Sitting of 3 March 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Madras Railway Company (Annuities) Bill (changed from "Madras Railway Company (Purchase) Bill ")'—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North-East London Railway Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.
Standing Orders.—Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
"That, in the case of the Lincoln Corporation Bill, Petition for dispensing

489
with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Council against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
"That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
"That, in the case of the Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
"That, in the case of the Camborne Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Armley; Boston; Clevedon; Crewe; Limehouse; Morpeth; and Wellington; to lie upon the Table.

  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  Petitions for prevention: Prom Caithness; Lossiemouth (two); and Lybster; to lie upon the Table.

  Wholly Boycotting.

  Partial Boycotting

  Miner Boycotting.

  Total Number of all cases of Boycotting.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  Cases.

  Persons.

  —(Mr. Lonsdale.)

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Barcombe Chailey; Chelsea; Consett and District (nine); Great and Little Wakering (two); Great Yarmouth; Hove; Ilford (four); Ilkeston; North Hagbourne; South wick; and Steyning; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Cambridge, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.:
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return giving the Strength of each Infantry Battalion and each Battery of Artillery on the Home Establishment on 1st February 1908, showing the number of Men in each Unit who have less than one year's service or are under twenty years of age; showing also the number of Recruits at the Depot [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Sixtieth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (ECCLESIASTICAL CHARGES).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [Address 25th February; Mr. Herbert Roberts]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
  BOYCOTTING (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of cases of Boycotting and of persons boycotted throughout Ireland on the 31st day of March, 1902, the 31st day of July, 1903, the 30th day of November, 1905, the 31st day of January, 1907, the 31st day of July, 1907, and the 31st day of January, 1908, in the following form:—
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Refreshment House.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that confectioners and purveyors of mineral waters and other shopkeepers are prohibited from selling after 10 p.m. any non-intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises without a licence; what Is the amount required for that licence; and what object is served by the enforcement of this regulation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I take it that this Question refers to the fact that, in pursuance of Section 6 of The Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, refreshment houses in which intoxicating liquors are not sold may not remain open

  Year.

  Vote.

  Amount of Reduction.

  Particulars.

  1900–1

  Army, Vote 2 (Medical)

  £5

  The Estimate was presented to enable the House to discuss South African military hospitals. The Vote was agreed to in Committee of Supply, but the money not being required the Report stage was not taken.

  1903–4

  Privy Seal Office

  £1,770

  The Estimate presented was for £2,770. £1,000 was voted on account. The balance was not required owing to a subsequent change in the tenure of the office, and was not therefore voted in Committee.

  1904–5

  Education, Ireland (Supplementary)

  £100

  Vote reduced in Committee.

  1905–6

  Irish Land Commission

  £100

  Vote reduced in Committee.

  Compulsory Education in Ireland.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in consequence of the low attendance of children attending school throughout Ireland, he will bring in a Bill to amend the compulsory Education Act by making
  492
  after 10 p.m. unless they take out a licence under that Act. This is an Excise licence, and costs 10s 6d if the premises are under £30 in annual value and one guinea if they are £30 or over. The principal object of this provision is to enable the police to secure that the refreshment houses which keep open late at night are well conducted and are eventually closed in accordance with the law relating thereto.

  Reduction of Estimates.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what reductions have been made in this House upon the Estimates during the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The figures asked for by my hon. friend are shown below:—
  it compulsory on the county councils to put it in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I should find, considerable difficulty in adding to the number of Bills affecting Ireland which I hope to introduce- during the present session; but I am very sensible

  493
  of the need there is for the improvement of school attendance in Ireland. Those who have administered the existing law are, I believe, of the opinion that it requires some amendment; and I agree with the hon. Member that there should be a law of general application. I should be glad to consider the question if I had evidence that hon. Members from Ireland desired such legislation.

  Rathgar Ex-Telegraph Messenger.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that an ex-telegraph messenger, named Michael Kelly, temporarily employed at the Rathgar district office, has been dismissed, apparently for invoking the assistance of his association; if Kelly made application for a vacancy on the auxiliary class in Ballsbridge district, and, receiving no reply, called on the inspector of postmen, who threatened him with dismissal if he gave further trouble; if in the meantime the vacancy was given to an outsider; if Kelly then placed the matter before the Ex-telegraph Messengers Association, of which lie is a member; whether a deputation from that body waited on the Comptroller with reference to his case, and within a week of this interview Kelly was replaced by an ex-Army man and informed that there was no further work for him, although on the day that Kelly was dismissed a vacancy existed in the James St. District, and another ex-messenger was called in to fill it; and if, under the circumstances, he will cause Kelly to be reinstated.
  (Answered, by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Michael Kelly has not been dismissed. His employment as temporary substitute in the ordinary course of events was discontinued when a regular appointment was made to the duty, but he is now again being employed on another duty. His appeal for the help of the association referred to by the hon. Member did not in any way affect the case.

  Deaths of Asiatics on British Ships.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the death from heart failure of a coal trimmer named Jobanalla Allimalla, on 11th June
  494
  last, on the steamship "Clan Macneil"; what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Shipping Master at Bombay, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Glasgow. The man had been ill and off duty for over six weeks, and had received medical treatment in port. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was twenty-eight tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was nineteen, and the consumption of coal per man was about 1½ tons.
  MR. BRACE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the death from heart failure of a fireman named T. Lawson, on the 27th May last, on board the steamship "Evan-geline"; what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at Civita Vecchia and a certificate signed by a doctor at Dover, where the body was landed, states that death was due to heart failure. The man had been a draughtsman and was unused to the work. He had been less than a day on board and was taken ill in his first watch. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 16.06. The number of firemen and trimmers was seven and the consumption of coal per man was a little over 2¼tons.
  MR. J. WILLIAMS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the death from heat apoplexy of a fireman named Moossa Camma, on 10th June last, on the steamship "Peninsular"; what was the coal

  495
  consumption on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Shipping Master at Aden, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Tilbury, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer in London. The man died of heat apoplexy after one day at sea. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was about 100 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was forty-seven, and the consumption of coal per man was about 21/7 tons.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held as to the circumstances attending the death of Allimea Ahmedally, a coal trimmer, on 18th May last, who was serving on the steamship "Okara"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) All deaths of seamen receive the attention of the Board of Trade. The present case was reported by the Shipping Master at Bombay. The man died in hospital at Bombay. The vessel was employed in the coasting trade of India, and she was of course run under the regulations of the Government of India as regards victualling and crew space. Assuming that she carried the number of men certified for (thirty-six) the space per man would be 98¾81 cubic feet.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the death of Aftar
  496
  Ulia, a donkeyman, on 26th May last, who was serving on the steamship "Sikh"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic spice per man provided on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at Norfolk, Virginia. The man had been suffering from tuberculosis throughout the voyage from Singapore, and died in hospital at Norfolk. Assuming that the vessel carried the number of firemen certified for (sixteen) the space per man would be 175¾46 cubic feet.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the supposed suicide of an Asiatic seaman named Khan Hassan Baba on board the steamer "Electra," on 29th May last; if he can say whether this man was working as a stoker; how many men were engaged as stokers on the "Electra"; what was the daily consumption of coal on board; and how many tons of coal each stoker was called upon, to handle during the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Assistant Resident at Aden, who reported that the man had been ill and was treated by the ship's surgeon for incipient pneumonia. I am informed that the man was not a stoker, but a deck hand, and had been only three days in the ship. I have no information as to the consumption of coal or number of firemen and trimmers employed in this case.
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held as to the circumstances attending the death of Takood-hone Assamala, aged eighteen, a coal trimmer, on 18th July last, who was serving on the steamship "Loch Tay"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on this vessel.

  497
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Acting Consul at Rotterdam and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, Barry. The man is reported to have suffered from consumption for several months, and died in hospital at Rotterdam. Assuming that the vessel carried the number of firemen certified for (twenty-two), the space per man would be 105¾23 cubic feet.
  MR. HOGAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the death of Sedeyak Abeedalli, a coal trimmer, on 28th June last, who was serving on the steamship "Glenelg"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on that vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at North Shields. The man died at Antwerp after a fortnight's illness. Assuming that the vessel carried the number of firemen certified for (twenty), the space per man would be 115¾25 cubic feet.
  MR. HOGAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held as to the circumstances attending the death of Cajee Rahim Cajee Esmail, a fireman, on 16th May last, who was serving on the steamship "Beira"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at Hamburg. The man died in hospital at Hamburg after discharge. The owner stated that he was suffering from enteric and diarrhœa. Assuming that the vessel carried the number of firemen certified
  498
  for (twenty-one), the space par man would be 101¾1 cubic feet.
  MR. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held as to the circumstances attending the death of Tomnorooz Alli, a coal trimmer, on 9th May last, who was serving on the steamship "Sangola"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the shipping master at Bombay. Man died of pneumonia after a few days illness. Assuming that the vessel carried the number (thirty) of firemen certified for when last in the United Kingdom, the space per man would be 102¾9 cubic feet.
  MR. N. J. MURPHY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of deaths that are continually occurring amongst Asiatic and other seamen from diseases of the chest and lungs; whether any inquiry was held as to the circumstances attending the death of Awany Bin Aroon, a seaman, on 25th June last, who was serving on the steamship "Indradedo"; and whether he can state the amount of cubic space per man provided on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Acting Consul-General at Antwerp. The man died in hospital at Antwerp after discharge from the ship. Assuming that the vessel carried the number of seamen certified for (fourteen), the space per man would be 145¾3 cubic feet.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the death from supposed heart disease of a coal trimmer named Abdoal Hassein, on 9th June last, on the steamship "Sutherland"; what was the coal consumption on this

  499
  vessel for each, twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the assistant shipping master at Calcutta, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Cardiff. The man is said to have had symptoms of previous trouble. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 24 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was sixteen, and the consumption of coal per man was 1½ tons.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the alleged suicide of an Asiatic fireman, named Mahomed Salter Deen, on 20th April last, on board of the British steamer "Industry"; if he can say what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as trimmers and firemen; how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours; and whether any suicides of firemen had previously occurred on board this ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Acting Vice-Consul at Bahia Blanca, the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine at Barry, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Cardiff. The cause of the man's disappearance was not discovered. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 34 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was eighteen, and the consumption of coal per man was 1 8/9 tons.
  MR. MACPHERSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food; whether his attention has been called to the death of an Asiatic fireman who was serving on the British steamer "Teesta," and who died from beri-beri on 2nd June, 1907; whether he is in a position to say if any inquiry was held
  500
  in this case; and if it was shown that the food provided for the crew of the "Teesta" was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The cause of beri-beri does not appear to have been very definitely ascertained, but probably bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. The Board of Trade are in communication with the Royal College of Physicians on the subject. The fireman referred to in the Question is probably Mozaffer Alley, fireman of the "Teesta," who died whilst a passenger on board the "Gwalior." A Return was received from the Negapatam Port Officer containing a certificate of death from beriberi, signed by the medical officer. The "Teesta" is employed in the coasting trade of India under local management, and is run under the regulations of the Government of India as regards victualling and crew space. I have no reason to believe that those regulations have not been complied with.
  MR. MACPHERSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food; whether his attention has been called to the death of an Asiatic fireman, named Chin Cha, La, who was serving on the steamship "Winnebago," and who died from beriberi on 26th June last; whether any inquiry was held into this case; and if it was shown that the food provided for the crew of the "Winnebago" was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was made into the death of the fireman Chin Cha La on board the "Winnebago" by the Acting Consul General at San Francisco, who reported that the death was owing to beri-beri, apparently of long standing. No complaints have been received with regard to the food, and I have no reason to believe it was inadequate.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the death from heat apoplexy of an Asiatic fireman

  501
  named Min Hie, on 2nd May last, on board the steamship "Radnorshire"; what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Deputy Master Attendant at Singapore. The number of firemen and trimmers was twelve, but, as the vessel was sold to foreigners, and did not return to this country, the particulars as to coal consumption cannot be supplied.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the suicide of an Asiatic coal trimmer named Ismile Mahd, on 7th May last, on board the steamship "Flamingo"; what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours; and whether any suicides of firemen had previously occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Assistant Shipping Master at Calcutta, but the cause of suicide was not discovered. As the ship is trading abroad particulars of the consumption of coal cannot be given, but the number of firemen and trimmers was eighteen. Two other cases of disappearance from this vessel have been reported since July, 1901.
  MR. ALBERT STANLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the supposed suicide of an Asiatic coal trimmer named Sk Alley Abdorman, on 4th August last, who was serving on the steamship "Marva"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous cases of suicide or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Consul-General
  502
  at Antwerp, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Hull, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Hull. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 38 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was twenty-five. Two other cases of supposed suicide from this vessel have been reported, and are-the subjects of Questions by the hon. Members for West Belfast and the Black-friars Division of Glasgow.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the suicide of an Asiatic coal trimmer named Joona Osman, on 26th July last, who was serving on the steamship "Marva"; what, was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous cases of suicide or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Consul-General at Antwerp, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Hull. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 38 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was twenty-five. Two other cases of disappearance from this vessel have been reported and are the subjects of questions by the hon. Members for North West Staffordshire and the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow.
  MR. W. E. HARVEY: To ask the President of the-Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the deaths of Asiatic and other seamen that are continually occurring on British ships from chest and lung complaints; whether any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the death of Sha Mahomed Bawall, on 29th August last, whilst serving on the steamship "Egypt"; and what was the cubic space allowed for each man.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Deputy Shipping; Master at Bombay and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Tilbury. The man was a greaser and was returning

  503
  invalided to Bombay by the "Egypt." He was in an advanced state of tuberculosis when taken on board. Assuming that the vessel had on board the number of firemen certified for (ninety) the space per man would be 92·70 cubic feet, but the owners state that she had only eighty-one men, which would give 100 cubic feet per man.
  MR. E. EDWARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the circumstances respecting the disappearance at sea of an Asiatic named Wong Fook, on 24th August last, whilst serving as fireman on the steamship "Agamemnon"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many firemen and trimmers were employed; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearances had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Pro-Consul at Shanghai and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Liverpool. The man had only been at sea in the ship one day, and trimming was not hard as bunkers were full. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 57 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was twenty-five. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have been reported.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the circumstances respecting the supposed suicide of Ensorf K. Cassum K., an Asiatic fireman, on 16th July last, whilst serving on the steamship "Maroa"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many firemen and trimmers were employed; and whether any previous cases of suicide, or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Consul General at Antwerp, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Hull. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 38 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers were twenty-five.
  504
  Two other cases of supposed suicide from this vessel have been reported, and are subjects of Questions by the hon. Members for North West Staffordshire and West Belfast.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the supposed suicide of Alley Mohammed an Asiatic coal trimmer, on 21st August last, whilst serving on the steamship "Bohemia"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous cases of suicide or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Assistant Resident at Perim, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Glasgow. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 28 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was eighteen. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have been reported.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the disappearance at sea of Khoosidallee Munshuff, an Asiatic coal trimmer, on 20th August last, whilst serving on the steamship "Pundit"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous cases of suicide, or supposed suicide, or disappearance, had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Rangoon, but the cause of the man's disappearance was not discovered. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was twenty-eight tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was twenty-four. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have been reported.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware

  505
  that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food; whether his attention his been called to the death of an Asiatic fireman, named Tang Wa, on 20th July-last, whilst serving on the steamship "Montrose"; and whether he has reason to suppose the food supplied on this vessel was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-Goerge.) Inquiry was made into the death of the fireman Tang Wa on board the "Montrose" by the Vice-Consul at New York, who reported that the man died from beri-beri after a month's illness, during which he received every attention. No other case of beri-beri occurred during the voyage. No complaint has been received with regard to the food, and I have no reason to believe it was inadequate. The owners state that the provisions cost 1s. 6d per head per day.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food; whether his attention has been called to the death of an Asiatic trimmer named Mozafar, on 7th August last, who was serving on the steamship "Inkum"; and whether he has reason to suppose the food supplied on this vessel was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was made into the death of the trimmer Mozafar of the "Inkum," which occurred in hospital at Rotterdam, and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff, who reported that it was owing to beri-beri. No complaint has been made with regard to the food, and I have no reason to believe it was in adequate.
  MR. WALSH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the suicide of Abdool Muttlah, an Asiatic coal trimmer, on 1st August last, whilst serving on the steamship "Clan Lindsay"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous
  506
  cases of suicide or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Port Natal Deputy Shipping Master, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Glasgow, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer in London, but the cause of suicide was not discovered. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 37 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was eighteen. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have been reported.
  MR. WALSH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the death from heart failure of Leong Sow, an Asiatic fireman, on 11th September last, whilst serving on the steamship "Cowrie"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; and how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Acting Vice-Consul at Constantinople, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Cardiff. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 34 tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was thirteen.
  MR. THOMAS RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the circumstances attending the disappearance at sea of an Asiatic fireman named Ynen Kay, on 15th June last, from the steamship "Boscombe," what was the coal consumption on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours; and whether any disappearances or suicides of firemen had previously occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Shipping Master at Bombay, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Liverpool. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours

  507
  was 28 tons (Indian.) The number of firemen and trimmers was nine, assisted by three deck hands. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have teen reported, except that of a trimmer, respecting whom the hon. Member has asked a Question.
  MR. THOMAS RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if any inquiry was held into the disappearance of sea of a Chinese coal trimmer named Lee Eng, on 25th May last, on board the steamship "Boscombe"; if he can say what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as trimmers and fire: men; how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours; and whether any disappearances or sucides of firemen had previously Occurred on board this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) Inquiry was held by the Shipping Master at Calcutta, the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer at Liverpool. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was 24 tons (Japanese.) The number of firemen and trimmers was nine. No other case of suicide or disappearance has been reported except that of a fireman respecting whom the hon. Member has asked a Question.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food; whether his attention has been called to the death of an Asiatic fireman named Tang Wa, on 20th July last, whilst serving on the steamship "Montrose"; and whether he has reason to suppose the food supplied on this vessel was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was made into the death of the fireman Tang Wa on board the "Montrose" by the Vice-Consul at New York, who reported that the man died from beri-beri after a month's illness, during which he received every attention. No other case of beri-beri occurred during
  508
  the voyage. No complaint has been received with regard to the food, and I have no reason to believe it was inadequate. The owners state that the provisions cost 1s. 6d per head per day.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that medical opinion holds that beri-beri is a disease due to the want of proper and sufficient food, whether his attention has been called to the death of an Asiatic trimmer, named Mozafar, on 7th August last, who was serving on the steamship "Inkum;" and whether he has reason to suppose the food supplied on this vessel was adequate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was made into the death of the trimmer Mozafar of the "Inkum," which occurred in hospital at Rotterdam, by the Acting Consul at Rotterdam and the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff, who reported that it was owing to beri-beri. No complaint has been made with regard to the food, and I have no reason to believe it was inadequate.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the supposed suicide of an Asiatic fireman named Wong Ah Sam, on 19th April last, who was serving on the steamship "River-dale"; what was the coal consumption for each twenty-four hours; how many men were employed as firemen and trimmers; and whether any previous cases of suicide or supposed suicide had occurred on this vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at Sourabaya, but the cause of the man's disappearance was not discovered. The consumption of coal per twenty-four hours was about 24½ tons. The number of firemen and trimmers was eleven. No other cases of suicide or disappearance have been reported.

  Politics in the Post Office.
  MR. A. ALLENTo ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are in the Post Office branches of the Tariff Reform League and the Free

  509
  Trade Union; whether those organisations are regarded as being of a non-party character; and, if so, whether Post Office employees are entitled to take part publicly in the work of these organisations without contravening the regulations as to non-interference in party politics.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In Interpreting the regulations which state that Post Office servants as Civil Servants ought to exercise a certain reserve in political matters, I have adopted a uniform principle in dealing with the various societies to which my attention has been directed. There is no objection to the formation of societies, political and other, among Post Office servants, provided Post Office servants do not take a prominent or active part in political contests; but, in order that there may be no doubt as to the observance of this rule, it is not expedient that such societies should be specific branches of societies which take an active part in politics. In regard to the two organisations mentioned in the Question, I find on inquiry that the Free Trade Union, constituted by officers of the Post Office, is independent of, and is not a branch of the Free Trade Union. As regards the Tariff Reform League, constituted by officers of the Post Office, I understand that, though it is under separate management financially and otherwise, it is a branch of the Tariff Reform League. The attention of the secretary has been drawn to the matter, and I am awaiting a communication from him.

  Sedition Trial at Calcutta.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Kingsford, chief presidency magistrate of Calcutta, in respect of the trial for sedition of the printer and publisher of the Yugantar newspaper, for urging the Sikh soldiery to mutiny; whether Mr. Kingsford placed it on record that the history of the Yugantar in the last few months exhibited the impotence of the Government to deal under the existing law with that class of publication, which in the interests of good government and good order ought long ago to have been suppressed; and
  510
  whether the Government has under consideration the advisability of taking greater powers in the direction indicated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have seen a report of the judgment, including the expression of opinion quoted. The adequacy of the existing law has received, and will no doubt continue to receive, the consideration of Government.

  Foreign Beef Trusts.
  MR. CHAPLIN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board will cause inquiry to be made as to the extent and character of the operations carried on in this country by foreign beef trusts.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have had the matter to which the right hon. Member refers under observation for some time past. It must be doubtful whether any formal inquiry respecting it would be feasible, but the suggestion will be kept in view.

  Chinese Seamen on S.S "Queen Eleanor"
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received any Report with regard to the mutiny of a crew of Chinese seamen on board the British steamship "Queen Eleanor" recently at the port of New York; if he can give any information as to why this Chinese crew refused to proceed to the River Plate; if he has received any report as to a previous mutiny of this crew whilst the "Queen Eleanor" was lying at Philadelphia, when it is alleged that the Chinamen attacked the officers of the ship; whether he has any official information showing that when the "Queen Eleanor" arrived in New York several of the Chinamen were in the ship's hold under guard; whether the Board of Trade intend to take any steps to inquire into the whole circumstances in connection with the trouble on board the "Queen Eleanor" in consequence of the employment of Chinamen; and whether the result of such inquiry will be laid upon the Table of the House.

  511
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have not received a Report regarding the matter referred to. Information is being obtained as to the circumstances of the case, and the question of taking action will be considered.

  Convictions of Anti-Vaccinationists.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of persons proceeded against under the Vaccination Acts, the number of convictions, and the number of orders to vaccinate, for the year 1906; and if he will give the same information for the year 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The figures for the year 1906 are to be found in the volume of Criminal Statistics just published, Tables XI. and XIV. They are as follows: (a) Number of persons proceeded against, 922; (b) number of persons convicted, 667; (c)) number of orders to vaccinate, 1,116. The 1907 figures cannot be given, as the returns for that year are not yet complete.

  Care of Feeble-Minded Children.
  MR. H. R. MANSFIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board are proposing to legislate with regard to feebleminded and imbecile children; whether they are aware of the difficulty which boards of guardians are experiencing in dealing with such children; and whether a board of guardians would receive the sanction and support of the Local Government Board if it were to appoint a committee to deal with such children, not merely those of paupers, but those of parents of higher grade who are unable to deal with them.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received representations from certain boards of guardians with regard to this matter. The subject of the imbecile and feeble-minded has been referred to a Royal Commission, who, I understand, have for some time been engaged on their Report. Pending the
  512
  issue of that Report I could not encourage the guardians to take action of the kind suggested in the Question, nor could I undertake to propose legislation on the subject.

  Army and Civil Service Pensions.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although men who have served twenty-one years in the Army and are in possession of pension for Army service rendered, and then entering the Civil Service are permitted to serve towards a second pension in the Civil Service, men who have served seven, or even twelve, years in the Army or Navy, and then entering the Civil Service, are not allowed to count those years towards pension; and whether the Government intend to take the case of the latter into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I do not see anything anomalous in the present-arrangement. The military and the Civil Service are in each case kept distinct, and the ex-soldier is in precisely the same position as regards his previous military service as if he were in civilian employment outside the public service. The suggestion made in the latter part of the Question has been carefully considered both by the late and by the present Government, with the result that, regard being had to the dissimilarity of the conditions affecting appointment, promotion pay, and pension in the Army and Navy on the one hand and in the Civil Service on the other, it has been decided that there is not sufficient, ground for asking Parliament to modify the present practice.

  Limavady Urban District Council Contracts.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached the Local Government Board with regard to alleged abuses in connection with contracts placed by the Limavady Urban District Council; if so, whether the matters complained of come into the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1908; whether they are covered in the last audit; and whether the Local Government Board propose

  513
  to leave the complaints unattended to for another year or, alternatively, to hold a sworn inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have no power to prohibit the urban district council from entering into the contract referred to; but in reply to the complaints the Board stated that it was open to any ratepayer to attend and object at the audit of the council's accounts, and the auditor can surcharge if any loss to the ratepayers has been incurred. The auditor has been investigating the payments on account of the contract made during the year ending 31st March, 1907; but the Board are not in a position to say whether any such payments will be included in the accounts for the year ending 31st March next.

  Galway Hospital.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the present yearly assessment in the Loughrea Union for the upkeep and management of the Galway Hospital is £239 11s.; whether the Loughrea Board, in common with the other boards of guardians within the county, waived their opposition to the passage of the Galway Hospital Act on the assurance that the charge, if any, on the rates would be merely nominal; whether any representations have reached the Government, from the boards of guardians within the county, in reference to the matter; and do the Government propose to take any steps to have the Act of 1892 repealed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The assessment on Loughrea Union for the current year is as stated in the Question. The Local Government Board cannot trace any resolution of the boards of guardians in the county in the terms indicated in the second part of the Question. The Board have received various representations from the boards of guardians in the county upon the question of repealing the Act, but these boards are not unanimous on the point. The reply to
  514
  the concluding part of the Question is in the negative.

  Athenry Evicted Tenant.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the claim sent in by Hugh Hanly, Court Lane, Athenry, for restoration to the holding out of which his father was evicted some years ago on the Faucett estate, in the Roscommon Union; and what action do they propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not yet considered the application in question. It was received subsequent to 1st May, 1907, and will be considered with due regard to the priority of applications received before that date.

  Clounty Outrage.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the night of Sunday, 9th February, a number of young men on their way to attend a dance in the townland of Clounty, Scariff, county Clare, were set upon and assaulted by some men in the employ of Mr. Bugler; whether, on the night in question, one of the men, on leaving the dance-house on his way home, was struck with a stone; whether the police were in ambush twenty yards away; and can he explain why they failed or refused to arrest his assailant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have no knowledge that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question, and no complaint to that effect has been made to them. An allegation, however, was made to the police that a stone was thrown into the yard of a house where dancing was taking place and that a man was struck by the stone, but no evidence to that effect is forthcoming. The police were 130 yards away at the time and saw nothing of the matter. No charge was preferred against any person, and consequently the police did not refuse to arrest anyone. It is open to any person who may be aggrieved to take proceedings by summons.

  Proclaimed Irish Counties.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in view of the fact that a number of counties were subject to proclamations under the provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, from April, 1902, to July, 1903, that the proclamation) under Section 2 were all withdrawn by the latter date, and that the proclamations under Sections 3 and 4 continued in force until the end of 1905 whether he will grant the Return, notice for which stands on to-day's Paper.†
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I offer no objection to the granting of the Return in question.

  Indian Mutiny Veterans.
  MR. HAWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans there are in this country; how many of these are in receipt of pensions, end what is the maximum and minimum and average amount of such pensions; and how many of these veterans are in receipt of Poor Law relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no information available to show how many Crimean and Mutiny veterans are now living in the United Kingdom. Further, it would not be possible to state how many are in receipt of pension without examining the papers of every man, as soldiers in receipt of ordinary pensions are not classed separately according to campaigns. There are, roughly, about 4,000 men in receipt of special campaign pensions granted in consideration of their war service and the fact that they are in necessitous circumstances. The maximum rate of such special pension is 2s 6d and the minimum 1s., except in a very few cases where the rate is 9d for pensioners who have not reached the age of seventy. The average rate is 1s. 4d. As regards those in receipt of Poor Law relief there is no information in the War Office.
  † See page 490.

  Officers of Disbanded Units.
  MR. C. H. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of a disbanded unit, who elect to join the Territorial Army, will be transferred to another unit of their arm in the county to await absorption as vacancies arise-in their respective ranks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)All officers of a disbanded unit of Volunteers can, if they so wish, be placed on an unattached list, from which they can be transferred to other units as vacancies occur.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Coastguard.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any further reductions are proposed to be made in the coastguard; and whether, considering the assistance accustomed to be rendered by the coastguard to the National Lifeboat Institution, he can state whether any action will be taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent the efficiency of the lifeboat service being impaired by the reductions in the coastguard.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRE ALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): As I stated yesterday, my right hon. friend will deal with this question to-day.

    Naval Programme of 1904.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, how many battleships and armoured cruisers were included in the programme of 1904, and how many have been passed into commission.
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: The reply to the first Question is two battleships, four armoured cruisers, one of which was afterwards abandoned. None of these vessels were commenced until 1905 and none are yet in commission. Both the battleships

    517
    cruisers are due for completion very shortly.

    Slave Traffic in the Persian Gulf.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, owing to the small speed attained by the gunboats stationed in the Persian Gulf, dhows are continually escaping arrest which are employed in slave and gun-running operations; and whether the Government will employ vessels of a greater speed to suppress this traffic.
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: There are no grounds for supposing that His Majesty's ships in the Persian Gulf have failed to arrest dhows owing to a want of sufficient speed. It is not intended at present to employ vessels of a greater speed on the service indicated. The general question of the control of the arms traffic is now receiving consideration.

    British Naval Attaché;s Abroad
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he is aware that of the fix naval attaches accredited to the Courts of the maritime Powers none have qualified as interpreter in any foreign language; and whether it is a common practice to send officers to Berlin and other foreign capitals, with the exception of Washington, who are not fully qualified to speak and write the language of the country.
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In the selection of officers for this service, their linguistic abilities are taken into consideration with their other qualifications.

    Naval Pensions.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of naval pensioners in receipt of pensions under 2s a day who, as regards conduct and other qualifications, are duly eligible for but are denied the Greenwich Hospital age pension.
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: The precise number could not be ascertained without the expenditure of much labour and time.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: Are there thousands of such cases?
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: I cannot give the information with any degree of accuracy.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give an approximate number?
    MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: No; I am afraid it would be pure guesswork.

