted, but it should be kept as small as was consistent with the safety of the country.
  MR. HALDANEsuggested that the Resolution might now be agreed to, so that he might introduce the Army Annual Bill.
  SIR A. ACLANDHOODsaid he was quite ready to agree to that with the concurrence of hon. Gentlemen behind him. He hoped the Government would be able to give more time to the Consolidation Bill on Monday.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary

  335
  Haldane, Mr. Edmund Robertson, and Mr. Buchanan, do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

  SUPPLY [28TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  *SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHERas one who had entered the Army fifty-four years ago, urged the Secretary for War not to listen to arguments for still further reducing the Army. He was well acquainted with both Malta and Gibraltar, and the opinion of all military experts was that those fortresses ought not to be denuded of their artillery. Gibraltar was a very important strategic position. He regretted, too, the reductions that had taken place in the Guards and in infantry battalions. The result of disbanding battalions had been to make a number of non-commissioned officers lose their positions. Those in other regiments feared that their time might come. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not pay too much attention to hon. Members below the gangway who advocated a considerable reduction in the Army. The House should remember that the non-commissioned officers were the backbone of the Army. Those who had been connected with regiments now disbanded would have to wait some time before they could be placed in positions in other regiments. The House should recognise that when a young officer joined a regiment, he wished to make it his home. Many men had followed their fathers and grandfathers in the same regiment hoping to serve their time in it as their fore-fathers had done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not do away with any more battalions.
  MR. HALDANEregretted the necessity for the disbanding of those fine battalions, and submitted that the best provision possible had been made for the officers. Nobody had had his pay diminished until an offer had been made to him of an appointment as nearly as possible equivalent. As to the men, great pains had been taken to get them
  336
  absorbed. The action with regard to the garrison artillery at Malta and Gibraltar had not been taken without close consideration. A Committee, appointed in the time of the late Government, had revised the whole of our garrisons as far as the Mediterranean. In many cases it found the guns were of an antiquated pattern and of no use against naval attack. The guns which the Committee pronounced useless were being taken away. The reductions were entirely in consequence of the Report of that Committee, and were advised by the Defence Committee after carefully considering the Report. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would realise that the reductions were not the outcome of any new policy, or of any arbitrary act of his; but that they were the result of the policy laid down, for good reasons, in the time of the late Government.

  WAYS AND MEANS [12 MARCH] REPORT.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 13th day of this instant March, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
  "To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seven and one thousand nine hundred and eight," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes before 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 Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with: Burnley Corporation, Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Boston Spa Gas Bill, and the South Eastern, and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill, ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited, ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill, ought to be dispensed with, subject to Clause 18 being modified, so as to apply only to the intended railways and to the se companies concerned whose shareholders approve thereof, and to Clause 20 being struck out.
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill ought to be dispensed with, subject to the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1A, 2, 2a, 2b, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 9a, being struck out of the Bill.
Read and agreed to.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to
162
be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Barnsley, Wombwell, and Wath Tramways Bill [H.L.] Burnley Corporation Bill, Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill. Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.] Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 25th and 28th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
Tyne Improvement Bill [H.L.] Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 25th and 28th of February last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.

BAINES'NAME BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Onslow): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to say a word with reference to a Bill which is not before the House to-night, but which was before us last night, and upon which a question was put to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne—I refer to Baines' Name Bill. As I had received no notice of the intention of the noble and learned Lord to call attention to it, I was not in a position at the moment to explain exactly what the Bill was. The Bill is a peculiar one. It is not, as the noble and learned Lord seemed to infer, a Bill to change a man's surname—that undoubtedly could be done without an Act of Parliament—but it is a Bill to change a Christian name. It so happened that the testator in this case

163
left the property to this man on condition that he took certain names to the exclusion of all others—that is to say, to inherit the property he was obliged to drop his Christian names. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack observed, if by Act of Parliament you take property away from A and give it to B, you obviously do something which the general law of the land did not intend. But in this case, although there were remainders over from the first legatee the same condition was imposed, and therefore everyone would have had either to relinquish the property or ask Parliament to pass a Bill. I must say that this seems to me an unreasonable clause for a man to put into his will. At the same time I do not think there was any way of settling the matter except by asking Parliament to sanction a Bill, and it was for that reason that this Bill was introduced.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY (ARMY RESERVE).
  Statement showing: Actuarial calculation of the normal strength of the 1st Class Army Reserve; and
  Explanation of the difference between the actual strength on the 1st October, 1899, and the normal.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854–1894.
Eighteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix.
Reports on the valuation of the Teachers' Pension Fund (Ireland) on 31st December, 1905.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland, for the year 1906.

MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1. (1907).
Translation of the alien law of the Republic of Honduras, 8th February, 1906.
Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie upon the Table.

SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
Order made by the council of the county of Lancaster, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the urban districts of Royton, Failsworth, Crompton, Lees, Littleborough, and Milnrow. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
[Second Reading.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill to which I have the honour to call your Lordships' attention to-day is based on the Report of the Departmental Committee called together by Mr. Gerald Balfour in the year 1905, and I do not think it would be out of place if I were here to mention the composition of the Committee in order to show your Lordships what a very representative body it was. It included names which stand foremost in this country in the departments of law, of commerce, and of finance. The Chairman of the Committee was the present Lord Chancellor, and on his being translated to this House his place was taken by Mr. Warmington. Among the other members were Mr. Hichens (Chairman of the Stock Exchange), Sir W. Holland (Chairman of the Associated Chambers of Commerce), Lord Faber, Sir Felix Schuster, and Sir Edgar Speyer. These gentlemen were all busy men, and I think that they deserve a word of thanks from the Government for giving up so much of their valuable time unreservedly to the purposes of the inquiry, which was conducted with so much ability, and which has enabled the Government to bring in the present Bill.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice the great importance to trade of the limited liability system, and the very great interests involved. Since this system was first inaugurated, in 1862, it has made the most wonderful progress; in fact it has increased by leaps and bounds until a very large proportion of the trade of this country is

165
carried on by corporate bodies formed under the Companies Act of 1862. It may interest your Lordships to know that the number of companies now carrying on business under the Acts is 40,000, and the capital embarked in them reaches the huge total of £2,000,000,000 sterling. Your Lordships will fully understand with what a deep sense of responsibility the Government have approached any amendment of the Companies Acts, and, in order that no change should be proposed which could in any way be considered ill-advised or unnecessary, they have sought the advice and assistance of the Committee I have already mentioned.
The reference to the Committee was framed in wide terms—namely, to inquire into what amendments were necessary in the Acts relating to Joint Stock Companies; and afterwards the Board of Trade expressed a hope to the Committee that they would consider generally by what means Joint Stock Companies could best be fostered and encouraged, as well as the means to be taken by which illegitimate or fraudulent practices might be put an end to. I may now tell your Lordships that the policy of the Bill, so far as it deals with fraud, is by insisting on publicity, and it is hoped that by making information accessible to all who may seek it the best protection to investor and creditor may be created. This policy was included in the 1900 Bill, but is carried a good deal further in the present measure.
Now, as regards the Act of 1900, one of the requirements was that certain information should be given in every prospectus issued by a company; but, like most Acts of Parliament, this provision was immediately got round, and companies, in order to avoid complying with this requirement, simply did not issue a prospectus at all, but put the shares on the Stock Exchange and sold them there, instead of issuing them by means of a prospectus. Consequently the buyer had no knowledge of the circumstances of the company, and had no redress whatever, no matter how fraudulent the circumstances of the formation of the company might have been.
In the present Bill, my Lords, by the first Clause, it is hoped to stop this state of affairs by compelling every public company which does not issue a prospectus
166
to deposit with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies a statement containing the same information as would have been contained in a prospectus had one been issued. It is only proposed to apply this section so far as public companies are concerned, and in this respect it is important to note that a distinction is made for the first time between public and private companies. The definition in the Bill of a private company is—a company which limits the number of its members to thirty and restricts the right to transfer its shares, and is prohibited by its regulations from issuing any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares or debentures. All such companies are not to be required to file a statement in lieu of prospectus. Although the distinction between public and private companies is introduced for the first time, the Act of 1900 divided companies into two classes, those which issued a prospectus and those which did not; and this provision, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, has proved quite useless, for a large number of companies have been launched on the Stock Exchange and shares sold to the public without any information being available to the purchasers of the shares as to the enterprises in which they had become partners. Surely, my Lords, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I will now turn to Clauses 7, 8, and 10, which deal with the questions of issuing new capital at a discount and of the payment of interest out of capital during construction. As the law at present stands, companies formed under a special Act of Parliament usually have power to issue new capital at a discount and sometimes to pay interest during construction, but this does not apply to companies established under the Companies Acts. It is proposed by the Bill before your Lordships to remove these disabilities, subject to certain restrictions. Your Lordships will probably agree that it would be dangerous to give companies unrestricted power in these respects, and the Bill proposes, therefore, to limit the power of issuing new capital at a discount to companies which have carried on business continuously for more than two years; and, further, to insist that full information as to any capital issued at a discount shall be filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, and that the

