Sitting of 29 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords and referred on the first reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order)—Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time":—
Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Summerbell.]
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."—Debate resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill,
Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Sea Fisheries (Tees) Provisional Order Bill—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott)The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott) moved: "That, in the case of the Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time."
The Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Masterman) not being able to be present, perhaps I may be allowed to explain the circumstances in regard to this Bill. A marriage took place last September in the parish church of Calne under circumstances of doubtful validity. The church was under repair, and it is very doubtful whether in such circumstances the marriage is legal. That being the case, this Provisional Order is to regularise the proceedings. The objection to holding over the Bill to next Session is that it is in the interest of the peace of mind of the two people married and the incumbent of the church who performed the marriage that it should be regularised at once. The reason it was not brought forward before Whitsuntide is that it only came to the notice of the Home Office on 9th June. Inquiries were made at once, and the Provisional Order was signed by the Home Secretary without delay.
Motion agreed to.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905, read the first time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Portuguese Slave Trade.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE (on behalf of Captain Faber)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state whether the slave traffic on the Portuguese portion of the African coast has increased since His Majesty's ships were withdrawn from our waters in that region; and whether he has official information to the effect that whole villages are now devastated by the slave traffic?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): We have no official information to that effect, but if the hon. and gallant Member will communicate any information he may have on the subject inquiry shall be made.

  Gordon College, Khartoum (Bacteriological Investigations).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the useful work of the Gordon College at Khartoum, both in regard to the industrial development of the country and in regard to the bacteriological investigations conducted in the college, whereby the increasing dangers of malignant malaria may be counteracted, and also in view of the limitations placed upon this work by deficient financial resources, he can hold out any hope of increased assistance, either from Egypt or from the British Exchequer, whereby that work, hitherto largely dependent on private beneficence, may be carried on under more assured conditions?
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD (Peterborough): I desire before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question to ask him whether the bacteriological experiments referred to in the hon. Member's question are not in fact conducted in the Wellcome Research Laboratories, equipped by a member of the firm of Burroughs and Wellcome; whether his attention has been called to the "Journal of Pathology" of March, 1906, giving an illustrated account of a series of very cruel experiments on dogs and monkeys by inoculating them with sleeping sickness, without thereby advancing the cause of knowledge or science by one jot or tittle; and whether, in view of the great and growing body of opinion hostile to such experiments, he will refrain from devoting public moneys to their promotion?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on the points raised in the supplementary question. I am sorry that there was not time to refer to this point when the hon. Member asked about it the other evening. The question of assistance from the Egyptian Exchequer is a matter for the decision of the Egyptian Government, but I may point out that Sir Eldon Gorst states in his Annual Repor ton Egypt that the expenditure on education has been increased, in the Budgets of the last few years, to the utmost extent which the resources of the country will allow. In the Soudan in particular there are many objects, absolutely necessary to the country, such as improvements of means of communication, which must be considered. With regard to assistance from the British Exchequer, although I am quite alive to the merits of the Gordon College,
  1336
  and much appreciate the value of its work, I fear there is no precedent for subsidising such educational establishments from the British Exchequer. Though I cannot hold out hopes of a grant of this nature, I can assure the hon. Member that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government that the work of the Gordon College should receive every support and encouragement that can be given as opportunity arises, either from public funds or private benevolence.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the Foreign Office any funds for purposes such as this?
  Sir E. GREY: Does the hon. Member mean an international fund? I am not aware there is any fund of that kind.

  Deportation of Suspected Persons (Egypt).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that it is the intention of the Government of Egypt to introduce a measure giving powers to the Executive to deport suspected persons without charge or trial; and, if so, whether he could state the grounds for such a measure and the conditions under which it is proposed to put it into operation?
  Sir E. GREY: A measure for dealing with a certain category of persons, who constitute a grave danger to public security, by placing them under police supervision has been promulgated by the Egyptian Government with the approval of the Legislative Council. The details of this measure and the reasons which have necessitated its adoption, cannot conveniently be explained in answer to a question, but His Majesty's Consul-General has sent home a full report on the subject which is at present under consideration.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Has the measure been submitted to the Legislative Council, and has it been approved by them?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir, it has passed through the Legislative Council.
  Mr. DILLON: The hon. Baronet did not say whether this measure included powers to deport suspected persons without charge or trial.
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I do not think it includes powers to deport without charge or trial.
  Mr. DILLON: Has the right hon. Baronet any objection to submitting the report of the case for the proposed measure to the House, so that we can form some judgment upon it?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not yet time to consider it. There will be no difficulty in laying the Report on the Table.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: I wish to ask whether the person suspected will be heard before a judicial tribunal before being deported?
  Sir E. GREY: I believe the best course will be to lay the Report on the Table.

  Protection of Foreign Lives and Property at Shiraz.
  Mr. DILLONasked whether a body of Indian troops has been sent to Shiraz; and, if so, at whose request and on what grounds?
  Sir E. GREY: A detachment of 50 men has been sent for the protection of foreign lives and property at Shiraz, their security being seriously threatened by the advance of the Kashgai on that town, from which the tribal levies have already expelled the new Governor's representative. The step was taken on the recommendation of the Consul, and the Minister at Tehran fully concurs in its necessity. I trust the new Persian Governor will soon be able to get the situation in hand, and enable the detachment to be withdrawn.

  Island of Crete (Fortress at Canea).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any official information that the Greek flag has been hoisted over the fortress at Canea, in Crete?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give to the House as to the course of events in Crete?
  Sir E. GREY: That is rather a large order for an answer to a question without notice. I have telegraphed for the information asked for in the question, and that is all I have.

  Irish Land Act, 1903 (Estate of Sir George Colthurst, Banteer, Cork).
  Mr. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commis-
  1338
  sioners have yet sanctioned the purchase scheme of the Rathcoole portion of the estate of Sir George Colthurst, baronet (near Banteer, county Cork); if so, can they explain why four sub-tenants—namely, John Buckley, Patrick Lane, and John O'Leary, of Laght, and William Coleman, of Bolomore—who signed agreements, have not received due notification of the purchase arrangements; and whether these sub-tenants are to be included in the sale?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. R. R. Cherry): I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the holdings on this estate have been vested in the tenants. The portions of the holdings which were sub-let were not declared to be separate holdings for the purpose of the sale, and the occupiers continue to be sub-tenants to the purchasing tenants.
  Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show him that these sub-tenants actually signed their agreements, that the price was agreed between them and their immediate landlord, and can he say why the Commissioners have not dealt with these cases?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have no information to that effect; in any case, it is within the discretion of the Estates Commissioners to decide whether they will sell to the subtenants or to the tenants direct.
  Mr. P. J. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Should not sub-tenants who are in occupation get a preference of purchase above the heads of the tenants, and was not that the intention of the Act of 1903?
  Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir. The Act of 1903 left a discretion to the Estates Commissioners to deal directly with the subtenants, but there was no obligation upon them to take that course.
  Mr. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Estates Commissioners and tell them that in all cases tenants in occupation should have the right of preference to their holdings?
  Mr. CHERRY: I will communicate with them, but I could not undertake to instruct them to do that.

  Magistrate Superseded, Athlone.
  Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGH (on behalf of Captain Craig)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case against Mr. Eugene J. Robins, J.P., president of the South Westmeath Executive of the United Irish League, and chairman of the Athlone District Council, at Moate, county Westmeath, when he was bound to keep the peace for 12 months himself in £40 and two sureties of £20 each; whether he can state if the matter has been brought before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; if so, can he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter; and whether, during the twelve months during which he is bound to the peace, he will be permitted to exercise the functions of a magistrate?
  Mr. CHERRY: Mr. Robins who, as chairman of the Athlone No. 1 Rural District Council, was an ex-officio Justice of the Peace, was charged before a Court of Petty Sessions with unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct with intent to intimidate certain persons, and was ordered to give sureties to keep the peace. He refused to do so, and is now undergoing the alternative sentence of two calendar months' imprisonment. The attention of the Lord Chancellor having been called to the case, he deemed it his duty to supersede Mr. Robins from further acting as a Justice of the Peace.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether attention has been drawn to the fact that in these cases there is no trial of the prisoner, and he is not allowed to bring forward evidence, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to justify the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in depriving a man of the Commission of the Peace who has been bound to the peace by removable agents of the Executive?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am quite aware of the practice. Evidence cannot be called in these cases.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why not?
  Mr. CHERRY: Because the law has been so decided in the Court of King's Bench.
  Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to justify the action of the Lord Chancellor in removing from the Commission of the Peace a man who has not been tried or heard in his own defence, and who has been bound to the peace by
  1340
  removable agents of the Executive Government?
  Mr. CHERRY: I should not be prepared to criticise any action of the Lord Chancellor on that matter, but it is in his own B jurisdiction, and he has a right to remove any magistrate.
  Mr. DILLON: Who first directed his attention to this case?
  Mr. CHERRY: I cannot say. It is natural his attention should be directed to any magistrate who has been brought before other magistrates and charged on sworn information with having been guilty of an offence.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman was not permitted to call witnesses in his own defence, whereas in similar cases in England witnesses are called?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am not aware of that. The law is different in the two countries.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether there is any difference in Ireland between imprisonment in the first and s second division?
  Mr. CHERRY: I do not think there is any difference between first and second-class prisoners in Ireland, but I think this is treated as a class of untried prisoners in Ireland.
  Mr. MacNEILL: In fact, first-class mis-demeanants?
  Mr. CHERRY: Certainly.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Was Mr. Robins asked by the Lord Chancellor to make a statement before he was removed?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have no information on the subject, but I am quite sure he was. I know it is the invariable practice of the Lord Chancellor to call for explanations.
  Mr. E. CREAN: Does Mr. Robins hold his commission as chairman of the local council, and is it not, under these circumstances, out of the power of the Lord Chancellor to deprive him of his commission?
  Mr. CHERRY: Yes, he holds it for one year.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Were the other two magistrates before whom Mr. Robins was I brought two removable magistrates?
  Mr. CHERRY: All the magistrates are removable magistrates.