    Warwickshire County Association.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Warwickshire County Association, formed under the Territorial Forces Act, has issued a circular to employers asking them when engaging men to give preference to those who are willing to join the Territorial Force; and whether, with a view to preventing any restriction upon the freedom of workmen, he will discountenance the issue of circulars by County Associations in any way likely to affect the relationship of employer and employed.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The responsibility for raising the Territorial Force rests entirely with the County Associations, and it is exceedingly difficult for the Army Council to interfere with the way in which they fulfil their responsibilities, provided only that the method they adopt does not infringe the Statute. The Army Council is not in favour of any kind of undue pressure being brought to bear to make men join the Territorial Force.
    EARL WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue of this circular was a restriction on the freedom of the workmen?
    MR. HALDANE: That is not what I said.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I take it the right hon. Gentleman, by his answer, did not intend to imply that the Warwickshire County Association exercised undue pressure.
    MR. HALDANEreplied that he did not think it was desirable to bring any undue pressure, and care should be taken to avoid that in sending out circulars. He did not believe that this circular was meant to bring undue pressure, but it was very important to avoid doing anything which could be misinterpreted.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether in view of the large amount of unemployment in the country the issue of a circular of this character was not very likely to influence men to do that which otherwise they would not do.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Indian Opium Revenue.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the revenue derived from the consumption of opium in India rose from £662,222 in 1895–6 to £910,295 in 1905–6; whether he can state what was the amount of such revenue in 1906–7, and what is the estimated amount for the current year; and whether, in view of the instructions issued that the area licensed for poppy cultivation should be diminished, he is in a position to state that there will be a material reduction in the revenue derived from the opium trade in India in the immediate future, and that any further necessary steps will be taken to check the spread of the opium habit amongst the people of India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The revenue from opium consumed in British India has been £676,185 in 1895–6; £911,402 in 1905–6; £931,054 in 1906–7; £1,031,450 estimated in 1907–8. These increases are not wholly due to increased consumption, but to a considerable extent are the effect of higher duties and greater success in combating contraband trade. If Burma, where illicit consumption has notoriously
    520
    prevailed in the past, and Berar, which was not included in British India in 1895, be excluded, the figures for 1895–6 and 1905–6 respectively would be £554,860 and £595,147, the increase being only £40,287. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I shall continue to insist upon the adoption of all practicable measures for preventing the spread of the opium habit among the peoples of India, but it does not follow that these will necessarily result in a material reduction of revenue. There is much evidence that in parts of the country illicit consumption is by no means extinct.

    Indian Penal Code—Sedition Charges.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, under Section 124a of the Indian Penal Code, bogus defendants are put forward by the authorities on charges of publishing seditious articles in order to forward the measures now under consideration for dealing with charges of seditious writing in the Press; whether there is any intention in such measures that editors of newspapers shall sign a declaration before a magistrate and find substantial securities that they will not publish seditious articles; and whether the police are to be empowered to attach, and confiscate presses from which seditious matter in the meaning of the section is circulated.
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware to what measures my hon. friend refers: but the answer to his first and third Questions, so far as I understand them, is in the negative. As to his second Question, provision is already made, in Section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for taking security from editors where necessary.
    MR. REES: May I ask if the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta is not reported in a recent sedition case to have said that the Government are powerless under the existing law to deal with such cases? Will further powers be taken on that behalf?
    MR. MORLEYasked for notice of the Question.

    Eastern Bengal Disturbances.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the belief is held by the Mahomedans in Eastern Bengal that magistrates will give an order, if requested, to loot and assault Hindus; and, having regard to the danger of such belief, whether he will advise or instruct the Lieutenant-Governor to make inquiries and, if necessary, to take steps to make the position of the law and the Government clear in this matter.
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware o f any such belief, and I see no sufficient reason to take action as suggested.

    Kusbk-Chaman Railway.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information which can be given to the House regarding the construction of a railway joining the Russian line at Kushk with the British line at Chaman.
    MR. MORLEY: I have seen in a newspaper a reference to such a scheme, but I have no other knowledge of it.

    Indian Native Judges.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that by far the larger number of cases, civil and magisterial, in India are disposed of by natives judges, he will advise the Government of India to take steps to make this known in order to the proper contradiction of statements made by ex-officials and others to the effect that the administration is harsh and that justice is not done between man and man in India.
    MR. MORLEY: The fact must, I think, be sufficiently well known, and in any case I should be disposed to doubt whether such action as my hon. friend suggests would prevent mis-statements of the kind he describes.
    MR. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement made in a public speech by the hon. Member for East Nottingham to the effect of the last few words of the Question?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Conduct of Indian Officials.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Sir Gurudas Bannerji, a Bengali gentleman, and late judge of the High Court of Calcutta, in his evidence before the Decentralisation Committee, said that Indian officials were as aloof as Europeans and more uncivil to Indian subordinates, and to those of even equal social rank with themselves; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into these allegations regarding the conduct of Indian officials who form the immense majority of the Government servants in India.
    MR. MORLEY: I have seen in a newspaper a report of the evidence referred to, not altogether agreeing with the version quoted by the hon. Member. I do not think that there is any ground for an inquiry.

    The Swadeshi Movement.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Sir Lancelot Hare is permitting the circulation of an official circular in Dacca and Mymensingh giving power to the village headmen to prosecute in cases where an attempt is made to induce the people only to purchase Swadeshi goods; and, if so, whether having regard to the need for developing Indian industries, as well as in the interests of tranquillity, steps will be taken to abrogate the power given to the headmen by a withdrawal of the official circular.
    MR. MORLEY: I have no knowledge of any circular of the nature described. I have seen a report that village headmen have been instructed to bring to the notice of local officers cases of interference with the sale or use of any class of goods, and, as I stated in reply to a Question on 13th February, I am making inquiries on the subject.

    Womens Night Work.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether several dominions or British Colonies have signified their wish to give their adhesion to the Berne Convention

    523
    as to the nightwork of women; and, if so, whether he can name them to the House.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): His Majesty's Minister at Berne has been instructed to notify the accession to the Convention of New Zealand, Ceylon, Fiji, Gibraltar, Gold Coast, Leeward Islands, Northern Nigeria, Trinidad, Uganda Protectorate.

    Uganda Railway.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the traffic returns and profits of the Uganda Railway during the last completed year.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The total receipts of the Uganda Railway for the year ending 31st March, 1907, were £241,212 and the profits £76,763.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the British taxpayer is likely to receive any interest on his investment?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, sir; I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that the fact that the Uganda Railway is now making a considerable profit is far in advance of any hopes entertained at the time the railway was constructed.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the length of permanent way laid down, and the sum expended, upon the Uganda Railway during each year since its commencement.
    MR. CHURCHILL: With regard to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Final Report of the Uganda Railway Committee (Cd. 2164), especially pages 28 to 30, and with regard to the second part to the annual returns of expenditure under the Uganda Railway Acts of which the latest was ordered to be printed on the 12th March last.

    Game Preservation in Uganda.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
    524
    whether any steps are being taken to protect the big game in the districts traversed by the Uganda Railway from extermination by travellers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: There already exists in the neighbourhood of the Uganda Railway a large game reserve which is considered to be amply sufficient for the protection of the big game in that district. Indeed, Sir, the purport of the complaints which are generally made by settlers in East Africa and Uganda is that the Government show too much rather than too little care for the preservation of the larger fauna.

    Dinizulu's Trial.
    MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the fact that the telegram from Mr. Colenso to Dinizulu, urging him to surrender and assuring him of fair trial and assistance in his defence, was transmitted through the Colonial Office, any specific steps have been taken by that Department to secure these ends; and, if so, what is their nature.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My right hon. friend is quite right in stating that the telegram from Mr. Colenso to Dinuzulu to which he refers was sent through the Colonial Office, at Mr. Colenso's request; but as a matter of fact it did not reach Dinuzulu until after his surrender on. 8th December. The concern of His Majesty's Government, however, in Dinuzulu's fate and in the procedure of his trial does not rest upon the foundation of the telegram in question. Imperial responsibility in the conditions of Dinuzulu's return to and treatment in South Africa was directly asserted by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham at the time when he held the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies. It has been deliberately re-affirmed by my noble friend Lord Elgin in various despatches, and I have also accepted it in statements made to this House. The Secretary of State has been in communication with the Governor as regards both the trial and procedure, and Lord Elgin sees no reason to doubt that the Judges of the Supreme Court in Natal will ensure Dinuzulu a fair trial when the

    525
    case comes before them, and that if there are any faults or flaws in the preliminary proceedings they will be fully exposed when the trial comes on. As my right hon. friend is aware, Dinuzulu is represented by two lawyers who are watching his interests, and I assume that in ordinary course they will advise their client and his friends if and when further legal aid, including, I presume, the services of a leader, is required. It will evidently be some time before the case comes on, and the Governor, being aware of the great importance which the Secretary of State attaches to the matter, will keep Lord Elgin fully informed.

    Modern University for Egypt.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Egypt is still without a modern University, he will urge upon the Government of His Highness the Khedive the imperative need of establishing such a University without further delay.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I would refer the hon. Member to Paragraph 98 in Lord Cromer's last Report, from which he will see that the Egyptian Government is quite well disposed towards such a scheme, but I cannot say more at present.

    Lord Cromer and the Egyptian General Assembly.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a document, signed by several members of the Egyptian Legislative Council and of the General Assembly, protesting against Lord Cromer's attitude towards certain resulutions passed by the General Assembly, and whether he will advise the Government of Egypt favourably to consider the most important of these resolutions, and more especially those relating to education.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received the document referred to. Lord Cromer stated in his Report that some of the points to which resolutions of the
    526
    General Assembly direct attention are certainly well worthy of consideration. I see nothing in this statement to cause dissatisfaction, but I cannot say more till the Annual Report from Sir El don Gorst is received.

    Soudan Campaign—Prisoners at Damietta.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House how many prisoners taken in the Soudan campaign are now confined at Damietta or elsewhere; how many have died since their captivity and of what diseases; whether the climatic conditions under which these prisoners are confined are materially different from those of the Soudan and detrimental to their health; what are the restrictions imposed on them and their families; whether they are allowed to see their families and converse with them in private and to communicate with others; whether their children are being properly educated, clothed, and otherwise cared for; and what objection there would be to their being transferred to a locality more suitable to their health and there placed on parole or allowed some qualified condition of liberty.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on the 6th February to the hon. Member for Bath, which covers some of the points raised in the Question. Nearly all the Emirs with their families have now been released. Those left have recently expressed to the Commandant their satisfaction with the treatment they receive. I am not aware that the climatic conditions are unfavourable to them, but I will inquire whether there is any reason to suppose so.

    Russo-Japanese War—British Shipping Claims.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-when papers will be laid accounting for the delay in securing compensation for British ships sunk or damaged during the Russo-Japanese War.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot undertake to say when the negotiations with the Russian Government with regard to these cases will end, and while they are still pending it would not be usual to lay papers.

    Chinese Railway Extensions.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if this Government has any official knowledge that Japan is contesting the right of China to extend northwards her railway system west of the Liao River; if it supports the Japanese position which is a practical extinction of Chinese sovereignty in the region affected; and whether this would be in keeping with the terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, Japan is not contesting the right in principle of China to extend her railway system west of the Liao River. Japan is opposing the application for the construction of a particular line on the ground that an agreement was arrived at in 1905 between China and Japan by which the former country engaged not to construct any main line of railway in the neighbourhood of, and parallel to, the South Manchurian Railway, or any branch line which might be prejudicial to that railway. The existence of this agreement is not disputed by the Chinese Government. It is open to the contractors to prove, if they can do so, to the satisfaction of Japan that the proposed railway would not prejudice the South Manchurian line and so would not violate the agreement.

    Russian Tea Duties.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the imposition of the increased duties by Russia on tea imported by the Black Sea route from India, there has been an increase in the imports of Indian tea into Russia by the Siberian Railway.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Imports of tea via the Black Sea have decreased, and the imports via Siberia have
    528
    increased, owing, it is stated, to the more favourable tariff on the land frontier. But the Russian statistics do not make any distinction between Indian and other teas, so that it is not possible to give the specific information desired.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it not the fact that the imports of the Indian tea into Russia have practically trebled during the past four years?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I have said that the Russian Government do not particularise the origin of the tea; therefore I cannot give the information asked for.
    MR. REES: Apparently it is not, as is often represented, a case of Russian retaliation?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Income Tax.
    DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the payment of income-tax to be made in two equal half-yearly instalments where the income-tax payer desires it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): My hon. friend's suggestion would mean a partial reversion to the system prevailing prior to 1869, when income-tax was payable quarterly, but was actually collected every six months. This system was found costly and complicated, and was accordingly abandoned, and I do not think its re-introduction, even in a modified form, would be desirable.

    Duties on Solicitors.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that an annual exaction of £6 6s is imposed by the Government on solicitors in Scotland, while advocates at the Scottish bar have the privilege of compounding by a single payment; and whether he will allow the advantage of a single payment to solicitors, or have the annual fee abrogated or substantially reduced.
    MR. ASQUITH: There is no analogy between the two duties referred to. The Solicitor's Certificate Duty is imposed upon the certificate which a solicitor is required by law to take out for each year that he continues to practice. The duty paid by advocates is not a composition for an annual payment but is a tax upon the admission of a person as an advocate at the Bar. The duty charged on a Solicitor's Certificate is the same in Scotland as in the other parts of the United Kingdom, viz., £9 for a person practising in the capital, and £6 in other cases. These charges do not appear to me to be excessive.

    Brereton Colliery Disaster.
    MR. ALBERT STANLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the disaster that has occurred at the Coppice Pit of the Brereton Collieries by an inundation; whether he is aware that there are three persons still entombed there, and can he inform the House what steps are being taken for their recovery; and will he direct an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir. I have received reports as to this disaster, from which it appears that the workings are full of water, and that nothing can be done until additional pumping machinery capable of dealing with the flow of water is available. This has been ordered and is expected to arrive this week. As I have already informed my hon. friend, I am advised that a special inquiry into the cause of the accident would have no result at present, the place where it occurred being still inaccessible, but if no inquest can be held I think a special inquiry will ultimately be desirable.

    Examinations for Inspectors of Factories.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the list of subjects upon which candidates for appointment as inspectors of factories and workshops (women) are selected does not include factory law and sanitary science; and whether he will consider the
    530
    desirability of substituting a knowledge of these subjects for English literature from Shakespeare to Wordsworth, French, German, or Italian, having regard to the act that such inspectors have supervisory powers over some of the work of local sanitary authorities, whose fully qualified inspectors have, in certain cases, only the power to report complaints to the factory inspector.
    MR. GLADSTONE: All inspectors, men and women, with one or two special exceptions, are required to pass an examination in factory law and sanitary science before being finally appointed on the staff. The examination is taken at the end of the first two years of service during which period an inspector is on probation. I may add, with reference to the last part of the Question, that all inspectors on probation act under the direction of senior inspectors.

    Factory Inspectors Returns.
    MR. HEDGES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inspectors make returns of their new work under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1907, direct to the Home Office or to the local authorities; and whether it is possible to obtain official lists of the new places on their lists for inspection.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The reports of the inspectors on their work under whatever Act are made to the Factory Department, not to the local authorities; and a general report is made annually by the chief inspector on the work of the Department during the preceding year and presented to Parliament. Lists of places under inspection are not published. I may remind my hon. friend that the Act he mentions has only just come into operation.

    Out-of-Work Benefits in New York.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House of the general practice of the trade unions and trade societies of New York in regard to allowances for out-of-work benefit.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone this Question.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the President of the American Federation of Labour so that direct information may be obtained on the spot?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will consider that.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the number of unemployed there at the same time?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I gave the House that information the other day.

    Deaths of Asiatics on British Ships
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if any inquiry was held into the death from heart failure of a coal trimmer named Jobanalla Allimalla, on 11th June last, on the steamship "Clan Macneil"; what was the consumption of coal on this vessel for each twenty-four hours; how many men were actually employed on her as firemen and trimmers; and how much coal was each man required to work in the twenty-four hours.
    [There were thirty-one other Questions of a like character on the Paper in the names of various hon. Members.]
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose to circulate with the Votes such information as the Board of Trade possesses. I do not think it will interest the House to hear each Question answered separately.
    MR. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he had the Merchant Shipping Bill in hand, he did not receive a petition from Asiatic seamen, expressing their dislike of cubic contents, and some suspicion of solicitude of this kind?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    St. John Ambulance Association—Seamen's Classes.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the local committee of the St. John Ambulance Association in Dundee will continue to be entitled to hold seamen's classes in first-aid in that city.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have not taken any steps to prevent the St. John's Ambulance Association continuing to hold classes in first-aid in Dundee, but I understand that an arrangement has been arrived at between the St. John and the St. Andrew Associations under which the former Association will cease to hold classes in first-aid in Dundee.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, under the provisions of the St. John Ambulance Association, a certificate for first-aid can be obtained by English candidates by attending a course of four out of five lectures under the ship's surgeon or a private physician, at any time or place; and whether he will undertake that Scottish candidates shall be given equally favourable facilities.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The arrangements of the St. John Association are it is understood practically as stated in the first part of the Question. The St. Andrew Association have agreed to accept instruction in first aid given on board ship, and there is no reason to believe that Scottish candidates will not have adequate facilities for instruction and examination.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not the fact that the Scottish candidates have to attend eight out of twelve instead of five out of six lectures, and if so why is a system involving more time, trouble, and expense enforced in Scotland, whereas an easier system is deemed sufficient for English candidates?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI must ask further notice. I am not aware that that is the fact.

    Loans for Relief Works.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of authorities in England during the past year that have received permission to raise loans for the purpose of carrying out schemes for providing work for the unemployed; whether, in a number of such cases, it has been stipulated that the money so raised shall be paid back in twenty years; that in such cases an extension of time has been asked for; and, if so, can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the time for the repayment of such loans.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The number of local authorities who during 1907 received sanction to raise loans for carrying out schemes undertaken on account of the want of employment in their districts was forty-two. The period sanctioned for the repayment of the loan depended on the nature of the work. In eighteen cases it was twenty years, and in only one of these cases was an extension of this period asked for. In that case, the loan was sanctioned for laying out a public pleasure ground, and the term of twenty years is that usually allowed for the repayment of loans for works of the kind, whether undertaken on account of the want of employment or not. There does not appear to me to be any sufficient reason for extending it.

    Religious Instruction in Schools.
    MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, if he can state the number of children of Church of England parents who have been withdrawn from religious instruction in provided schools since 1902.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I regret that the Board of Education have no information on this subject.

    London County Council Schools—Syllabus Religious Instruction.
    MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if
    534
    he can state the names and religious denomination of the committee who framed the syllabus of religious instruction adopted by the London County Council; and if the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the present Archbishop have expressed approval of it.
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no authoritative information as to the first part of the Question. With regard to the second, the present Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed his approval of the religious instruction given in London under the London syllabus, but I have no information as to the views of his predecessor.

    Feeding Hungry School Children.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of so many local authorities failing to put the Education (Provision of Meals) Act into operation, despite the pressing need, it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amending Act making the clauses of the Act of 1906 obligatory.
    MR. MCKENNA: The extent of the Government programme this session precludes the possibility of considering the hon. Member's suggestion.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of such an amending Act?
    MR. MCKENNA: It is not necessary for me to give any expression of opinion on the matter having regard to the fact that it is impossible for me to introduce legislation this session on the subject

    School Attendance Officers.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the increased and responsible duties now devolving upon school attendance officers as the result of recent legislation, such as the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, which where put into operation has invariably resulted in school attendance officers being called upon to make inquiries and certify as to the necessity or otherwise of feeding children, he will consider the advisability of controlling

    535
    these officers by his Board, as Poor Law officers are controlled by the Local Government Board, by giving them freedom of action and security of tenure of office.
    MR. MCKENNA: The extent of the Government programme for this session precludes the consideration of the hon. Member's suggestion, which could only be effected by legislation.

    Religious Instruction in Non-Provided Schools.
    MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, East, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state what number of children have been withdrawn from the religious instruction in non-provided schools since the passing of the Act of 1902.
    MR. MCKENNA: I regret that the Board of Education have no information on the subject, except as to one county.
    MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly get the information?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; I cannot undertake to obtain it. I can give it for one county which I have—a Welsh county.
    MR. CARLILE: In the absence of any other information I shall be glad to have it.

    The Apostles' Creed.
    MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the teaching of the Apostles Creed would be religious instruction in accordance with the London County Council syllabus within the meaning of the Third Schedule to the Education Bill.
    MR. MCKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the syllabus in question, which is in great detail. As I stated yesterday in reply to my friend the hon. Member for North Lambeth, I think it is inadvisable to attempt interpretations
    536
    of the Education Bill which can only be conveniently dealt with in debate.
    MR. CARLILE: Is the Apostles' Creed included in that syllabus?
    MR. McKENNAsaid the hon. Gentlman had as good an opportunity of ascertaining that as he had.
    MR. CARLILE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give information asked for by hon. Members?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am perfectly willing to give any information which hon. Members have not already at their disposal, but in this case the hon. Member can get it as freely as I can.
    MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a copy of this so-called syllabus?
    MR. MCKENNA: It is already issued.
    MR. CARLILErose again.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put any further Question on the Paper.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will show you the way to the library.

    Gloucestershire (Henbury) Education Order.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education why the Board declined to insert a clause in the Gloucestershire, Henbury (Sandford and Gray) Order, No. 543 W., 2nd January, 1908, allocating the sum of £50 per annum in relief of the rates of the parishes of Henbury and Redwick and Northwick, notwithstanding that such allocation was agreed upon by the Gloucestershire County Council, the parish councils interested in the matter, and the trustees of the charity, and notwithstanding that it was understood at the inquiry held at Bristol that such a clause should be inserted in the Order; and will the Board of Education now modify the Order in the sense indicated.
    MR. MCKENNA: The scheme of 2nd January, 1908, allocates a yearly

    537
    sum of £80 to the support and maintenance of the Northwick Endowed School and the Henbury Girls' and Infants' "Church of England School so long as they are public elementary schools. As the Board explained to all the parties interested, this yearly sum of £80 is income part of which is payable to the local education authority under Section 13 of the Education Act of 1902, but as to which there are no provisions in the trust for determining the amount payable. The Board did not consider it desirable that the scheme should give specific directions as to the application of the sum of £80 or any part of it, both because the amount payable to the local authority is under Section 13 (1) a matter for agreement in the first instance between the parties, and because it is for the local authority and not for the Board to decide under Section 13 (2) what parish or parishes are entitled to the benefit of the payment by reason of the fact that they are served by the school. The Board understood that it had been agreed between the parties that £50 out of the £80 should be regarded as representing the amount payable to the local education authority under Section 13; the scheme does not in any way interfere with that agreement, and it does not appear that any modification of the scheme is necessary.

    Politics in the Post Office.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what political organisations now exist with his sanction in connection with the Post Office service; and whether any, and what, directions are issued to them for their guidance.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): No sanction from me is necessary for the formation of societies among Post Office servants, political or otherwise. The existence of such societies is not necessarily brought to my knowledge, unless they infringe the Regulations laid down for the conduct of Post Office servants as civil servants. There are no separate Post Office Regulations dealing with political organisations as such. But the action of the members
    538
    of such societies is governed by the Regulations dealing with the conduct of Post Office servants as civil servants. I have already informed the hon. member of the nature of these Regulations. In interpreting the Regulations which state that Post Office servants as civil servants ought to exercise a certain reserve in political matters, I have adopted a uniform principle in dealing with the various societies to which my attention has been directed. There is no objection to the formation of societies, political and other, among Post Office servants, provided Post Office servants do not take a prominent or active part in political contests; but, in order that there may be no doubt as to the observance of this Rule, it is not expedient that such societies should be specific branches of societies which take an active part in politics.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSinquired what political organisations at present existed in the Post Office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Those to which my attention has been drawn by Questions in the House and otherwise are three—the Civil Service Socialist League, the Tariff Reform League, and the Free Trade Union. I had intended to give that information in Answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Christchurch which was to have been put to-day.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is not the proper course for the right hon. Gentleman to take either to exclude all political organizations—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to suggest a policy under the form of a Question.
    EARL WINTERTON: Did the right hon. Gentleman say his attention had only been called to this matter by Questions in the House?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he expressly stated that his attention had been drawn by Question and otherwise. He had endeavoured in this matter to deal with the subject totally apart from

    539
    any opinions of his Own in regard to political questions. He had endeavoured—and he thought he had succeeded—to apply exactly the same administrative rule to every organisation which had come under his notice.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I recognise that the Postmaster-General is endeavouring to deal fairly with this matter. My special reason for intervening—[Cries Of "Order, order."]
    MR. SPEAKER: I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put what he has to say in the form of a Question. If the right hon. Gentleman sets an example of breaking the rules it will be impossible to enforce them on others.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sorry I have transgressed the rule. I was endeavouring to make a personal explanation. I will go at once to the question. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the existence of a Socialistic organisation, a Tariff Reform League organisation, and a Free Trade Union organisation in the Post Office, it is possible any longer to maintain his refusal to admit the Primrose League?
    MR. O'GRADY: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for an expression of opinion in view of the fact that if we do so in a Question, it is ruled out of order at the Table?
    MR. SPEAKER: Any Question may be put as to a matter of policy or administration for which the Minister is responsible.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the regulation was that Post Office servants should exercise a certain restraint in political matters, and, therefore, it did not seem expedient to form in the Post Office a league which was only a branch of an association outside which took an active part in politics. That was the rule which he had laid down for himself in dealing with these matters. He had no objection to the formation of associations in the Post Office so long as they were Post Office associations
    540
    and not branches of outside organisations. That was a rule which he had applied in every case.
    SIR F. BANBURY: Is not the Free Trade Union a1 branch of a political organisation?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have answered that Question.
    MR. CURRANinquired whether it was true that the Civil Service Socialist League had decided that it would take no part in current politics.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is so.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with all four associations on the same lines?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Certainly.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the Free Trade Union has recently formed a branch in the Post Office; that the Free Trade Union in the election at South Leeds urged the electors to vote for the Liberal candidate although there was another free trade candidate in the field; and whether, in these circumstances, he will still permit the Post Office branch of this organisation to remain.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I find on inquiry that the Free Trade Union, constituted by officers of the Post Office, is independent of, and is not a branch of, the Free Trade Union, and has, therefore, no responsibility for the acts of the latter.
    MR. COURTHOPEasked whether none of the organisations which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned were party organisations.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have stated that the regulation laid down by the Post Office, and stated in this House by Mr. Gladstone when First Lord of the Treasury, was that Civil servants should not take a prominent and active part in political contests. Therefore, it seems to me that, while there can be

    541
    no objection to the formation of these associations for educative purposes within the Post Office, it does make a difference if they are actually a branch of an association taking an active part in political contests. That is the measure by which I have judged this matter, and I have applied exactly the same rule to each of these associations.
    SIR F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of the Primrose League, but not of the other organisations?
    EARL WINTERTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Post Office branch of the Free Trade Union has no sort of connection with the Free Trade Union outside?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I said so.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would now give all political organisation equal rights in the Post Office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have explained to the House the view that I hold, and I intend to mete out precisely the same measure to every association.

    Glanders in London.
    COLONEL WALKER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the report of an inquest held in Southwark on a horse dealer, who died from glanders; and whether he will, in view of the number of cases reported of horses attacked by that disease in London and the danger that exists of infection to human beings, ask the Board of Agriculture, with a view to the rapid extinction of glanders and farcy, to issue an order for the compulsory application of the Mallein test by all qualified veterinary surgeons, as well as by the three inspectors at present appointed under the Act.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir E STRACHEY): My noble friend has seen the report to which the hon. and gallan Member refers. The Glanders or Farcy
    542
    Order of 1907 authorises the veterinary inspectors of local authorities to apply he Mallein test with the consent of the owner to horses which are suspected of glanders or which have been in contact with others affected with that disease, and which have in consequence been placed under detention, but the Board do not think it would be desirable to extend this power to all qualified veterinary surgeons as suggested.
    COLONEL WALKER: Cannot the number of inspectors for London be increased?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I will represent the hon. Member's view to my noble friend.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease in 1885.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state to what cause the foot-and-mouth outbreak of 1885 was attributed.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: No satisfactory evidence was obtained as to the origin of the disease in any of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in 1885.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease—Prohibition of Fodder Imports.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the order prohibiting the import of hay and straw from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent has yet been issued; and whether such order deals in any way with hay and straw used for packing.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The Board hope to be in a position to issue the order to which the hon. Member refers in the course of a day or two, and so soon as the necessary arrangements have been made with the Board of Customs. It will not apply to hay or straw which is used for packing, merchandise.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Why has not the order been extended to hay and straw used for merchandise?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The advisers of the Board are of opinion that that is not necessary for the protection of the herds of the country.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is this hay and straw inspected before it is sent to this country?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I am not aware that it is.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Why has there been such a long delay?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: Communications have been made to the Board of Customs, and any apparent delay is due to the communications which must necessarily pass between the two Boards. It is hoped that in forty-eight hours the regulations will be issued.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Are the Board satisfied that none of the outbreaks which have occurred before are attributable to infection from packing straw brought from other countries?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The right hon. Gentleman is probably thinking of the outbreak of 1885. The Board of Agriculture are in communication with the Central Chamber of Agriculture on the subject. But so far, they have no reason to attribute the outbreak to packing straw, as suggested by one particular authority.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The matter is one of such grave importance that I must press the point. What I desire to arrive at it this: Has the Board any evidence to satisfy them that there is no danger of this disease being imported from abroad owing to the use of packing straw?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I cannot say that the experts of the Board of Agriculture are satisfied that it is impossible for the disease to be introduced in that way; but they are of opinion that the risk in connection with the use of materials employed in packing is so small in comparison with the great injury that would be done to trade by restrictive regulations that, pending investigations, they
    544
    are not inclined to extend their regulations to packing straw.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture; whether hay and straw imported as packing with manufactured articles is sold as litter for urban cow sheds and stables; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent infection being carried in this way.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: The Board have no information to show how far the practice to which the hon. Member refers obtains. The suggestion made in the latter part of the Question has been frequently considered by my noble friend and his predecessors in office during the past twenty-five years. The view taken has always been that it would not be possible effectively to control the movement in this country of hay or straw used for packing imported merchandise. The Board are, however, in communication with the Customs on the subject in order to obtain more detailed information as to the effect of such a measure upon all concerned.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the Board of Agriculture see that hay and straw thus brought in is burned?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: I do not think the Board of Agriculture are prepared to adopt any measure of that kind without further information. They are communicating with the customs on the subject with a view to considering what changes would be required if the order were extended to packing materials.
    MR. CHAPLIN: When do the Board of Agriculture expect to have this information? May I point out that every hour's delay in this matter may be serious?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: There will be no unnecessary delay in obtaining; the in formation in regard to the trades1 affected by this matter.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the Board find out if this hay and straw after being used for packing purposes is

    545
    used for litter, and will steps be taken to prevent its being sold for that purpose?
    MR. J. A. PEASE: That subject is under consideration, but the Board have no evidence at the present time that it is used for litter.