167
amount of the discount shall be stated in any balance-sheet of the company until the whole amount has been written off. In the same way, no payment of interest out of capital can be made unless the payment has been authorised by the regulations of the company and has received the sanction of the Board of Trade.
The Bill proposes, in Clause 11, to extend the particulars of mortgages and charges affecting a company's property which it is now necessary to register. This is a very important provision, and carries out what I think is the main principle of the Bill—namely, the affording of effective information regarding companies to those who have business dealings with them. We all know that the Legislature cannot make a man prudent or wise. But this Bill, in my opinion, certainly safeguards the fool from the knave as much as is possible; and this is, I think, best arrived at by giving ready facilities by which the public can inform themselves with regard to any material facts affecting the company which may be in question.
Another step in the same direction is the provision that every company is required to forward to the Registrar a statement of its assets and liabilities in the form of a balance-sheet. This change has long been demanded by a large section of the mercantile world, but has been opposed by a minority for fear that the giving of such information would disclose trade secrets. In order to meet this point the clause provides that the balance-sheet filed need not include a statement of profit and loss. It may interest your Lordships to know that balance-sheets have been required to be filed by the Law of India since 1882, and by the Law of Victoria since 1896.
Clauses 15, 16, and 17 deal with the same matter as was raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury in his Bill. These clauses are of great importance to bankers, and Clause 17 restores what had been believed to be the law for many years until a recent decision of the Court declared the contrary. Stated very briefly, the intention of Clause 17 is to enable companies to re-issue debentures which have been paid off, and care has been taken to insert in the clause words which it is hoped will effectually safe-
168
guard the rights of third parties. As the law stands at present, since the recent decision of the Court, to which I have just referred your Lordships, a debenture once paid off is dead and cannot be re-issued. An important result of this decision of the Court is that it is now impossible effectually to secure a current account by deposit of debentures, for directly the balance of the account is in credit the debentures are thereby in law repaid and the security is destroyed. Your Lordships will at once appreciate of what great importance this matter is to the commercial commuuity, and that the present state of the law has a tendency to operate in restraint of trade.
I will now pass on. The next clause to which I think it necessary to draw your Lordships' attention is Clause 25. Under the Act of 1862 it was provided that every company should call a meeting once in every year, but, unfortunately, no penalty was imposed in case of a company not acting in accordance with the law. The result has been that in the case of some companies, whose directors, perhaps, were not anxious to meet the shareholders, no meeting has been called sometimes for many years in succession. We propose to remedy this deficiency and to provide for a penalty. We propose also to afford the shareholder an additional resource by giving the Court power at any time to order a meeting to be called on due cause shown. The next clause to which I would call attention is Clause 33. As your Lordships are aware, the present law acts in some ways very harshly on directors, and by Clause 33 the Court is given power to relieve directors and promoters when the Court is satisfied that they have acted honestly and reasonably.
There is now, my Lords, only one more clause which requires a few words, and that is Clause 36, which deals with companies registered outside the United Kingdom. It is proposed to require from every such company a certified copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, a list of the directors of the company, and the name and address of one or more persons resident in this country authorised to accept service of any notices required to be served on the company. Companies registered outside

169
the United Kingdom will be further required to conform to the same requirements as regards filing of annual statements of assets and liabilities as are required from companies registered in this country. Further, any company using the word "Limited" must state in every prospectus and at every place of business the country in which the company was registered.
In the event of your Lordships giving favourable consideration to this Bill, it is proposed to introduce a Consolidation Bill with the object of consolidating into one Statute all the Companies Acts, which at present number seventeen. I have, my Lords, now outlined, I fear at some length, the main provisions of the Bill, and I should like to be allowed to say before I sit down that the Bill is in no way a Party one, and that the Government will welcome any suggestion which noble Lords may consider will strengthen the Bill on any point.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Granard.)
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down spoke in high terms, but not in too high terms, of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade whose recommendations it is proposed to adopt in this Bill, and I am sure that not only the Government, but the commercial community also, are indebted to that very able Committee for the careful consideration they gave to this important subject. We are also indebted to His Majesty's Government for introducing a Bill which will, I think, on the whole give general satisfaction.
Not only bankers but the companies themselves who issue debentures are very anxious that the provisions removing doubts as to the validity of perpetual debentures and debenture stock should become law. There is a third class of persons who are also very much interested in the matter—namely, the general public. Misapprehension as to the real state of the law has led companies in perfect good faith to re-issue a number of debentures which, under the law as it at present stands, must be regarded as cancelled. That has introduced considerable doubt as to the status of debentures, and investors gener-
170
ally are very much interested in seeing the matter put on a sound footing.
There will, I think, be general agreement in regard to the main provisions of the Bill; but it is not quite easy, at the first glance, to see what the full effect of the detailed provisions will be, and accoringly I am sure my noble friend will not think I am asking anything unreasonable in venturing to express the hope that he will allow a fair time to elapse before he asks the House to take the Committee stage, so that lawyers and those affected by the Bill may have time to consider, not merely the general provisions, but the exact wording in which they are embodied. Many persons will be glad to hear that His Majesty's Government propose to introduce a Bill with the object of consolidating into one Statute all the Companies Acts. At present the law relating to companies is to be found in a variety of Acts, and it will be of great convenience to have the law combined in one single measure. I beg to thank my noble friend for the introduction of this Bill, and for the very clear statement he has made in regard to it.
*LORD FABER: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Earl upon the speech in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do so because I happen to know from my own experience that this is a very difficult and complicated question. I had the advantage of sitting on the Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1905 to consider the Companies Acts. There were several experts on that Committee. We sat very frequently, and gave long and careful consideration to this difficult matter. We also had the great advantage of sitting under the Chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor, whose clear guidance was of incalculable value to us. This Bill embodies the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee. Its chief objects are to protect shareholders in limited companies and those traders who trade with limited companies.
The Bill proposes to enlarge the requirements of the Companies Act, 1900, so as to provide that no material fact which would be calculated to influence the minds of intending investors