  Technical Education (Ireland).
  Captain DONELAN (for Mr. W. Redmond)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will take any steps to provide suitable buildings for the purposes of technical education in Ireland?
  Mr. CHERRY: As my right hon. Friend has already stated, in reply to questions on the same subject recently asked by the hon. Members for St. Patrick's Division and for North Cork, there is not at present any prospect of providing additional grants for the building of technical schools in Ireland.
  Mr. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an absolute consensus of opinion in Ireland in favour of building these schools?
  Mr. CHERRY: I know that, but it is a case of money.

  Orange Demonstration, Maguiresbridge, Fermanagh.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Orangemen of Maguiresbridge, county Fermanagh, attempted on Sunday and Monday, 11th and 12th July, to erect arches across the public road, and between the residence of the Catholic priest and the Catholic church, under which the Catholic inhabitants going to and from their devotions would be compelled to pass, and that the Orangemen were only prevented from accomplishing their object by the forcible intervention of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he is aware that two gentlemen holding the commission of the peace, Mr. Porter-Porter, O.L., of Rellish, and Mr. W. S. Henderson, of Maguiresbridge, gave directions to the local Orangemen, which were carried out, to display an Orange flag, supplied for the purpose by Mr. Henderson, in front of the Catholic priest's house at Maguiresbridge on that day, and that Mr. Maguire on that day headed an Orange band to the priest's door which was playing the Orange tune, "Kick the Pope"; whether he will take any steps to secure the Catholic people of Maguiresbridge protection from a repetition of such actions; and will he make representations to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in reference to the retention in the commission of the peace of Mr. Henderson and Mr. Porter, regard being had to the fact that Mr. Porter had been dis-
  1342
  missed from the commission of the peace, to which he was restored on the recommendation of the Earl of Erne, the Lieutenant of the county, who is the Orange Grand Master?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that no attempt was made by the Orangemen to erect arches on the 11th instant, but that on the 12th instant a banner was displayed across the street near the end of the village. I am told, however, that the Catholic inhabitants had not to pass under any arch going to or from their devotions. The police prevented the erection of an arch at the other end of the village near the priest's house, but a large red ensign was subsequently placed in a field nearly opposite the house. I have no knowledge of any directions given by any magistrates to the Orangemen, but one of the magistrates referred to, Mr. Porter-Porter, promised the police to use his influence to prevent an arch being erected at an unsuitable point. I am informed by the police that Mr. Henderson, the other magistrate named in the question, did not, as stated, supply a flag. I can obtain no information as to whether Mr. Maguire, referred to in the question, took any part in the proceedings. The police report that the band played on several occasions through the village, and that the tune mentioned in the question was included in its repertoire. One can only hope that time may allay the deplorable sectarian and political bitterness which leads to these displays in the North of Ireland. Meanwhile, the police will do their best to preserve the peace and protect, as far as is in their power, all peaceable persons from insult. The Government have no information as to the action of any of the magistrates mentioned in the question which would justify representations being made to the Lord Chancellor as to their conduct.

  Coolraine North (Limerick) Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. KILBRIDE (on behalf of Mr. Joyce)asked whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from the representative of the late Michael Russell, who was evicted by Lord Lansdowne from the lands of Coolraine North, liberties of Limerick; whether steps have been taken for the sale of this estate to the tenants; and whether before sanctioning the sale, the Estates Commissioners will make provision for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from Miss Maria Russell in respect of a holding on this estate at one time occupied by her father and now in the occupation of another tenant. The application has not been inquired into, as it was not lodged within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act. Proceedings for the sale of the estate were instituted under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in October last, and when the estate is being inspected inquiry will be made into Miss Russell's application.

  O'Grady Estate, County Cork.
  Mr. CREANasked whether, prior to the passing of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, negotiations for the purchase of the evicted farms on the O'Grady estate, Carrigaline, county Cork, were not successful owing to the excessive price demanded by the owner; what action have the Estates Commissioners taken since the passing of this Act; and when may the five evicted tenants, who originally held those farms, expect to be reinstated?
  Mr. CHERRY: Applications have been received by the Estates Commissioners from five persons claiming reinstatement on holdings on the estate of the Misses S. and M. O'Grady. All the papers in connection with the estate are with an inspector with a view to enabling the Commissioners to furnish a preliminary estimate of price.

  River Barrow Floods.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Viceregal Commission appointed to inquire into the flooding of the River Barrow and its tributaries, to the effect that in various parts of the river islands have been formed, that they have been planted with osiers by the Barrow Navigation Company, the result being a rapid enlargement of the obstructions by silt detritus arrested by roots and brandies of those plants, two notable instances of which occur at Carlow and Leighlin Bridge, where large islands so planted with osiers exist in the river immediately above the bridge, lessening the waterway and causing floods above them to rise to a greater height than they otherwise would; and whether he will take steps to compel the Barrow Navigation Company to remove the obstructions?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Viceregal Commission appointed to inquire into the flooding of the River Barrow and its tributaries, referring to the Lower Barrow below the town of Carlow, that the river is obstructed by weirs erected for the purpose of navigation; there are instances, too, of wharves having been built into the river by private parties, one instance, at Mill Ford, of the mill-owner, for the purpose of enlarging his mill, having extended the building about 25 feet into the river and so permanently blocked up and rendered useless the eastern side of the bridge; and whether he will take steps to have the obstructions removed?
  Mr. CHERRY: I will answer these two questions together. The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to the statements referred to, which are contained in a Paper prepared by Mr. Richard Hassard, a member of the Castletown Commission of 1885. I am not aware that there is any power under the existing law to deal with such obstructions on the Barrow.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with regard to arterial drainage in Ireland?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am not aware of any such intention.

  Maguiresbridge Protestant Demonstrations.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked whether it has been usual for many years for the Protestants of Maguiresbridge, county Fermanagh, to erect arches and have band-playing in the town of Maguiresbridge on the 12th July, and that until last year or the year before there never was any objection to arches or band; and, seeing that the Catholics of county Fermanagh each year have indulged in band-playing and other amusements on their holiday, 15th August, without any disturbance or interruption, will he explain why the police on 12th July last prevented the erection of arches at Maguiresbridge, and caused bitterness of feeling between people who had never previously interfered with one another's bands or processions on the appropriate days?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am aware that band-playing and the erection of arches on 12th July has long been the custom in Maguires-

  1345
  bridge. The police, acting under instructions issued in the interests of peace and good order, prevented the erection of an arch where its presence was calculated to be offensive and provocative. This action was intended, not to create, but to mitigate bitterness of feeling, and in the opinion of the Government it had the latter and not the former effect.

  River Barrow Navigation Company.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the conditions under which the Irish Parliament in 1791 granted a charter giving certain rights of navigation and other privileges over the River Barrow to the Barrow Navigation Company, now represented by the Grand Canal Company (Ireland), for the purpose of ascertaining whether the canal company had any legal right to create islands and plant osiers in the bed of the river; and whether obligations were imposed on the Barrow Navigation Company to keep the river dredged and free from obstruction?
  Mr. CHERRY: The charter is of great length. It does not appear to contain any clause imposing an obligation to keep the river dredged. A power is given to cut canals at either or both sides of the river (which might have the effect of forming islands), and it gives certain rights in the soil and water, and the banks of the river. Any riparian owner who has been injured by the action of the company has, of course, his ordinary legal remedy by action, if the company have exceeded their rights under their charter or have caused any illegal obstruction to the flow of the water. The Government cannot undertake to protect private rights of this nature, but must leave it to individuals who assert that they are injured to enforce their rights in the ordinary way.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rights in this case are the rights of the public, and affect the public health, in a district covering 40,000 acres of land? Who is to take the initiative in compelling the Navigation Company to remove the obstruction?
  Mr. CHERRY: The persons who are affected.
  Mr. H. BELLOC: Will they be allowed to call evidence?
  Mr. CHERRY: Certainly.