    Irish Local Government Audits.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the question of the fees payable for the audit of the accounts of local authorities in Ireland; whether steps will be taken to bring the charges down to the level prevailing in England; whether he is aware that in Scotland the Secretary for Scotland invariably appoints professional accountants as auditors, and that these auditors are paid on a moderate scale and have no right to pensions; and whether a searching investigation into the whole question has been or will be made?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I find that a searching investigation of the Irish Audit System was made in the years 1903 and 1904 by a Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury. The facts relating to the local audits and the fees charged are not in dispute, and no further inquiry appears to be necessary. As already stated in reply to the Hon. Member's Question of 12th February, the audit of the accounts of local authorities in Ireland costs the State £6,000 a year, and it is not, therefore, in contemplation to reduce the fees charged to the local authorities, and thereby add to the very heavy expense which the State has already to bear. I believe the Scottish Local Government Board appoint local auditors in private practice to audit the accounts of local authorities, and that no pension is paid to them. This system, however, is less suited to Ireland than the English system, and Parliament has on repeated occasions affirmed the principle of independent audit for Ireland by officials responsible to the Government.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Seeing that the charges in Ireland for these audits are
    546
    about three times more than in England, will the right hon. Gentleman consider if economy cannot be effected by reducing them without imposing any extra burden on the State?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will consider if they cannot be reduced.

    Irish School Teachers.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement of grievances prepared by the transition teachers under the National Board who were in training colleges in 1898 and 1899; whether he is aware that the arrears of salary due to them for the last seven years now amount to over £8,000, and that the amount of their incomes is at present nearly £2,000 a year less than it would be if they were allowed the classification and salary promised them in the rules under which they entered training; and whether their claims for redress will be at once considered.
    MR. BIRRELL: I can only repeat the answer which has been repeatedly given to similar Questions by my pre decessor and myself. The Commissioners of National Education assert that the class of teachers referred to in the Question has already received full consideration and that each particular case has been dealt with on its merits. The Commissioners possess plenary powers, which have been liberally exercised, to raise on appeal the grant of consolidated income in cases in which the operation of the rule is deemed inequitable. They are still prepared to consider any particular case brought under their notice which has not been already fully investigated. They cannot admit that any arrears of salary are due to the teachers in question, or that their in comes are nearly £2,000 a year less than they would have been under the old rules.

    Irish Resident Magistracy.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any explanation of the fact that of the total resident magistrates in Ireland

    547
    twenty-nine only have been certified as having sufficient legal knowledge under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887; how it has happened that of those twenty-nine eleven only have had any legal training, the others having been mostly constabulary officers, while nine practising barristers and two solicitors on the list have never received any such certificate; and how it is that the constabulary officers, in the granting of legal certificates, have been preferred to the trained lawyers.
    MR. BIRRELL: His Majesty's present Government have issued no certificates to resident magistrates under the Crimes Act. I am informed that the last occasion on which such certificates were issued was some six years ago when certain counties were being proclaimed under the Act. I understand that it was the practice, when the Act was in operation, to certify only those magistrates who were resident or acting in the proclaimed districts, and that the Lord-Lieutenant satisfied himself in every case of the legal competency of the resident magistrate so certified. No necessity arose for issuing certificates to resident magistrates in other than proclaimed districts.

    Ballyboy Outrage, Galway.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an outrage which took place on the 20th February last, when the houses of two men named John MacNamara and John Monaghan, both living at a place called Ballyboy, on the Gough estate, county Galway, were fired into; can the police assign any reason for this outrage; have any arrests been made; and can he say what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the perpetrators to justice?
    MR. BIRRELL: The houses of the two men named in the Question were fired into on the early morning of 19th February. It would be irregular and contrary to practice to state the opinions of the police as to the motive for offences. No arrests have been made. The police are still pursuing their investigation of the matter, and are using all possible efforts to discover the offenders.
    MR. DUFFY: Is it not the fact that these two men are closely connected with the Nationalist organisation in the district, and is there not a strong suspicion in the neighbourhood that the shots were fired at the instigation of a local gentleman?
    MR. BIRRELL: Inquiries are being made.

    Cattle-Driving in Mayo.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a cattle-drive was carried out recently at Grangemore, on the grazing farm of Mr. R. Vesey Stoney, of Rosturk, county Mayo; can he inform the House if anyone has been arrested in connection with the outrage; and can he say what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on 19th February at 5 p.m. a police patrol visited Mr. Stoney's farm at Grangemore, County Roscommon, at which time there were thirty-six head of cattle on the farm. Two hours later the police found fifteen of the cattle wandering on the road and gave them up to the herd. No persons were observed in the vicinity. The police closely inquired into the matter but could find no evidence against anyone.

    Longford League's Threat to Graziers.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the police has been directed to the action of the Longford branch of the United Irish League in calling upon graziers in that county not to renew their lettings in March, unless they desire to be visited by a blackthorn brigade; if he can state if any, and what, steps are being taken to prevent such case of intimidation; and will the Irish Executive inform the United Irish League that it will not be a party to the sub-division of grass lands where terrorism has been employed to dispossess the present occupier.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that resolutions to the effect mentioned, purporting to have been passed at indoor

    549
    meetings of the United Irish League, have appeared in the newspapers, but the police have no evidence that such resolutions were actually passed. An extra force of twenty-one policemen lave been maintained in County Longford for the past six months, with the object of preventing interference with the holders of grazing lands in the exercise of their legal rights. I have more than once stated in this House, on the authority of the Estates Commissioners, that if they should purchase untenanted lands in regard to which intimidation has taken place they would refuse to allot any portion of the land to persons who had taken part in any such intimidation.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would correspond with the United Irish League to that effect.
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I do not propose to correspond with any one to that effect.
    MR. MOOREasked whether permission to newspapers to circulate in the district with these intimidatory notices in them was not an incentive to intimidation, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would proceed to stop such publications.
    MR. BIRRELLwas understood to say that the question of the wisdom of interfering with newspapers was one which the hon. and learned Gentleman must leave to him.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, if a year ago he had ordered the Estates Commissioners to do what he had now ordered them to do, there would have been none of this, trouble.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that Question did not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

    Tyrone Vice-Lieutenacy.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether His Majesty's Lieu-
    550
    tenant for Tyrone County has been acting in the office for some time past; if not, whether a vice-lieutenant was appointed by him, and, if so, the date of such appointment; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Act of Parliament enabling a vice-lieutenant to be appointed during illness, he proposes to take any steps to secure a more satisfactory provision for that county.
    MR. BIRRELL: In February, 1906, Captain Lowry was appointed Vice-Lieutenant of County Tyrone, and he has performed the duties of Lieutenant since that date. The appointment was made under the Act to which the hon. Member refers. No inconvenience is known to have arisen owing to the performance of the duties of the Lieutenancy by a Vice-Lieutenant.

    Cooksborough Estate Meath.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state at what date negotiations between the owner and the Estates Commissioners in regard to the purchase of the Cooksborough (county Westmeath) estate of the Hon. E. M. Pakenham took place and the present position of these negotiations; and whether, having regard to the fact that this estate consists almost entirely of untenanted land, he will request the Commissioners to bring the matter to as speedy a termination as possible.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners approached the owner in this case in 1906 with a view to purchasing certain untenanted land, and in 1907 they had a preliminary inspection made with the owner's consent. The Commissioners are now about to inform him of the price which they would be prepared to advance for the land. If the owner should accept this offer and institute proceedings for sale, the Commissioners will deal with the estate as soon as possible.

    Ardglass Estate, Westmeath.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of the

    551
    Ardglass, county Westmeath, estate of Mrs. McEndoo and Mrs. Reid, having almost reached a satisfactory conclusion, were suddenly broken off by the owners; that proceedings have been taken against certain tenants for recovery of rent and judgment entered against three; and that upon 20th February a force of police was drafted into Rathowen and a seizure made upon the cattle of Mr. Bernard McLoughlin, one of those tenants; whether it is the intention of the Government to repeat the operation in regard to each of the other tenants against whom decrees have been secured; and whit is the meaning of resorting to such a costly arrangement as is involved in dividing the work in this manner.
    MR. BIRRELL: No proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned have been instituted before the Estates Com missioners, and I have no information as to any negotiations for purchase which may have taken place between the tenants and the owner. It is the fact that decrees for rent due have been obtained against three of the tenants, and on 20th February the police afforded protection to the sheriff in the execution of one of these decrees, namely, that in the case of Bernard McLoughlin. It is the duty of the police to furnish all necessary protection to the sheriff in the execution of such decrees. I have no information as to whether the remaining decrees are to be executed. The question is not one for the Government to decide.
    MR. MOORE: Is the1 right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. B. McLoughlin and other gentlemen who object to having their cattle seized by the sheriff for a just debt have themselves been concerned in cattle-driving operations in the last few weeks?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Stipendiary Magistrates.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if there is any regulation or custom to the effect that a large proportion of appointments to stipendiary magistracy in Ireland must be made from the police
    552
    force; whether his attention has been called to the fact that of the sixty-six stipendiary magistrates in Ireland only twenty-five have had even the semblance; of a legal training; and whether arrangements can now be made to ensure that future appointments shall be confined to practisng barristers and solicitors.
    MR. BIRRELL: By long established practice one-third of the appointments to the Resident Magistracy is given to officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The present number of resident magistrates is sixty-six, of whom twenty-five were barristers or solicitors, and twenty-four were officers of the constabulary. As regards legal training, I may mention that constabulary officers who are appointed resident magistrates have necessarily acquired an intimate knowledge of the Law and procedure in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. While not prepared to limit future appointments in the manner suggested in the Question, the Government are fully alive to the desirability of appointing gentlemen who have had sufficient legal training.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a resolution passed by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland urging that gentlemen appointed to these positions should have some knowledge of the law? Is it the practice in England that one-third of them should be policemen?
    MR. BIRRELL: The circumstances of the two countries are quite dissimilar.
    MR. MOOREasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in any inquiry which he made on this subject, he would include an inquiry into the qualifications of the County Court Judge for Clare who was appointed from the Freeman's Journal office.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if called upon to inquire into the position of the County Court Judge for Clare, would not allow himself to be influenced by the jealousy displayed by those who had not been made County Court Judges themselves.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Stanley Baldwin, esquire, for the County of Worcester (Western or Bewdley Division).

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A.: Mr. Baldwin.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C.: Mr. Freeman Thomas.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON farther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A. the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) and of the Police (Superannuation) Bills:—Mr. Guinness, Mr. Leverton Harris, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Whitehead, Sir Randall Cremer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Horniman, Mr. Brodie, Mr. Bethell, Mr. Stopford Brooke, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Glover, and Mr. Staveley-Hill.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B.: Mr. Walsh.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Bonar Law, Colonel Sandys, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Middlemore, Sir Edward Sassoon, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Ward, Mr. Richardson, Mr. John Rutherford, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Thornton, Sir Walter Nugent, and Sir Berkeley Sheffield.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES).
Order for Committee read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The statement giving a full explanation of the Estimates for the coming year, which has been presented to the House and the statement which I made in the course of last light's debate, make my task less onerous now. I should have formally moved Mr. Speaker out of the Chair had there not been one or two statements on minor details which. I wish to make, and which did not belong to last night's debate.
The first of these relates to the coastguard, a subject which has excited a very large amount of interest. It is a matter of common knowledge that a strong Departmental Committee has been considering the future of the coastguards, and it has made a Report which will be of great value in deciding upon the question of retaining the coastguard in its present condition in the Royal Navy. The Admiralty have not been able to act upon the recommendation of this Committee, and it has been therefore decided that the subject shall be considered de novo. I hope that as a result of our deliberations an alternative scheme may be formulated that will meet the objections which have been raised to the Committee's proposals. Of course I cannot say more on the subject now. But the Estimates for the coming financial year have been framed on the assumption that no, vital change is to take place this year. It must be understood that certain deductions which would have been necessary in any case, which have no bearing upon the Committee's Report, and which have only been postponed in consequence of the pledge I gave last year to my hon. and gallant friend, must be effected now. There is a recognised redundancy both of men and stations. The natural waste next year will amount to about 300 men, and certain stations no longer required for any purpose associated with the coastguard will be reduced. But no action will be taken which will affect the principle upon which the coastguards is organised. The reduced number of the coastguards

555
will enable corresponding additions to be made to the ordinary active service list of the Navy. In any case the Admiralty do not propose to reduce the life-saving work which has hitherto been carried on by the Board of Trade and by the National Lifeboat Institution. The signalling stations will be maintained as heretofore.
The other matter is a long-standing grievance on the part of the engineering branch of the officers of the Royal Navy. They have long complained that certain expectations of increased emoluments that have been based on certain official documents have not been realised. I am glad to be able to hold out hopes of certain improvements being made shortly in the emoluments of the engineering branch. There are points in regard to those emoluments in respect of which the Admiralty have recognised the existence of a certain sense of grievance, and this they are anxious to remove. Various questions have been carefully considered, and they have reached an advanced stage of settlement, but, as the details have not been yet finally determined, I am debarred from making any more definite statement.
MR. BRAMSDON: Are they dealing with the question of status?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No; it has only been a question of emoluments. I think I ought to add a word to what I said yesterday about the shipbuilding programme. The usual custom of this House has been to delay the discussion of the shipbuilding Vote until the month of July, and, on the other hand, the Admiralty have always undertaken that no executive effect shall be given to that programme until the House has had an opportunity of considering it later in the year. I think that is the established custom. But this year one vessel will have to be laid down long before the discussion takes place. The Boadicea II.," which is to be built at Pembroke, will be laid down at a comparatively early date. With that exception, nothing will be done with the new programme until the House has had an opportunity of considering it as a whole and in
556
detail, with such amendments, extensions, and improvements as may be advisable. The only other thing I wish to mention has reference to the shipbuilding programme, about which I desire to make an addition to what I said yesterday. The hon. Member for Fareham pointed out that while the new programme was to cost from first to last £7,500,000, we are only spending some £750,000 this year.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I did not refer to that point.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was under the impression that he made a remark about the small amount of money taken from a programme of that size.
MR. WYNDHAMwas under stood to say that he had made an observation of that character.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. But I find that the amount we have taken is larger than the usual percentage, except in the year 1905–1906, which was a year of unusual exception in building the "Dreadnought." With that exception, the proportion has been rather lower than the sum we have put down this year. I have taken the trouble to find out what provision would have been made in this present year if the Cawdor programme had been carried into effect. It is all put down in black and white. I find that the new construction under the Cawdor programme amounted to £2,000,000 more than the provision made under our smaller programme, yet we are taking more for shipbuilding this year than would have been taken under the Cawdor programme. With another comparatively small programme we propose to spend £20,000 more in 1908–9 than would have been spent under the Cawdor programme. There is one other matter to which I: wish to allude. Complaint has been made by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Dover based upon a statement made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that Germany had more destroyers in the month of December, 1906, in home waters, than we had.

557
The facts are as follow. According to Information in the possession of the Admiralty in the month of July last, Germany as a rule maintained in full commission during the winter months 17 destroyers, 6 divisional torpedo boats, 7 first-class and 12 second-class torpedo boats and 1 submarine. The numbers min Gained by Great Britain in home waters both in summer and winter were: 45 destroyers, 32 first-class torpedo boats, and 20 submarines. But in the first part of December, the period selected by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the German contingent was increased for the purpose of tactical exercises, by 9 destroyers, and one divisional torpedo boat, which was temporarily commissioned. In this exceptional fortnight there were in full commission: destroyers (British), 45; German destroyer and divisional boats, 33; torpedo boats, first-class: British, 32; German, 7; second-class: British, 0; German, 9; submarines: British, 29; German, 1. The total figures are: British, 106; German, 50; but boat for boat, the British destroyers are greatly superior to the German in size and armament. I beg to move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I think we must regard it as a remarkable innovation that the right hon. Gentleman should inform us that he had made his speech introductory of thee Estimates in another debate yesterday, and that, therefore, it is not necessary for him to go into details to-day. This course may have its advantages, but it has also its disadvantages, and I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman has give a any sort of adequate explanation of these Estimates, particularly in view of the very exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves in the present year. I hope the House will excuse me if I find it impossible to confine myself to the narrow compass of the Tight hon. Gentleman's observations. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in defending those Estimates, because he has undertaken the task of defending the indefeasible. The Estimates as we
558
now know them are an abridged edition of the Estimates which were settled upon before the hon. Member for Falkirk moved his Amendment to the Address. They are shadows of their former selves, and my principal charge against the Government is that they are either not prepared to face the necessary expenditure to keep up the two-Power standard which is generally regarded as being essential to our national security, or that out of consideration for purely Party exigencies they are postponing the necessary expenditure, and pilling up the Estimates for next year to a point where they must swamp any scheme of social reform to which they are committing themselves or else they are contemplating political suicide before the next Budget is introduced, and so expect dump the burden which they are shirking on to the shoulders of their successors. With regard to the shipbuilding programme I wish, of course, to postpone any detailed remarks, with regard to technical points until the discussion on Vote 8, later in the Session. But I think the right hon. Gentleman went too far when he asked us to endorse his suggestion that it was a good thing that that Vote should be put off until late in the session, and prided himself upon the fact that the Admiralty could take no steps whatever to commence the shipbuilding programme until that Vote had been passed. Having regard to the exceptional circumstances, I think that Vote should be put down earlier than usual in the session in order that the Admiralty might make a beginning with their programme sooner, especially in view of its exceedingly, modest character. I see in the First Lord's statement that the programme of new construction consists of one battleship of the "Dreadnought" class, one large armoured cruiser, which I presume will be of the "Invincible" class, although we have no information on that subject: six fast unarmoured cruisers of the "Boadicea" class, and sixteen torpedo boat destroyers. That, in the words of Lord Tweedmouth, is an exceedingly modest programme. But my complaint against the Admiralty is that even this modest programme is not being seriously taken in hand,

559
and that whilst the programme is proclaimed the money is not provided. I think we must go a little more closely into the financial provisions of this year as regards the new programme. If we examine them we find that, of all the ships proposed, only one small cruiser of the "Boadicea" type will be laid down in the year 1908. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell us why it is necessary to lay down even that one, but we know perfectly well it is because of the need for work at Pembroke dockyard. As to the remaining five small cruisers of the same class, to cost £400,000 apiece only £6,700 are allowed for each which shows that the Government are not going to begin them until the very end of the current financial year, which for all practical purposes means 1909–10. The case with regard to the sixteen destroyers is even worse. If ever there was a case of urgency, where craft of this type should be laid down at the earliest moment, it exists in this instance. The right hon. Gentleman announced that the Government proposes to lay down sixteen destroyers, but what is the provision in the Estimates? £4,000 apiece, for destroyers which if they are to be of the latest class will cost £120,000 apiece. We can only assume that the, extraordinarily low provision for those two classes of ships which are so urgently needed is the result of the putting down on the Paper of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs. There has evidently been a reduction, but it is a reductio ad absurdum. The programme is in fact practically postponed until 1909–10, and it is quite clear that, the Government does not mean business. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that the total provision for this year is above the average, but, even if it is, I may remind him that there are very special circumstances connected with the present year. What becomes of the professions of the right hon. Gentleman that he made in outlining the shipbuilding programme of last year when he told us that—
"The amount to be taken for new vessels to be laid down in 1907–8 is to be limited to a small sum, and they will not be commenced until a late period of the year. This emphasises to the Hague Conference the good
560
faith of the British Government as desiring to bring about a reduction of armaments."
I ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman on Vote 8 last year that as the Hague Conference had failed, at any rate as regarded reduction of armaments, if the Government wanted to show good faith not only to foreign countries but to the people of this country they ought to anticipate rather than postpone the shipbuilding programme they proposed. But what they have done is not to anticipate but to postpone it still further—to postpone it almost out of the financial year altogether. The right hon. Gentleman will find it hard to justify the language which he used last year unless he anticipates the programme of shipbuilding in the coming year. But I go further and say that, even if the exceedingly modest programme which has been announced is seriously pushed, it is in no sense adequate to maintain the two-Power standard. I do not intend to go into any comparison of the total numbers of battleships such as is included in the Dilke Return and which is so dear to writers in the Press, because it is really useless. It does not take into account the relative fighting values of ships and takes no account whatever of the new state of affairs that has been occasioned by the introduction of what is known as the "Dreadnought" type. In this connection I notice that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday referred to the "Lord Nelson" and the "Agamemnon" as if they ought to be included in the list of "Dreadnoughts." I feel inclined to enter a caveat in that connection, and whist I do not wish to go into details of construction which must necessarily be kept confidential, it is self-evident that a ship which has three knots less speed and which has only four 12-inch guns as compared with ten, can hardly be considered to be of the same class as the "Dreadnought." But, if it is any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman, I will admit that as regards the ships of whet he called yesterday the pre "Dreadnought" era, we have a sufficient superiority to guarantee to us a two-Power standard. That fact is due to the exertions of past Governments, not only Conservative but Liberal, and notably to Lord Spencer. But I am not sure that it will apply to the smaller

561
types of ship, to the smaller cruisers and destroyers. As regards the new capital type of ship, the "Dreadnought" type, while our superiority over any two Powers may exist at the present moment it is being imminently threatened and the Government are apparently taking no adequate steps to meet the challenge. The right hon. Gentleman, yesterday, in the course of his remarks gave us some very interesting figures, particularly interesting to me because they absolutely disprove the figures given by the hon. Member for Falkirk and his friends in a communication to the Press on the subject of the relative standing of ourselves and foreign Powers in 1910. The right hon. Gentleman told us that at the end of 1910 we should have seven "Dreadnoughts" and three "Invincibles," and that Germany would have seven "Dreadnoughts" and three "Invincibles." I may add that Germany is increasing her "Dreadnoughts" and "Invincibles" at the rate of four per annum. Prance will have two "Dreadnoughts" and the United States six, and in addition six ships of the "Connecticut" type, which are quite equal in armament and in most other respects to the "Lord Nelson." That shows that even on the Admiralty figures we shall fall greatly below the two-Power standard in 1910 and, indeed, that we shall be only just equal to one Power, that Power being Germany. Let us go a little further, because in these matters of shipbuilding one is obliged to look far ahead. It is no good telling us what is sufficient for the present year. We have to look further ahead than that. For the purposes of comparison I will take the year 1918 in which the present German Navy Bill reaches maturity. In that year we find that if the present programme is carried out Germany will have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" and thirteen "Invincibles"—a total of thirty-six. Against that we have at present seven "Dreadnoughts" and three "Invincibles." That is ten. Therefore in the period from 1908 to 1916, for a battleship takes two years to build, we shall have to lay down twenty-six "Dreadnoughts" in order to equal Germany when her Navy Bill matures, and surely we cannot be content with that. We must have at least a one and a-half times
562
superiority if we are going to maintain anything approaching a two-Power standard, which will necessitate our having by 1918 fifty-four ships of this class. We have ten already so that we shall have to commence at least forty-four ships of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" class between now and the year 1916, which gives an average of at least five a year, and yet the only provision the Government is making in this first year is two. I think these considerations give us some cause, for thought. As far as one can see it is absolutely essential that if the Government are going to translate their somewhat hesitating professions of yesterday into action they must lay down at least five "Dreadnoughts" next year. But anyone who has any knowledge of the shipbuilding trade must object to such sudden fluctuations as are necessitated by your proposal to lay down two this year and five next year. This must disorganise not only dockyards but all the shipbuilding industry. If you are going to do this kind of Work economically and efficiently you must provide for some sort of continuous and steady programme such as is provided, for instance, in the Cawdor Memorandum. If the principle laid down in the Cawdor Memorandum of laying down four armoured ships each year had been carried out this fluctuation need never have occurred. The Admiralty is not only going to disorganise the shipbuilding industry but the armour plate industry, the armament industry which provides ordnance and mountings and so forth, a course which I think in the interests of all ought to be avoided if possible. As regards armoured cruisers of the pre "Invincible" type I believe we have ample provision, but we are short of small cruisers and of torpedo boat destroyers. The Government recognise this by proposing six small cruisers and sixteen torpedo boat destroyers; but here again they provide the programme, but they do not provide the money. The question of destroyers particularly is exceedingly serious. The destroyer has a very short life. It is laid down in Germany as twelve years and we lay it down as eleven or less because I find in the Navy Estimates in the table of depreciation, that we write off 9 per cent. for

563
eleven years of the value of destroyers. The right hon. Gentleman gives us certain figures about the number of German detroyers that are in commission as compared with British destroyers, but no figures as regards the number of German destroyers that are in existence as compared with British destroyers. If my figures are right the Germans have eighty-four destroyers of eleven years or under built and twelve building compared with our sixty-six built, thirteen building, and sixteen projected. The Germans thus have ninety-six to our ninety-five. That is not maintaining the two-Power standard in that exceedingly important class of ship. The Germans have in fact a numerical superiority of efficient vessels, and are increasing their flotilla regularly at the rate of twelve per annum. The right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that the German boats are inferior to ours. No doubt some of the earlier types are inferior to our later types, but the later German types, of which twenty-five are already in existence, have unusually high speed and sea-going qualities and are armed more heavily than the great bulk of our destroyers, with the twenty-three-pounder gun as compared with our twelve-pounder. We are undoubtedly paying the penalty of being pioneers in this matter of torpedo boat destroyers. We first introduced them, and half our boats, unfortunately, that were laid down a long time ago, are obsolete or worn out, and that fact is clearly pointed out by Lord Tweed-mouth in his explanatory statement. He tells us that a number of these boats are in such a condition that it is a great question whether it is worth repairing them. We know indeed they are not worth repairing. The enormous expenditure caused by the breakdown of destroyers in the recent manœuvres is not due to bad seamanship, but to the fact that the boats are worn out and are not fit to go on with their work. The mistake we made was not replacing them in time. The question of replacement has been left too long. As a result there is a gap, and now the Government are forced to make frantic efforts to recover the ground lost. They have put down sixteen boats this year, but again, they have not
564
provided the money. What is the good of announcing a programme if they do not provide the money necessary to carry it out? This question of replacing our destroyers is vital and urgent, and it must be pushed on with. I believe the Government will find themselves forced into a position where they will have to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to deal with this-matter before the end of the present session. Now I come to the question of docks and works to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. This is of the utmost importance, because it is here that we find one of the gravest defects in the Government's naval policy. What is the situation? We are building this huge fleet of "Dreadnoughts" which, by the year 1918, must consist of fifty or more of these monster battleships, and the Government are taking no steps to provide the necessary docks to keep these ships in fighting condition. It should be remembered, that a dock takes three times as long to build as a battleship, and the Government are only now proposing, after shilly-shallying for years over this question, to construct only one new dock at Rosyth and they are going about even that in a leisurely and half-hearted manner. It is a matter of immediate urgency. The very minimum the Government ought to do is to build not one but two docks at Rosyth and add two more docks at Chatham or somewhere in that vicinity to deal with the needs of the Fleet operating in the North Sea. At present the nearest available docks for these big ships is Devonport. At Portsmouth there is one dock capable of accommodating a "Dreadnought," but it is almost impracticable to use it at present or until the new dock is finished seven years hence. In the meantime the Germans are building eight docks of this class in the North Sea, but all those docks and works and the widening of the Kiel Canal are not charged to the Navy Estimates but to the Ministry of the Interior. The Secretary to the Admiralty has been taking great credit to the Government for abolishing the loan system, although they have not really abolished it because they are going on building works under loan. I am not

565
defending the loan system, but even if it was a bad system at any rate we got the work done and we got the docks and harbours, whilst under the present system adopted by the Government we get nothing at all. I think I have said enough to show that the position is serious, and that the need for these docks is very urgent. With regard to the stores it is very difficult for us to believe that the effect of the redistribution of the Fleet and the scrapping of certain ships produced a surplus of stores to the extent of £3,500,000. I am not prepared to accept the statement that the true surplus was so large, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a definite assurance that the standard of reserve of stores has not been reduced under the present Administration. I find that during the last three years of the late Government the average annual outlay upon new stores was £3,700,000 and the annual issue of stores to the Fleet, £3,600,000. During the three sets of Navy Estimates for which the present Government is responsible the average expenditure for new naval stores is £2,620,000 and the annual issue £2,600,000 which shows a drop of £1,000,000 per annum in the issue of stores to ships. And yet we are told that the ships are more at sea, and that there is more gunnery practice. If that is so, how are we to explain the reduced annual expenditure of over a million sterling on stores. Do the ships now carry less stores? Then with regard to guns, ammunition and torpedoes I find there has been an enormous reduction not only last year but for the coming year, amounting as compared with the last year of the late Government to 37¾ per cent. in expenditure on guns, 40 per cent. in ammunition, and 47 per. cent in torpedos. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the torpedo was a horrible instrument and he regarded even it appearance with horror. But whilst his humanitarian and aesthetic objections to the torpedo may do credit to his heart they hardly justify him in reducing the Vote for torpedoes by 47 per cent. What can it possibly mean? The Admiralty is boasting that the number of ships in commission is larger and the men are getting more gun practice, and yet the amount of ammunition required is less.
566
This can only mean one thing, that our reserve of warlike stores must have been depleted. If that is so, for without an adequate reserve it is almost impossible to bring a war to a successful conclusion the action of the Government is not only disastrous but almost criminal. With regard to the Home Fleet I have taken considerable trouble lately personally to investigate the truth of the statements made about it, and allow me here to express my thanks to the First Lord of the Admiralty for having given me facilities for doing so. As a result I have come to the conclusion that the Admiralty has only itself to blame for most of the hostile criticism which has been directed against the Home Fleets if the Admiralty had been content to call this Fleet the First Reserve, which it is, instead of the First Line instantly ready for war, which it is not, then the controversy I have alluded to need never have arisen. No one denies that the Home Fleet is an immense improvement over the old Reserve, but it is not a Fleet of full fighting efficiency, it is not instantly ready for war, and it is no use pretending that it is. In regard to the materiel of the Fleet, what is the situation? The Home Fleet, exclusive of the Nore Division, consists largely of ships sent home from the sea-going Fleets because they are in need of overhauling, and whilst undergoing that process they are shown as constituting a portion of the Home Fleet. As soon as they resume their fighting efficiency these ships are drafted back to the sea-going Fleets, and their places are taken by other lame ducks. As regards personnel, no ships with nucleus crews can pretend to be fully efficient, and any Fleet which is always changing its compositions and its commanders must necessarily be unfitted for instant service. A good deal has teen made of the recent "test mobilisations," but they only show that there is a sufficient number of men kept in barracks to fill up these nucleus crews to the full complement. This is satisfactory to know, but it does not constitute instant readiness for war. The Nore Division is invariably described as being complete in all respects and instantly ready for war. It has, in fact, been described as being the squadron delite of the Fleet. It Consists of