171
should be omitted from the prospectus. We on the Committee thought that a man who was applying for shares in a limited company should know everything that it was material for him to know, otherwise he would be unable to form a true and accurate judgment of the company and its standing. That provision is for the protection of shareholders. The next provision in the Bill is to render necessary the registration with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies of all mortgages and charges, including those relating to landed property and book debts. We thought—and I think rightly thought—that mortgages were very often danger signals, and that if a limited company created a mortgage it should be registered so that any shareholder in the company or any one dealing with the company should know of its existence.
This Bill removes doubts as to the validity of perpetual debentures and debenture stock, and enables a company to keep alive and re-issue debentures which have been redeemed. It has been lately held that debentures re-issued in the manner explained by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill are no better than waste paper, and the provision in the Bill is therefore for the protection of the public at large. The next provision requires every company to file annually with the Registrar a statement of its affairs in the form of a balance-sheet and containing a summary of its capital, liabilities, and assets.
When I first had to do with business what obtained was this. If you traded with a man who called himself John Smith and anything happened to him, you knew that all John Smith possessed was liable for his debts. Time went on and John Smith turned himself into John Smith, Limited, and the man who traded with him then was in a very different position. A certain amount of capital was put into John Smith, Limited, and when the concern did badly and the capital vanished John Smith walked out of the concern. He had no liability whatever, and the poor creditor had to do the best he could. A limited company shelters itself behind its limit, and if a man turns his business into a limited company he should be called upon to file a balance-sheet every year at Somerset House, so that persons trading with the
172
company can ascertain how it stands. I cannot think for a moment that there is any hardship in this. It is asked, Why should a private limited company be obliged to file a balance-sheet? Simply for the reason that it has become a limited company. If a private company places itself within the category of limited companies, then we believe it is for the good of trade generally that a balance-sheet should be published.
Another important provision in the Bill is to give power to the Court to grant relief to directors in cases where a breach of duty has been caused by honest oversight, inadvertence, or error of judgment. If a director commits himself in this way at the present time the penalty is far too severe for the offence. Clause 33 of the Bill will give absolution to directors who have acted honestly and in good faith. The point is that if you punish directors too severely for this kind of error you will not get directors of the sort you desire. Good men will be driven away and their places will be taken by directors of an inferior class.
The Committee felt that the question of foreign companies was one that should be dealt with, and I am glad to note that by this Bill every foreign company which, after the commencement of the Act, establishes a place of business within the United Kingdom, will be required to file with the Registrar a copy of its charter or statutes and a list of the directors of the company, together with the names and addresses of some one or more persons resident in the United Kingdom authorised to accept on behalf of the company service of any notices required to be served on the company, and to file annually with the Registrar such a statement of its affairs in the form of a balance sheet as is required of companies established in the United Kingdom. These are particulars to which we think we are entitled, and they are the sort required in foreign countries from English companies trading there. We thing it is a fair demand to make and that general advantage will result. Other opportunities will occur for discussing the details of the Bill; but I desire to say that, having sat for eighteen months on the Departmental Committee which inquired thoroughly into the whole question, I think the Bill is, on the whole, a very good one, and I hope your Lordships