  Labourers Act (Ireland)—Revised Scale of Fees.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Mountmellick (Queen's County) rural district council protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in issuing a revised scale which increases the legal charges in connection with The Labourers Act, 1906; whether the new scale increases the fees which solicitors voluntarily accepted; and whether he will have the Local Government Board scale withdrawn and leave to the local authorities the power of making whatever arrangements they deem best in the interests of the public?
  Mr. CHERRY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for the Ossory Division on the 26th instant. I may add that Rule 53 of the new Order expressly provides that a district council may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, arrange with a solicitor for the performance of all legal work in connection with an improvement scheme for a bulk sum, or for a fixed fee per cottage provided, or per plot acquired.

  Malaria-Bearing Mosquitos (Mian Mir Experiment).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to a paper read by Captain James, at the Bombay Medical Congress last October, in which it was stated that the attempts made at Mian Mir to extirpate malaria-bearing mosquitos had failed, and that malaria was on the increase, and to replies by Surgeon-General Hamilton, Colonel Barrow, and others; and whether, in view of the importance both to the white and native population of India of these experiments to extirpate malaria, the Government would see its way to undertake an impartial but authoritative inquiry into the Mian Mir experiment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The proceedings of the Medical Congress held in Bombay in February last have not reached the Secretary of State, but he has seen a notice in the Bombay newspapers1 of a paper read by Captain James, recounting the results of an investigation into the health of the

  1347
  population of the Mian Mir cantonment. The Government of India will be consulted on the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

  Calcutta Police Administration.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked whether the Secretary of State for India will place in the Library a copy of Mr. Halli-day's Report on the administration of the police in Calcutta for last year?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State will cause a copy of the Report to be placed in the Library.

  Treasury Temporary Employés.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of employés that are and have been for the past five years continuously employed in his Department, and who are still classified as temporary employés?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. C. E. Hobhouse): There are 22 persons who have been continually employed in the Treasury for five years or more, and are classed as "temporary" or "uncstablished." Of this number 10 are charwomen and eight are messengers in the Whips' Department.

  Condensed Milk (Registration of Sellers).
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government that grocers and others who sell condensed milk in tins or cream in sealed jars should be compelled to be registered under the Milk and Dairies Bill?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I have received representations as to the exclusion of cases of this kind from registration under the Bill, and I am considering how the matter can best be dealt with.

  London Police Court Interpreters.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case in which an Italian street hawker named Saverio Geammargo, having been summoned before the magistrate at the Old Street Police Court on 7th July on a charge of obstruction, and professing himself unable to speak English and without
  1348
  means to pay for the services of an interpreter, the magistrate, Mr. Cluer, adjourned the summons sine die on the ground that the receiver would not allow him to grant certificates for interpreter's fees in such cases; and whether he will take steps to alter the condition of affairs under which an alien can act in contravention of the law and obtain immunity from the consequences of his offence by declaring that he does not understand English and is without means?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): I had not previously heard of the case, and am making inquiries into it, which are not yet concluded. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that there is no such danger as he suggests at the end of the question.

  Swansea Dock Explosion.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (on behalf of Mr. John Ward)asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any report of an explosion having occurred on the new dock works, Swansea, by which two lads were injured, one fatally; and, if so, can he give any facts as to the cause and circumstances of the accident?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand the question to refer to an accident which happened on the 10th April last to two boys named Robinson and Mayne. I have received a report from the Factory Inspector, who was present at the inquest, from which it appears that Robinson and other lads were playing on the dock premises with some loose carbide of calcium, which they had obtained from a hut on the premises. An explosion followed, and Robinson received injuries from which he subsequently died. The matter is not one in regard to which my Department has any power of control, but I understand the manager has promised to keep all loose carbide in future securely locked.

  Blackfriars Bridge Widening (Accidents).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. John Ward)asked what number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, have occurred to workmen employed by the contractors during the widening of Blackfriars Bridge?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The accidents returned by the contractors as occurring to workmen engaged on the widening of Blackfriars Bridge in the years 1907, 1908 and 1909 have been as follows: fatal, 6; non-fatal, 33.

  Export Trade in Old Horses.
  Mr. STARKEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the cruelty involved in the trade in old and worn-out horses from this country to the Continent; and whether the police will prevent the embarkation of horses which are suffering pain and not in a fit state to stand the voyage?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. The Board of Agriculture have by order prohibited the exportation of horses which for any reason cannot be shipped abroad without cruelty, and have made provisions for the proper treatment on board of those that are fit for exportation. This order is enforced by the officers of the Board of Agriculture and of the London County Council. The police, so far as their jurisdiction extends, and the officers of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals co-operate with these authorities, and are often successful in dealing with cases of cruelty before the horses reach the wharves. I am making inquiry as to whether any further steps can be taken to prevent contravention of the order.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly direct attention to the horrors which are enacted every day at Leith and Hull in connection with the trade to Antwerp in these poor animals?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I shall be glad to receive any information my hon. Friend can give me on the subject.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representation has been made to the Board of Agriculture on more than one occasion requesting their assistance in obtaining powers for captains of vessels to slaughter horses on board ships, and that the Board have always refused either to take any steps or to grant facilities?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That question should be addressed to the Board of Agriculture. I am only concerned with police action. We do our best to prevent cruelty.
  Mr. GEO. GREENWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to obtaining admission to the docks for inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who are now refused admission by the dock companies, in order that they may see the horses before shipment?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have no knowledge of that, but I will inquire.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not the fact that these old horses, after going to Antwerp, generally return to this country in the shape of German sausage?

  Women Suffragettes (Charges of Insubordination).
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. Keir Hardie)asked the Home Secretary whether any opportunity has been, or will be, afforded the women suffragettes punished for insubordination, including charges of biting and kicking officials in Holloway Prison, to lay their statement of the facts before him in person, or whether, in his replies to the questions put to him on the subject, he has been relying on ex, parte statements supplied to him by the officials?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No punishment was inflicted in Holloway Prison on the prisoners for kicking and biting the officers, as they were under punishment for other offences, and afterwards had to be re-leased on medical grounds; but proceedings are now about to be taken against two of them for the assaults, and these proceedings will give them an opportunity of stating their version of the facts en oath. Pending the decision of the judicial authorities, I can say nothing with regard to the matter.

  Jersey States (Religious Instruction).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the text of the Bill introduced into the Jersey States which lately secured a second reading, and will come up for third reading on 5th August; whether he is aware that the Catholics of the island have no representative in the States, and that the articles of the Bill dealing with religious instruction cannot be accepted by Catholics; whether in particular his attention has been drawn to Articles 10b, 14,16, 18, and 20, against which a protest has been lodged with the States; and whether, in view of the fact that the power of appointing teachers is taken entirely out of the hands of the managers of Catholic schools, that the so-called right of entry affords no safeguard for religious instruction, that teachers are bound down in their religious teaching to the reading and explanation of the Old and New Testaments, and that the result of the Bill, if passed into Law, will be to force all Catholic schools outside the national system and

  1351
  put them at the mercy of capricious inspectors, and if schools are then kept open they will be liable to a fine of £20 per day, he will state what facilities will be given by the Privy Council for the hearing of objections to the Bill?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have not yet seen the Bill. If and when it passes the States it will be submitted for approval by the King in Council, and will be carefully considered, together with any Petitions against the Bill that may be received.
  Mr. BOLAND: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Privy Council will consider Petitions, will there be any opportunity for the Catholics of the island to be represented by counsel or otherwise before the Privy Council?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I think that question had better be put when the case arises. I cannot answer at the present moment.

  Czar's Visit to England.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any reason to believe that Harting, the Russian spy, is at present in London?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
  Mr. DILLON: Have the police of this country taken any means to ascertain whether Harting is in London, and have we any security that this police spy may not at the present moment be engaged in organising Terrorist outrages against the Czar on his approaching visit to England?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The police are perfectly competent to discharge their duty, and I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

  Sleeping in a Mine (Longton).
  Mr. J. PARKER (for Mr. John Ward)asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any Report from the district inspector of Mines of a lad having been recently fined by the Longton magistrates for alleged sleeping in a mine; whether the lad is alleged to have been seriously injured as a result of so sleeping while on duty; and whether any other person was present at the time of the accident, and, if not, on what evidence the lad was convicted?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry of the district inspector, who informs me
  1352
  that the lad referred to, aged 17, who was employed as an attendant on a self-acting incline, went to sleep at half-past ten in the morning, lying across the rails. Another lad, seeing his dangerous position, attempted to drag him off the lines, but before he could get him clear an approaching tub ran over him, fracturing his thigh. The lad was subsequently prosecuted by the owners of the mine for being asleep while on duty in contravention of the special rules. As the question only appeared on the Paper yesterday, I have not been able to obtain any report of the evidence given at the hearing.