567
six first-class battleships, six first-class armoured cruisers, five smaller cruisers, and forty-eight destroyers, and they are represented as all being ready for immediate service. The flagship of this this Fleet is the "Dreadnought," and it has been the flagship since March, 1907, but it only appeared at the Nore for the first time about three weeks ago. Admiral Sir Francis Bridgeman was appointed Commander-in-Chief on 5th March, 1907, of this Fleet with the "Dreadnought" as his flagship, but in the intervening period he has had to hoist his flag on eight different ships, of all classes down to and including a destroyer. Often no less than three battleships at a time have been in the dockyard and during that time those ships have not been replaced. I was down at the Nore last Thursday, and I found that out of the six battleships three were in dockyard hands at Chatham. Special efforts have been made for some time to bring the Nore Division up to a state of good repair in order to take part in the cruise which is to commence on 9th March. That cruise, no doubt, will commence on that date. But of the six battleships three—the "Dreadnought," the "Bulwark" and the "Majestic"—will alone be ready to start, and a fourth—the "Cæsar,"—is to be brought round from Devonport, to raise the strength to four. The other three battleships of the Nore Division will be left behind in Chatham Dockyard. I think these facts may be explainable on the basis of the Home Fleet's being a reserve fleet, but they are not explainable on the ground that the Nore Fleet is a "spear point" and the quintessence of readiness for war. It would be better if the Admiralty were to withdraw some of their flamboyant pretensions with regard to the Nore Fleet. They would then disclose the true state of affairs, which would be not discreditable to the Admiralty, and would be in every way creditable to the officers and men concerned. I do not propose to enter into any more details. As to whether the total provision in the coming year's Estimates is enough to preserve the two-Power standard, and consequently the safety of this country, I know that the right hon. Gentleman last night read a document which he had been authorised by the Admiralty to read, and
568
which stated that the proposed shipbuilding programme would maintain that standard. Possibly it may, so far as the coming year is concerned, because the great efforts which foreign Powers are making cannot produce fleets in commission before two years hence. But there is no indication in the Estimates that the Government is looking ahead, or that the two-Power standard will be maintained in ships of the new type when the foreign programmes reach what I may call their first stage of maturity at the end of 1910. Then we shall only just equal Germany—a serious and alarming admission—and our alarm is not allayed by the extraordinary performance of the Government last night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some sort of verbal assurance that the two-Power standard would be maintained, but he flatly refused to have that assurance recorded on the journals of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is willing to do business on the nod-and-wink principle, but he has a lawyer-like horror of committing himself to writing. The only solid fact we have to go upon is that the Liberal Party flatly and vehemently refused to give a formal endorsement to the half hearted professions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in so doing repudiated the two-Power standard. That fact, coupled with these disastrous cheeseparings made at the last moment in response to political pressure—
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Oh!
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Where are the cheeseparings?
MR. ARTHUR LEE: I put a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he deny that the Navy Estimates have been cut down since the hon. Member for Falkirk put his Amendment to the Address on the Paper? [Mr. Edmund Robertson made no response]. He does not deny it because he knows that he cannot deny it. That fact alone sufficiently proves that the present Government, whatever their merits or demerits in other directions, are not trustworthy guardians of the national defences.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that a few remarks ought to be addressed to the House on this occasion as to the naval programme by those who had given some attention to the subject and who had no party feeling of one kind or the other with reference to it. He would confine his remarks to topics which were germane to this debate—topics which they were not likely to deal with so efficiently when they were in Committee of Supply. There was an obvious difficulty in the way of those who had always supported the Board of Admiralty in the large naval programme which was thought necessary for the safety of the country, and who at the same time believed that a great economy should be made on the other fighting service of the State. It was impossible on the Navy Estimates to be in order in discussing these economies. They could only be raised on the Army Estimates to which they were germane. Neither had he the smallest reason to be afraid of the present naval condition of the country. It was as satisfactory now as when they declared it to be fully satisfactory last year. Sir George Sydenham Clarke, the Secretary of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, although he showed in his latest writings that he differed wholly from the present Board of Admiralty on many points—with respect to the all big policy; to the "Invincible" cruiser class, and although he was not in favour of the general cruiser programme, yet on the main point—the safety of the country and the present sufficiency of the Fleet—nothing could exceed the absolutely satisfactory character of the declaration which he had made. It was dated last July and published in September after he left the Secretary ship of the Committee of Defence to assume the Governorship of Bombay. The statement referred to the position of the Fleet in the summer of last year. Sir George Sydenham Clarke also evidently thought the small shipbuilding programme of the present year sufficient. It had already been stated that not more than two big ships would be laid down. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had, he thought, quoted Sir George on the other side, but he was convinced that what he wrote in July
570
represented the view which he held when he left the Committee.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid he quoted Sir George Sydenham Clarke on some other questions altogether, namely, the distribution of the Fleet and the new training scheme.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the efficiency scheme was a wholly different matter, in which he was inclined to agree with his hon. and gallant friend. In regard to the distribution of the Fleet his hon. friend suggested that Sir George Sydenham Clarke thought that there was increased danger of the invasion of the country. That, he thought, Sir George Sydenham Clarke would be prepared to deny. He himself had not the slightest fear of our present naval position—no increased fear as compared with last year. The German programme had been increased and certain other programmes had been retarded, and it was too early to begin to talk of safety or danger in connection with our shipbuilding programme. The Government committed themselves last year to the two-to-one standard against Germany, and they committed themselves last night to the two-Power standard. The two-Power standard was probably not so high as the two-to-one standard against Germany. The American Fleet was supposed to be superior to the German, but they were not building according to their programme of last year. Our programme in the long run, as his hon. friend opposite had said, must involve gigantic expenditure if executed. He did not in the least blame the Government for going slow. He thought there were good international reasons for going slow—as slow as was consistent with safety. But they must look ahead as to their financial obligations, because next year was sure to heavier in any case, and it might be very heavy indeed. There was a strong argument in favour of the continuity of orders, but the case m that matter was not quite so strong as had been put to the House for the reason that there were at present being built in this country for a foreign nation the two; biggest ships in the world. The question of the financial

571
responsibility of next year, and the year after, affected very closely the programme for dock accommodation. The shipbuilding programme they could afford to discuss on the shipbuilding Vote, so far as it was necessary to discuss it, but the docks problem ought to be raised on this occasion. There was certainly no ground for party recrimination with regard to docks. The necessity for a large establishment in a safer place than the Channel had been raised for many years, and that was fully recognised when Rosyth was brought before them. And the late Government had promised to spend money at Rosyth. Both parties had shirked the expenditure which both declared "necessary." It had to be recognised that the Channel would not be safe for big ships in a great war. He ventured last year to suggest that they should look forward to the time when a war might occur—he was no believer in war; he did not think it was in the least probable—and the use of mines in the Channel might be made to such an extent that the Channel would become too dangerous for any admiral to take his fleet into it if he could help it. The decision of the late Hague Conference had greatly increased the natural alarm on that head. Before the last Hague Conference the use of these mines was looked upon as abominable. It fell under the general provisions of the first Hague Convention in two places, that all was not allowable in war. The first Hague Conference had most distinctly discountenanced the employment of these awful engines of war, but no agreement had been arrived at. It was last year stated by the Admiralty that they hoped that an agreement would be arrived at forbidding the use of mines. That agreement was proposed and was fully discussed. We had not yet the protocols, but we knew what was the result. The result was, after full discussion by the civilised Powers of Europe, that France and Germany joined in declaring that nothing would induce them to limit the use of mines in war; and that other Powers, Japan leading, consented to forbid them, although many of them did not count. Japan, after the matter had been discussed and decided, said: "As you do not forbid them, we will use them for all they are worth." France
572
and Germany had since greatly increased their mining and technical departments for the preparation and laying down of mines. After full discussion by the principle Powers which could under any circumstances engage in a European naval war, it had been decided that it was perfectly legal, as they put it, to use floating mines to any conceivable extent. There was a little prohibition in regard to mines which had drifted from their moorings in territorial waters; but prohibition of the use of floating mines on the high seas was absolutely vetoed. France and Germany had protested against any limitation of their use whatever. Could any one believe that it would be safe to trust a fleet in the Channel to make for Plymouth, Portsmouth, Dover or even Chatham on all of which so much money had been spent? One small named steamer could carry and start 30,000 floating mine. No one who knew the tides say, between Bembridge and the Needles, would assert that with twenty or thirty thousand mines floating up and down with the tide it would be possible to use such ports. It was admitted that we should have an important naval base in the future somewhere in the north to take their place. That would involve a very serious—an enormous expense. The present Estimates contemplated the creation of one dock only, which, in the long run, was hardly likely to be sufficient. He was not blaming the policy of the late and the present Governments in the least. It was an inevitable policy, and the money to carry it out had to be spent. The Government on the previous night stated that they had finally decided to go on with Rosyth. So did the late Government at one time, but they afterwards dropped proceeding with it. But the national sense of what was necessary would insist on going on with the works at Rosyth, and it would cost a great deal of money. For that they must prepare in advance. His hon. friends behind him looked upon him with great suspicion in regard to this matter; but he contended that if the Navy Estimates were greatly diminished, such was the belief of the country that our safety lay first in the Navy, that they would certainly have to put

573
these Estimates up again by a great deal more than they were able to knock off now. The right hon. Member for Dover had said the previous night, that the late Unionist Government had made provision for the accommodation of our large new ships, but that the works at Rosyth were now almost derelict. His point was that they had been left derelict by everybody. Everybody knew that national provision for these large new ships must be made, but unfortunately it was a case of terrible national expense. It was a rather technical argument, but in all recent discussions immense importance had been attached to the element of dock accommodation in connection with speed. It was universally admitted that the "all-big" policy giving great speed to battleships was an advantage to Powers if they had accessible docks for their big ships; they were white elephants if there was no base for them. That led necessarily to the creation of those great docks and basins. The late Government started a policy of increased docks for big ships at Portsmouth. But he contended that that was not a safe policy. It would be impossible to remove large supplies from the Stores Department at Devonport and Portsmouth. Such portswere useful bases for the Fleet in peace but there must be a secure war base. These were matters of universal admission. He did not think that anyone would contest the statement he had made about the present condition of the question regarding floating mines as affecting this whole programme. He was not an alarmist about war. He had told the House year after year that our present naval position was one of perfect Safety, of great, of overwhelming strength. His right hon. friend would admit that he had been a very steady supporter of the policy of the Admiralty, even if he did not always approve of their methods. By their own confession and admissions, honestly and straightforwardly, they were forcing the country to consider in advance an enormous provision of money in a few years time. Whether shipbuilding it would be necessary next year could not be said, because that depended on other programmes which might or might not be executed. However, the expenditure
574
next year must in any case be great, and that on Rosyth would be heavy when it did come; it was declared to be a work of necessity and could hardly be put off without a word being said about it on this occasion.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am bound to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said cannot be too strongly impressed on the House and on the country. I accept the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty that we are maintaining the two-Power standard, which is recognised as the standard that, for our naval and national safety, we must maintain. But the serious aspect of the case is not the position in which we stand to-day, but the position in which we shall stand within a few years unless we make large new efforts to overtake or to equalise the building policy of other Powers. The Admiralty by their programme of this year, have I think, made practical admission that there is a great deal of force in some of the criticisms addressed to them last year, when it was attempted to impress on them the need for a small cruiser programme. The right hon. Baronet, whose knowledge of this question I recognise, says that on that point he is a heretic. At least a heretic in the sense that he does not believe in that necessity; but I think he is a heretic in the sense that a great body of expert naval opinion is against him.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: A great body of public opinion.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that naval opinion, and the opinion of the Admiralty itself, is against him—that a programme of small cruisers is not merely necessary at the present time, but is overdue and ought to have been begun before this. If that be true, whatever be, in practice, the amount of money you take for ships laid down, where ships are overdue you ought to take the most money that you can spend. Except in the case of a single ship which the Admiralty are going to construct at Plymouth, the only steps taken towards the

575
construction of the five overdue small cruisers has been the placing of orders, but no work will be done upon them this year. And let me say that once this necessity for these small cruisers is granted, it is not met by the present programme. If you have a very heavy shipbuilding programme in hand and you see an opportunity of lessening the programme in the future, then delays may be excusable and justifiable; but when everything points to a heavier programme in the future, I say it is wrong to delay the progress, as the present Estimates bear witness, of vessels which the Admiralty consider to be a first necessity. What I have said of cruisers applies equally to destroyers. We have, as has been already pointed out by my hon. friend, on the admission of the Admiralty a great number of old and obsolete destroyers, very costly in repair and not economical to maintain, and I am quite certain that the Secretary to the Admiralty would not contradict me if I said that if we had occasion to mobilise the whole of these old destroyers and send them to sea, we could only get them there with the expenditure of a very considerable amount of money on repairs, and we could not keep them there by any amount of expenditure whatever. They are so old that, as my hon. friend said, they are practically worn out, and a week or so cruising at sea would send them back unfit to go to sea again without the most extensive refit, and perhaps not possible of repair at all. Again, I say in the case of the destroyers, the sixteen which are put on order this year and for which we have again only a token sum to be provided do not exhaust the programme. It is not as if they completed it and we could then hold our hands as to destroyers, because you will have to build a similar number next year to take the place of other aged or ageing boats, and next year and the year after and the year after that you will have to have again an item for new cruisers and destroyers to be laid down in order, not to increase the strength of our fleet, but to replace vessels which are passing into disuse. There can be no likelihood in the next two years of the Admiralty doing their duty in regard to the Vote for new construction in this respect. But what about the Vote for new construction on the first line or
576
capital ships. On the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty itself, if a certain acceleration which is possible and which is not only possible but certain, takes place in foreign building we stand at the end of 1910, according to his calculations, exactly equal to France and Germany. I take the right hon. Gentleman's own calculations, but let me say to prevent misconception that I do not accept his calculations, for the reason that he included in them the "Lord Nelson" and others which are not vessels of the same type. The Civil Lord may think so, but he will not find any naval officer who will say that they are.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): I do not say that they are of the same type, but many experienced naval officers value these ships very highly.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the First Sea Lord advise him in that respect? Well, I may take it that he does not, and he is good enough authority for me. I, therefore, do not accept the calculation which the Secretary for the Admiralty made as being accurate, but I take his calculation which showed us that in 1910 we should only have a bare equality, including the "Lord Nelson" type among those ships of the capital type with France and Germany But a bare equality is not the two-Power standard, and France and German have not the two greatest navies, and on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, by the end of the year 1910 we shall have failed to have maintained the two-Power standard, and if we go a step further to 1911, we shall be very much worse off. It is therefore very clear that in addition to a fresh programme of cruisers and destroyers you must have next year a very large programme of capital ships—four or five of these capital ships. I do not say that it is necessary to lay these ships down now for the sake of maintaining a two-Power standard any more than the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, but what I do say is that you are piling up all these liabilities for future years, you are throwing forward to the

577
future a burden which will place an intolerable strain upon your finances or upon the finances of those who then occupy that Bench. And what is the moment at which you are doing this? I could understand your taking full advantage of every chance of postponement if your present Vote for new construction was at a very high level, but we have the First Lord of the Admiralty boasting in this Paper that the Vote for new construction this year is the lowest that has been taken for any of the past ten years; that is to say, that at the time when we are within close touch of a call for extraordinary exertions you reduce the new construction Vote to the lowest point that has ever been known. That is reckless finance of the worst kind. It is an evasion of your obligations, and it is placing upon the taxpayers of next year, and above all of the year after, burdens which you are attempting to conceal from them at the present time, but which it is inevitable that you or your successors will have to demand. Before I leave the construction, let me say that I have attempted to make some calculation as to what this burden might amount to. I admit fully the extreme difficulty of anyone without official information to help him forming any sort of calculation which is worthy to put before the House on this subject, but according to the best calculation which I can make the present programme would involve for next year a new construction Vote of, say, £8,000,000 without the addition of a single shilling for a single fresh ship being laid down, whereas the total construction voted this year is only £7,500,000. I think that is a sufficiently serious prospect. But now look at other things. There is Rosyth. I do not, if I may be permitted to make this protest, accept for the Government of which I was a Member, and for myself and my colleagues the censure that the right hon. Baronet in his desire to adopt a perfectly impartial attitude passed upon us.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not censure you.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We meant to go on with Rosyth. We meant to provide there a dockyard laid out and planned and capable of extension just
578
as the present Government intend to do, and to avoid the waste in which we have been involved in the case of old establishments by their being laid out upon a small system, and at a time when development could not be foreseen, and we took the steps and the only steps that were in our power at that time to do so. We bought the land; we no sooner got the land than we sent an engineer down to make his plans and we put a Vote in the Estimates for Rosyth, which the present Government cut out when they came into power, and which they now tardily restore.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Cawdor Memorandum and other documents showed that the pressure came from the Board of Admiralty not to go forward to Rosyth.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Baronet is mistaken. I speak as having been the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, and unless my memory entirely misleads me we had sanctioned a scheme, not a full scheme, but a portion of the original scheme at that time, which was not to go under a loan, but on the Votes, and was to be pressed forward as rapidly as possible. Since that time two years have passed, and we are now looking forward to another year. After three years it is not possible to admit that if the Admiralty want to to make the utmost progress possible with this work they cannot spend more than £30,000 on account of £3,250,000 in the present year. That is all that is provided in these Estimates on account of Rosyth. When once you begin works of this kind it is the very worst economy to dawdle about them. That may enable you to save on the Estimates of a particular year, but it involves your carrying on your capital expenditure for an indefinite time. Once you have got the land and your plans the only economical plan is to press the work on as quickly as possible so that you may derive the advantage of the work at the earliest possible time. Here I come to a question. It is said in the First Lord's statement that the Rosyth works will take ten years to finish. I am well aware that to put the coping-stone and finishing touches on these works is a very lengthy

579
matter, but what I want to know is when will these works, the dock and the basin, reach a point at which they can be used if we have occasion to use them? I take as an illustration of my meaning Portland Harbour. Portland Harbour was available for defence against torpedo attack for which it was intended long before the work was actually completed. I can understand that work will be going on in connection with Rosyth long after the dock and basin and so on have reached a point at which they can be used if we want to use them. In the meantime against this huge liability of £3,250,000 only £30,000 is provided in the present Estimate. How much shall we want next year? £330,000 at the very least and very likely £500,000. I call this present figure an illusory one. Then I notice another big work mentioned, the new lock at Portsmouth connected with the dock. £65,000 is taken on account of a cost of little under £1,000,000. What shall we require next year—I suppose £200,000. These are the increased liabilities with which the House is now face to face for next year's Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that the automatic increases amounted to £745,000; that there was a transfer from loan account to Votes this year of £390,000; and that there would be a sum of £870,000 to be so provided out of the Votes this year. Rosyth will require £300,000 more; Portsmouth lock, £200,000 and new constructions must mean another £650,000 altogether. If I am in any way near right, you have already got a sum of £2,400,000 additional expenditure which will appear in the Estimates next year, and which will be more than repeated in the Estimates of the year after. Yet this is the year which you have chosen to reduce the Vote for new construction to the lowest figure at which it has stood for ten years, and at the same time you reduce the provision for new works on Vote 10 by nearly £500,000. Is that prudent and sound finance? The liabilities which you will have to incur in order to carry out your responsibilities next year and the year after are so great that I am driven to think that the Government either do not mean to carry them out when the time comes, or they hope to evade them somehow, or else
580
they intend to be somewhere else when the bill is presented. This is a system of deferred payments; I am not sure whether it is not a system of living on post-obits. I think we have a right to protest against these enormous works being knowingly thrown on future years, and presently to be whittled or scraped away in order to serve the passing financial needs of the Government, and enable them to present this year a more favourable Budget than they have any real right to lay before the country. The Estimates which we have before us this year in no sense represent the average burden which the Naval Estimates will inflict upon the country during the next two or three years. That is a burden which must in any case very largely increase within the next two years, and the present is a singularly inopportune moment for cutting down your Vote. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement yesterday which took me by surprise. He said that the late Government had reduced the standard of reserve of scores at home. Perhaps he will tell us in what respect. I have consulted with my hon. friend who was at the Admiralty and he agrees with me that there must be some mistake, and I should like to know exactly to what the right hon. Gentleman refers. I want him, if he will, to turn his attention to the value of the stock of naval stores given on page 245 of the Estimates. We are told in the First Lord's statement that owing to the concentration of the Fleets, and to the closing of certain naval stations abroad, the Admiralty have had a great stock of surplus stores on which they have been living during the past few years. And the extent to which they have been using the stores is given in the First Lord's statement. Why does that not appear on page 245 of the Naval Estimates? I see that the value for 1st April, 1907, was £4,755,000 in round figures; and the value of the stock on 31st March, 1908, was £4,305,000 a reduction of £450,000. But the First Lord tells us that the Government had lived upon stores to the extent of £1,250,000 in that year. Why does not this statement show £1,250,000; why does it show only a reduction of £450,000? The estimated value of the stock on 31st March, 1909, as given in this statement,

581
only shows a reduction of £160,000. The First Lord's statement shows that the Admiralty are going to withdraw stores to the extent of £500,000. What is the explanation of this discrepancy? There must be some. The only explanation which occurs now is the statement given on page 245 of the Naval Estimates, but when you come to inquire into the actual stocks in hand in some way it is totally misleading, and does not show what it purports to show. They are presented in perfect good faith, but when we come to a case of this kind, I am glad to have an opportunity of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it, and of asking him for an explanation.
MR. WYNDHAM: I think we should have some fuller statement from the Government than has been offered to the House, either in the speech made by the Secretary to the Admiralty yesterday, or in what he calls his subsidiary remarks this afternoon. I have to thank him for his courtesy in giving some information in reply to a question which I put before him yesterday. But I did more than put a question. My right hon. friend who has just sat down returned to the same point and put it very forcibly before the House. We are not satisfied with the provision of smaller craft made by the Government, and we are not satisfied with their determination not to proceed immediately with the construction of smaller craft. It is altogether inadequate to the present situation that the right hon. Gentleman should say that we are spending about a tenth of the total cost of construction this year, and that this is the usual figure. We are debating these Estimates under unusual circumstances. We are debating Estimates which have attracted a good deal of attention in many foreign countries. After all, we cannot ignore certain facts which preceded the introduction of these Estimates. There was the diplomatic failure of the Government at the Hague last year. I do not know whether there is any connection between cause and effect, but that failure has brought about what a foreign newspaper describes as a bold attempt on the part of our competitor to wrest from us the
582
supremacy of the seas. It has been a failure because of the struggle behind the Ministerial scenes, between those who think that we may make reductions and those who hold other opinions. These Estimates are hailed as a moral triumph by the party described as "the anti-armament party," and this afternoon the representative of the Government had to admit by his silence that the Estimates had been modified. That being so, we are entitled to have some fuller statement on this question of smaller craft than we had yesterday afternoon. This is no party attack we are making. I really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to disabuse his mind altogether of the idea that when we ask for information on matters of public curiosity, we are covertly assisting or attempting an attack upon the Board of which he is so loyal a member. We are doing nothing of the kind. We look to him and only to him, not merely as a Member of the Admiralty Board, but as the proper and responsible Minister whose duty it is through this House, to give information in respect of questions that we ask. It is our duty to ask those questions and press for information upon points which excite curiosity in the public, because curiosity soon changes into suspicion and suspicion into alarm. There is this curiosity which has changed to suspicion, verging upon alarm, in connection with the making of an adequate and timely provision of smaller craft. Our argument with respect to that has really been on all fours with the argument addressed to the House by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean upon the other question of the provision of docks. He said that the "all-big" policy leads to the necessity for the provision of docks in good time. We say that the "all-big" policy leads to the necessity of providing a greater number of smaller craft in time. By the "all-big" policy is meant of course having vessels of a large type like the "Dreadnought," but to such vessels the smaller craft are what the cavalry are to the Army, and act as scouts. As we are committed to that policy of building great vessels, and as other countries are competing with us in that policy, it is clear that we must

583
make adequate provision of smaller craft up to the new standard rendered necessary by the "all-big" policy. I am not, in saying that, making any attack on the Board of Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman, dealing with this very point last year, accepted, and we all accept, absolute responsibility for the great change made in 1904–1905, as regards the "all-big" policy. But my right hon. friend pointed out that a great change of that character carries with it collateral necessities, and the great point is whether the collateral necessities are being met as they arise and as they are seen. We now know that a larger number of smaller craft must be provided if ships of the "Dreadnought" type are to discharge their functions in safety. Are they being built in adequate numbers? I think not. Take first the cruisers. That falls under two heads, one of minor importance and one of greater importance. The one of minor importance is that we should be able to show our flag abroad. Are these six cruisers of the "Boadicea" type to show our flag abroad, or are they being built to be an advance guard of the fleets in which we have such large and costly vessels? Or, again, are they being built for both purposes? If they are being built for both, is not the number totally inadequate? Upon that point I think we are entitled to some fuller information. I do not pretend to exclusive information, of any kind or character. In common with those for whom we speak, those members of the public whose curiosity and suspicion nave been aroused, we can only look to some official or standard books. If we take information of the kind which is contained in the Dilke Return, or the Navy List, there would seem to be thirteen cruisers with the Fleet and twenty-four in the Reserve. Is that enough when you have adopted the "All-Big Policy," and when you are committed next year to a programme of "Dreadnoughts" in comparison with which your present programme sinks into insignificance? If you have not the cruisers necessary for the present programme already, you have not cruisers necessary for the future programme. If the future programme is going to entail great augmentation, in
584
creasing from year to year, is it not sound finance now to proceed with the part of the work which is necessary and complementary to the whole of the work in order to distribute the financial burden more evenly over the period of years? I pass from the cruiser part of the subject to the more particular point upon which the right hon. Gentleman gave me some information this afternoon. Last year he was pressed by the Leader of the Opposition to give the relative distribution of destroyers in home waters appertaining to the German fleet and to our own. This afternoon—and I thank him for it—he gave us some information upon that point. I am not for a moment suggesting that the information which he gave was derived from a particular date which suited one view or another of this matter. It is far too important a question to be bandied about as a subject of political controversy. I want to have as much information as the right hon. Gentleman thinks can be given without injury to the public service, and to all that information we are entitled. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that if we compare our torpedo destroyers with the German torpedo destroyers and divisional torpedo boats at the time when the German torpedo squadron was reinforced, we had in home waters 45 torpedo destroyers, and Germany had 33 of such boats or their equivalent. On the face of these figures I cannot admit that that proportion is an adequate or a satisfactory one. I do not want to go in detail into this matter, and in all that I say I beg the House to believe that I am not selecting any Power as one with whom we may in any probability come into conflict. We have to think of the defence of this country irrespective of these questions of world politics, but we have to recognise that the traditional policy of this country has changed. There has been Orientation, and we have now to look East. We have to recognise that the North Sea is a far wider sea than the British Channel. We have to recognise that the North Sea has not one, but two egresses from which such an attack might be delivered. We have to recognise in naval questions, as I think upon Army questions, that you want a real preponderance if you are to prevent absolutely an attack being launched from an egress. The watching of defiles, whether at sea or on shore, is the same,

585
and no man in his senses, if he had the natural defences of the country to which he belonged in his care and keeping, would attempt to watch two egresses with proportion of only 45 to 33. The fact that the North Sea is a good deal wider than the British Channel leads for another reason to the necessity for a greater provision of these boats on which the safety of your big battleships depends. It is farther to get there and back. We are sometimes assured that we shall be able to relieve torpedo destroyers by other vessels, and that they will not have to return to port. But who is going to risk the British Empire on the chance of an oil tank to supply fuel or a collier to supply coal to these vessels in time of war? When the country understands this it will demand that there shall be a sufficient number of boats to give the necessary relief if these defiles are to be adequately watched. The case I am laying before the House is that your "all-big" policy demands a large extension of the torpedo destroyer policy. In answer to that we are told that the Government are laying down sixteen torpedo destroyers and that they do not intend to spend a penny upon any one of them until the shipbuilding Vote has been taken in July.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The usual practice has been for many years to do that.
MR. WYNDHAM: Allow me to make my point clear. I am I hope, temperately, protesting against the usual practice being followed under unusual circumstances. That is the whole of our case. This year is far more exceptional than the year which the right hon. Gentleman cited. You ought to proceed with the construction of these eyes of the fleet now if it is to be safe from the point of view of defence and if your finance is to be sound, because you will have to spend a great deal of money in future years. The figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave me by no means tally with some other figures drawn only from publications, and not based upon any secret intelligence, but which I cannot altogether dismiss from my mind as having some bearing upon this point.
MR. BELLAIRS: May I ask whether the figures the right hon. Gentleman has been furnished with by the Admiralty, as I understand they refer to a question raised by me, include nine instructional destroyers, absolutely unfit for blockade, and the destroyers which were under repair? In that case he will find that I was right in saying that we had fewer destroyers ready in full commission in home waters at that date than the Germans.
MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will make that point in his own way. What I wish to lay before the House is not the result of any private documents, but conclusions deduced from the English. "Navy List," Lord Brassey's well-known book, Janes's "Fighting Ships" and books of a similar type in Germany. They may be inaccurate, but the fact that the information is of an alarming character justifies us in pressing for fuller information on the point. Using only those sources of information which are open to anybody who chooses to study them, and if I am wrong nobody would be more happy to stand corrected than I shall be, I would take first merely the distribution of such boats in home waters. Without going into the question of the modernity of the boats, but taking British and German destroyers and divisional torpedo boats, the information goes to show that we might claim forty-eight with full crews and seventy with nucleus crews, or 118 altogether. Similarly turning to the German publication, I believe about three years ago, Germany had between ninety and 100 such boats in three flotillas, two always at sea and one on shore, but in the last three years they have brought that number up to 112 such boats in five flotillas. I am not touching the question of which are the most modern boats yet, but if there is anything in the arguments I have laid before the House, such a proportion as 118 to 112 is alarming and even dangerous and calls for immediate action. The circumstances are unusual and preclude the Government from following the usual practice of putting down 10 per cent. of the total cost and deferring any action until the late summer. We cannot only look to the number