173
will see no objection to giving it a Second Reading.
LORD GLENTAWE: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl in charge of the Bill on the able way in which he has put this important measure before your Lordships. Although the Bill may not be perfect in all its clauses and may possibly need amendment as we have experience of its working, I think that on the whole the Bill meets present requirements so far as we can understand them. I quite agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Avebury with regard to the question of debentures. The necessity for legislative action on that matter has been felt in commercial circles, especially by bankers, for a long time. Generally speaking, I think the Bill fairly meets the necessities of the day, and I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having brought it forward.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has presented this Bill to the House has done so with singular clearness, and I think there were very few of your Lordships who do not realise the great importance of the measure and the complexity and interest of the topics with which it deals. It affects very large interests, and is obviously a Bill which must attract a great deal of attention. The principle underlying its main provisions is that as wide a publicity should be given as every person interested in companies has a right to expect. That is the keynote of the measure. It will be necessary at a later stage to consider whether the machinery could be improved, but I think an honest effort has been made to secure by adequate penalties that the provisions of the Bill shall be carried out. It will be necessary in Committee to see whether that has been done uniformly, and whether all the clauses have adequate penalties to secure the publicity that is needed.
The noble Earl mentioned one clause which it is obvious will attract a good deal of attention both in the later stages of the Bill here and also elsewhere—the clause requiring an annual statement to be filed and the fullest information given. It is obvious that that is a clause of the very highest importance, but I do not find any
174
adequate penalties annexed to it. I have no doubt that the clause is put down in perfect good faith and with the earnest desire that it should be efficacious, but it is obvious that there should be some penalty. It is obvious likewise that the clause relating to foreign companies will require some consideration from the same point of view. A point to be considered is how you are to make a foreign company liable in the event of its not carrying out the provisions of the Bill, and how you are to get at its officers, who may be living abroad and not amenable to our legislation, for the purpose of enforcing the penalties to which they are in theory liable. I merely indicate that as a point to which we shall have to direct some attention when the Bill reaches a further stage.
The provision in regard to private companies is one of the very highest importance. That clause must necessarily be approached from a different standpoint, and great care will need to be taken to ensure that it leaves this House in a form capable of being carried out in a useful and effective way. I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Earl that a Consolidation Bill is intended. The noble Earl was quite right in emphasising the fact that it would be a strictly consolidating Bill, because I know from my experience of another place that if any attempt is made in a Consolidation Bill to introduce anything by way of an amendment of the law you have the philosophers in the House—sometimes a numerous but not always an agreeable class—getting up and saying that as you are amending one matter why not amend another; and, in the end, your Consolidation Bill becomes almost hopeless of passing. I have no doubt your Lordships will readily accord a Second Reading to the measure now before you.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate on this measure, which is eminently one of detail and will have to be considered in Committee. But I rise to make this practical suggestion, that it might be useful, with the view of economising labour in Committee, if the Report of the Departmental Committee and possibly the Minutes of Evidence on which that Report was

175
founded could be again circulated for the information of your Lordships.
*The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, the substance and purport of this Bill were so clearly stated by my noble friend who moved the Second Reading that it is quite unnecessary for me to elaborate his statement. As to the proposed Consolidation Bill, I agree that it ought to be purely consolidating. It is very desirable that what we did last year for marine insurance we should do this year for the company law, and in future years for other branches of the law. If the consolidated law on a particular subject is put down plainly in black and white in an Act of Parliament, then people know how to act. The Colonies and Dependencies of the Crown have often wished to have a code of our Criminal Law in order that they might make use of it as the foundation of their own legislation, but unfortunately no such code was available, and they have been obliged to have recourse to the Indian penal code. With regard to Clause 22, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, I would call attention to the fact that Section 26 of the Companies Act of 1862 does provide under penalties for a certain summary to be forwarded to the Registrar of Companies. Section 22 of this Bill merely has the effect of adding further duties to those already created by the Act of 1862. If in the course of considering this Bill, which, like all human productions, may be capable of improvement, any Lord thinks further provisions ought to be inserted we shall raise no objection, but, on the contrary, shall be very grateful for any suggestion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us when he proposes to take the Committee stage. I suppose it will not be taken until after Easter.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Government had thought of taking the Committee stage on Wednesday, if there is no objection to that course.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Considering that the measure is very complicated and intricate and affects a great many interests, I think time ought
176
to be allowed for private study of the Bill before it is considered in Committee. I would point out that a similar appeal was made by Lord Avebury, who is a great authority on this subject.
*The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): We are in the hands of the House in this matter. There is a desire to get the Bill down to the other House as soon as possible, but, as the noble Marquess has made this appeal to us, we will not proceed with the Committee stage until after Easter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill I can confidently state contains nothing except what has already been assented to by your Lordships in other Bills. I will only refer to three points. The Bill provides that the duties of certain selected registrars in hearing cases may be extended. They are to be allowed to hear more small cases in order to relieve any congestion which may be produced by the new duties imposed on County Court Judges. Power is also given in the Bill to make rules for the purpose of providing for summary judgment against a defendant when there is really no defence. There is already a practice of that kind in the High Court of Justice. It is desired with proper safeguards to extend it to County Courts. It is also proposed to allow pensions to be given to Judges in certain circumstances, and to provide in the case of their having to find deputies that the cost should be borne by the Treasury. It is very hard that a County Court Judge whose income is only £1,500 a year, should be compelled to pay a deputy out of his own pocket when he is ill and has all the attendant expenses of his illness to defray.
I wish to refer to the absence of one proposal from the measure. I would have liked to make some provision with