  Navy Contract (Apprentice Labour).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the building of three torpedo boat destroyers by Messrs. Cammell, Laird, and Company, Birkenhead, there are employed 20 apprentices to 20 platers, and 24 apprentices to 24 rivetters; whether this proportion of boy labour is used with the consent of the Admiralty; and whether, in view of the unemployment at present prevailing, and also on the point of efficiency, he will take steps to have a larger proportion of adult labour employed, or what action does he intend to take in the matter?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Admiralty contracts do not stipulate anything as to the relative number of apprentices to fully-trained workmen. The contracts, however, insist on only the best workmanship being employed. Adequate arrangements are made to ensure that this condition is fully met. If not met at any time, immediate action would be taken with the firm.
  Mr. RICHARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to make inquiries as to whether the facts stated in the question are correct or otherwise?
  Mr. McKENNA: The facts stated in the question, if correct, would not necessarily by themselves lead to any action on the part of the Admralty, as it is no part of the contract of the Admiralty with the contractors that they should or should not employ a certain number of apprentices.
  Mr. RICHARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty is paying for men-made torpedoes and they are getting boy-made torpedoes?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; we stipulate for work of a certain quality, and we are, as I am informed, getting that at the present time. I will inquire further into the matter.
  Mr. P. F. CURRAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of apprentices is limited in each organisation to a given number, according to the number of journeymen employed, and in this particular case the number of apprentices far outreaches the actual number that is allowed by any organisation having regard to trade union conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; I understand that what my hon. Friend has referred to is the trade union rule, but we can only act according to the terms of our own contract, and in that there is no stipulation that apprentices shall or shall not be employed.
  Mr. CURRAN: Does not the Fair Wage Clause mean the recognised trade union conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; the Fair Wage Clause does not refer to trade union conditions; only to the rates of wages.
  Mr. RICHARDS: If you have apprentice boiler-makers or rivetters, you are having incompetent instead of competent workmen; I speak as one having four years' experience.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the position, and I will make further inquiries; but the mere fact that apprentices are employed in what the hon. Member regards as excessive numbers does not constitute a breach of the contract.
  Mr. T. SUMMERBELL: Is it to be understood that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, he cares not whether the work is done by apprentice or man labour?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not speaking of that at all. I am only stating as a fact what the contract is. It was made some time ago, and I am stating what the conditions of the contract are at the present time.

  Comparative Naval Construction.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many battleships, built or building, and displacing 15,000 tons or over, are there in the British, United States, German, and French navies?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the Dilke Return, in which he will find the information for which he asks.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the accuracy of the Dilke Return to-day, on 29th July; and, again, will he guarantee its accuracy even a day after it is published? I hope he will guarantee it. Does he guarantee it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.

  "Dreadnought" Docks.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many docks are there in the British Empire, German Empire, France, and the United States capable of holding a "Dreadnought," namely, having a length over all of 500 feet, a width at entrance of at least 82 feet, and a depth over the sill at ordinary spring tides of 27 feet.
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of docks actually complete and capable of taking a "Dreadnought" at normal draught is, for the countries named, as follows:—

  British Empire

  …

  …

  23

  German Empire

  …

  …

  6

  France

  …

  …

  5

  United States

  …

  …

  5

  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman a single word about normal draught.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have pointed out to the hon. Member several times he is not entitled to comment upon an answer. One great advantage which a Minister has in this House is that when he makes an answer it must be accepted until the opportunity offers in Supply to comment upon it.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I can assure you, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman answered it very fully.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: May I make a remark, Sir? I did not ask anything about normal draught. That is not the point. I should like to ask him, has he 23 docks capable of admitting "Dreadnoughts" 500 ft. long, 82 ft. in width at the entrance, and with a depth of 27 ft. over the sills?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I understand the answer, it is in the affirmative to the hon. Gentleman's question. That is the normal draught of the "Dreadnought."

  Destroyers (Furnaces).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what sum of money has been spent upon repairs to, and modifications of, the furnaces of the destroyers "Cossack," "Tartar," and "Mohawk," since they were first commissioned; and whether such repairs or modifications were due to the exclusive use of oil fuel?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures are:—

  £

  "Cossack"

  …

  …

  …

  520

  "Tartar"

  …

  …

  …

  1,010

  "Mohawk"

  …

  …

  …

  845

  As regards the last part of the question, although oil fuel only is used in the boilers of these ships, the repairs and modifications required were due to fair wear.

  Gun Mountings (Woolwich Arsenal).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the demand for gun mountings and the promise that the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, would be utilised for this work after consultation with the War Office, he can now inform the House as to the amount of such work placed at Woolwich in addition to that in the hands of the contractors?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter has been carefully considered, and it has been decided not to place orders for heavy gun mountings at present with the Royal Arsenal. Orders placed with Woolwich in connection with gun mountings allocated this year are 45 per cent, more than last year, and 30 per cent, more than in any of the preceding five years.
  Mr. CROOKS: Are we to understand that the Admiralty do not intend to place any orders in their own Department, for which they have the capacity to manufacture heavy gun mountings, or are they always to be considered the perquisite of private firms?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not said that. I only say that at present we do not intend to place any orders at Woolwich for heavy gun mountings for which at the present time there is no adequate means of manufacture.
  Mr. CROOKS: Will anyone lay plant down unless they get orders? We cannot lay plant down until you tell us to do it.
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: We are told that as soon as possible work will be given to the Arsenal, and what does that mean?
  Mr. McKENNA: I did not mean that at any time, immediately or otherwise, heavy gun mountings would be built at Woolwich, but I have stated that there are orders placed with Woolwich in connection with gun mountings which are 45 per cent, more work than we did last year.
  Mr. CROOKS: I will repeat the question later on.

  Naval Review (Visit of Members of Parliament).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked under which Admiralty Vote and which sub-head will be included the expenditure necessary for the provision of free railway tickets and for other entertainment for Members of Parliament and their families on the occasion of the Naval Review?
  Mr. McKENNA: The expenditure will be borne under sub-head Z of Vote 11, "Miscellaneous Payments and Allowances."
  Mr. MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the precise expense of this delightful little book which everyone was given? It is an it inerary of the course, and a kind of a cross between a libretto and a funeral service?
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT: Are we to understand that, in future, when we ask for money for the Navy, we are really voting money which can be used for our own entertainment?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I do not think the hon. Member can fairly ask me that question. The amount involved is so small— the whole cost is only £800—and it affords an opportunity for Members of both Houses of Parliament to see the British Fleet. I do not consider that in the interests either of the country or of the Government itself it is a bad thing for Members of Parliament to see the fleet.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the votes of all Members who were brought down to see the Fleet at the public expense be struck out when we come to the next Vote for shipbuilding?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will answer that with an emphatic negative.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I do not think I heard the hon. Gentleman's answer correctly. Do I understand that Peers, too, are to have their travelling expenses paid?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The travelling expenses and the general arrangements were in a single contract.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Would it not have been cheaper to send Members of Parliament to visit the Fleet when it was in the Thames?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I think it would be quite impossible to have got a contract any cheaper than to send Members of both Houses to Portsmouth and to provide them with a lunch for £800.
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lords of the Treasury, purporting to act under a general authority, have sanctioned the expenditure by the Admiralty of money voted by Parliament for the service of the Navy in the provision of free railway tickets and other entertainment for Members of Parliament and their families; and whether he will make provision in future, by amendment of the Appropriation Act or by any other necessary means, that moneys voted by Parliament for the service of each Department shall be incapable of being used, with or without Treasury sanction, for the direct personal benefit of Members of Parliament, who themselves vote the supplies and are themselves trustees of the public purse?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The fact that Treasury sanction has been given for the expenditure in question in no way precludes the Comptroller and Auditor-General from reporting it to the House of Commons if, in his opinion, it has been incurred for a purpose other than that for which the grant was intended to provide. In the event of its being so reported it would be for the House to take such action as it might see fit. The terms of the Appropriation Act as they at present stand seem to me sufficiently to preclude the charge against the grants of any expenditure which cannot be shown to arise directly in connection with the administration of the respective Navy Services, and I do not think it would be either desirable or practicable to introduce into the Act such a stipulation as my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. ARNOLD HERBERT: Irrespective of the amount of this expenditure, is it not a matter of most important public policy that Members of the Legislature should not be asked to vote sums for their direct private benefit?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hardly think this falls within that category.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representatives of an office created under Statute, when they attempt to entertain themselves at the expense of the public, are surcharged? Is there to be one rule for a corporation and another for the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I pointed out that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, if he thought the expenditure ultra vires, would say so, and report to the House.
  Mr. LONSDALE: In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Donegal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of withdrawing the return half of his ticket?