587
we must also take into account the type of such boats. Again basing myself only upon publications of the character I have described, I believe I am right in saving that we have of the most modern type thirty-four complete and thirteen building, or forty-seven in all; and Germany has eighteen completed and thirty building, or forty-eight in all. That is equality, whereas you want a superiority of at least two to one. If we go to boats of an older type we have still a great preponderance I readily agree, but that wanes rapidly as the years go by. Of ten-year old boats we have sixty-eight against their twenty-six, of old boats we have forty against three, and of obsolete boats we have none and they have forty—155 British against eighty-one German. But if in the most modern boats they have an equality we must push on with new construction. I would not again have addressed the House after what I said yesterday unless I knew there was curiosity, suspicion, and alarm upon this point, and it is the duty of the Government to give the House the fullest information. In asking for it we are not criticising the Government or the Board of Admiralty, but doing our duty and asking them to discharge theirs.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGthought the House had some reason to be dissatisfied with the opening statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The administration of the Navy was one of the largest questions which the House of Commons could discuss, and it must to an outsider seem a curious thing that the Minister responsible for the Navy should consider that he had discharged his duty in the discussions of this matter by referring to two small matters only. He had dealt lightly with the doing away with coastguard stations and had also made some slight addition to his remarks of the previous day on the shipbuilding programme. No doubt many Members were glad to hear that the coastguard service was not going to be done away with, but probably the preponderance of feeling in the House was to the effect that there was a considerable redundancy in coastguard stations and that modern conditions had rendered a considerable number of them no longer useful. The
588
telephone, for instance, made intercommunication much more easy than was formerly the case. The fact, too, that smuggling had practically disappeared and that there was very little probability of its ever becoming general again had undoubtedly rendered unnecessary a certain number of coastguard stations. On the other hand were life-saving appliances which were better worked by coastguards than civilians, and there was also the lifeboat service of which the coastguards so often formed so important a part. The work of coastguards in regard to life-saving opperations, lifeboats, etc., made it desirable that there should still be a large number of stations left, but, on the other hand, he thought there were a certain number of them which were redundant. With reference to shipbuilding, all the Secretary to the Admiralty had said was that he would give an undertaking that nothing would be done until June or July. So far as Unionist Members were concerned, they would have been much better pleased if he had given an undertaking in exactly the opposite direction. Instead of waiting until July they would like to see the extremely small programme in the year's Estimates begun at once. Their complaint was that the Government, instead of hurrying on and providing that a fair share of the cost of the programme now before the House should be borne this year, were as much as possible deferring such provision to future years when in consequence the Estimates would, be inflated to an extent which nobody liked to contemplate. As to the general question, since they discussed naval matters a year ago a great deal had happened, and two things in particular, which made discussion easier. The Hague Conference had come and gone, and the Resolution of the hon. Member for Falkirk had also come and gone. Last year hon. Members were much handicapped by reason of the fact that the Government constantly reminded them that they were in negotiation with other countries on the subject of disarmament; and that it would be wrong to suggest an increase in our armaments in view of the fact that one of the principal objects of the Hague Conference which was then about to assemble was to do away with

589
armaments as far as possible. The Opposition anticipated all along that very little would come out of the Hague Conference; their anticipations had unfortunately been realised, and we were in exactly the same position as before the Conference. The discussion of the hon. Member for Falkirk's Motion on the previous day had not been in any sense satisfactory; it was ambiguous, and there was not a clear issue before the House at any time. The result could not therefore be said to have been at all definite. But, at the same time, both the House and the country would have come to the conclusion that this Parliament was as determined as other Parliaments had been in the past that the armaments of the country, especially the naval armaments, should be kept at such a point that we should have a preponderance over every possible combination of enemies; in other words, that the two-Power standard should be maintained. That being so, he and his friends had expected that evidence of this determination would appear on the Estimates, but when they looked at that document very grave misgivings arose in their minds as to the manner in which the Government intended to maintain that superiority. At the present time we were in an undoubtedly secure position and had an aggregate of more than the two-Power standard. That was admitted, but he and his friends did not admit that the Government were taking proper steps to ensure that that superiority would be kept up in the next few years. He was convinced that so soon as the country realised that we were getting behindhand in the matter the people would make it plain to their representatives in Parliament that they would stand no tampering with our naval position. The shipbuilding programme of Germany rendered it necessary that certain ships should be added to our Navy; and it seemed to him bad finance and bad business that as we had within the next few years to provide four or five big battleships per annum they were not going to begin building at once. They knew the type of ship they would have to build, because it was not probable that there would be any change of importance in the models of those big ships
590
which would compensate them for waiting another year. Any modification that experience might show to be necessary would probably be in the matter of guns or internal arrangement and not in the hulls which ought therefore to be hurried on at once. It was a great waste of time and energy to defer building, for dockyards would be taxed when the crush came. As to the distribution and constitution of the three or four great fleets of which the Navy was made up, he had no serious criticisms to make except in regard to the Home Fleet End in the matter of cruisers. The Home Fleet should be the one always ready at a moment's notice to face a sudden outbreak of war, but in reality it was the least prepared for such a crisis. The Home Fleet this year consisted of six battleships stationed at the Nore. Perhaps the House was not aware that it was made up of three divisions—one at the Nore, one at Portsmouth, and the other at Plymouth. It seemed to him that that could not be considered a sound grouping of ships. He had always understood that the Home Fleet was the Fleet of all Fleets intended to be ready at a moment's notice to meet the first warlike action of the enemy. He could conceive that the Channel Fleet might be able to do so, but he could not conceive that the Home Fleet as at present constituted and commanded would be able to meet a sudden descent, upon this country from German ports The six ships in the Home Fleet were totally inadequate to meet a resolute, attack from Germany, which he said without hesitation was the country against which those ships were directed. Before the Home Fleet could be in a position to do anything of the sort it had to collect its outlying divisions at Portsmouth and Plymouth, where the ships had only nucleus crews on board. He thought that when it was put to the test, tie ships with the nucleus-crews would not be ready for sec in a few hours, but would probably take a matter of several days. Under those circumstances, he did not see how the Admiralty could possibly expert them to place confidence in a Fleet consisting of from eighteen to twenty battleships when only six of them were actually at sea and

591
in fighting trim. The mere fact that the Fleet was divided into three groups was a great obstacle to the officer commanding that Fleet. It was impossible for any Commander-in-Chief to do justice to the ships under his command when he commanded them perhaps only once or twice during the year, and then only for a very short period. His hon. friend the Member for Farehem had pointed out that the whole centre of gravity had shifted from the south of England to the North Sea, and it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that our weakest Fleet should be placed in the position where we were most likely to be attacked. The one Fleet which had to face the enemy at all times was the Fleet which for some reason or another was kept at a smaller point than any of the others. He ventured to say also that it was in a very much less efficient condition. He understood the hon. Member for the Fareham Division to say that the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet had raised his flag on seven or eight different ships, but he had been under the impression that the Commander-in-Chief of that Fleet had no flagship, but that he had an official residence on shone. He thought the whole of the Home Fleet should be concentrated in or about the Nore, that it should be in full commission and that the Admiral in command should live at sea and not on shore. With reference to cruisers, many naval men complained that the number of these vessels attached to the battle fleets was much too small. They pointed out that the cruiser squadrons might be in other parts of the world on the outbreak of war, and that in fact they formed separate and distinct fleets. Under these circumstance they held that the cruisers attached to the four great fleets (and these cruisers must be distinguished from the cruiser squadrons) under the present groupings were totally inadequate for the purposes for which they existed—namely, scouting, locating the enemy, and keeping the Fleet free from the attacks of the enemy's torpedo boats and destroyers at night. To do that work properly it was evident that a large number of cruisers had to be employed. He trusted that the Secretary to the Admiralty in his reply would be able to hold out some hope that further energy and expedition would
592
be shown in the matter of the provision of docks. It was a most anomalous state of affairs that they should be building enormous ships like the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible" and have no place to put them when they wanted repair. The amount proposed to be spent on Rosyth this year was ridiculous. He supposed the explanation of this was that the Admiralty desired to meet the views of those who supported the Motion moved yesterday, and had put off absolutely necessary works which would have to be executed within the next few years. In the interest of sound finance, he submitted that it would be very much better, and it would be treating the country more honestly, to put down a fair share of the cost of all the new ships and works to this year's Estimates instead of spreading it over and postponing the evil day to later years.
COLONEL SEELYsaid he understood from the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to the coastguard that the Admiralty had definitely decided not to entertain the proposal made from some quarters to abolish the coastguard altogether and hand over their duties to another body, such as the Board of Customs. If that was the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, he could only say that all who were interested in the merchant service owed him s debt of gratitude for making it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would enable the Admiralty to consider and discuss the whole matter de novo. He would state the reasons which had prompted him and others on that side of the House in urgently pressing the Government not to interfere with the present arrangement by which the coastguard performed their duties. The Navy had been singularly successful in recruiting, and those who had studied the subject believed that the fact that there was a coastguard service to which they could go had a great bearing on the efficiency of the recruiting. The duties of the coastguard in peace and war could not be performed so efficiently by any other body of men as by those of the Royal Navy. The hon. Member for South Antrim had stated that some of their

593
work could be done by telephone. He had yet to learn that the telephone could deal with such matters as floating mines in narrow waters, and the position of ships on dark nights. Nor could the telephone perform any of the duties of the coastguard in connection with life saving. The coastguard had to look after the property which was cast ashore in case of shipwreck. That was a very important duty, and no body of men who were not strictly disciplined could perform it efficiently. He had occasion once to address a meeting at a coast place when a ship ran ashore. He went to the shore, and it was discovered that the ship contained rum, and anyone who was there could see that it required a highly disciplined body of men to cope with the difficulties which arose. The points which interested him most of all were two other duties that fell to the coastguard service at present. They had to watch our coasts in peace time for possible wrecks, and in the event of ships going ashore they had to assist the lifeboat services in working the rocket apparatus. As to the watching of the coasts, it was only a body of men like the coastguard who could be entrusted with that duty. He had been present at inquiries where it was stated that the coastguard had failed to see a wreck. If the coastguard sometimes failed, how much more would a body of men who had not the splendid traditions of those men of the Royal Navy? The coastguard had proved that they were essential to the lifeboat service. They worked the rocket apparatus, and that was a most difficult piece of work. Hon. Members would agree that that most important and difficult work should be entrusted to men who were most highly disciplined, and that class of man was to be found in the Royal Navy. Not only did they save life by the rocket apparatus, but their record in saving life themselves was most extraordinary. He had been furnished with some figures in regard to this matter by the Lifeboat Institution. In 1905 there were 423 occasions when lifeboats were launched, and of these launches 166 took place on notification being given by the coastguard, and most probably if the coastguard had not been there the lifeboats
594
would not have been launched; 397 lives were consequently saved. In 1906 there were 421 launches, of which 132 were notified by the coastguard, and 696 lives were saved. In 1907 there were 409 launches, of which 165 were notified by the coastguard, and 932 lives were saved. It would be going too far to say that had it not been for the coastguard all these lives would have been lost; but it was safe to say that had there not been a coastguard some of: the 932 lives would, in point of fact, not have been saved. In regard to life-saving and showing an example of courage, he would give another set of figures which was indeed extraordinary. Eighty-eight years ago, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, with the consent of the Government, decided to issue silver and gold medals for acts of gallantry in saving life. Of the 1,247 silver medals no fewer than 239 had been received by the coastguard, and of the 100 gold medals which were awarded on rare occasions of exceptional daring, thirty-one or more than a third had been received by the magnificent coastguard. A record so fine as that must prove that in this difficult matter of saving life at sea, where so much often depended on the initiative of one man, the coastguards had fully discharged their duty. Therefore, in conclusion, he urged the Secretary to the Admiralty to make it plain to the House, as it had not been made quite plain from other statements current, that the Government did not intend to take the duty of saving life at sea from the gallant men of the coastguard and hand it over to the Board of Customs or any other department.
MR. LAMBERT: I will deal shortly with the more general questions which have been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I think I can assure my friend the hon. and gallant Member for Abercromby Division that in the matter of life-saving proceedings the Admiralty are fully aware of the strong feeling that exists, and will do nothing to interfere with the efficient discharge of the life-saving duties at present undertaken by the coastguard. My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has always endeavoured studiously to keep the Naval Votes free

595
from politics, but I think that the hon. Member for Fareham verged dangerously near party politics in his introductory remarks. Personally, I have never attacked the policy of my predecessors, but it does seem to me that, when we are told that great alarm exists in the country and that the Admiralty are guilty of disastrous cheese-paring, and when other epithets of a like character are employed, they savour more of the platform than of serious debate in the House of Commons. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was more modest, but I think he dealt principally with the question not of this year's, but of next year's Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said, What terrible liabilities will be thrown on next year's Estimates; next year's Estimates will have to bear the cost of a new lock at Portsmouth and a new dock at Rosyth and other matters. And the right hon. Gentleman totalled them up to a very considerable sum. I should think that if our liabilities are to be so great next year the wise and prudent course to take is that we should be as economical as we safely can be this year [An HON. MEMBER: "Only now?"] and every year. I wish to deal with the central portion of the indictment brought by the Front Opposition Bench. We are told that we are not preparing or have not a sufficient ship-building programme, and especially of big battleships. I cannot understand how any man can bring a charge like that against the present Board of Admiralty with the facts that must be in the possession of the public mind. Take the question of the big ships—the "Dreadnoughts." And here I must say that it is an extraordinary doctrine if we are to rule out such splendid ships as the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon." These ships were laid down in 1905 and they will be ready for sea in April. Surely we should not leave such splendid ships out of account.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: The Secretary to the Admiralty deliberately instituted a comparison in terms of "Dreadnoughts." Does the hon. Gentleman say that the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon" embody the "Dreadnought" type, or em-
596
body any of the particular features of that type?
MR. LAMBERT: It is very difficult to go into the details of the types; that must be left to the experts. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that many naval experts value very highly indeed the "Lord Nelson" type. Let me deal with actual facts, and not with programmes on paper ranging up to 1916. Sufficient unto the day is the building programme thereof. We have one "Dreadnought" in the water already commissioned at the Nore. We have three "Dreadnoughts" constructing and three big cruisers That is to say, we have seven big ships—one in the water, three launched, and three cruisers which will be ready soon. Not a single foreign Power has a single big ship in the water; and yet after all, we are told that we are a cheeseparing Government. Let me take the big batttleships that are building. For my part I do not wish to make invidious comparisons with any foreign country, but as they have been made a basis of comparison I must do so too. The hon. Gentleman said that up to the end of 1910 we should have only an equality in these big battleships with Germany. On the German stocks at the present moment, i.e., building—not one is launched—they have four big battleships and two cruisers. We have ten big battle ships in the water or building plus the programme of this year. Then again there are the two ships, the "Lord Nelson" and the "Agamemnon." I think it must satisfy any reasonable mind that we have at the present moment a sufficient building programme to meet all reasonable contingencies.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Does the hon. Gentleman deny the accuracy of the figures given by his colleague the Secretary to the Admiralty, which stated that the number of "Dreadnorghts" at the end of 1910 would be the same in this country as in Germany?
MR. LAMBERT: I am giving the hon. Gentleman the figures of the ships that are on the stocks now. I do not take up the number that will be reached in 1916.

597
I regard that year with great complacency. Moreover, I say that this country with its great ship-building facilities can cope with any emergency that may arise in the future, and that we are in a position of overwhelming strength now. Nobody can deny that. The figures show that since the building of big battleships commenced the Admiralty have provided amply for a sufficient margin in case of contingencies. I may now deal with the hon. Member for Fareham's description of the Home Fleet. The hon. Gentleman, so far as I understand, found the Home Fleet on inspection more satisfactory than he expected. A good many complaints were made last year about the Home Fleet, but the hon. Gentleman has examined it for himself—an example which might be followed by hon. Members who have found fault with the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman said, however, that the Home Fleet was under-manned. Of course, there are three divisions of the Home Fleet manned by nucleus crews, but there are at present at the Nore five battleships, eight cruisers and twenty-four torpedo boat destroyers manned for any instant emergency.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is that since last Thursday?
MR. LAMBERT: My hon. friend must know that I do not carry all these details in my mind. The figures I have given were supplied to me within the last few minutes. It is said that there are a great many ships laid up, but a ship may be in a dockyard and yet be ready instantly for fighting purposes. The admiral's bath may be out of order and the ship will be brought in to put it right, but the admiral's bath being out of order does not diminish the fighting efficiency of the ship. As to destroyers, the expert advisers of the Admiralty tell us that the sixteen to be laid down will be of an improved type and sufficient in number to meet our coming wants. I can emphatically assure the House that there is no shortage in this type of vessels. Surely that ought to be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to any person who values the expert advice which is at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. Then
598
we were asked by the right hon. Gentleman some questions about the savings on stores. That is a policy we inherited from our predecessors. The late Board of Admiralty appointed an Establishments Committee to regulate the amount of stores to be kept. The Committee made certain recommendations, which were all practically adopted by the Board over which Lord Cawdor presided. We have simply carried out in this matter the policy of our predecessors, and maintained the standard required by the Committee.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I referred to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on Monday as to the standard of reserve at the home stations. I understand that there may be some reduction in the standard in small articles easily purchasable at any time, but that there has been no reduction in the reserve of guns and ammunition. That is, of course, important.
MR. LAMBERT: A letter appeared in the public papers yesterday charging the Government with some niggardliness in this matter. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to it, as, of course, he would not take his information I from the Press, but I can assure him that the reserve of guns and ammunition is maintained at present fully up to the standard fixed in 1900. The allowance of practice ammunition has been increased of late years, and neither are reserves being depleted nor is less ammunition being used for practices than in past years. I hope that statement will dispel some illusions—[Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear]:—which might be, if un-contradicted, created in the public mind. Complaints have been made about Rosyth's not being proceeded with, but in expending large sums of money great care has to be taken that they are spent to the best advantage. The same observation applies to the Portsmouth lock. We have invited a most eminent firm of outside engineers to see whether they can find any better plans than the official advisers of the Army. I think in a matter of spending such large sums of money we should take precautions that the public money is not wasted.

599
It is essential that the Board of Admiralty should exercise deliberation and care to secure an economical use of public money.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask for an answer to my question as to when the works at Rosyth will be available for use as distinct from being finished.
MR. LAMBERT: That is very difficult to say, but as far as can be seen they will be available in from five to seven years. I am giving that statement with great reserve, because engineering difficulties may be encountered and other unexpected difficulties may arise. I do not think that there is any point of importance that I have not dealt with, but I hope I have dispelled the alarm which was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and which he thinks exists in the public mind. May I say that if there was any alarm about the Navy those Benches would have been more crowded than they are to-night. I remember very far back when we had a full dress debate as to the Navy the House of Commons presented a very different aspect from what it does now. I can assure hon. Members, and I give the assurance on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, that we are determined to maintain the Navy in a position of adequate strength and I hope matchless efficiency.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The points with which the hon. Gentleman has been concerned in the speech we have just heard are points1 that must be raised again. I do not think he fully appreciated either the force of the arguments or the character of the questions that have been addressed to him. The contention about the Home Fleet urged by my hon. friend near me was in the main this, that in the Home Fleet were counted ships which were no permanent part of that Fleet, and which were in dock accidentally. My hon. friend stated that he had reason to believe that ships that were counted in the Home Fleet were in reality under repair, that they had come from a foreign station to the ports where they were repaired, that
600
during the process of repair they were counted as ships in the, Home Fleet, and that directly they were repaired they went back to the foreign station. My hon. friend said truly that you may call those ships part of the Reserve, but that you have no right to call them part of the Home Fleet ready for instant service. That is a point on which we shall ask questions again, and on which the hon. Gentleman has given us no information.
MR. LAMBERT: The Home Fleet is organised in three divisions, two, with nucleus crews, at Portsmouth and Devonport, the remaining one at the Nore, chiefly consisting of fully-manned ships.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman call that an answer to the question? I thought I put the matter clearly, but I have evidently not reached the intelligence of the hon. Gentleman. Are any of the ships counted in the Home Fleet ships that came here from a foreign station because they were in need of repair, and when repaired went back to the foreign station? I do not mean that there is any discredit in-having such ships; but the Admiralty appear to talk as if these ships were part of the Fleet, instantaneously ready to deal with any emergency, whereas they are not. I hope on the proper Vote the Government will endeavour to show us that the torpedo destroyers and fast cruisers which we have at present are not merely equal or superior in number to those of any fleet likely to be brought against us, but so superior in number and in quality that they can deal with the defensive position or with the special strategic position which we shall have to occupy in the North Sea, under which it appears to us that we may require not merely numerical equality, but great numerical superiority. That argument has nothing to do with the two-Power standard. I am speaking of a single-handed struggle with some great naval Power, and I say that probably the conditions of that struggle would involve our possessing a much greater force of torpedo-boats to deal with all the questions of watching, observing, and carrying out the scouting duties of a fleet than our opponents

601
possess, if we are to be in a position of safety. The hon. Gentleman has given what in my opinion is a perfectly satisfactory answer on the subject of stores. I give full credence to his statement as to the standard of 1900 being fully maintained, but I hope he will explain what has puzzled us—that there appears to be a reduction of 40 per cent. in the amount of ammunition provided and a reduction of 47 per cent. with regard to torpedoes. The last question on which we must press the Government further is the relation between these Estimates and future Estimates. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman below the gangway (Mr. John Ward) is going to deal with—whether with the general expense to the community of maintaining the Navy, or a minor issue. If he is going to deal with the big issue, I beg him to note that the Estimates we have before us this year are illusory Estimates from the point of view that they are not specimens of what we must have in succeeding years, if the avowed policy of the Government is to be maintained. They fail, and they fail completely for two quite separate and important reasons. There will have to be spent over £2,000,000 on automatic increases—the increased expenditure on Rosyth, on ships now laid down, and other matters. In addition to that, if we are to maintain our position in regard to other great Powers now engaged in building formidable vessels, you will have to lay down a large number of "Dreadnoughts" and armoured cruisers. It is impossible but that your Naval Estimates will rise, and rise immensely, and what I complain of, and what I am bound to complain of at the present moment, is that the Government are really endeavouring, and did endeavour last night, to show a diminution in the Naval Estimates, taking this year as their standard. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our Naval Estimates were down, I think, by £1,500,000 as compared with the Estimates for which the late Government were responsible. That comparison is absolutely illusory and misleading, and if the Government are really going to carry on the traditions which they profess, then do not let any one, whether he be chiefly
602
interested in the maintenance of our naval superiority, or whether he attach more value to the reduction of armaments and the consequent reduction of expenditure—whatever point of view he takes, do not let him base any hope or argument on the Naval Estimates of this year; but let him look to next year, or the year after, or the year after that, and contemplate the building and other programmes, not by the policy of the late Government, but by the policy which the late Government and the present Government have in common. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down tried to satisfy us with an assurance that at the present moment we have adequate naval strength. So far as this year is concerned nobody denies that proposition. We accept it. But what we say is that the year 1908 consists of twelve months like any other year. It will soon be over, and when 1909 begins you will find that the expenditure, which, I admit, is not inadequate for the immediate necessities of the 365 days of this year—
AN HON. MEMBER: 366.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, you will find that you are bound to look, not merely at the adequacy of a particular sum for a particular year but at our naval policy as a whole; and if you look at it as a whole, then you will see that this year is an absolutely illusory year, and everybody, whatever their views, whether they go with the minority who voted last night or with the majority, all may be sure of this, that if the safety of this country is to be kept up, naval expenditure will increase, and economists can only hope for some diminution in their burdens so far as the Navy is concerned if the Government fall short of those professions in regard to the two-Power standard and other collateral issues, of which they have hitherto given us satisfactory assurances, but on which, I frankly admit, the somewhat hesitating language they used last night has filled me, at all events, with the deepest misgivings.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid there were one or two considerations to which he desired to call attention,

603
especially in view of the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He thought it was pretty plain that all the hopes of the Labour Party in regard to a reduction of expenditure were doomed to failure in the years to come. He thought it was pretty evident from the decision of the Lords of the Admiralty that Rosyth was now to be constructed and the work proceeded with. In addition to that, other docks at different naval bases were to be made adequate for the accommodation of vessels of the larger class now under construction and already completed. He thought that that in itself showed that their hopes were to be dashed to the ground so far as naval expenditure was concerned. Let them take Rosyth as an illustration. It was estimated that that one dock for the accommodation of vessels of the "Dreadnought" class would cost £3,000,000, and it was further estimated that it would be completed in five or seven years. They would be extremely lucky if they got it completed in that time; but even if they did, it meant that they would have to begin next year and count it as one of the years. That meant an addition to the Estimates next year of considerably over half a million under that one head alone. It was quite clear, therefore, that their hopes of a reduced expenditure on the part of the Admiralty and of the War Office were entirely illusory. In addition, he understood that it was contemplated to proceed at once to the letting of the contract for the new lock at Portsmouth, which was to cost nearly a million of money. He did not know how long that was to be in course of construction, or whether they were to assume that it would be about five years, but judging from the geological formation, and seeing that the site was well known, they ought to be able to estimate the cost both in time and money to a fraction. At any rate, there must be a sum of £200,000 per annum added for that purpose alone. Hence, without taking into account anything extra for shipbuilding, he could see from the discussions which had taken place that afternoon that there would be £700,000 or £750,000 added to the Naval Estimate next year, and for the next five or six years on the construction of dock
604
accommodation for our ships. If they were going to maintain the policy practically decided upon by the Government last night, though it was not included in the terms of the Resolution, then they were in for a very considerable increase of naval expenditure under any circumstances. The Labour Members had not had very much opportunity of discussing this subject yesterday, but he might say for himself, and he dared say that he might speak for some of his Labour friends, that, though they had no foreign policy—and they saw no necessity for fashioning one, seeing that there was no prospect at present of their being called upon to decide it, though if they were called upon he dared say they would be able to do so, because necessity was the mother of invention—yet they had very definite ideas about this subject of naval supremacy and naval defence, however much their general views might be in hostility to the increase of expenditure on the Army. The Labour Party thought that the Army was generally used for aggressive purposes, but that statement would not apply to the Navy, which was our first line of defence. He acknowledged that there was scarcely a subject under the sun that he would not arbitrate about, but he would not arbitrate about the cession of a single inch of our country to any other Power. When we were not manly enough to defend our shores it would be time for us to give better men a chance. But so far as the defence of the country was concerned the Labour Party were prepared to do all that was necessary in that direction. They saw no reason, however, why all that was necessary to make the Navy efficient could not be secured by reducing a useless branch of the public service. It was suggested that we should have a striking force of 160,000 men. He believed that that force could be reduced to 60,000, and the other 100,000 dispensed with. That number would be ample. Great economies might be made along these lines; but so far as the Navy was concerned, however much they might desire to see reductions, it was clear from the discussions that the majority of the Members of that House had decided upon a policy which made it utterly impossible that those reductions

605
could be carried out. On Rosyth there was a possible expenditure of £500,000 a year, and they knew that the engineers had sunk to a depth of 100 feet and come upon swamps. He would not be surprised if for the next two or three years the estimated annual cost of the construction of the base at Rosyth was nearer £1,000,000 than £500,000, and they would sooner or later be called upon to decide whether they were prepared to go to that enormous expense or not. He did not think there was any need for alarm. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, whose knowledge was unrivalled, had stated most definitely that so far as the present position of our fleet and our power on the seas were concerned there was not the slightest cause for alarm, and it was lucky for the House and the country that that was so, because he was afraid that if they ever allowed this branch of the service to get into such a condition that there was honest and genuine reason for alarm, panic would drive them a lot further than they were ever prepared to dream of now. Under these circumstances, while they were prepared to support only that portion of expenditure which was proved to be necessary, they were prepared unquestionably to agree to it, but they wanted a corresponding economy in another important branch of the service where he did not believe they got enough nor could they ever hope to get anything like a decent return for their money.
MR. BELLAIRSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the designs of the armoured ships of the 1909 programme would be prepared in advance, so that if they had to lay them down early in 1909 there would be no delay whatever.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I can only give the hon. Gentlemen the answer he must expect. I cannot off-hand decide that. I will communicate the suggestion to my Naval colleagues. That is all I can say.
MR. GULLAND, in moving "That this House is of opinion that, in the interests of the men in the Royal Navy, effect should be
606
given to the suggestion of the Victualling Committee of last year to raise the money allowance in lieu of the spirit ration, and that the issue of the spirit ration should be discontinued in the case of all new recruits, whilst preserving to them the money allowance in its place," said he wished to call attention to a small question of domestic economy. The Motion standing in his name was one in the interests of the men. After all, the success of the Navy was determined by the character and capacity of the sailor. Everyone liked the British sailor. He was the most popular man in the country. The community was greatly interested in his welfare and would gladly see him made comfortable in every way. He would like to draw attention to the needs of Scotland in one or two points. The Fleet was going now a great deal into Scottish waters, and at such places as Invergordon, there was great need for a social institute. He hoped the Admiralty would take that matter into consideration, and would also remember when a base was established at Rosyth that something in that line should be done there. He would limit himself to the report of the Committee on canteen and victualling arrangements. Many of their recommendations had been given effect to. Some were a great help to temperance, because every improvement of the condition of life diminished the force of the temptation to drink to excess. For instance, the cookery staff had been enlarged, and the tea ration increased. Another recommendation was that more attention should be paid to coffee-making and that proper appliances should be provided for the making of coffee, also that there should be a provision of fresh milk for seagoing ships, and generally that there should be a greater variety of diet. Then the Committee proceeded to make suggestions with regard specifically to temperance, which were very simple and elementary in their character. The men now had a Government ration of 10d. a day which included an item for rum. They got one-eighth of a pint of grog or as an equivalent half a pint of wine, half a gill of spirit, or one pint of porter. That alone cost the State rather over three-sixteenths of a penny a man, no duty being paid. A man who did not