177
regard to the imprisonment under the Debtors Act of persons who are not able to pay and are now put in prison in increasing numbers. I am afraid that in some County Courts—though I do not impugn the good faith of the Judges—the administration of this law has led to great hardship. I regret that I cannot deal with the matter in this omnibus Bill. Perhaps I have laid myself open to the charge of irrelevancy in referring to the subject, but I believe many of your Lordships will sympathise with me in the irregularity.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, this Bill deals with a great many very important subjects, and the matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred at the close of his observations has excited the deepest possible interest in the country. There is a very strong feeling that the way in which the provisions in the Debtors Act relating to imprisonment for debt are sometimes administered might well be examined into with a view to considering whether a better and improved system could not be adopted in its place.
There are one or two points affecting this Bill which I hope my noble and learned friend will consider. There is under the Bill a power given of making rules. When solicitors are so much concerned in the administration of the County Courts I think it is right that they should have some voice in this matter. I have been repeatedly pressed on that subject in Ireland, and in Bills that I introduced I gave a status to the President of the Incorporated Society in Ireland to be consulted in the making of the rules. I would suggest that the President of the Incorporated Law Society here should have some voice in this direction. That is a matter which could very well be dealt with in this Bill without interfering with its structure.
Then the Treasury proposals are of the highest importance. The County Court Judges are an admirable body, and have a great deal of work to do, and I regret that there is no provision for considering whether an increase of salary might not be given in some cases. I am very
178
glad the Bill proposes to provide pensions for Judges. We have in Ireland, where it is well sometimes to look for sound systems, a system under which County Court Judges can get two-third pensions; that system was in existence long before my time as Lord Chancellor, and now very tardily it is being introduced into England. There certainly ought to be a reasonable pension after a reasonable service. I agree that it is a reasonable thing that the State should pay deputy Judges, but I think they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is open to question whether it is wise, in calling into existence a system of paid deputies, to leave to the Judges themselves power to appoint the deputies. Therefore, when the Bill is in Committee I shall move, I hope with the sanction of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that all deputies shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
There is a power given in the Bill to the Lord Chancellor to appoint assistant Judges. That is a departure from our system, which has always been that a Judge should be appointed permanently and during good behaviour, and here power is taken to appoint assistant Judges without any durability of tenure The only circumstance that I can see in mitigation of what might be a serious constitutional innovation is that there is a limitation put on the number and that they cannot exceed at any one time five. I am convinced that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would never dream of appointing temporary Judges unless absolutely satisfied of the necessity, but I think this provision should be taken notice of as it is an innovation which requires much consideration.
VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I simply rise to express my regret that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not been able to introduce into this Bill some provision dealing with what is generally spoken of as imprisonment for debt. It is many years now since I sat on a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into this hardship. I am satisfied that great hardship is caused by the law as it exists at present. Persons are imprisoned for what is described as contempt of court, though they are quite unable to purge that contempt, for they have no money with which to do so.

179
Yet they are sent to prison practically for contempt of court. I regret extremely that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not yet seen his way to introduce a clause making an alteration in this matter, but I hope that before the Bill does pass through your Lordships' House independent Peers at all events may suggest to His Majesty's Government some way of meeting this great difficulty.
*LORD JAMES of HEREFORD: My Lords, I desire to add a few words of encouragement to the Lord Chancellor. I hope and believe the noble and learned Lord will be strong enough to deal with this subject. If he does make any proposals he will receive support from many of those who have fully considered the matter. It is thirty-four years since I attempted to make some alteration in the law on this subject, and everything that has occurred since has caused me to think that an alteration would be satisfactory. This imprisonment for debt, for that is practically what it is, although it is called contempt of court, is a great hardship on the debtor. I recollect a County Court Judge telling of two men leaving prison together. One said to the other, "What have you been imprisoned for?" The reply was, "I have served fourteen days for stealing a duck." "Oh," said the first, "how very odd. I have had forty days for not paying for one."
The hardship on the debtor is not the only consideration. This is an economic question. If the system were got rid of the trader would resort to a ready-money system. In Scotland there is no imprisonment for small debts, with the result that the man who wants to buy a coat has to save his money before he buys it, and by paying ready money obtains it cheaply. The tradesman has no bad debts, and can sell his wares much more cheaply to the buyer. No money is spent at law, and goods can be obtained at a reasonable price. I hope attention will be given to the matter in every aspect, for the more it is inquired into the more certain I am that the evil that now exists will be shown to need a remedy.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of Onslow in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR): My Lords, I have thought about this Bill since the short discussion that took place upon it on Thursday last. I am, above all things, anxious to remove the idea that we have any design upon the permanent work of the Court, and accordingly I have placed an Amendment on the Paper. This clause provides that any division of the Court of Appeal may, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, consist of two Judges sitting together. The Amendment on the Paper provides that this consent is "to be given only for special cause." Since putting it down it has occurred to me that that might leave the jurisdiction open, because it might be said that the Lord Chancellor's consent did not rule the question whether or not there was special cause. I think it ought to be left to the Lord Chancellor to say whether there is special cause or not, and, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to amend the Amendment by providing that it shall be with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, "to be given only if he is satisfied that there is special cause." I move the insertion of these words to reassure those who may be anxious on the subject.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Chancellor' to insert the words 'to be given only if he is satisfied that there is special cause' "—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to. Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next; and Bill be printed as amended. (No. 17.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the reasons which have led the Lord