  Harwich Harbour (Vessels of the Royal Navy).
  Mr. COBBOLDasked how many vessels of the Royal Navy have been permanently stationed in Harwich Harbour during the first six months of the present year, and how many have been in and out of the harbour during the same period?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Ganges" is the only vessel permanently stationed in Harwich Harbour. During the first half of the year, 80 vessels, excluding submarines, have been in and out.
  Mr. COBBOLDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the constant use of Harwich Harbour made by vessels of the Royal Navy, and especially to the grounding of H.M.S. "Blenheim" at the entrance to the harbour on the morning of Saturday, 24th July, he will include in next year's Estimates a substantial grant towards deepening and widening the approaches to the harbour, which are at present kept open and improved mainly by port dues levied on merchant vessels, while no contribution whatever is made from the National Exchequer in respect of vessels of the Royal Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: The grounding of H.M.S. "Blenheim" was not due to any insufficiency of depth or width of channel. The present depths are sufficient for the requirements of His Majesty's ships visiting the harbour. The dredging is being carried out entirely in the interests of the mercantile marine. It is not of sufficient practical benefit to His Majesty's ships to place any obligation on the Admiralty to contribute towards the cost.
  Mr. LEVY LEVER: Is it not the fact that special moorings have to be laid

  1359
  down, and that a demand has been made in the last year or so for new ones, which have been granted, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army is exempt from rates and taxes, and yet they make a grant in aid for buildings ashore?
  Mr. McKENNA: In answer to the latter part of the question I believe the Army follows the same practice as the Navy in regard to buildings ashore. With regard to the first part of the question, I do not understand my hon. Friend to imply that the cost of the moorings is paid by the local authority, but by the Admiralty.

  Shipbuilding Contracts (Interest).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON (for Mr. Staveley-Hill)asked what rate of interest the contractors will be entitled to charge in respect of the preliminary outlay in connection with the preparations for the four new ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not customary for contractors to charge nor for anyone to pay any interest for such preliminary outlay as contractors may incur in preparing to execute orders.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Was no interest paid in this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; no interest would ever be charged by any contractors, or rather no one would ever pay any interest.
  Mr. FELL: Will they take it into account in the price they charge?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; no one purchasing goods pays for any expenditure which the purveyor of the goods may have to make in order to provide himself with them.

  Guns and Gun-Mountings (Orders).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked what orders have been given by the Board for guns, gun-mountings, and other material in connection with the four new great ships of this year's building programme?
  Mr. GRETTONasked if any date has been settled upon which tenders for gun-mountings for the extra four ships shall be submitted for acceptance by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: For the two ships of June, 1909, orders for guns and mountings have been placed. For the two of November, 1909, orders for guns have been placed and tenders for mountings are under con-
  1360
  sideration. For the additional four new ships the tenders for guns and mountings will be considered in the course of the next few weeks.
  Mr. GRETTON: Have tenders for gun-mountings of the four additional ships been asked for?
  Mr. McKENNA: When we ask for a tender from any individual firm we ask for tenders for a larger number of mountings than perhaps the individual firm may get orders for.
  Mr. GRETTON: Have the Admiralty now tenders for the gun-mountings for all the ships included in the programme of the year, including the additional ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have received tenders for a sufficient number of gun-mountings, provided they were all of the same type, to cover the four existing ships, but I do not commit myself to the fact that these would be the tenders which would be accepted. We may make a variation.

  Aviation (International Conference).
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the question of summoning an international conference to consider the question of aviation in view of the strides recently made in this science?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is being very closely watched by the Government, and, as at present advised, I cannot see that any practical purpose would be served by summoning a conference such as the hon. Member suggests.

  Assassination of Sir Curzon Wyllie.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether, in view of the fact that the evidence, adduced by the Crown at the recent trial of the prisoner Dinghra showed that the crime was the independent act of the prisoner alone, and in view of the widespread manifestations of horror against it by Indian subjects in this country the Government have any official knowledge that there has been an equally emphatic protest against the crime by the inhabitants of India?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Secretary of State has received privately from four public bodies in India expressions of their abhorrence of this crime. Otherwise he has no knowledge beyond the numerous reports of meetings which have appeared in the newspapers.
  Mr. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement found on Dinghra was not obviously based upon hostile misrepresentations of the Government of India contained in certain speeches and writings made and published in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of the answer I gave.

  Appointment of Magistrates (Royal Commission).
  Mr. CREANasked whether a Royal Commission is to be appointed to consider the appointment of magistrates; whether the inquiry will include Ireland; and, if so, will Ireland be represented on the Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I think not. The Royal Commission announced by the Lord Chancellor is intended to deal with the question of the appointment of magistrates in England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that the proceedings of the Commission, which has not yet been constituted, will not be of a prolonged character, and when the inquiry has been concluded the Government will be glad to consider whether a similar inquiry should be held in the case of Ireland, where, I may add, the conditions differ, to some extent, from those in Great Britain.

  New Battleships (Cost of Preparatory Work).
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give an estimate of the aggregate sums already spent by contractors on equipment and machinery which are necessary for building the four extra ships to be laid down on 1st April, 1910?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the negative. The contractors do not furnish us with such information.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any and, if so, what expenditure will be incurred before 31st March, 1910, in preparations for laying down the hulls of the four additional battleships?
  Mr. McKENNA: As tenders have not yet been invited for these ships, it is impossible to state what expenditure will be incurred.

  Collision near North Wall, Dublin.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say which of the railway companies involved in the recent collision near North Wall, Dublin, was found by the Board of Trade to be responsible for that collision and for the resulting injury to an employé?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The officer who held the inquiry into the cause of this accident formed the opinion that responsibility for it rested with certain employés of the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Company. The Report of the inquiry will shortly be published.

  Cattle Disease in Argentine.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state what information, if any, the Board have received since February with respect to the continued existence of cattle disease in Argentina; and whether, seeing that the outbreak was confined to one province, he will ascertain what steps have been taken by the Argentine Government to isolate the infected area and prevent the shipment of diseased animals?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): We have received no in formation as to the occurrence of any out break of foot and mouth disease in Argentina later than last February. We are in communication with the Argentine Government with a view to obtain information of the nature suggested in the latter part of the question.

  Seditious Publications in London.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the frequent publication in leading newspapers in. London of letters and communications by a Mr. Krishna Varma, openly advocating assassination for political purposes; and, if so, whether he has considered the demoralising consequences likely to result both here and in India from the dissemination of such a pernicious doctrine by influential journals?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): I think the leading newspapers who publish letters of the kind mentioned in this question are unintentionally giving

  1363
  aid, which is perhaps dangerously effective, to the propaganda of political murder, and come under the law as to seditious libel. I recognise, of course, that their motives are the reverse of criminal, but that is not in cases of this sort any defence in law, and does not lessen the mischievous results of such publications among those most likely to be influenced by them. It is earnestly hoped that in future they will refrain from what is undoubtedly an unlawful proceeding.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if it is a fact that this letter was published in "The Times" newspaper, and why do the Government mete out different treatment to "The Times" than to "Justice," which was seized the other day in Trafalgar Square, and, further, why they do not instruct the police to seize "The Times"?
  Sir W. ROBSON: The letter or publication which forms the subject-matter of the prosecution against the printer was not published in "The Times," and I do not think I ought to state why one differentiates between one offender and another in regard to criminal prosecutions. The question of motive and other special circumstances of that kind have to be taken into consideration as to whether or not a conviction would be likely to be obtained, and the only case in which under the circumstances a prosecution would be justified was a case in which it was undertaken.
  Mr. DILLON: This is a very serious matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that questions of motive have to be considered in deciding whether a criminal prosecution is to be instituted. The question I put to him is why the police seized a newspaper called "Justice" for a publication which was much less objectionable than the one which appeared in "The Times" directly inciting to assassination? I wish to know why the police are instructed by the Home Secretary to differentiate in the treatment of "The Times" and "Justice"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a question for the Attorney-General, but the Home Secretary.
  Mr. DILLON: I shall put a question to the Home Secretary on the Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask whether the Prime Minister can give us any information as to the course of business next week. If it is convenient, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will extend the usual practice of stating what is to be done next week, and state what is to be the business in the week immediately following next?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, the nineteenth allotted day in Supply, we propose to take: (1) Supplementary Estimates, including one for scientific investigation, airships; (2) Labour Exchanges [salaries]; (3) Customs and Excise, Revenue, Vote I. At ten o'clock all the outstanding Votes in Committee will be put from the Chair.
On Tuesday, the twentieth allotted day, Report of Navy Vote A. At ten o'clock all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.
Wednesday, second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Thursday, The Indian Budget and the Committee Stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Friday, Secretary to the Board of Agriculture Bill, second reading; Public Works Loans Bill, in Committee; Board of Trade Bill, Report and third reading.
In the following week, the Government hope to take the Finance Bill on three, if not four days, and on the other day the South Africa Constitution Bill.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: Will the Finance Bill begin on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at the moment.
Mr. MacNEILL: May I appeal to the Prime Minister to give two days, which are little enough, for the Indian Budget? It has not been possible to discuss any matter relating to India in this House owing to the blocking notices. The discussion on the Indian Budget affords the only chance we shall have of discussing these matters.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that, as at present advised, I cannot make any promise of that kind.
Mr. BALFOUR: I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman when the third reading of the Appropriation Bill was to be taken.
The PRIME MINISTER: It will have to be taken in the following week—probably on the Monday.
Mr. BOWERMAN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House when the Housing and Town Planning Bill is likely to be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say at this moment. We will take it at the first convenient opportunity.