607
take the rum ration got a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny a day, and the men who took the money allowance were marked in the ship's ledger T, which stood for temperance. The Committee suggested that instead of marking temperance men with T, the grog men should be marked G, and they further suggested that the money allowance for those not taking the rum ration should be raised to a full penny a day. Those recommendations were not made by teetotal fanatics, nor even by ignorant landsmen, but by naval experts who knew all the circumstances. They could not actually recommend these points, because they were outside their limits, but they were so impressed with the advisability of giving effect to them that they made the suggestions believing they would do much to promote temperance in the Fleet. He believed the suggestion was concurred in by most, if not all, naval authorities. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was very sympathetic, but the suggestions had not yet been carried out, and the object of the Resolution was to express the feeling of the House and if possible to get the Report carried out. The first point, the change of the letter T and the letter G, seemed small, and yet there was a great difference. This grog was a relic of the old times that had gone. The system had gone in civil and in military life, and it was time that it went in naval life. Nowadays there was a great responsibility upon employers, and in this case the State was the employer. There was no other employer that paid part of the wages in spirits. The force of public opinion would be directed against such a way of paying wages, and it was altogether out of date to have the system continued where the State itself was the employer. Public opinion nowadays had a great deal to do with how employers treated their employees. There was, for instance, a great outcry against the living-in system, but unfortunately in the Navy that system could not be prevented. If the change was made it would show the desire of the employer that the men should be temperate. The rule should be abstinence and the exception grog. At present the money allowance for those not taking grog was too little. It was against the regulations for
608
a man to pass on his tot or sell it to another. Yet this was frequently done because the money allowance was so small, and that of course resulted in some men having too much grog, which did not make them any fitter for doing their work. At present 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy were marked T and the proportion was increasing by 1 per cent. annually. That was highly gratifying, and he was sure the number would increase faster if his Motion was accepted. A penny a day was 30s a year, and he would like to have the money paid at stated times, so that the men would know perfectly that they were getting, it in lieu of their grog, and not mixed up with other payments. To carry out the scheme would cost the nation £15,000 extra, which was a mere bagatelle compared with the millions spent upon the Navy, and he was sure the money could not be better spent. He appealed to all parties in the House. Hon. Members opposite talked about forcing people to be temperate. This did not do that. It adopted a policy of moral suasion, accompanied by pecuniary inducement. This proposal would allow a man to fix his own time limit. The latter part of the Motion was the logical outcome of the first part, and it provided that there should be no issue of spirit rations to new recruits. Under the present system for the first two years service a man got no grog, and his suggestion was that that policy should be continued all the time with the new recruits. The objection had been made that the men would not join under those conditions. If there were men who only joined for grog, the Navy was better without them. On the other hand, there were those who would not join the Navy at present because of the drinking habits, of the men and the ridicule that was directed against the men who did not drink. One paragraph of the Report of the Committee emphasised the advantage of adopting in peace time a victualling system that would work during war. He suggested that they should prepare some system of that kind to prevail in time of war. It was absolutely essential during war to banish strong drink from their ships. He could give instances where this had been done with great success. The Japanese Navy, which

609
copied the British Navy, at first gave grog on our plan. They began with a very liberal allowance of rum, and then this was displaced and their native drink was substituted. Even the native drink had since been discontinued, and now there was no drink allowance in the Japanese Navy at all. They were aware, from the splendid fighting record of the Japanese Navy, what a success that had been. In the United States there used to be a grog allowance, but Admiral Foote used his personal influence so strongly that his ship the "Cumberland," became a temperance ship and every man upon it was a temperance man. During the Civil War in 1862 the United States Navy found it essential to banish drink from their ships, and in that year a Bill was passed providing that "from and after the 1st of September the spirit rations in the Navy of the United States shall for ever cease," and five cents, per man was substituted. All the authorities in America united in showing that the system adopted there had been a complete success. He hoped it would be a long time before the British Navy had to take part in a war, but he thought they should be prepared for it in this way as well as in the more expensive ways. By his Resolution he was only asking the Admiralty to give effect to the Report of their own Committee appointed to consider another matter. That Committee felt so strongly on this point that they made the suggestion he had quoted. The adoption of this Resolution would have an excellent effect on the character and the work of the men, and consequently on the efficiency of the Navy. He begged to move.
MR. FERENSsaid he rose to second this Amendment. He associated himself with everything his hon. friend had said in appreciation of the men of the Royal Navy. The Resolution contained two propositions. In the first place it suggested that the Government should put into force the recommendation of the Canteen and Victualling Committee, 1906, viz.: "To encourage temperance amongst the men we suggest raising the money, allowance to 1d. per ration in lieu of the spirit." Secondly, it was proposed that all new recruits
610
should be paid the allowance without the option of liquor. It was not proposed to interfere with the contract made with the men who were now in the Navy. They must be allowed to continue as at present if they wished it, and they had no right to interfere with the bargain made with them when they joined the Navy. The supply of daily rations of rum was a survival from the dark ages. It was quite out of date, and in the interests of efficiency, good order, and discipline it should be abolished so far as new recruits were concerned. It would probably be said that yesterday was spent in the advocacy of economy in the Navy and to-day they were proposing an increase in naval expenditure. It was quite true that the increase from nine-sixteenths of a penny to one penny would involve an expenditure of perhaps £15,000 a year, but he maintained that this outlay would prove to be a real economy and would be returned with compound interest in improved conduct, alertness, and generally increased efficiency. The Secretary for War was continually telling them that although the number of the Army might be reduced, it did not follow that its efficiency was less. He felt that the efficiency of the Navy would be increased if the young fellows upon joining did not get rum rations, which often created an appetite for liquor which some of them went to extremes in satisfying on shore. The foremost men in the Army and Navy were strong advocates of temperance. Lord Roberts, in season and out of season, preached the advantages of temperance to soldiers. Lord Kitchener on his march to Khartoum discovered intoxicating liquor with his forces, and he had it poured, out into the desert sands. Sir Frederick Treves, when on the march to Ladysmith, said—
"It was not the tall man nor the short man that fell out of the ranks, but it was the drinker, and he was as clearly marked as if he had been branded."
Lord Charles Beresford, himself an abstainer, was doing his best to spread temperance amongst those serving under him. He had recently listened to an eloquent speech made by the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth when he gave most convincing testimony as to the advantages of the influences brought to

611
bear upon the men in the Navy to be temperate. Last year the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy did not take their tots of rum. The Times, yesterday, in an interesting account of a contingent of Marines now on the way from Vancouver, had stated that the victualling arrangements had been much upset because so large a proportion of the men—more than one-half—were abstainers. This tendency should be encouraged, and they should try to make it easier for the men to do right and more difficult for them to do wrong. A commander in the Navy had favoured him with his views on this question and he would read them to the House—
"Rum, spirits, a ration—part of provision allowance to men in Royal Navy—now only allowed to be taken by men over twenty years of age. Age limit used to be eighteen, extension to twenty (two years at sea without it) has been great factor in inducing men to do without altogether.
"The expense incurred by labour, stowage and guarding (i.e., sentry and other precautions) probably cost more than the difference to make up the allowance to Id. per day in lieu of tots.
"It is said by some who know that the tot of grog is worth 1d., and probably more than 1d. to a man if sold surreptitiously; and that this goes on to some extent amongst the men is well known, as much as 3d being given for a tot, and one case of a hard bargain is quoted when a tot was actually sold for 6d.
"But the fact that grog can be, and is, sold (though contrary to regulations) for more than the allowance in lieu, is a temptation for a man who does not drink his tot to take it up and sell it instead of stopping its issue.
"It is generally acknowledged by commanding officers and officers in responsible positions that the grog ration is a principal cause of insubordination in cases which frequently occur in afternoon (after grog is served out); many cases being traced to the effects of grog, particularly amongst cooks of messes and others having facilities for drinking more than their own tot. Also the effect of the grog generally seems to make men less alert and less fit for the exacting duties now required of our sailors in all departments of the Navy.
"Encourage the voluntary stopping of grog, because it results in more efficient men, of greater benefit to the State, and a return of much greater value than the proposed allowance in lieu of grog.
"The State will be getting a very good pennyworth."
This was the third time of asking, and he hoped the Admiralty would now consider favourably this small reform. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that in the interests of the men in the Royal Navy effect should be given to the suggestion of the Victualling Committee of last year to raise the money allowance in lieu of the spirit ration, and that the issue of the spirit ration should be discontinued in the case of all new recruits, whilst preserving to them the money allowance in its place,"—(Mr. Gulland)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought he had shown in his speech last year the fullest sympathy with the object of the Amendment. The Victualling Committee had calculated, on the basis of the existing number of temperance men, who took the money equivalent to the spirit ration, that the proposed increase in the allowance would involve the cost to the State of £15,000 a year. It was found, however, on a revised calculation made at the Admiralty that the cost would not be quite so large, or only £12,500. He had to confess that no provision was made in the Estimates this year for this reform owing to the pressure which had come from all sides in favour of other interests. But it would be considered in the future; and he would take it upon himself to recommend it to his colleagues at the Admiralty. He thought the Admiralty ought first to know what was likely to be the number of men that would come forward to claim this increased allowance-He therefore was going to suggest to his colleagues that they should call upon the Commanders-in-Chief of one of the home ports and two of the large sea-going fleets, to report, first, the existing number of temperance men, divided between men over twenty and boys under twenty; and, secondly, the number of men who would be willing to go on the temperance list if the non-grog allowance was increased to one penny. Then there was the more doubtful point, raised on the second part of the Motion that the issue of grog should be abolished altogether, at first in the case of recruits, and ultimately in the case of all the men. He believed the Victualling Committee were not in favour of the abolition of the spirit ration, unless it were found, at some time or

613
other, that the great majority of the men were, of their own free will, taking the grog money in lieu of grog. They thought that if such a step were taken hurriedly and arbitrarily, in advance of public opinion on board ship, it must almost necessarily lead to the sale of spirits in the canteen without official supervision, or to what was a worse state of things, systematic smuggling on board ship.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he must express to his right hon. friend some little disappointment at the character of the statement he had made that evening. After all, his hon. friend did not come before the House unsupported by the authorities whom the right hon. Gentleman had appointed to look into the matter. It was perfectly true that the Canteen Committee did not recommend this alteration, but they put it forward as a suggestion and only refrained from recommending it because they felt that that would be going beyond the functions for which they were appointed. He had certainly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have announced that he was ready to provide the small sum of money that was necessary for carrying out this suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman had said it did not depend on him, and that he was going to consult his colleagues at the Admiralty and the Treasury. The point he wanted to put was this. The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not carry out the suggestion, because with the £34,000,000 required for the Navy he was not able to find the £12,000 necessary to carry it out. What he wanted to know was whether if there were any savings on any Vote in that £34,000,000 the first use the Admiralty, in the exercise of their power of virement, made of that saving would be to provide the £12,000 in question The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not carry out the second half of the Resolution because the Committee having considered it did not recommend it. They said nothing about it in their Report. He understood they were against it. In the second case the verdict of the Committee was accepted as decisive, and it was rather hard on those who desired this reform that the
614
recommendation of the Committee in its favour should be set on one side. He pleaded that the right hon. Gentleman should carry out the suggestion of his own Committee.
MR. LUTTRELLurged the Government to consider carefully the suggestion which had been made to them. It seemed to him that there was everything to be said in favour of acceding to the request. His right hon. friend had told them that the cost would be even smaller than was generally supposed, and that, for £12,500 they should be able to get rid of the issue of spirit rations to the men of the Navy. The House had heard a good deal about the necessity of maintaining the two-Power standard. But it was necessary to keep up the moral standard as well as the physical standard, and most of the offences in the Navy were to be traced to drunkenness. We were behind other nations in this respect. Japan and America had been in front of us for many years in this matter. Unless we kept up the moral standard of our men we could not expect to keep up the standard of efficiency in the Navy. He thought the money required to carry out this reform would be extremely well spent from the point of view of efficiency. In America so long ago as 1862 the following Resolution was passed—
"The spirit ration in the Navy of the United States shall for ever cease and thereafter no distilled spirituous liquors shall be admitted on board of vessels of war except as medical stores and upon the order and under the control of the medical officers of such vessels, and to be used only for such purposes."
Rear Admiral Preble of the United States Navy, stated—
"Three-quarters of the minor and all the major punishments of the men and a large proportion of the courts martial of the officers either originated in drunkenness or could be traced to drink. I am clearly of opinion that the Navy has been largely benefited in its personnel by the prohibition of distilled spirits on board ships, though the officers at the time looked upon it with dismay."
The following lines showed how popular the change was—
"Jack's happy days will soon be past,
To return again, no, never,
For they've raised our pay 5 cents a day
And stopped our grog for ever."

615
Now, no commanding officer would recommend going back to the old system. Though he would not advise his friends to go to a division, he urged in the most strenuous manner that the Government should accede to the request.
MR. MORTONsaid that this was a step in the advancement of the great question of temperance which everybody professed to believe in, but which few carried out in practice. He was exceedingly sorry that the Government had not taken more interest in it, because it had been found everywhere else that where the allowance of drink was taken away, and an allowance of money substituted, it had always done good. The right hon. Gentleman lad said that he had no recent or authentic information from America, but he gave some sort of opinion of the man in the street that smuggling went on in the American Navy, and that there was also drinking in the canteens. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had given no proof whatever that that was the case, and it was utterly wrong to make such charges against the American Navy without proof. Exactly the same thing had been said regarding Sunday drinking in Scotland. It was said that as a consequence of Sunday closing, shebeens had sprung up and that there were all sorts of means of getting drink on Sundays. Everybody who knew the facts of the case, and made a proper inquiry, was aware that these charges were entirely untrue. The stories in regard to drinking in canteens and smuggling in the American Navy had about the same amount of truth. The right hon. Gentleman had said an inquiry would be made; but that was how awkward subjects were got rid of, and by this time next year there might or might not have been an inquiry. Indeed, the Government might not be in power twelve months hence, and he wanted them to do something at once while they were in power. He wanted an assurance from the Treasury Bench that this was not to be a mere inquiry, but that something would be done as soon as possible; and he was sure that it would do as much good as the abolition of the drink allowance had done in the American Navy and in our
616
own workhouses, infirmaries, and other institutions. He had not the slighest doubt that our sailors (a fine body of men) would gladly avail themselves of the money substitute for drink, and that they would do good to themselves and their families and to the temperance cause by showing a good example to the rest of their fellows. He (Mr. Morton) was always anxious to do something in the cause of temperance, and he was aware that strong drink was not necessary or useful to anyone, male or female.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he could assure the hon. Member that it was his intention to institute a real inquiry into the subject, and if his own recommendation could do it he would put a stop to the drink allowance. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman to allow the vote to be taken, if a division was thought necessary, so as to get the Speaker out of the Chair.
MR. LUPTONsaid he was sorry that he was unable to respond to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, but he had experience of what it was to raise important questions in the absence of Mr. Speaker from the Chair. It was much less easy to discuss then subjects which were of vital interest. A great deal had been said about our being able to maintain our Navy at the two-Power standard. He was strongly in favour of a strong Navy.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not the Question before the House. The Question is an Amendment relating to the drink allowance in the Navy.
MR. CARLILEsaid that, while he had very much sympathy with the Resolution before the House, he should say that there was one very ominous expression in the speech of the seconder, and that was an expression very often heard in certain quarters: "We ought to make it easy for people to do right, and difficult for them to do wrong." He had always noticed that whenever that observation was made it was immediately accompanied by a proposal to rob somebody. However, on this

617
Occasion there did not seem to be any proposal of that kind, and therefore one felt sympathy with the Amendment. But it ought to be made perfectly clear that there would be no tyranny about this business. They were so accustomed to attempts being made in some parts of the House to put them in leading strings with bibs round their necks, which they associated with children, that they were rather suspicious of this Amendment. He thought if a man was accustomed to have his tot of rum and desired it he should have it under proper control.
MR. GULLAND: That is quite clearly provided for in the Amendment.
MR. CARLILEsaid he knew that something was said in the Amendment about recruits, but recruits to the Navy came from all classes and of different ages, and he did not think it was right to tyrannise over them. He had not himself taken any drink for thirty-two years, and got on very well without it; but he did not think it was right to lay down a hard and fast line and say that these recruits were not to get a little liquor in a properly conducted canteen if they wanted it. He thought it was a matter for sincere congratulation on the part of everybody in the House that 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy were total abstainers. He was quite certain that they were all the better for it, even in the severe climates to which they had sometimes to go. Still, he did not want to put our sailors in leading strings with bibs round their throats, and he hoped that if the matter was left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman it would be properly dealt with. It would be a sad thing if the result was to lead to secret drinking.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
Committee Report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CHINESE ON BRITISH SHIPS.
MR. FENWICKin calling attention to the conditions under which Chinese subjects were employed on British ships, and in moving: "That, in the opinion of this House, the conditions under which Chinese seamen are employed on British vessels at ports in the United Kingdom calls for an immediate investigation by a Select Committee of this House, with a view to determining whether the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, are sufficient to enable the Board of Trade to prevent abuses arising out of the employment of Chinese in the British Mercantile Marine," said the Resolution would be seconded by his hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough, who had, perhaps, a more intimate personal knowledge of the question dealt with than he claimed to have. The hon. Member had had considerable practical experience of seafaring life, and as the House knew, he himself was not a sailor, though some of his friends said that he was a good sailor, because often as he had been on the water he was yet in blissful ignorance of what it was to be sea-sick. He wished to state at the outset that, speaking on his own behalf and of those in whose interest this Resolution was brought forward, neither they nor he had any complaint to make against the employment of Chinese in our mercantile marine qua Chinese. They did not wish in any way to curtail the employment of these men, nor did they wish to ask for anything in the nature

619
of protection or even preferential treatment for Seamen born within the four corners of the United Kingdom. All that they claimed was that if Chinese or any other foreign subjects were employed in the British mercantile marine they Should not be employed under terms and conditions which practically amounted to sweating or unfair agreements which tended very largely to deprive British-born subjects of their legitimate calling. They understood, and he believed that the Board of Trade would assist them in this respect, that wherever Chinese or the subjects of any other foreign Power were employed in the British mercantile marine they should comply strictly and to the letter, with the provisions laid down by the Board of Trade, both by their regulations and in their recent legislation. It was within the recollection of the House that recently they had devoted a large portion of their time to the consideration of legislation and the laying down of conditions and rules for the regulation of the mercantile marine especially with a view of improving the condition of the British sailor. It was true that the regulations and the legislation to which he had referred were based very largely upon the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, which only arrived at them after very full, careful, and exhaustive inquiry. He would remind the House of some of the things which were provided for by the President of the Board of Trade under the Act of 1906. The Act provided, amongst other things, that no foreign seaman should be permitted to engage on a British vessel unless he was able to speak and understand the English language. It also provided that no able seaman should be engaged unless he was able to prove at the time of his engagement that he had served at least for three years before the mast or in the capacity of seaman. It also enacted better food regulations and laid down what they considered to be a reasonable and rational scale of allowances which the British seaman ought to have; and that no person should be shipped as a ship's cook unless he held a certificate granted by a school of cookery, approved by the Board of Trade. These, in his judgment, were very wholesome provisions indeed, and
620
it seemed to him that it ought to be the duty of the House to see that the regulations which were imposed by that. Act were strictly and literally observed. The importance of the language test would, he thought, be admitted by every Member who had the honour of listening to the speech in which the President of the Board of Trade introduced his Bill two years ago. He would like to quote one passage from that speech to show the importance which the right hon. Gentleman attached to the question of language. The right hon. Gentleman cited several instances which clearly showed the danger to those employed in our mercantile marine, arising from the employment of men who were, it might be, physically fit in every respect to discharge the duties imposed upon them, but who were, in consequence of their want of knowledge and clear understanding of the English language, absolutely unfit to bear the responsibility imposed upon them. The President of the Board of Trade spid—
"There is overwhelming evidence that the lives of men engaged at sea are endangered by the fact that you have seamen on board who do not understand the English language, who consequently do not understand the word of command, and who, especially in moments of emergency, are absolutely worthless for that reason."
This Resolution was brought forward not for the sake of protection, but absolutely in the interest of the safety of those employed in our mercantile marine. The Act, as the House would remember, only became operative on 1st January of the present year. Some considerable grace, it seemed to him, was allowed to ship owners to prepare for all the consequences of the Act when it became operative. What had happened? Only on the previous Saturday the stipendiary at Cardiff was engaged in an inquiry into the stranding of a steamship, called the "Huddersfield," off Hartland Point on 27th January last. That vessel had only been a few days at sea, and as the remit of the inquiry the master's certificate was suspended for six months. The stipendiary, in giving judgment said—
"The attention of the court had been drawn on several occasions during the last five years to the danger to life and navigation arising from the employment on British ships of foreigners having an insufficient knowledge

621
of the English language to enable, them to understand the necessary orders and to make the communications necessary to be made in the performance of their duty."
What were the facts relating to this case? Two of the crew gave evidence before the Court of Inquiry, and neither of them understood a word of the English language. [An HON. MEMBER: Were they Chinamen?] One was a Greek, and he believed the other was a Chinaman, though that was not stated in the newspaper report. The man at the look-out on this occasion was a Greek who did not understand the English language, and although he saw that the vessel was approaching broken water, and ought to have been able to give intimation to that effect and to call attention to the danger which the vessel was running, he was unable to do so in consequence of his inability to find the words necessary, and the vessel was stranded in consequence. Although this man had the advantage of an interpreter he was still quite unable to understand the nature of the warning which he ought to have given. The court went on to express the opinion—
"Unless some vigour, care, and vigilance were exercised in giving effect to the restriction on the employment of foreign seamen contained in Section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, the restriction was both futile and illusory."
He contended that that was the case, and that unless more careful supervision was exercised at the ports of the United Kingdom by the superintendent or some other person in authority when a crew was signing on, to take care that these men really did understand the English language and the nature of the duties they were called upon to par form, the regulations of this House would become simply illusory and a sham. Probably the case of a vessel which signed on on 31st January this year, one month after the provisions of the Act became operative, was familiar to the Secretary to the Board of Trade. The instructions of the Board of Trade as laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act, provided that what was known as the Dis. A., which applied to the question of nationality, should be produced at the time when seamen were being signed on. In this case some thirty-eight
622
seamen of a foreign nationality were signed on without Dis. A. having been submitted to them. It was perfectly true that by the Act of 1906 they regarded the Chinese and lascars just the same as any subject of British India, and in that respect they made a great mistake, because it was very easy for a Chinamen coming from anywhere-outside of Hong-Kong and Shanghai to cry off, on the ground solely that he was a British subject. Practically no steps, and certainly no efficient steps steps, were taken to ascertain whether these men were British subjects or not. In cases such as these, very careful consideration was required. Unless a man hailing from a foreign country was capable of showing by documentary evidence that he was a British subject, he ought to be prevented from signing such articles. What was the value of all their restrictive legislation and of their regulations if they simply accepted the ipse dixit of any man who sought employment in the mercantile marine that he was a British subject? A Chinese, Norwegim, or Russian sailor might go down to the shipping office and say his papers had been either stolen or mislaid, declare that he hailed from Hong Kong or Shanghai, and claim to be a British subject, without producing any evidence to show that such was the case. He maintained that, in the interests of safety and proper discipline in the mercantile marine, such an individual who was unable to produce documentary evidence as to the place of his nativity should be rejected on that ground. The same thing applied with equal force to the case of rating. According to the Shipping Act, no man was entitled to be rated as an A.B. unless he could produce evidence that he had served three years before the mast or as a seaman. The House would here again observe the great laxity that was displayed in all such cases. He had in his possession the articles of agreement relating to three vessels, and not a tittle of evidence was produced to show that the men had served for any length of time before the mast. In another case-thirty-eight seamen of foreign nationality had signed on as ordinary seamen, practically without having had any experience of the duties to be performed

623
on board ship. Seventeen of these men had left German vessels, two had left Russian vessels, and four had left Norwegian vessels. He maintained that in the absence of documentary evidence these men ought not to have been treated as British subjects, and they were not entitled to the covering clauses in the Act of 1906. Steps ought to be taken to prevent such men being employed In the British mercantile marine. The Secretary to the Board of Trade might reply to his contentions by saying that the Board of Trade were fully aware of the danger that existed, and were doing all they could to meet it. He believed that was so. He believed the Board of Trade were determined as far as they could to put an end to these questionable practices. He might also remind them that they had had very little opportunity as yet to gain experience of the operation of the Act, and to say that no inquiry was needed in order to deal effectively with the two questions he had raised. He was quite alive to the importance of such an answer. He recognised that if they set up an inquiry it would be very difficult indeed for the Board of Trade to exercise even the powers they possessed, either under the Act of 1906 or former Merchant Shipping Acts, until that inquiry was completed and its findings reported to Parliament. He could see the force of such an argument, but there were other points on which it seemed to him there was good ground for the request that an inquiry should be made without delay into the conditions prevailing in the mercantile marine. They had the case of crimping. Almost very day they had articles in the newspapers calling attention to the fact that so-and-so was in the habit of providing Chinese and other seamen for the British mercantile marine, and was able to do it on certain very easy conditions, so far as the shipowner was concerned. According to Section 111, of the Act of 1894, however, it was laid down that—
"A person shall not engage or supply a seaman or apprentice to be entered on board any ship in the United Kingdom, unless that person either holds a licence from the Board of Trade for the purpose, or is the Owner, Master or Mate of the ship, or is bona fide the servant and an the constant employment of the Owner, or is a Superintendent."
624
They had advertisements appearing in the public Press in the name of gentlemen who were willing to procure such subjects for the advantage of the shipowners. The following which appeared in one of the London newspapers only a month or two ago was an example. It came from Cardiff and ran as follows—
"GENTLEMEN,—Encouraged by the fact that owners of ships have lately applied to me to secure Chinese crews for them, I most respectfully beg to call your attention to the fact that I always have good and reliable men in my house ready to join vessels at the shortest notice and at any port in the United Kingdom, provided half their fares and half expenses of transfer of luggage are paid. When employing a Chinese crew, you only require about two more hands than Europeans, but the difference in costs, not only in wages, is balanced by the cheaper scale of provisions the crew demands. Hoping to have the privilege to select a crew for you on some future occasion, I remain gentlemen, very respectfully yours, AH SAM."
He would like to know whether this man held a licence from the Board of Trade as a recruiting agent for Chinese seamen. If he did not, then he thought very drastic steps ought to be taken immediately in order to put an end to this state of things. He also gave in his advertisement a food scale which the Chinese would require, and it was practically about one-third of that which was only two years ago laid down as an adequate scale for European seamen engaged in the mercantile marine. In many cases, too, European seamen had to complain of the unfair contracts with which they were confronted from time to time. It was perfectly true that they were signed by the men with their eyes open, but the condition of employment in the country was so precarious that in every branch of British industry a man was not always strictly speaking a free agent when in search of work. He was often compelled by sheer force of circumstances to sign a contract which, if he were freer, he would not be likely to sign. He had before him a contract in which there was a clause providing that if the cook deserted in a European port, and a substitute had to be found, and higher wages were demanded by the substitute (which was usually the case in European ports) then the difference had to be paid out of the wages of those engaged on board the vessel. Such conditions seemed to him to be

625
monstrous in the extreme. We were opening the ports of the United Kingdom and making them practically collecting grounds for men of foreign nationality who by the lower rate of wages which they were prepared to take were practically driving Europeans out of the service of our mercantile marine, which was at this moment manned to the extent of 40 per cent. by seamen of a different nationality from our own. This was a condition of things that we could not look upon with anything like complacency or satisfaction. In the matter of the Workmen's Compensation Act again they had ground for a careful inquiry by the Board of Trade. They had evidence that the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act was tending probably more than anything else to drive European seamen out of our mercantile marine. That was a very undesirable thing, and unless they were prepared to tighten up the regulations provided by the Board of Trade and by legislation, the improvements which they expected they were effecting in the lot of the British sailor, which was always an arduous one accompanied by danger, were being frittered away and passing into the hands of men of a totally different nationality. He remembered when the original Workmen's Compensation Act was passing through the House that the late Sir Arthur Forwood, himself a large shipowner, and deeply in favour of extending its provision to seamen, in moving an Amendment to that effect, said that the British seaman was the worst paid, the worst organised, and the least able of all British workmen to take care of himself. It was in the interests of this class that this Motion had been brought forward; he sincerely appealed to the Board of Trade to grant an inquiry if possible, and he trusted that their labours in this respect might not become futile and illusory.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he was afraid he would not be able to be quite so calm on this matter as his hon. friend, because be had had to deal with the question of shipping and shipowners for a good many years, and of all the employers in the country he knew of no class who were more inclined
626
to take advantage of their workmen than the shipowners. There were exceptions. There were a good many shipowners who did well by their employees and did everything they could to make the conditions on board ship all that could be desired. What was it that they had to complain of? For a good many years he had complained of the unrestricted employment of alien seaman on British ships, not that he objected to any foreign seamen being employed because he was a foreigner. All he said was that if these shipowner believed, and some of them said so, that the foreigner was a better man the shipowner ought to pay him better wages, and if he was engaged as a sailor he should be a competent man. That surely implied that he should be able to understand the orders given him. If he could not understand his orders he was not a competent man, and that observation applied equally to firemen. There was no class of employer that he knew of that had libelled and defamed their own countrymen to a greater extent than the, shipowner. According to statements of some shipowners the British seaman was a grumbler, would not attend to his work, never did what was right, and in fact was the worst man that they could possibly find to have on board ship, Many years ago the shipowners gave a preference to the Swedes and the Danes. They got them at less wages, but by and by those men commenced to ask for better pay and the shipowners had no further use for them. They then tried the Germans and Belgians with the same result, and they went all round Europe even taking in Turks and Greeks, but as soon as the men asked a better price for their labour their services were not required to the same preferential extent. Now the shipowners had got to India and China. He had been told more than once by Presidents of the Board of Trade that be must not ask for any conditions for the lascar or the Asiatic, because he was a British subject, and that if they asked that he should have proper accommodation and food he-would not be employed. Now it seemed that to some extent the shipowner had tired of the lascar, and had gone in wholesale for Chinamen. He thought some months ago that this