181
Egerton of Tatton to serve notices to quit on his tenants in Cheshire in consequence of the passing of the Agricultural Holdings Act of last session.
This question is occasioned by a hasty, and, as I believe, entirely undeserved attack which has been made in another place upon a much respected Member of your Lordships' House. Early in the present year Lord Egerton of Tatton appears to have written a letter to his agricultural tenants pointing out to them that it would be necessary to make a new agreement in consequence of the Agricultural Holdings Act. No less than three Members of the House of Commons, without apparently instituting any inquiry, assumed that this was an evasion of the Act, and put Questions to the Government in that sense. The step which Lord Egerton appears to have taken, so far as his letter goes, is one of ordinary prudence. As your Lordships know, the Act of last year invalidates every agreement in England, Wales, and Scotland, so far as cultivation is concerned, and therefore it will be the duty, not only of Lord Egerton and other Members of your Lordships' House, but of every landowner, to consider present agreements with a view to making new ones. I cannot help believing that that was the only reason which prompted Lord Egerton to take the course he did; and if my noble friend is able to tell me, as I think he will be, that such was the reason, then I would suggest whether gentlemen in another place, before attacking a Member of this House, might not endeavour to infuse a little discretion into their zeal. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, I have to say that on 18th February a Question was asked in the other House of Parliament by Mr. Montagu on the subject that has been mentioned by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And by two others.
EARL CARRINGTON: Yes, consequential questions. I at once thought it my duty to communicate with Lord Egerton, calling his attention to the Question, and asking him if he wished to
182
say anything on the subject. The noble Lord was travelling at the time, and he replied as follows in a letter dated Cairo, 26th February:
"DEAR LORD CARRINGTON
"I am glad of the opportunity (given me by your letter of 15th February, which I have just received) of contradicting the assumption made by Mr. Fullerton in his Question on the Paper of the House of Commons. I had no intention in giving formal notice to my tenants (on2nd February, the first legal day in the North of England) to defeat the measure intended for the benefit of tenant farmers. If I had intended to defeat a measure, which, speaking generally, carries out the long-established practice of my estate, I should not have written a circular to my tenants that it was necessary under the new Agricultural Holdings Act to cancel the existing agreement, which was out of date, and to substitute for it a simpler form 'in harmony with recent legislation.' My tenants know well that I am as anxious as ever to maintain the cordial relations which have long existed between us, and which will not in any way be affected by the recent Act. I shall be glad if you will give the same publicity to this letter as has been given to the question before the House of Commons.
"Believe me, yours sincerely,
"EGERTON OF TATTON".
I was glad to receive this letter, although I knew what the answer would be, and I can inform the noble Earl that it will be read in the House of Commons in reply to a Question which will be put by my hon. friend Mr. Montague, and I hope the publicity which Lord Egerton naturally desires will be given to his letter. I trust the House will forgive me if for one moment I refer, with perhaps pardonable pride, to a sentence in Lord Egerton's letter. It is very pleasant to me, personally, and to the Government of which I am a humble member, to have the acknowledgment in this letter that the Agricultural Holdings Act of last session was intended for the benefit of the tenant farmers, and that, speaking generally, it carries out the long-established practice on Lord Egerton's estate.
There has undoubtedly, and not unnaturally, been some disquiet occasioned by the use of the words "notice to quit" in connection with the Act. I should like on this matter to quote the opinion of a body of practical men, who I cannot say were very favourable to the Bill when it was introduced. I refer to the Surveyors' Institute. At the Surveyors' Institute the Secretary of the Farmers'