FINANCE BILL [VALUATION OF LAND—EXPENSES].
Committee to consider "authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses or remuneration payable in connnection with any valuation of land or premises for the purposes of any duty charged under any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, and of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be chargeable under such Act. (King's recommendation signified.") To-morrow (Friday).—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
PRESENTATION OF BILL.
Isle of Man (Customs)—Bill to amend the law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man.—[Mr. Hobhouse]—Presented and read the first time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Resolved, "That the proceedings in Committee on Navy and Army expenditure, 1907–8, have precedence this day of the business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

LABOUR EXCHANGES BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Labour Exchanges Bill, if under discussion at eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 45.

Division No. 374.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Kelley, George D.

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Elibank, Master of

Laidlaw, Robert

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Astbury, John Meir

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Atherley-Jones, L.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lehmann, R. C.

Barker, Sir John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Falconer, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Barnes, G. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Findlay, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beale, W. P.

Flynn, James Christopher

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Beck, A. Cecil

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Maclean, Donald

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bertram, Julius

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

M'Callum, John M.

Bowerman, C. W.

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brace, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Brigg, John

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Micking, Major G.

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gulland, John W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Chance, Frederick William

Hart-Davies, T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Clough, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Mond, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Morrell, Philip

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Cox, Harold

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Napier, T. B.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cross, Alexander

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Paulton, James Mellor

Curran, Peter Francis

Idris, T. H. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rees, J. D.

Richardson, A.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Steadman, W. C.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Waterlow, D. S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Watt, Henry A.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Summerbell, T.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Sutherland, J. E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Wiles, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Tennant, H. J. Berwickshire)

Wilkie, Alexander

Rowlands, J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

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

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Verney, F. W.

Seely, Colonel

Walters, John Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Walton, Joseph

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wardle, George J.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Renwick, George

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunt, Rowland

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Clive, Percy Archer

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Starkey, John R.

Craik, Sir Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Thomson, w. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Valentia, Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Long, Rt Hon Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Edmund Talbot.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds)

Morpeth, Viscount

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1907–8.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1908, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

…

888,815

18

5

Total Deficits

…

720,472

5

6

Net Surplus

…

168,343

12

11

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. Motion made and Question proposed, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would like to say a few words on this subject. I regret very much that I was obliged last night to prevent this Motion being taken at this stage after eleven o'clock, and what moved me to take that course was the very interesting Debate which took place in the year 1904–5 upon this question. In 1904 we had a discussion on this question, and the hon. Members who took part in it form a very striking list. There were six hon. Members on that occasion, every one of whom since has been advanced to high rank on the Government Bench. I am not taking part in the Debate with any idea that the same happy fate will befall me—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—but merely because I desire as a financial, shall I say economist, to draw attention to the great discrepancy between the finance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen when they are on this side of the House and attacking the finance of the Government, and their action when they have been rewarded by promotion to high office. The Debate was opened in 1904 by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse); it was continued by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. McKenna); the next speaker was the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd-George), who was followed by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Buxton), and then by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. T. C.

1369
Warner), and by the hon. Member who sits on the Treasury Bench, the Member for Flintshire (Mr. Herbert Lewis). These hon. and right hon. Gentlemen all advanced strong reasons against the practice of the Treasury sanctioning the diversion of large sums of money from the object for which they were Voted to other objects. I have looked back, and I find that the surpluses on the Navy were, in round figures, £255,000, and the deficit £237,000. ["What year?"] That is 1905. The speeches were made in 1904, but there were some speeches made in 1905, and I have a copy of them all. There, again, promotion followed one of the speakers, the hon. Member who is now Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Seely). He was very strong on the point, but for the moment I will deal with the 1904 surpluses. In that year the surpluses were £617,000 and the deficits £345,000. What are they now? Instead of there having been a reduction in these figures, I find that the surpluses are, in round figures, £888,000, and the deficits £720,000.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There were Supplementary Estimates.
Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman says there were Supplementary Estimates, but he must know perfectly well that no form of finance was ever denounced more violently by his own party than that of Supplementary Estimates; yet this is the defence he brings forward, that we must allow for this increase because it is caused by Supplementary Estimates. I beg with all due deference to the hon. Gentleman to say that his defence is not good, because he is only advancing from one year to another. May I point out that the chief ground of objection of all these eminent authorities in 1904 was the ground of economy. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said it might become hon. Members opposite to take no notice of what the Opposition said, but they intended to look into details of this kind with an eye to the future, when the deficits of the past might be noticed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has not used that eye which he suggested in 1904 would be used with the avowed object of looking into the future? The future has now come, and why has he not looked into these matters, and prevented these very large over-estimates and these very large under-estimates? It is not necessary to point out that the same line of conduct "was pursued by all the other hon. and right
1370
hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Flintshire actually went so far as to read a long extract from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and he told us that the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations were that these large deficits and surpluses should not occur, and that when they did occur they ought to be dealt with in this House, because otherwise it was dealing with money behind the back of Parliament, and so taking away from the House control over the finances of the country. What are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen doing now? They are carrying out in an exaggerated form the very practice which they condemned a short time ago. In the Debate of 1904 the hon. Member for Lichfield, recognised as a great financial authority, said that the surpluses and deficits arose because it was shortly after the war, but that when that period ended all this sort of thing would disappear. I suppose the period has ended, arid I ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why his Budgeting is so bad that there should be a deficiency of £310,000 on the matériel and £167,000 on the personnel of the Navy? That is not wages, it is merely matériel. I ask that question, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for the Fareham Division (Mr. Arthur Lee) whether he can possibly throw any light on this question? The deficit under Vote A for personnel and under the Vote for materiel amount altogether to £477,000. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reason of that? Is it or is it not because the Admiralty have been living upon their stores for the past three or four years, and have been showing savings which did not exist in reality, but which really amounts to this, that they were living on their capital, and pretending that they were conducting the Service more economically? That is a very easy thing to do. If you receive £5,000, and spend £10,000, taking the other £5,000 from capital, it always leads to financial ruin, and I am not at all sure that if this policy be persisted in by the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen opposite it will not also lead to ruin, for what applies to individual finance also applies to national finance. It really would appear that time was coming when their stores could not last any longer, and that they were obliged to spend this sum of money which they did not contemplate when the Estimates were brought in. If that is the explanation—I do not say it is—it is a very bad explanation.

1371
Surely, at the beginning of every financial year it is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to see that his Votes are arranged in such a manner that they shall work out at something like the sum which he asks for. I have had the honour of sitting for five years on the Public Accounts Committee. I had the pleasure of sitting on that Committee at the same time as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire. I think he will bear me out when I say that the Members of that Committee in those days, irrespective of party, always said that the various Departments should endeavour to Budget correctly; that it was a very bad practice to have either surpluses or deficits in any large sums; that they ought not to have money over, because it showed that they did not know how much they were going to spend, and that they did not take proper care in the expenditure of the money. That is a very important point at the present moment, when we are face to face with the fact that we may have a diversion of the Old Sinking Fund. Even now, when the surpluses go to the Old Sinking Fund, we are liable to this very erroneous Budgeting. What will happen when they are taken and applied to all sorts of vote-catching objects which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might think to be advisable for the moment? I would ask the Financial Secretary one other question. It has been said that the surplus arising from the difference between the surpluses and the deficits—the net surplus—has been surrendered to the Exchequer. I do not find this on the Paper; there is nothing whatever about it, and the surplus in this case means £168,000 being surrendered to the Exchequer. I do not see anything about that at all, although, of course, it may be that it is an oversight. But I should like to know, because I see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War in his place, and he has got a very large surplus of £618,000. The right hon. Gentleman has made enough soldiers, but I do not see on the Paper how that is dealt with. I should like to have a little information about it from the Financial Secretary. I have endeavoured to sum up what seems to me to be certain points which require explanation, and I shall be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman will give me the information for which I ask.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not quite appreciate the relevance of the comment of the hon. Baronet. Perhaps it is because I was not one of those who took part in the Debate on the historic occasion to which he referred. The hon. Baronet quite understands, I assume, that section 4, sub-section 1, of the Appropriation Act gives the Treasury power temporarily to sanction, in respect of the Navy and Army Votes, the application of the excess in any one Vote for the purpose of meeting a deficit in any other Vote. Of course, the total aggregate for the whole Services voted by the House is not to be exceeded. The fifth section of the Appropriation Act gives Parliamentary and permanent sanction to the sanction already temporarily vested in the Treasury. In 1907–8 the gross expenditure on the Navy Vote was £32,866,506 6s. 9d., under practically 17 different Votes—16 Votes really, one being the Shipbuilding Vote divided into three sections. I would call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that these 17 Estimates range between £14,295 in one case, to as high as—dividing the Shipbuilding Votes into three parts, it would be very large if taken together—£7,783,000. These are the Estimates under these 17 Votes, made at least 18 months before the last expenditure will come into course of payment. The variations we show in connection with the Resolution moved by the Financial Secretary are in respect of seven Votes giving—with the amount written off as irrecoverable, of £3,547 odd—on the total amount of over £32,000,000, a total deficit of £720,472 5s. 6d. On the other hand, in respect of 10 Votes, there were surpluses amounting in all to £888,815 18s. 5d., that is, a net surplus over expenditure of £168,343 12s. 11d. The hon. Baronet says that is a pretty bad estimate, and he says it is so much worse for us because we were financial purists several years ago, and that we have no right to show these great variations and this large surplus On the question of surrender, obviously it has to be surrendered to the Treasury, so that he need have no anxiety about that. I will take a comparison with figures for some of the years in which it appears that Members of the party now in office made some comments about the discrepancy between actual expenditure and estimated expenditure. Take this year, 1907–8. The excess of actual gross expenditure over estimated gross expenditure was £818,647, or an excess of 2.49 per cent. In the par-