627
question was becoming very serious indeed. Ten years ago the only liners carrying lascars and Chinamen were those trading direct from the United Kingdom to the East and back, but during the last nine months it was not only the liners that had taken on Chinamen, but nearly the whole of the tramp steamers. He would respectfully suggest to his right hon. friend that when the Board of Trade were compiling figures they should be a little more fair to the seamen's side. The last quinquennial Return gave the percentage of lascars employed as about twenty-four or twenty - six. That was entirely misleading, because the lascars and Chinamen were employed in the foreign trade principally, and the number of lascars and Chinamen in the foreign trade employed as sailor, firemen, and petty officers was 30,000, while the number of Britishers did not amount to more than 59,000 of the same class. If they took from that the total number of men employed in the Western Ocean trade, it would leave nearly 60 per cent. of the men employed in foreign-going vessels to be Chinamen and lascars. When the next figures came out they would show a great increase, because he found that Ah Sam and Ahon were extensively circularising shipowners, pointing out that they were able to supply Chinamen at low wages and with a food scale a third of the cost of that provided by Act of Parliament for Europeans. There was another evil connected with that. The lascars engaged in India commenced their voyage there and went back to India and were paid off there, but the Chinamen they were now complaining of were becoming residents of the ports of the United Kingdom, commencing and finishing their voyages here. During the past eighteen months there had been an increase of no less than ten Chinese boarding houses in the East End of London. Two years ago they had not one Chinese boarding house in Cardiff. Now they had eleven or twelve. At Liverpool they had multiplied in the same way, and if any hon. Member visited the West India Dock Road to-morrow he would wonder where all the British inhabitants had gone to, because the Chinaman monopolised every public-house and every den
628
of infamy in that particular locality. He had to complain of the action of the Board of Trade in this matter. His hon. friend had already read out to the House from a copy of an agreement certain clauses which provided that if any Chinamen deserted at an American port the remaining Chinamen were to pay the expenses of a watchman during the time the ship remained in port. That was not an isolated case, for he was present in a mercantile Marine office when a crew was signed on, and a man who was acting as interpreter for the crew was the Chinese crimp who was supplying the men to the shipowners. He called the superintendent's attention to the matter and told him that he would hear more about the subject. He had seen a good deal of interpreting done in his time. His hon. friend had said that the men had signed this agreement with their eyes open, but he could assure him that they did not know what they were signing. It had to be remembered that this was a crew signing on for a British ship and signing as able seamen, whilst not one of them was able to produce a scrap of paper to show whether he was a soldier, a sailor, or a fireman, and this was the crew of a ship which was to be allowed to sail down the Channel. At any rate, the Board of Trade could stop that, and lay down that they would not allow those crimps inside their office. Surely they could insist upon a competent interpreter being provided, and that every man must produce his certificate of discharge. He knew they lad them and he would tell the House why. Before the end of last year the language test was not in operation, and a good many Chinamen when asked their place of birth gave a truthful answer, and many of them stated that they came from Hong-Kong, Canton, and other places in China. But the Chinaman was a cunning fellow, and he was smart enough to discover that according o the Merchant Shipping Act if he could prove that he was a British subject the language test would not apply. Consequently the Chinamen were advised to conceal their actual place of birth and give Hong-Kong instead. Many of those Chinamen had seen

629
previous service in British ships, and he had taken the trouble of searching their records, and he found that in nearly every case where a Chinaman had given Hong-Kong in his latest engagement, on previous engagements the same Chinaman had given quite a different place of birth, and this proved clearly that those Chinamen were with impurity deceiving the Board of Trade. It was necessary that they should have this matter thrashed out, because it was becoming a very serious question; this kind of thing was being done by shipowners in order to defeat the benefits conferred by the new Merchant Shipping Act. But this raised a much more serious question. The shipowners who went in for that class of labour knew that if a Chinaman died there was much less responsibility attaching to them than if they employed Europeans. A Chinaman might come out of the stokehole overworked, jump overboard, and that was the end of the matter; but if a Britisher did the same thing, the probability was that some friend of his, probably his wife, or some member of his family would bring forward a claim against the shipowners for compensation. Chinamen were overworked, and he was going to give to the House some figures which he thought would startle even his right hon. friend. Recently they had had a Colonial Shipping Conference, and he wished to show how easy it was for the Board of Trade to make mistakes. At that Conference, in discussing the question of the number of men dying on board ship he stated that fifteen or twenty men every month committed suicide on board ship. Mr. Norman Hill, the representative of the shipowners, was very much struck with that statement, and Captain Chalmers challenged him on the point. Captain Chalmers said that he had the official Returns for the five years 1901–1906 inclusive, and the total number of suicides in British ships amongst firemen and trimmers during that period was 152. When Captain Chalmers was asked about disappearances he said they were put down as supposed suicides and the number was 159; that made 311 in five years. He was going to quote from the quinquennial return of the Board of Trade, Table 2, ratings and nationality
630
of seamen. He found from that return that the total number of trimmers and firemen employed on 4th April, 1906, in the mercantile marine was 46,787, whereas Captain Chalmers said the number was 120,000. If they took away from the 46,787—and he was justified in doing so—the men in the coasting trade, it brought the total down to 39,565 British seamen, foreigners and lascars employed in the foreign trade. The deaths from suicide in the year 1907 amongst firemen and trimmers were seventy-five; one in 527 men committed suicide; deaths from suicide, missing and disappearance, were 150; and that worked out that one man in every 263 employed in the stokehole including Chinamen, lascars, and others, committed suicide in one year. The deaths from suicide, missing and disappearance, heatstroke, numbered one in every 217; on shore the deaths from suicide were only one in every 4,000. That terrible state of things now existed on board ship, and he did not care whether the men affected were lascars or Chinamen, if they were being done to death through overwork, it was the duty of the House of Commons to step in and put the matter right. He thought that explained why a preference was being given to those poor unfortunate men who were not able to speak for themselves. He wanted the Board of Trade, if they were going to inquire, to make a fairly full inquiry into the whole affair. He believed that the Board of Trade had now a good many powers in their hands, and if they would only take into consideration the rating of men he believed they had very ample powers. The Board of Trade had power to detain any ship as unseaworthy in consequence of being undermanned. If a ship had taken on a crew of Chinamen, none of whom could speak English or produce a scrap of evidence that they were reliable and competent, he submitted that that ship was not seaworthy, and that it was within the power of the Board of Trade to say to the owner: "I will not allow your ship to go to sea, because I do not think she is properly manned." In putting it that way, he was putting it in a reasonable and fair manner. He would be the last to prevent any man entering employment as long as he was competent

631
to do the work and was getting fair conditions. Many of these men did not eat the same class of food as Britishers. It was astonishing how little food these men were provided with. The following shows how these men are fed. Daily scale of provisions for lascars and other native seamen:—For Home-Trade ships. Rice, 1 lb. 12 oz.; Dal, 6 oz.; Ghee, 2 oz.; Chillies, 4 dr.; Garlic, 8 dr.; Salt, 8 dr.; Turmeric, 8 dr.; Dry fish, 4 oz.; Onions, 8 dr.; Water, One gallon of 8 pints. For Foreign-going Ships. Rice, 1 lb. 6 oz.; Flour, 10 oz.; Dal, 6 oz. Ghee, 2 oz.; Salt, 8 dr.; Curry Stuff, 1 oz.; Dry fish, 4 oz.; Vegetables, 6 oz.; Tamarind, 1 oz.; Tea, 4 dr.; Sugar, 1 oz. 8 dr.; Lime-juice, 1 oz.; oil (mustard) 12 dr.; Water, six pints daily. He submitted that that was not sufficient food for the kind of work these poor unfortunate men were called upon to do, and in despair they sometimes jumped overboard. He believed that accounted for the serious number of Chinamen and lascars who died from heat stroke or committed suicide. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board would promise a full and careful inquiry.
Motion proposed, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the conditions under which Chinese seamen are employed on British vessels at ports in the United Kingdom calls for an immediate investigation by a Select Committee of this House, with a view to determining whether the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, are sufficient to enable the Board of Trade to prevent abuses arising out of the employment of Chinese in the British Mercantile Marine."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had accused the shipowners of being of all employers the most unscrupulous, and, if the statements made were justified, the terms of this Resolution ought to be much wider than they were. In listening to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the Motion, he was struck with the confusion of thought or argument between them. The Motion before the House was strictly confined in its terms to Chinese seamen
632
employed on British vessels at ports in the United Kingdom, but the speeches of the hon. Members really constituted an attack upon the employment of foreigners in the British mercantile marine. The mover seemed to indicate that provided a seaman could make out he was a British subject, everything was all right, and he could be employed without question. That was not the terms of the Motion. What was desired evidently was that the foreigner should be excluded altogether. [Cries of "No! no!"] That seemed to him to be the argument lying behind the speeches of the hon. Members. If that was not the case, he was very glad. He was not there to justify any ill-treatment of seamen of any nationality. During the time the recent Merchant Shipping Bill was passing through Committee, he thought the members of that Committee would agree that those representing the shipowners raised no objection to the various improvements and mitigations put forward for the benefit of the British sailor. He would only say that he could not think the proportion of foreign sailors in our mercantile marine was suffering anything from that Act, but had shared equally with the British sailor in the benefits it conferred. He thought the shipowners as a body were not the unscrupulous men the seconder of the Motion had indicated. He asserted with confidence that shipowners as a body were honourably carrying out the spirit of the Act, and the case which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough had brought forward did not justify the belief that since the passing of the Act the proportion of foreigners, whether Asiatic or European, in the mercantile marine had substantially increased.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he could not give the figures, because they had not yet been published by the Board of Trade, but he could say there were dozens of vessels carrying Chinamen now which a few months ago were carrying Britishers.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: That is the assertion of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he had the articles to prove his statement.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was not prepared to accept the statement until he saw some official justification for it. The hon. Member appeared to assert that foreigners of European origin had disappeared from the British mercantile marine. Did they not form part of his Union? Was it possible for the hon. Member to get up in the House and represent that foreign sailors from the Continent were displaced in the British mercantile marine and that there were no European foreign sailors on board British ships?
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I never said that.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the hon. Member came very near to saying it when he gave the House to understand that there had been a process of getting rid of the European foreigner in order to replace him by the Asiatic. He did not believe that in this matter of employing foreign seamen the shipowner was altogether a voluntary agent. He spoke with some knowledge when he said that in the class of ships where foreigners were employed it was more often than not the fortune of the British shipowner to employ them because he had no alternative. There seemed to be an impression that every British steamer did nothing but trade to and from the ports of this country, but the fact was that many vessels were absent from these shores for nearly a year at a time, and it was not always possible to get British sailors to ship on these vessels.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he did not admit that.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Does the hon. Gentleman say that every steamer leaving this country could be manned by British seamen?
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Yes.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I dispute that: I give it the direct negative. He believed it was not possible to man the British mercantile marine to-day with British sailors, however much they might desire to do so, and when they manned them with British sailors such was the
634
nature of the employment that when these vessels put into, foreign ports desertions took place. The idea that it was to the advantage of the shipowner to getrid of his crew in a foreign port in order to replace them with cheaper labour was one of the mistakes which people not directly acquainted with the question fell into. There was nothing more annoying to a shipowner than to see in his accounts the items of "blood money" that had to be paid to foreign boarding masters for replacing deserters from his ships. He did not profess himself to have the slightest sympathy with those who wished to substitute for British or European sailors cheaper Asiatic labour, but he believed one of the reasons why Asiatic seamen were engaged in the Far East was that they would stick more closely to the vessel than the sailors of British or foreign European origin who were shipped here. It was not to the interest of the shipowner that Chinese shipped in the Far East and brought here should leave the vessel. They were shipped for the round voyage, and they were entitled to remain by the vessel, and it was not to the interest of the shipowner that they should desert. He felt that the House was naturally disposed, as if he were not a shipowner he himself would be disposed, to resent the employment of Asiatics at all in the British mercantile marine, and to be perfectly candid with themselves and with their own prejudices, was it not a fact that almost everybody felt that the Chinaman or lascar, whether a British subject or not, was for racial reasons someone whom they would rather see substituted by a British-born sailor if they could get him. But let them not exaggerate the extent of this necessity. He had read the evidence given before the American Commission on their mercantile marine. The Americans employed Chinese in their ships in the Pacific. No doubt there were abuses there just as there were on some British ships, but the report of the Commission went to show that even American shipowners, with all their racial feelings, found that it could not pay them in the Pacific if they displaced the Chinese who at present manned their ships and substituted American seamen. However, he felt they must be candid in the matter, and while deploring the necessity for the

635
mercantile marine's being manned so largely in these waters with. Asiatic sailors, they had to recognise that it could not be altogether avoided. He only spoke for himself; but he would call the attention of the House to the strictly limited character of the Resolution. It dealt purely with Chinese sailors engaged on British ships in British ports, and lascars, foreigners like Greeks, Turks, Jews and infidels were left out of it. If there were abuses of a grave character connected with Chinese labour engaged in British ports, he would, so far as he was personally concerned, have not the least objection to their being made the subject of inquiry. He hoped, however, the House would not act precipitately, but would be sure from official and authoritative sources as to the extent of these abuses, if they existed, and whether they were of a grave character, before they allowed a very natural racial feeling to influence them unduly in their proceedings.
MR. HOUSTONsaid he was entirely in sympathy with the Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman, whom he complimented upon the temperate and at the same time forcible language with which he had brought it before the House. He very much regretted that the seconder had indulged in the exaggerated statements and irresponsible language for which he was so well known. He agreed with the object of the Motion, not merely as a pious opinion, but as one which he had put in practice for the past twenty-five years. He had a decided objection to the employment of foreigners of any nationality in our mercantile marine. He looked upon such as a source of danger to our country and an evidence of an element of the decadence of our nation. To his mind it was extremely regrettable, when one viewed the appalling amount of unemployment in this country, that they should have to employ foreigners to make up the shortage in the mercantile marine. But they all knew it was impossible to make sailors out of full-grown men. This was a question which ought to be dealt with by the nation. The shortage of British seamen in the mercantile marine was due entirely to the great diminution in the number
636
of sailing ships which, in the old days, carried a number of apprentices and boys. These were, unfortunately, rather in the way on board steamships. He had tried the experiment himself, and he was sorry to say it did not turn out a success. Regarding the employment of foreigners, some little time ago he had the percentage of foreigners taken out in the whole of his fleet, and it worked out at about 2 per cent. There would have been no foreigners employed at all had it not been that vacancies caused by desertions abroad had to be filled, and the only possible men to be obtained were foreigners. In this matter of the exclusive employment of Britishers he had had to fight against his captains. Most sea captains considered the Norwegian or Swede or German a more desirable seaman than the Britisher; as a rule he was more sober and more amenable to discipline. He looked upon such men as a greater element of danger to our country than Chinamen would be in the case of war, as we were less likely to be engaged in a great naval war with China than with nations nearer home. No one had a kinder heart towards British sailors than he had. He had sailed with them himself, and it could not be said of him by anyone that he had not been a good comrade and a good employer. There was no better man afloat in times of danger and emergency than the British seaman, although he was not always so sober or amenable to discipline as he should like to see him. Reference had been made to the boarding-house master and the seaman. Why did the boarding-house master exist? Ever since the abolition of imprisonment for desertion in the case of seamen, it was a common practice for men to come down to the sailors, home and to sign articles to be on board at a certain time and not to come on board at that time, or sometimes they came down to the ship and then for some reason or another cleared out of it. Were they to delay the sailing of a ship for the want of one or two men? Then came the boarding master with his substitutes, and he was bound to say that in most cases the substitutes were anything but satisfactory. He remembered once himself, when a young man and an officer on board a liner, sailing on

637
Christmas Eve. A number of men did not turn up, but the boarding-house master did with his substitutes. He took the precaution to have the men's bags opened. They all had good substantial bags, but out of one man's bag he turned a pair of window curtains, a blanket, and some straw. That was what the man was provided with to go across the Atlantic. These substitutes would not be required if the sailor would join his ship when he had signed articles. He endorsed everything that had been said as to the inadvisability—he would like to use a stronger term—of employing foreigners on board ship who could not speak English, nor understand it. He quite agreed that a ship in that position was in an unseaworthy condition, and he sympathised with the unfortunate captain and officers who had to take a ship out to sea in such a condition. But what was often as great a danger was that the British seaman came on board sometimes in a state of intoxication. He was speaking, not as a "tramp" owner but as the owner of liners, which he thought it would be admitted were a higher class of ship, in regard to Chinese labour and Liverpool in particular, he would refer the mover and seconder of this Motion to shipowners not on that side of the House but on the other, to Liberals, to gentlemen who, at the last general election, denounced Chinese labour in the South African mines as the very worst kind of slavery, and yet did not hesitate to employ them on, board their ships. True, these Gentlemen were free traders, and he had no doubt that they thought and they were entitled to think that they should have free trade in labour if they were to have free trade in regard to imported articles. No doubt the hon. Member for Hexham might be able to say something about Chinese labour. So far as the Chinaman was concerned, he had many faults but he had many virtues also. He was sober as a rule, industrious, frugal, and healthy. True, he did indulge in vices, and very serious vices, but he did not do so at times when he was at work or was expected to be at work. The opium den was a very deadly place, but it did not interfere with the sailor or fireman on board ship, whereas
638
drink did interfere with the British sailor's performance of his duty and his efficiency on board ship, ["Oh!"] It was all very well for the hon. Member behind him to sneer at this. He was as good a friend and, perhaps, a better friend, to the seaman than the hon. Member. He did not rate them as angels; they had their faults. In spite of them, however, they deserved kindness, sympathy, and consideration. Therefore he had the greatest sympathy with the Motion of the hon. Member, and would not have spoken as he had done but for the expressions used with regard to a class of gentlemen in this country who, he maintained, for patriotism, respectability, honour and ability, were second to no other class in the country.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD or TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The subject to which my hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck calls attention is one of extreme importance, dealing as it does with legislation which has been passed in the last two years by this House, and in a special sense with the administration of it under the responsibility of myself and my right hon. friend so long as we are at the Board of Trade. I desire to associate myself with the compliments paid to my hon. friend on the moderation he displayed in bringing forward this Motion and in presenting his case, more especially because I recognise that it deals with subject matter as to which the House may be deemed to be somewhat sensitive. The desirability of the employment of Chinese labour has been combated in this House, and therefore it is very liable to excite prejudice, but my hon. friend was very careful to put his case before us in a fair and square manner. In the terms of the Motion and by his speech my hon. friend, contrary to my hon. friend who seconded, has confined in the main part the issue to the engagement of Chinese seamen in home ports. My hon. friend the Member for Middles-borough emphasised and amplified many of the facts and arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Northumberland, but he enlarged considerably the scope of criticism over a very

639
wide field, and even if I were disposed to endeavour to reply to him, I am perfectly certain that the time would not allow me to give him any satisfaction on many points which he has referred to in his speech. The Motion seeks an investigation into the "conditions under which Chinese seamen are employed on British vessels in the United Kingdom, with a view of determining whether the provisions of the Act of 1906 are sufficient to enable the Board of Trade to prevent abuses arising out of the employment of Chinese in the mercantile marine." This rather assumes that we are made acquainted to-night for the first time with conditions and circumstances arising out of the passing of the 1906 Act, and that no administrative steps are being taken to insure that the benefits conferred under particular sections are working in the direction contemplated. I shall hope to show during the course of my speech that there is no ground for any assumption of this kind. In preparing for the Act coming into force we took the greatest care to consider the matter in all its bearings. We took the best expert advice that we could get, not merely from shipowners, but from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough himself, and others with a view of applying it in such a way that it would bring about the results for which the Act was passed. Since the Act came into force we have had representations made to us and certain communications pointing in certain directions, and we have not neglected the warnings so given, and long before the notice of this Motion was on the Paper we had already taken steps to gather information as to what would happen or was likely to happen detrimental to our legislation. I am entitled to put that before the House, because I rather gathered that my hon. friend is under the impression that he was revealing to us to-night much informa-
640
tion which we had not before obtained. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906, and also under another Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act of the same year, the position of the seamen in our mercantile marine has been enormously improved and great advantages are conferred upon them. In the first place, the seaman has obtained for the first time a statutory food scale, the enforcement of which gives him a far more liberal and varied dietary than he hitherto secured by voluntary arrangements. In the second place, his housing conditions on board ship have been materially bettered by the increased space allotted to his use; and in the third place, he is, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, protected in case of loss of life or injury. But it has been definitely stated by my hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck and my hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough, that these benefits, instead of accruing to the advantage of the seaman, have worsened his position in the United Kingdom ports. That raises in a direct form a question of serious importance, and it is this, as to whether the bettering of the condition of the British sailor contemplated by the recent Acts passed for his benefit, is to be allowed in practice to prejudice him in the eyes of his employers. In view of the importance of this question, I have made personal investigation into the employment of Chinamen in British ships in British ports, and as it was desirable to endeavour to secure first-hand information, I thought I could not do better than interview the various marine superintendents who supervise the engagement of crews at London and the principal outports. It appears that for the last two or three years there has undoubtedly been a growth in the employment of Chinamen in British ships in our own ports, and there is a general consensus of opinion among the Marine Superintendents that recent legislation

641
is likely to accelerate it. I do not put it higher than that, but as to the tendency, I have figures supplied to me by the marine superintendents. I will first of all give a summary of those given to me by the marine superintendents of the three leading marine offices in London, situated at Poplar, Dock Street, and the Victoria Docks. These figure, include some other Asiatics, but the majority of the men are Chinamen. In 1905 448 Chinese seamen signed on. In 1907 they had increased to 1,211, and from 1st January to 22nd February, which represents about the seventh part of this year, there were 256 signed on. I multiply that by seven and estimate the total quantity for the year, which works out at 1,792. So much for London. I have also the figures for the leading outports, viz., Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry, and Newport. In 1905 in the outports the number of Asiatics engaged was 1,424; in 1907 the number had grown to 3,173, and for that period of this year to which I have referred the number was 544, giving 3,808 as the total for the year if multiplied by seven.
MR. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the separate figures for Liverpool?
MR. KEARLEY: I have them at the office and shall be pleased to give them to the hon. Member. Summarising the results, we have 1,872 signing on in 1905 in the same ports, 4,384 in 1907, and, on the commutation I have used, 5,600 this year. That is a serious figure. My hon. friend has been perfectly frank in saying they do not wish to interfere in any way with the employment of Chinamen or other Asiatics abroa, in their legitimate sphere. They are directing attention in a forcible way to the increase of employment of the Chinaman in the United Kingdom. What is the explanation of these figures? My hon. friend says that the explanation
642
is to be found in the fact that those who employ Chinamen hope to escape the liabilities and obligations of that beneficial legislation which we passed two years ago, and to which I have made reference in detail. I suppose they expect to save money. They certainly do so, because in no part of the United Kingdom is the Chinaman receiving the same wage as that paid to the British or European sailor serving on the same ship. I do not think too much stress can be laid on the admission of my two hon. friends that they do not in any way wish to interfere with the employment of Asiatics in their proper sphere. I am bound to point out that it is no part of British policy to prohibit the employment of foreigners, as such, in the mercantile marine. That point has been emphasised by my hon. friend, but he pointed out that in the interests of safety, the Act of 1906 prohibited the engagement at ports within home trade limits of foreign seamen with insufficient knowledge of English. He referred to the speech of my right hon. friend in introducing the Bill, when he quoted cases in justification of that section, and as illustrations of the sort of things we sought to legislate against—cases almost identical with the Huddersfield case referred to by my hon. friend. The language test does not apply to any British subject or any inhabitant of any British Protectorate, nor to lascars; and although we have only had two months experience of the working of this section, there are indications to show that these exemptions are being used by Chinamen in such a way that they are, in effect, defeating the very objects we had in view when the section was passed. My hon. friends pointed out—and I am bound to agree with them in the main—that practically every Chinaman signing on in home ports declares himself to come from Hong-Kong or Singapore, and so claims the benefit afforded to any British subject. We

643
are not surprised, knowing he is a wily customer, that all documentary evidence that might be offered to show that he is not what he claims to be has disappeared, so that there is really no definite record of his nationality. Not very long ago the marine superintendent either at Barry or Cardiff refused to admit some Chinamen as British subjects, and give them the benefit of the section unless they proved their nationality. They immediately trooped into the town and came back armed with statutory declarations. That gives an idea of the direction in which this language test is being abused. I have another figure that I glean from Poplar. It illustrates the position mo it vividly. It should be remembered that until this year there was nothing to be gained by Chinamen by mis-stating their birthplace. Therefore, the records of the places whence they came were probably more or less accurately supplied. There were shipped from Poplar last year, 590 Chinamen, of whom only 190 claimed to have been born at Hong-Kong or Singapore. This year already, out of the 192 that have been shipped, 162, or 94 per cent. declared that Hong-Kong or Singapore was their place of birth. So I do not think it is a matter that requires very much arguing to show that the wily Chinaman has detected the weak spot in our armour and is utilising it to his own special advantage. Before I say what we are prepared to do, perhaps I ought to deal with some of the special points that have been referred to. My hon. friend referred to the illegal supply of seamen—to crimping—and wanted to know whether a particular man with a Chinese name was licensed to supply them. Of course he was not licensed. We know what is going on, but our difficulty at the moment is to get sufficient evidence to bring about a prosecution. But last year we were successful in Cardiff in prosecuting one of these Chinese boarding-masters for procuring
644
seamen, not being licensed, and I assure the hon. Member that the man whose letter we have had read to us will not escape our attention if we can get the necessary evidence. The penalty is £20 for each man illegally supplied. I am familiar with the agreement to which the hon. Member has referred. It was signed, as long ago as May of last year. The question is as to whether an illegality has been committed. By Section 114 of the Act of 1894, any stipulation may be inserted, in an agreement if agreed to by the parties concerned, always provided it is not contrary to the law. The whole point is a legal one, and the matter has been communicated to our solicitor, and his opinion has been invited. If I find that an agreement of this kind is illegal, we shall know exactly what to do to prevent its occurrence. But I do not hesitate to stigmatise the agreement as most harsh and unconscionable, one quite unusual, and one that no decent shipowner would attempt to support or back up in any way. I think my hon. friend went out of his way to make observations about shipowners that he was certainly not entitled to make. There may be shipowners who do things they ought not to do, but when the hon. Member spoke of them as being among the worst employers to be found anywhere, I think, if I may say so, that that is a statement that ought not to be made.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I think my hon. friend did not catch what I said. I said that many shipowners were all that could be desired, but that a large number of them were the most unscrupulous employers I know in the country. I stand by that statement absolutely.
MR. KEARLEY: I can say on the part of the Board of Trade, in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill, that the Department has had from time to time

645
to consult the shipowners on many questions which tended against their pockets and in the direction of the interests of the class whom the hon. Member represents. The experience of the Department leads me to say without hesitation that a more upright and honourable body of men willing and anxious to do their best to improve the lot of those whom they employ than the shipowners cannot be found. That does not prevent the hon. Member or the Board of Trade from saying it has come to our notice that there are certain shipowners who must not be taken as a type; but these are individuals for whom we can have no particular regard when they act contrary to the practice of the best shipowners. My hon. friend has referred to Chinamen engaging without producing their discharge book. But there is no legal obligation on the part of these men to produce their discharge book. A master is compelled to give a seaman a certificate or discharge book, so that he may have a record in seeking further employment, at the end of his voyage, but there is no obligation on the part of the seaman when he goes to seek employment to produce the book. I am not quite sure, even assuming we had the power, which we have not, to impose the obligation on every seaman to produce his discharge book, that we should carry the hon. Member for Middlesbrough with us.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: That is what I have been pleading for for years.
MR. KEARLEY: I do the hon. Member an injustice. I thought possibly at times he might find it work hardship, but I make no more of that. The argument has been used that a man
646
who signs on without being called upon to produce his discharge book gives no evidence of his competency. The hon. Member knows that a master is bound to engage a competent number of deck hands. Does the hon. Member deny that? They are the Board of Trade orders, and no marine superintendent would dare to allow a ship to go to sea unless there is a sufficient number of competent deck hands on board. If this condition is not satisfied there is a remedy provided in an appeal to the surveyor, and the Department is certainly not lacking in the power to see that ships go to sea properly manned, and ships can be detained until the crew is made up to a competent strength. The Board of Trade are doing that. Not long ago a ship wanted to go away with only five deck hands, the minimum number being six. The superintendent pointed out that under such circumstances it would be an unseaworthy ship, and the master engaged another man. It turned out that the additional man engaged had never been to sea before, and the matter was again reported, and that ship was not allowed to go to sea until an efficient man had been substituted. I know that the hon. Member is an advocate of a manning scale, and he wants to have on board so many A.B's. The hon. Member has put forward the recommendations of a previous Committee, but there was no unanimity about that Report; no two members of that Committee agreed to the same thing. The hon. Member is at this moment a member of an Advisory Committee on the subject of manning, and he can fight the question out there. As to the course which the Government proposed to follow, we do not desire the Select Committee which we are

647
invited to appoint, because we have a better alternative. It would be impossible for a Select Committee to report in less than two years; and the Board of Trade are unwilling to transfer to other shoulders their responsibility for administering this Act—a responsibility which they are perfectly competent to discharge. With a fairly full knowledge of what has happened and of what the tendency undoubtedly is the Board will investigate this matter in order to check and nip in the bud the abuses that threaten to defeat the object of legislation. One thing the Board is determined to do at once, and that is that, when Chinamen in the United Kingdom ports claim as British subjects an exemption from the language test, the title to exemption will have to be proved.
MR. JOHN WARD: What sort of proof?
MR. KEARLEY: I expected that question. I know there will be some difficulty. At present there is no system of registration of birth in China, but we have our Consular officers in China, and we have our own marine superintendents in Hong-Kong and Singapore, and I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Board of Trade to bring into existence some system of identification which will provide a check. We have determined to act in that matter straight away. As to the food scale for Indian lascars, the Board of Trade has been in communication with the Indian Government, and we are awaiting their reply. Criticism has been mainly addressed to the food scale which is not a statutory one, that which is provided for Chinamen. As to that the Board of Trade are instructing their marine superintendents to watch
648
most carefully the food scale inserted in articles of agreement where Chinese are employed, particularly in respect of its adequacy. I think I have dealt with all the points raised, and I have endeavoured to do so in a frank way. I would ask my hon. friend not to persist in his Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, because I feel confident—and I say this in the interest of the seamen—that the Board of Trade will be able to deal with this matter satisfactorily. It will be investigated at once, and we shall take good care, as is only fair, that all the interests concerned will have an opportunity of being heard. It is in that spirit that we shall try to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool had addressed the House in the interest of the shipowners as he usually did on occasions like this, but he had utterly failed to deal with the points raised by the Member for Middlesbrough. He had absolutely avoided the question of the language test, and he had jumbled the figures which had been quoted in support of the Motion. Before the Motion was withdrawn it was necessary to make clear that the figures supplied by the Board of Trade amply justified the contention of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He did not understand his hon. friend to include all shipowners in the category to which his remarks referred, any more than he understood the hon. Member opposite when he referred to the drunken habits of sailors to ask the House to take it for granted that there was not a sober British sailor. It had been stated in the course of the discussion that the British seaman was a