183
Club, a well-known land agent, said that he for one, and he thought the general body of members would agree with him, would not dream of giving all the tenants notice to quit, and he added that in his opinion very grave responsibility would rest on the agent who advised his employer to take such a course. Mr. Aubrey Spencer, who read a paper on the Act at the same meeting of the Surveyors' Institute, and who is one of the best authorities on agricultural legislation, said that he would not like it to go out that he had advised that notices to quit should be given on every estate in the country, and that it would only be in exceptional cases that such a course would be desirable.
I have received a letter from a Yorkshire land agent in large practice stating that he disapproves the course of giving notice very strongly as disturbing to tenants and naturally making them suspicious. He adds that he has never found any difficulty in dealing with agreements thirty or forty years old which were never altered to meet the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1883 and 1890.
The noble Earl was, I think, a little too hard on the Members of the House of Commons in representing the questions they asked as a personal attack on Lord Egerton of Tatton. I see nothing of that sort in the Questions themselves. There have been articles in the Land Agent's Record—a journal which is very widely read—on the subject of contracting out of the Act, with an intimation that they were written in response to numerous applications for some light on the practical method of taking away from the Act its compulsory character. In the circumstances there is no cause for surprise if there is a certain uneasiness as to what may be the action of some landlords in regard to the Act. I do not for one moment think landlords will be guided by over-zealous agents or ingenious young barristers; I believe they will accept the Act as loyally as Lord Egerton of Tatton. If the Act is applied in a reasonable way on either side and interpreted with common sense it cannot fail to be of benefit to the agricultural community.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have listened with satisfaction to the noble Earl's approval of the
184
letter he has read, a letter such as was to be expected from Lord Egerton of Tatton. While I cordially agree with all that fell from the noble Earl with regard to Lord Egerton's letter, there were certain remarks towards the latter part of the noble Earl's speech on which I should like to say a word. The noble Earl seemed to think that landlords had no right to make any alteration in the relations between themselves and their tenants in the interval between their passing of the Act and its coming into operation. What was the object of postponing the date of the Act's coming into force unless it was to enable landlords and tenants to consider their relative positions? In the interests of agriculture as a whole, it is necessary for landlords to consider their position. There is such a thing as the rotation of crops, established by experience of the land; and a bad tenant, taking advantage of the new power of cropping, might do great harm to the land. That is why landlords are carefully considering this question. The noble Earl talked as if landlords were giving wholesale notices to their tenants. The idea is a figment of the imagination conjured in the minds of some supporters of the Government in the House of Commons who wish to create ill-feeling between landlord and tenant. When the noble Earl comes to giving advice to landlords as to what they should do, I must remind him that landlords have a right to consider their own interests without advice from the Front Bench. If the powers of landlords are unfair, let Parliament alter them; but I object to dictation from the noble Earl or anyone in his position.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say a word, not so much as a Member of the Government, but as a brother landlord of Lord Egerton in Cheshire. All of us who live in that county know how admirably the noble Lord's estate is managed—Icould not name a better anywhere—and all who know him would be aware from the first that any step he took in relation to the new Act would be for the advantage of the estate and of the tenants. The noble Marquess who has just sat down alluded to the time of grace, so to speak, given before the Act came into operation. But I am bound to remind him that, while that time of grace was, it is perfectly

185
true, given to enable people to make arrangements, it certainly was not given, nor do I know that it ever was claimed to be given, to enable people to evade the provisions of the Act, or in any sense to contract out of it. No such claim during all the debates that passed was ever made on the other side of the House. The only claim made was that time should be given to enable people to make the necessary arrangements, but not arrangements contrary to the provisions or even to the spirit of the Act. As regards the question of giving general notice, of course I do not know what the particular circumstances of my noble friend Lord Egerton's estate may have been; but, speaking generally, it does seem to me an unnecessary and rather startling act to give a general notice to all the tenants on one's estate. If a landlord desires to reconstruct his form of agreement in consequence of the provisions in this Act, it would be by no means a difficult matter to carry that purpose out gradually in the course of two or three years instead of in the somewhat dramatic manner of a general notice. We all know that Lord Egerton had no malign intention whatever in the matter; but to those who are not acquainted with the particular circumstances it certainly would seem that a landlord who gave all his tenants notice to quit on the passing of a particular Act, might have in view some object not consonant with the spirit of the Act. Therefore, speaking generally, I should be inclined, like my noble friend behind me, to deprecate the practice of giving general notice.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, none of us differ from the noble Earl when he says that the period of grace allowed under the Act of last year was not intended as offering an opportunity for a wholesale evasion of the letter or the spirit of the Act. But what I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to is this—that, as I understand the matter, these charges were brought against Lord Egerton with the deliberate object of suggesting that he had attempted to evade the provisions of the Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was stated in terms that he was evading the Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This discussion has been sufficient to show that nothing could be further from the truth than that charge. Whether it was necessary to take this particular means of adjusting the estate agreements to the new order of things created by the Act of last year I cannot say; but it is quite clear that the Act did so fundamentally alter the relations of the landlord and tenant that it must have become necessary on some estates that those relations should be formally readjusted, not with the idea of depriving the tenants of anything the Act gave them, but of adapting the old order of things to the new, and that, I think, is really all that has happened on Lord Egerton's estate.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that when the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 came into force, fresh agreements were entered into on nearly every estate. The Minister for Agriculture has referred to the Institute of Surveyors as very learned in this matter. I understand from them that they are not at all certain whether the present agreements as they stand would be legal at the end of the two years, and whether it will not be absolutely necessary even for those who desire to give the fullest scope to the Act to make fresh agreements to comply with it. I do not see how you can legally bring fresh agreements into force without some formal notice to the tenants that there will be new agreements substituted for those at present in existence. Therefore I think that such an accusation as that which has been made against Lord Egerton is rather hard indeed. In Lincolnshire, the county with which I am more closely connected, nearly the whole of the present agreements are based on the Lincolnshire custom. That custom has been practically abolished by the Act of last year, and we shall have to see how far our agreements are waste paper and substitute others for them; but I understand that cannot be legally done with-but first giving formal notice to quit, whatever one may intend to do afterwards.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.