1373
ticular year in which, I understand, some of my hon. and right hon. Friends made some comment as to the variation between the estimate and expenditure, there was a Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Baronet said that seemed to be rather a poor defence. On the contrary, it is a very excellent defence, because by the Supplementary Estimate you wipe out of the account altogether what would otherwise appear to be a very large deficiency, and which would make a very considerable variation between the two figures. In the year 1903–4 there was a large Supplementary Estimate, amounting to one million and a quarter. If you add that million and a quarter to the estimated expenditure for that year, then the variation would be 4.40 per cent., as compared with 2.49 this year. Therefore this year does show a considerable advance towards financial purity in careful estimating compared with the year to which the hon. Baronet refers.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Does that include surpluses and deficiencies?
Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the excess of gross expenditure over gross estimate. I go further back, to the years in which there were no Supplementary Estimates. In 1905–6 the percentage was 72. There was a Supplementary Estimate that year, but as it is only for £100 it was of very small account. In the year 1899–1900 the excess of expenditure over estimated expenditure was 4.26 per cent., and in 1898–99 2.55 per cent. In 1897–8 2.72 per cent., and in the year under discussion 2.49, which is below those I have quoted.
Sir F. BANBURY: What about deficits?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take the total variations—that is to say, adding the total surplus and the total deficiency together. In this year the total variation is £1,609,288, in 1903–4 £1,750,000 (about). The amount on the actual Estimate was £493,231, and to that I add the Supplemental Estimate of about £1,250,000. In 1899–1900 £2,722,808, in 1898–9 £1,403,127, in 1897–8 £2,592,871. Therefore in previous years the variation is considerably more. The hon. Baronet asks me to explain the deficiency in Vote 1. It is set out on pages 22 and 23 of the Appropriation Account in the fullest possible detail, and no doubt the hon. Baronet has already read it. I may shortly say that the deficiency in Vote I was due to the average rate of pay of officers and men of the Fleet being higher than the rates1 provided for in the Estimates and to payment for allowances and
1374
extra pay being greater than was estimated in the Estimates which were made 18 months before. May I also point out that this Vote provides for 128,000 individuals. Then with regard to Vote 8 and the three sections of it. The hon. Baronet asks how can we account for the deficiency. May I call his attention to pages 40 to 46 of the Appropriation Account, where he will find the details fully given him? In Vote 8, section 1, the deficiency was due to magazine cooling apparatus, which were very urgent, and which we found necessary to supply to the ships, and also due to unexpected repairs to certain other ships. In section 2 the deficiency is due to increased requirements for materials for programme services and for stores for the maintenance of the Fleet. In section 3, Vote 8, the surplus is due to labour troubles at contractors' works and the making less progress on yard machinery than was expected; there was, however, the increased expenditure on armour for the "Bellerophon," the "Temeraire," and' the "Superb."
Having answered all these questions, may I call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the very able speech made last December by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) on this1 very point of variation between actual expenditure and the actual estimate? He has been' a Civil Lord himself, and I listened to his speech with great pleasure, and with it I was entirely in accord. He pointed out that, say, take the Estimates for 1909–10, those had to be prepared in October last year, and they will not ultimately be closed as to expenditure until the last day of the next March but one. During that time there will be changes. For instance, contractors will not get as: much work done as was expected. There will be expenses of mishaps to ships, and various other matters will arise which make it quite safe for me to say that this amount of variation is very small. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire pointed out, if yon take away this power from the Treasury of giving temporary sanction for the transfer of excess at one point to meet a deficiency at another, we would be compelled in every one of those 17 Votes to vote what I would call the maximum figure in order that we might not be left in these vital and important services without money at a particular time. You would be bound to estimate at the top figure in each of those 17 Votes, and having estimated the

1375
probability is that you would spend the sum estimated. Therefore, I am bound to say that this power of temporary sanction given to the Treasury is in the interest of the truest economy, and I hope one that will not be departed from.
Sir F. BANBURY: I was not objecting to the power given to the Treasury provided that it was used in a moderate manner. I do not take the ultra view that this power should not be granted, but my point is that it should be exercised in a moderate manner, and that more care should be taken in arriving at the actual sum likely to be spent. The hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong in stating that they over-estimated and under-estimated in a greater degree than their predecessors, because I had not taken into account the Supplementary Estimate. It is quite possible the hon. Gentleman himself may have a Supplementary Estimate.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Not in this year. This year is gone. We are dealing with 1907⤓8.
Sir F. BANBURY: I admit the hon. Gentleman is correct, but in other years he may have. A Supplementary Estimate is not always the result of bad Budgetting. It may be that something arises which causes an increased expenditure, and a Supplementary Estimate may be absolutely necessary and right, and may be a very accurate estimate of the new expenditure which was not foreseen. At the present time there is a case in point. There is the provision of the four new "Dreadnoughts," for which there must be some new expenditure. Nobody can object to a Supplementary Estimate, for that, and it does not at all follow that because there is a Supplementary Estimate that the Budgetting was inaccurate. On the contrary it may have been that the exigencies of the Service demanded fresh expenditure, and that the Supplementary Estimate was necessary for that purpose. I find that in the year 1904, adding the surpluses and deficits, the total amount came to a little under a million, and this year it is £1,600,000, and in 1905 the total amount was £600,000 as against £1,600,000. Therefore the hon. Gentleman has shown no reason why the attention of the House should not be drawn to the increase in the Budgetting. The hon. Gentleman has not
1376
answered one of my questions. I asked whether this saving of stores was due to the expenditure of stores without replacing them. The hon. Gentleman said that they had trouble with the wages and the works, or something of that sort, and passed it over in that way. That was not my question. I wanted to know whether it was not the result of bad management in spending your stores from reserve and not replacing them? I find in the Navy Vote of 1906–7 the stores brought into stock without replacing them £1,0514,000, and in 1907–8 £1,294,000, or in two years about 2½ million pounds of stores were drawn from the reserves.
The CHAIRMAN: This question really does not arise here.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Perhaps I was misled by having read the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who referred at great length to these various items. However. I have made my point, and I will not pursue the subject further.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I am glad that this matter has been raised, because it is an unfortunate fact that during the last two or three years there has been no opportunity of considering the economy of expenditure of public money. I do not deny that it may be necessary that some of these surpluses should be spent in the way indicated, but they are very often used for objects which have never been considered in Committee of Supply. That is contrary to our Constitution.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be discussing the law under which this is done. It is done according to law, but we have to sanction the transfer after it is made. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the law or the practice itself.
Mr. MORTON: What I am trying to discuss is the fact that this money is spent on objects which have never come before Committee of Supply. I have known the money to be recklessly spent on objects which would never have been sanctioned if we had had an opportunity of considering them in Committee of Supply.
The CHAIRMAN: These matters are perfectly properly dealt with under the law; we have merely to give our sanction or refuse it.
Mr. MORTON: I do not know how such matters can be brought before Committee of Supply unless we alter our constitutional practice. We do not know what a great deal of this expenditure is for. I used to take some interest in ascertaining how the money was spent; but, the present Government having left me off the Public Accounts Committee, I cannot get the information for the benefit of the country. Great care ought to be taken over this matter, and the money should not be applied to objects which we have not had an opportunity of considering. I wish particularly to enter my strong protest against our not being allowed to con
sider the economy of expenditure of public money.
Mr. GEORGE RENWICK: May I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain the very large surpluses on Votes 9 and 10? An item of £241,905 is given under the heading "Naval Armaments," and another of £304,827 under the heading of "Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad." Sums ought not to be lumped together in this way, and I hope some further explanation will be given.
Question put, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 38.

Division No. 375.]

AYES.

[4.37 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

Alden, Percy

Gulland, John W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Astbury, Thomas Heir

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Atherley-Jones, L

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hart-Davies, T.

Radford, G. H.

Beale, W. P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Beauchamp, E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Beck, A. Cecil

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richardson, A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Higham, John Sharp

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brace, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brigg, John

Hooper, A. G.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Hudson, Walter

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Bryce, J. Annan

Idris, T. H. W.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cherry, Right Hon. R. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

Soares, Ernest J.

Clough, William

Kelley, George D.

Steadman, W. C.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lamont, Norman

Sutherland, J. E.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Cox, Harold

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crooks, William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Cross, Alexander

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Tomkinson, James

Crossley, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Verney, F. W.