649
man who usually took his trade union with him, and that he usually wanted as good a food scale as he could possibly secure. The suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Middlesbrough was that that being the case, the British seaman was gradually being ousted from the mercantile marine. It had also been stated that the shipowners, having tried Scandinavian seamen and found that they tried to approximate to the wages and conditions of British seamen, were gradually dispensing with British seamen, and turning out European sailors generally, for the purpose of taking on a more docile and less remunerated class of labour so far as the manning of the ships was concerned. The hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division had not met that case. The figures with respect to Scand navian labour on board British ships showed that in 1901 there were 3,385 Norwegians, and in 1906, 3,449, or an increase of only 64. In 1901 there were 1,492 Danish seamen on board British ships, and in 1906 the number had decreased to 1,453. The Asiatics employed on British ships had increased from 4,164 in 1891 to 11,644, as appeared from the recent returns of the Board of Trade. These figures clearly showed that not only British seamen, but other European seamen were gradually being ousted from the mercantile marine, and that their places were being taken by the more docile Asiatics who would work under the most slavish conditions. The hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division had not contended that the Board of Trade figures were incorrect. The figures showed clearly that the tendency was to dispense with the labour of British seamen and to replace it by Asiatic labour remunerated on a
650
different scale. He hoped shipowners would never try to approximate the food scale of the British sailors to that of the Asiatics. He was not prepared to assent to British workmen, either in the mercantile marine, or any other trade, being reduced to the conditions which it was possible to impose on Asiatics. It was morally certain that if such a danger arose, the change would be strenuously resisted and organised labour would fight before it submitted to worse conditions than prevailed in European countries to-day. Two years ago Parliament passed certain industrial legislation. Much had been done of late years in connection with industrial legislation. The mercantile marine had been brought under the Compensation for Injury Law, and a series of reforms had been introduced in the Mercantile Shipping Amendment Act. He had been delighted to hear the hon. Member for West Toxteth state that he refused to employ Chinamen in his fleet on principle.
MR. HOUSTON: Or any foreigners, if I can avoid it.
MR. JOHN WARDsaid he was still more delighted to hear that from the hon. Gentleman; but from the figures quoted by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, there was not much room to doubt that some shipowners were gradually attempting to evade the expressed wishes of this House regarding the conditions of the mercantile marine by employing Asiatic labourers in preference to European labourers, whether Continental or British. This unquestionably required very serious attention on the part of the Department of the Board of Trade responsible for the administration of these particular Acts. Under

651
these circumstances he wondered why the House was not treated to a fuller discussion of the matter in the speech of the hon. Member for East Toxteth Division of Liverpool. It might have been different had they been discussing Church disorders; but the position which the hon. Member took up was no answer to the proposition of his two hon. friends. He thought the offer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was extremely satisfactory, and seeing that the Board of Trade had made a promise to take the subject into very serious consideration, and had expressed their determination to enforce the law, he thought they had done a very good evening's work.
Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that there was one aspect of the employment of Chinese on British ships which had not been much referred to, but which had exercised considerably the people of Liverpool. Chinamen were allowed to escape, or at any rate did escape from steamers in port, and had gradually formed in Liverpool a colony which now amounted to many hundreds, and tended to increase. Certain things of a very objectionable kind went on in that colony. He was not one of those who would venture any opinion whatever as to the suitability of Chinamen being employed on board ship. That was out of his ken, but he was told that some shipowners who employed Chinamen said that they made excellent sailors. The hon. Member for Hexham, who had opposed him at the last election, when he was charged with being a party to the importation of Chinamen into the Transvaal, was a Gentlemen who himself employed some
652
thousands of Chinamen on board his ships coming into such British ports as Liverpool and London. He did not make any charge against the hon. Member, for he was convinced that it was sometimes an excellent thing to employ Chinamen, and a good thing also for the shipowners; but he wanted to know what the hon. Member for Hexham thought were the great advantages of employing Chinese seamen exclusively.
MR. HOLTsaid he had not intended to intervene in this debate, but circumstances had arisen which made it necessary for him to do so. One of the reasons why he was inclined to hold back from taking part in the debate was that he thought his old antagonist would insist on dragging him into the discussion, and he preferred to speak after the hon. Member rather than before him. He reminded the hon. Member that, if he knew anything of the character of the business he carried on, he would see that the Motion did not refer to it. It referred to the engagement of Chinese sailors in British ports.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: It is a question of employment.
MR. HOLTsaid that the Motion referred to a different thing altogether. The hon. Member was entitled to bring forward a Motion himself with regard to employment if he desired. He entirely agreed with the Motion, and was glad the whole question was going to be thoroughly inquired into. So far as he and his firm were concerned, they had done nothing they were ashamed of. They were quite prepared to have everything connected with the engagement of sailors thoroughly and publicly inquired

653
into. It would dissipate a good many misconceptions on the part of the hon. Gentleman. It had been said that it was the duty of British shipowners to send their ships to sea in a thoroughly sound and sea-worthy condition; but he thought no evidence could be adduced of any ship manned by Chinese coming to grief on account of these crews. As far as he was concerned in regard to any of the vessels of his line he would be quite willing to submit them to the arbitrament of any competent committee of underwriters that could be found, and he was quite sure that that would be the case with other shipowners. The Chinaman was not necessarily an inefficient seaman, and he did not think that he was cheaper than the English sailor. There was very little in it, as any shipowner who had investigated the matter would tell them. These men were paid about £3 10s a month whereas the British sailor was paid from £4 to £4 10s. a month. There was therefore not much difference in the wages, particularly as a Chinese crew would exceed an English crew in numbers. So far as diet was concerned they found that it cost just as much to feed a Chinaman as to feed an Englishman. He thought the Board of Trade should insist that whatever was the class of labour employed on a ship there should be the same diet or an equivalent diet for all. Of course people of different nationalities did not like the same food, but there should be a diet which was equivalent in value. Then, again, the accommodation provided for the men should be equal, and he thought that a great deal was being done to improve the condition of men on board our ships. In securing this, public opinion had been of great advantage and everybody was taking steps in favour of the
654
seamen. The hon. Member for West Toxteth had alluded to him in the course of the debate and had also expressed great interest in the British sailor, expressing a great wish and desire to benefit him and to open up better career for him. He had spoken very emphatically of his devotion to the British sailor, but he had also spoken of the drawback which his habits of intemperance created in the eyes of many people. Might he suggest that if the hon. Gentleman felt in that manner upon this subject he should give a very cordial support to the Licensing Bill of the Government? If he wished to give the British sailor a better chance in his competition with the foreigner the hon. Member ought to do his very best to support the Government's Licensing Bill and to endeavour to strengthen its provisions and improve the habits of the British sailor which were a far greater detriment to him than all the foreigners.
MR. HOUSTON: Then the British sailor would get his drinks from the shebeens or clubs.
MR. HOLTsaid he did not think the British sailor had time to join clubs. In conclusion he would say that as a shipowner he would have very great pleasure in supporting any steps which the Board of Trade might think it necessary to take in this matter.
MR. FENWICKsaid that after the statement made by the Secretary to the Board of Trade he wished to ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Resolution, but before doing so he could not help expressing his regret that a tone of recrimination should have been

655
introduced into the debate by the two hon. Members for Liverpool who had spoken on the other side of the House. The House would do him the justice to say that in moving this Resolution he had studiously refrained from bringing any recriminatory charge against Gentlemen on either one side of the House or the other, and he regretted more than he could say that the two hon. Members had gone out of their way, as it seemed to him, to bring a charge such as they had brought against his hon. friend the Member for Hexham. He begged to ask leave to withdraw his Resolution.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)moved the Adjournment of the House.
Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. MORTONprotested against the House adjourning at five minutes to eleven, and at a time when the Bills of private Members might be considered and perhaps passed. If, however, the Government would not allow them to do so they could not bring them on, but some of the Bills were of the utmost importance. Some of them, like his Bill for the regulation of sea fisheries in Scotland, were absolutely necessary to carry out the present law as to illegal trawling, and if the Government refused to allow them to do anything with it they would be backing up companies and trusts, and aiding them to break the law. But the Government would not allow private Members to legislate on any subject,
656
and he thought that they were entitled to a little more consideration. Nearly all their rights and privileges had been taken away from them, although there was no doubt that a good many of the measures proposed and carried through the House by private Members had been just as good as those which hid been brought forward by any Government. He thought the time had come when the Government should not attempt to impede public business in this reckless way, but should allow them at least to go through the Orders of the day. He hoped the Government would reconsider its action and not obstruct necessary and useful legislation.
MR. T. L. CORBETTthought that after the news which had just arrived from Hastings, culminating a long series of remarkable bye-elections, the desire of the Government to retire at the earliest possible moment to think over the situation was only natural, and he therefore agreed that the House should rise.
CAPTAIN J. CRAIGsaid that he certainly did not agree that, after listening with great interest to the Naval debate, and the discussion upon the employment of Chinese in British ships, they should go on to consider the question of the prohibition of medical practice by companies. Such a proposal seemed to him to be one which would not commend itself to any hon. Member in the House, and he hoped the House would agree to the Adjournment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute before Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
King's College London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Interoceanic Railway of Mexico Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill [H.L.]; London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
King's College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Rochester Bridge Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Audenshaw and Saddleworth Urban District Councils Bill [H.L.]; Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Iveagh be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Saltoun; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Return giving the strength of each infantry battalion and each battery of artillery on the Home Establishment on 1st February 1908, showing the number of men in each unit who have less than one year's service or are under twenty years of age, showing also the number of recruits at the depot.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Sixtieth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; with an appendix.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Addition to the rules for disposal of documents under the Public Record Office Acts, 1877 and 1898: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I am afraid I occupied your Lordships' attention at rather undue length in presenting this Bill a little while ago, but I hope on this occasion to be as brief as your Lordships would desire. As the House is aware, this is a permissive Bill. Its object is to enable the municipal councils of our English boroughs to substitute for the present method of electing their members the system which is detailed at length in the Bill. The alteration is intended to secure a greater continuity in the composition of these councils and the more assured presence on them of independent members, men who are active and useful in municipal affairs but are not attached to any political party, and who, under present circumstances, have a difficulty in entering these bodies.
  The Bill was read a second time last year by your Lordships and referred to a Select Committee. That Committee took great pains to examine the scheme and the operation of the Bill, and they reported very favourably upon it. I think I am fairly representing them when I say that they thought the Bill well calculated to attain the ends sought by it, that it could be worked with tolerable ease, that returning officers could certainly be found capable of carrying it out, and that they would have little or no difficulty in training their assistants to work the system. The members of the Select Committee had the advantage, not only of hearing explanations of the Bill given

  475
  by those interested in its drafting, but of actually seeing an election of members of a medical council in London conducted on this system, which no doubt had some effect upon their decision.
  Whilst the Select Committee thus approved of the object of the Bill and substantially of the method by which it was sought to be accomplished, they thought the conditions under which it might be adopted by the municipal councils were not quite stringent enough, and that it was not sufficiently apparent that whatever was done would be done experimentally. They therefore proposed certain alterations in the Bill to remedy this supposed defect. These alterations have been made, or, at least, I have endeavoured to incorporate quite faithfully all the proposals of the Select Committee. I believe a doubt is entertained by one noble Lord who can speak with authority as to whether we have carried out the proposals of the Select Committee with absolute correctness. It was so intended, and if we have failed, the matter can be remedied in Committee. I can assure the members of the Select Committee that nothing was intended but to carry out with the utmost strictness what they recommended. As your Lordships approved the principle of the Bill last year, at all events, so far as consenting to the Second Reading involves approval; as you referred it to a Select Committee, who returned it with such favourable comments, and as we have made the alterations proposed by the Select Committee, I do not think I need trouble the House with any further remarks at the present moment. I therefore, with great hope that it will meet with the absolute concurrence of your Lordships, move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I desire to say, on behalf of the Government, that we do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, partly, of course, because it is of a very tentative and permissive character, and, even if passed into law, would not of itself involve any important legislative change. My noble friend hehind me
  476
  spoke of the Committee which, as your Lordships know, sat last year. It seemed to me he somewhat overstated the effect of the Committee's recommendation when he said they had expressed approval of the principle of the Bill. What they did I think, was to express approval of the experiment being tried, which is not precisely the same thing; and it is also I important to remember that the function of the Committee was a distinctly limited one. They did not inquire into the whole subject of minority representation, but simply dealt with this particular Bill. It is, I think, important to bear that in mind in considering what the Committee really did.
  There is no doubt that, as far as the London municipal boroughs are concerned, there is, as everybody who has looked at the Report of the Select Committee will see, something in the nature of a distinct grievance which might be remedied. In the Metropolitan boroughs, which, as your Lordships know, are in a different position from those in the provinces, the elections are triennial and affect the whole of the council; and the effect has been that on certain occasions there has been an absolutely sweeping change in the composition of the council, far beyond what the change in the opinion of the electorate could, be said to warrant. In the provinces, on the other hand, under an entirely different Act of Parliament, one-third of the council is elected every year. That does involve a much more gradual alteration of the composition of the council, and it involves-a much greater probability of something, like a continuous policy.
  One complaint which has been brought against this Bill is the alleged complication of the manner in which its object is to be carried out, and I think that my noble friend probably underestimates, the degree of terror with which his First. Schedule is regarded at first sight by those who attempt to peruse it, and with which it might be regarded by the returning officer. On the other hand, I think my noble friend is entitled to argue, as no doubt he does, that it is quite possible that a process which looks extremely complicated on paper, may be far more simple to carry out than a first view would lead one to suppose; and I believe, as a matter of

  477
  fact, that those who have tried the experiment—and the Committee had the advantage of witnessing an actual election under this system—have found that it is easier than the appearance of the Schedule would lead one to imagine.
  On general grounds, as I say, we do not desire to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. But I think it is important to give one word of caution, as we know that my noble friend looks further ahead and hopes to see this plan employed for the purpose of Parliamentary elections. I should, therefore, like to guard myself by saying that it must not be supposed that we either say or deny, by giving assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, that this plan is the one which ought to be adopted, supposing any plan has to be adopted, for the purpose of meeting the difficulty of minority representation on the large scale. I am anxious to make that perfectly clear, in order that we may not be told at a future date that we have adopted the principle of the noble Lord's Bill for the larger purpose.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, as I had the honour of acting as Chairman of the Select Committee, it is, perhaps, due to the House that I should say a word about our proceedings. I am sure, in the first instance, that the Report entirely carries out the view I held myself, and, I think, the view of the great majority of the Committee. As the noble Ear the Lord President of the Council has stated, our duties and functions were certainly limited. We had not to express an opinion on the principle of the proposal; but we did satisfy ourselves that the machinery of the Bill would work perfectly well, and that it carried out in an effective way the object of the measure—namely, that of giving fair representation to minorities.
  We had a very ample opportunity of having the Bill explained to us by the officers of the society with which my noble friends Lord Courtney and Lore Avebury are connected; and I am bound to say that it took some time and a good deal of explanation to make us fully acquainted with its intricacies. But when we had mastered the proposal, and had had an opportunity of seeing an election carried on under this system in
  478
  the Royal College of Surgeons, with the officers of the Proportional Representation Society as returning officers and the surgeons themselves counting the votes, we could see that, with proper instruction, the Bill was perfectly workable, and that a competent returning officer would be able to give such instructions to his subordinates as would ensure the machinery of the Bill working efficiently. I am bound to say, with regard to the complicated nature of the Bill, that I think that part of it could be got over; but I did form a strong opinion that there was one objection to the rather complicated explanations that were necessary—namely, that a voter in the first instance certainly could not assure himself that the machinery which was put before him would necessarily carry out the object in view, and that his vote would have the proper value when the votes were counted; but that as soon, however, as he had had an opportunity of carefully examining it and of having the matter fully explained to him, he would, no doubt, give his vote under this machinery with an assurance of confidence. The next point we thought it necessary to assure ourselves upon was that there was a feeling in the country in favour of adopting some system, different from the present mode of election, which would secure more weight to the minority vote. As the noble Earl has pointed out, in London, where the elections take place every three years and affect the whole of the council, there have been some of the most startling changes that it would be possible to conceive. In Lewisham, for instance, at the 1903 election, the Progressives had thirty-four seats and the Moderates only six; in 1906, on the other hand, the whole of the Progressives were unseated and the Municipal Reformers obtained all the forty-two seats. There have been, under the present system, such violent fluctuations that most people have felt the necessity for some value being given to the minority vote.
  Having satisfied ourselves on those-two points, we thought it our duty to secure that the Bill should be strictly confined to an experiment. The scheme which we proposed was this, that a council should not have power to try this experiment by a mere majority, but that the resolution in favour of the change

  479
  should be carried by a majority of three-fifths of the council after due notice had been given. This would enable an experiment to be made of the proposed system for a period of three years, practically one election of the whole council. We also suggested that, if it was wished, after the expiration of the period of three years, to continue the experiment, it should be possible for a council, by a resolution of a majority of its members, to continue the new system of voting for another period of equal duration; but, failing any such resolution, the borough should revert automatically at the next municipal election to the mode of conducting elections in force before the experiment was tried. We also proposed that after the expiration of this second period of three years any further resolution of a council in favour of the continuance of the proportional system should be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty days during the session of Parliament, and that, if either House before the expiration of such forty days presented an address to His Majesty against the resolution, no further effect should be given to it.
  I would point out that we had no opportunity of comparing this procedure with other means of giving effect to the minority vote. The Committee was a Committee on this Bill, and, as chairman, I had to rule out of order any discussion with regard to other modes of securing the object in view. Therefore we felt that we were not in a position to say either aye or no whether this was the best mode of procedure, but merely to give effect to what was proposed, namely, that the experiment should be tried. There is one other point to which a reference was mad by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I do not think that Clause 4 as it stands does quite accurately carry out the proposal of the committee, because it says that—
  "The operation of this Act may be discontinued for any borough by a resolution of the council passed in the fame manner and on the like notice as the evolution adopting this Act and thereupon this Act shall cease to be in force in the borough."
  and that then—
  "The council of any borough in which the operation of this Act has been discontinued may again adopt this Act in the same manner as if it had never been previously adopted."
  480
  As I have explained, that is not intended. It is not intended that there should be any necessity for moving a resolution to discontinue the operation of the Act, but that proprio motu the council should go back automatically to the old mode of conducting the election unless a resolution in favour of the continuance of the proportional system is passed by a majority of the council. I think, therefore, the noble Lord will see that this clause is not quite in conformity with the scheme outlined by the Committee, and, subject to that, I entirely agree with the explanations he gave.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, it is most natural that such of your Lordships as take an interest in this subject should approach it and desire to speak of it with the caution that was exhibited by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. The question dealt with in the Bill is one of the very highest importance. The evil my noble friend seeks to grapple with is that the present method of checking votes in this country for every purpose works out with the result that n a great many cases there is no true representation of the various opinions held. It is, no doubt, generally felt that that is not satisfactory, and that it would be a great deal better if some method could be discovered which would give fair representation to the minority.
  Anyone can see that those are topics entitled to plain consideration from everyone, and they have attracted the support of some of the most powerful minds in this country for a great number of years. I will not allude to those who are still with us, but I would like to mention, for the respect I bear to his name, the late Henry Fawcett. My noble friend Lord Courtney appears to have lived and learned, and to have come to the conclusion that he must approach the question in a tentative and experimental way, for he has left Parliament severely alone. This Bill suffers, I think, not a little by the title that has been given to it; it is awe inspiring to be asked to consider a Bill for proportional municipal represensation. It suggests a great many sums behind to be worked out by those whose minds still retain enough of their early education to enable them to perform the feats, but it does not suggest anything of popularity. The schedules, too,

  481
  do not look attractive reading at first blush.
  I heard the discussion last year on this Question, and was a good deal struck by what was said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, whom we hope soon to see again in his place. The noble Marquess said he had given consideration to this matter some years before, and one of the practical difficulties that struck him was that the returning officer was given a power that in some cases might be found to be almost too great for fair and satisfactory working. I do not say that it is an objection that I would adopt lightly, but it shows how a fair mind looking at this question will see points that need examination and consideration. The struggle has been, I have no doubt, on the part of my noble friend and those interested in this question, to evolve a system which is not only just, but susceptible of ready understanding. I have no doubt as to the absolute honesty of purpose of my noble friend, but whether he has yet succeeded in reaching the highest point of simplification in a very difficult question I have not the knowledge that would enable me to say.
  The measure has gone through the ordeal of a Select Committee, and that Committee guarded themselves against making a rush with anything like enthusiasm on the subject, but rather dealt with it with caution and much hesitation. It may be that should the Bill pass, the boroughs would, to use a common expression, fight shy of it; it may be that the constituents would be timid and would not think they could work it out; and if the representatives of the borough, who had to consider the application of this Bill, had it borne in upon them by public meetings and by articles in the Press that the constituents of their borough did not see their way to adopt it, understanding the present system but not feeling very clear that they could understand the new system, that, of course, would operate as a check; and it might be that, if the Bill passed, it would be adopted in a comparatively small number of boroughs. I dare say that that would satisfy to some extent the views of my noble friend, because it would test the working of the system by public elections.
  The suggestion made by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council
  482
  is that the wisest, fairest, and most courteous course to adopt, in reference to a measure proposed by one whom we all respect so much as the noble Lord, is to read the Bill a second time; but the noble Earl was careful to guard himself by entirely confining what he said to this Bill, and by preserving entire freedom should it ever be sought to apply the principle in a wider way. The views stated on that subject by the noble Earl commend themselves to my own judgment, and I would be sorry to say anything that would indicate a want of entire respect for the Bill.
  LORD EVERESLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has pointed out very properly the great distinction between the metropolitan boroughs and the provincial boroughs. In the case of provincial boroughs, a third of the councillors retire annually, with the result that there is an election every year, and I believe that, as a rule, the boroughs are divided into wards returning three members. Now, nobody has pretended to say that there is any grievance there. There was no evidence before the Select Committee last year from a single provincial borough that they were dissatisfied with the present mode of election. One-third of the members are elected annually; there is, therefore, continuity, and the minorities are fairly represented. I am perfectly certain that if this Bill passes into law we shall never see the experiment tried in any one of the provincial boroughs. Indeed, it was stated before the Committee that the provincial boroughs were satisfied with the existing state of things and did not approve of the Bill.
  In the London boroughs the position is certainly very different. The plan that has been in operation there since the constitution of the metropolitan borough councils, and, indeed, before in the case of the old vestries, has been that of triennial elections affecting the whole of the members, and it has happened that at one election the whole of the members of a council were replaced by others of a different type. I do not think anybody who has looked into the matter can doubt that some change is necessary and desirable in the case of the metropolitan boroughs. For my part I think the true remedy could be found in the

  483
  application of the provincial method of election, the boroughs being divided into wards returning three members and a third of the members being elected each year. That seems to me to be the logic of the position; but as my noble friend desires that the experiment of proportional representation should be made, I have no particular objection. It is unlikely, however, that any of the London borough councils will risk the trial.
  To speak frankly, I am not in favour of schemes of minority representation. I have had a connection with the subject almost as long as my noble friend Lord Courtney. I recollect that forty-one years ago, when the Reform Bill of 1867 was before the House of Commons, and a Motion was made for the purpose of introducing the cumulative vote into Parliamentary elections, the motion was supported by Mr. Mill and Mr. Fawcett, and I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Courtney, although not a member of the House at that time, supported it by his pen. Though supported by high authority on One side, it was opposed by equally high, in fact greater, authority on the other—namely, by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Gladstone; and I remember that, speaking on that occasion, I ventured to predict the failure of the scheme.
  I would remind your Lordships that two experiments have already been made in this direction. It was introduced into the Reform Act of 1867 by your Lord ships by way of Amendment, and was very reluctantly accepted by the Government of the day and by Mr. Disraeli, who had previously expressed a very confident and strong opinion against its adoption. However, it was adopted and applied to three-cornered constituencies—not many in number. The proposal was that, instead of three votes being given, the electors should only give two. For some little time, I think, the scheme gave satisfaction, but after a while its defects became apparent. One of its defects was that it caused political stagnation in the constituencies; members got returned as minority members, and there was no practical means of getting rid of them The whole scheme became distasteful to the constituencies where it was adopted and in the Reform Act of 1884 it was abolished by universal consent, and there
  484
  was substituted for it the scheme of single-member constituencies.
  The other experiment that was tried in the same direction was in the case of school board elections, where the cumulative vote was adopted to enable various religious sects to be represented. That, if I recollect rightly, was adopted by general consent, and for a time it worked well. But after a few years it was found that it enabled representatives of small sections to get into positions where they were mischievous rather than useful, and from which they could not be dislodged. Even supporters of minority representation condemned that particular scheme, and it finally disappeared when the work of the school boards was trans-erred to county councils. Lord Courtney and his friends think they have at last devised a scheme which is not open to these objections; and, theoretically, I think, there is a great deal to be said for the elaborate scheme described in this Bill. But my own belief is that in 3ractice it will be open to almost similar objections to those felt against the cumulative vote. I think it will turn out, in practce, that it will favour minorities in she same way as that scheme did, and that it will make it extremely difficult for majorities to obtain their due proportion on the councils. It will obstruct majorities, and, on the other hand, small sections and classes of people will find themselves able to return members.
  Take, by way of illustration, the scheme as described in the Schedule of this Bill. Take the case of a constituency returning five members with 6,000 votes. According to the proposal of my noble friend, any one candidate getting the quota of 1,000 votes will be entitled to be elected, and, theoretically, that is perfectly accurate, and there is a great deal to be said for it. But, in point of fact, when you come to the practical working of a scheme of this kind, I think it will turn out very differently. Let me suppose, for instance, the case of a constituency which is being fought by two nearly equal parties, and that then a candidate independent of either of them comes forward. I think it can be shown mathematically that in such a case, if the independent candidate obtains, not one-sixth of the votes, but slightly above one-ninth of the votes he will be almost certain of election.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: No.
  LORD EVERSLEY: It would be necessary for the purpose of working this out to have a blackboard and chalk; but I must ask the House to take it from me that, under the conditions I suggest—namely, that two nearly equal parties are fighting the constituency, and an independent candidate comes forward—the independent candidate, if he obtains one-ninth only of the votes, would be almost certain of toeing elected.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: No, no.
  LORD EVERSLEY: Then there is this further difficulty. If, in the case of a constituency returning five members, an independent candidate succeeds in getting the quota, then the two parties who are fighting for the other four seats would almost necessarily be in an equal position—two of each would be returned, unless one party were in the proportion of three to two, which is a very rare case. Thus it turns out that, under a scheme of this kind, the minorities would be unduly favoured, and majorities would find it extremely difficult to exercise their influence. For these reasons I confess that, for my part, I have very great doubt as to the advisability of the whole scheme. I do not know that I have any objection to the Bill passing into law, or even to the experiment being tried in any one of the London boroughs if they choose to adopt it. But I very much doubt if a London borough council will try the scheme, and I have a very strong impression that, if passed, the Bill will become a dead letter.
  LORD COLCHESTER: My Lords, as I had the honour of serving on the Select Committee of your Lordships House by whom this Bill was considered, I wish to say a few words on this subject. Speaking as one who was a member of the late School Board for London, I do not at all accept the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down, that the cumulative vote in school board elections was a bad system. I think the inconvenience of its working, so far as there was inconvenience, was due to the awkward size of the constituencies, and the inconvenience would, I think, have
  486
  been greatly removed if there had been only three members for each constituency. But the system of cumulative voting gave a fair representation of parties, and there was scarcely one constituency in London in which the elector, whichever side he was, had not at least one of his members in sympathy with him. I think that was a great advantage. If anyone speaks impartially on this matter it is myself, because, on the first occasion that I stood for the London School Board, I was defeated by the operation of that vote; but I still consider the working of it was fair. My own bias was in favour of the cumulative vote, or the restrictive vote, rather than the complicated system of this Bill; but, from what I heard and saw on the Committee, I was led to believe that the working of the system seems to be much easier to those accustomed to it than one would at first sight suppose it to be. It seems to me that a wide extension of minority representation is the inevitable consequence of the wider popular franchise. The effect of the present system is that large parties scattered throughout the country hardly have any representation at all. I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction, but whether the scheme will ever be adopted on a large scale I do not know.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, as I also had the honour of serving on the Select Committee I trust I may be permitted to say a few words on this subject. Lord Eversley, though he did not oppose the Bill, certainly threw cold water upon it, and prophesied that, if passed, it would never be adopted. I am not going to be so bold as to enter into any prophesy, but, if I were to do so, I should say that if the municipal authorities had power to adopt this system they certainly would do so, At any rate, that has been the case in Switzerland. Lord Eversley went on to discuss the question of cumulative voting in school board elections. I entirely agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that, far from working badly, the cumulative vote gave great satisfaction. It is quite true that many of us thought there was a better system than that of the cumulative vote, and the House of Commons appointed a Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, to consider the question; and the last two Vice presidents of the Council

  487
  as well as the last two heads of the Education Department gave very strong evidence before the Committee that the cumulative system had not only not been a failure, but had conduced greatly to the satisfactory working of school boards. The system was not abandoned, as my noble friend suggested, because it was condemned, but simply because the work of the school boards was handed over to the municipalities and no change was made in the system of election to those municipalities.
  Then Lord Eversley gave the House some very extraordinary mathematics, and asked your Lordships to accept them from him. It would be premature to go into that question in any detail, but I would venture to express a hope that the House will not accept that statement from my noble friend. As to the alleged difficulty of the system proposed in the Bill, I think it may be assumed that what the Danish, Swiss, and Belgian electors and the voters in various other parts of the world can do, will be earned out satisfactorily by British electors. I am not prepared to admit that my fellow-countrymen are so stupid that they cannot carry out a scheme which is gradually making its way over the rest of the civilised world. As a, Londoner, and an ex-chairman of the London County Council, I may say that, whatever may be the case in the country—and I cannot help thinking that, even in the country, this Bill would work with great advantage—the present system in London is most unsatisfactory. It has been found by experience in two successive municipal elections in the Metropolis that a comparatively small change of opinion among the voters themselves may suffice to throw out the whole of the representatives of one party and replace them by the representatives of another.
  Whether we agree, on the whole, with the Progressives or with the Moderates, I think we shall all concur that there are good men on both sides, and that it is important to secure the return of those councillors who have done good service in the past. The result of this Bill will be to secure greater continuity of action, and it will, therefore, prove a great advantage to the Metropolis. I deny that the Bill would give undue advantage to the minority. It will secure what I venture to think the House will agree are
  488
  the two great objects we should aim at in any system of representation—it will give power to the majority and a hearing to the minority. This Bill will to a considerable extent secure those two great objects, and I am glad that your Lordships are going to give it a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ASH WEDNESDAY.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, and in any case I believe it would be unusual for your Lordships to sit on Ash Wednesday. I, therefore, beg to move that the House do adjourn until Thursday next.
  Moved, that the House do adjourn until Thursday—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.