Curran, Peter Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Vivian, Henry

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Walton, Joseph

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wardle, George J.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

M'Callum, John M.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay E.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Everett, R. Lacey

Maddison, Frederick

Watt, Henry A.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Mallet, Charles E.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Falconer, James

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Marnham, F. J.

Wiles, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Massie, J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Finday, Alexander

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mond, A.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gill, A. H.

Morse, L. L.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Napier, T. B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Parker, James (Halifax)

NOES.

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury St. Ed.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Ashley.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Morpeth, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE moved:—
II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March, 1908, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Army Services, 1907–8.—Votes.

Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

Surpluses.

Deficits.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c., of Army

138,765

3

3

—

2

Medical Establishment: Pay, &c

19,313

17

3

—

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

112,056

16

11

—

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

2,891

17

8

—

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

22,949

4

10

—

6

Quarterings, Transport and Remounts

76,444

16

3

—

7

Supplies and Clothing

115,269

0

5

—

8

Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

101,021

2

5

—

9

Armaments and Engineer Stores

—

12,866

7

2

10

Works and Buildings

84,225

5

9

—

11

Establishments for Military Education

—

780

13

8

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

—

697

4

0

13

War Office and Army Accounts Department

3,041

5

1

—

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

10,828

4

9

—

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

—

47,178

5

1

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities

471

19

2

—

—

Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

—

7,298

3

11

Total

687,278

13

9

68,820

13

10

Net Surplus

£618,457 19 11

Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

£

s.

d.

Total surpluses

…

…

687,278

13

9

Total deficits

…

…

68,820

13

10

Net surplus

…

…

£618,457

19

11

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

SUPPLY.— [19th Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.
  CLASS II.—VOTE 3.

    COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £66,171 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including expenses in respect of advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is so long since this Vote was very thoroughly discussed in Committee of Supply—the last occasion being, I think, four or five years ago—that it seems to me that it will be for the general convenience if I take the somewhat unusual course of making a short introductory statement as to the working of the Defence Committee before any criticisms are offered—if criticisms there are to be—on the Vote itself. This Committee has now been in existence, since its creation by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, nearly seven years. Considerable doubts, and some apprehensions, were expressed at the time of its original institution as to whether it could be made to fit in with the ordinary working of cur administrative machinery, and particularly with the maintenance of the due and separate responsibility in the cases of the War Office and the Admiralty. Those doubts have, I think, been solved, and those apprehensions allayed, by the experience of those seven years. For myself, I desire to say at once, having now worked for the best part of four years in intimate and continuous relations with the Defence Committee, that I regard it not only as a valuable but as an indispensable part of our administrative organisation. It is very important that the Committee, and people outside also, should understand not only what are, but what are not, the functions of the Defence Committee. A good deal of misapprehension exists in some quarters as to that. I am only repeating in my own language what I think
    1382
    was said by the right hon. Gentleman at the time the Committee was brought into existence, when I say that, firstly, it is an advisory and not an Executive Committee, and secondly, it has nothing to do with determining the policy of the country. The Cabinet must always be responsible for national policy. The two great Departments, the War Office and the Admiralty, must always be responsible for the execution of the policy so determined. The Defence Committee does not intervene either in the one or in the other. The functions of the Defence Committee arise out of the necessity felt, I think, in almost all the great countries of the world—but which is nowhere so pressing as it is here owing to our geographical and economic conditions—the necessity of co-ordinating the work of the Army and Navy. It is the primary business of the Defence Committee to study and determine what is the best provision that can from time to time be made for the naval and military requirements of the Empire as a whole; to keep both military and naval requirements and their due relation to each other constantly in view. This, I need hardly remind the Committee, is a more important and responsible task than it ever has been. The co-operation of the different parts of Empire both by land and by sea, and community of purpose so far as it can be obtained—a reciprocal adaptation of means to resources—has become almost the most urgent of our Imperial problems. If the Committee is to discharge those functions adequately, and not to trench upon the territory of either of the Executive Departments on the one side or of the Cabinet on the other, it is necessary that it should be in its composition an elastic and flexible body. In point of theory—what I would call constitutional theory—it sits purely to advise the Prime Minister. He nominates its Members. He can add to the number or diminish the number at his own will, and in accordance with the particular problems which, for the time being, demand investigation and attention. Under the present Government, during the four years we have been in office, the full Committee constituted by my predecessors—and which has since rendered the same service to myself—has consisted of six Cabinet Ministers, in addition to the Prime Minister, namely, the four Secretaries of State (other than the Home Secretary), the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has consisted, next, as representing the Navy, of the First Sea Lord,

    1383
    and the Director of Naval Intelligence, and as representing the Army the Chief of the General Staff, to direct the military operations. In addition to these official Members it has had the services and the cooperation of the Inspector-General of the Forces (Sir John French), who occupies an independent position; of Lord Esher, who is a great expert in all these matters, and latterly, at my nomination, of Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Arthur Wilson. That has been the composition of the full Committee, but from time to time we were able to add to it, and we ought to add to it, Members ad hoc. For instance, at this particular moment I hope that before the distinguished representatives of the Colonies who have come here to attend the Imperial Conference leave these shores we may have the opportunity of inviting some of them to take part in a meeting of the Defence Committee, and to consider there some of the problems which concern them and us alike. I only mention that in order to point out to the House that it is extremely important that we should not have the Defence Committee a stereotyped body, but that we should be able to meet from time to time representative men from all parts of the Empire to contribute to the common stock of knowledge and experience.
    Those being generally the functions of the Committee and its present composition, I think it would be interesting to the Committee to be told, so far as it is possible to do so, the kind of tasks upon which of late the Defence Committee has been engaged. There are some matters, of course, which in their nature are so confidential that it is not possible to disclose them, as it would 'be impossible to discuss them. But the matters to which I allude are matters in regard to which we have had during the last three years, I think, exhaustive inquiries conducted in the first instance by Sub-Committees of the Defence Committee, whose reports have then as a rule been submitted to the Committee for criticism and confirmation. The subjects which have been so considered, amongst others, which I am afraid I cannot mention, have been these:—
    The military needs of the Empire in reference to recent changes in Army organisation.
    The military requirements of the Empire as affected by the defence of India.
    1384
    The strategical aspects—a small but important matter— of the Forth and Clyde Canal.
    Aerial navigation, in view of it s recent and prospective developments.
    Our policy in regard to the Channel Tunnel and, generally, the means of transit across the Channel.
    The standard of fixed defences and garrisons in various parts of the Empire and the scale of reinforcements for them.
    This is not an exhaustive list, but those are typical illustrations of the kind of subjects which have occupied the attention of the Sub-Committees. Then we have carried out what I think is a very useful reform in establishing in connection with the Defence Committee a historical section which is capable of compiling naval and military history of past and contemporary wars from the combined standpoint of the Navy and Army. I believe hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, as we have, somewhat melancholy memories of what these histories have cost us in the past. They have been very expensive compilations, but they have not always been very instructive. We have effected, I hope, by the establishment of this historical section not only an economy in point of actual expenditure, but, from the co-ordination of the work of the different persons concerned, under the distinguished officer who occupies the post of Secretary to the Committee, I believe it will be found that the character and quality of tilts work done is very superior to most of that done in the past. In this connection we have had for a long time past a Committee called the Colonial Defence Committee, which considers the defences of Colonial ports, and other measures which relate to what I may call the Colonial aspect of Imperial defence. We have this year established a joint Naval and Military Committee, which will consider, in like manner, questions affecting matters connected with the defence of Home ports. These two Committees will work side by side, both under the Defence Committee, so that their work may be brought into correlation from time to time; and I believe by their collaboration they will materially help us to solve some of the outstanding problems both of Home and Colonial defence. Let me add what I think is a very important point. The Defence Committee, as a whole, keeps a continuous record of its proceedings. That is a most important point. We have the advantage when a Government comes

    1385
    into office that the Defence Committee has in black and white the decisions arrived at by their predecessors and the evidence on which that decision was founded. The same thing holds good to-day, and I am perfectly certain the work of future Administrations will be enormously facilitated by the power of access to this mass of carefully digested material, showing from time to time how the problems of defence presented themselves to the Defence Committee, and the materials they had for their solution, and consequently the progress which has been made towards a final solution in the interests of the Empire. I thought it might be of interest to the House to give them that general outline of the work of the Committee in order that they might appreciate the purposes upon which this Vote is being expended. Before. I conclude I would like to say a word or two upon two matters which have recently come before the Defence Committee, and which are of great public interest and importance. The latest in point of time is the inquiry which has been held during the last two months into certain very serious allegations made by Admiral Lord Charles Beresford as to the organisation and distribution of the Fleet in Home waters during the last two years. That matter is still sub judice in this sense, that the Committee have not yet finally adjusted their report, though it will not be very much longer delayed. There has been no slackness in the matter; we are all pretty busy men; we held 15 sittings; we took a great deal of evidence, both oral and documentary; we went into all the questions submitted to us by the gallant Admiral with very great minuteness and complete thoroughness, and whatever may be the merits or the demerits of the conclusions which we shall ultimately record, they certainly have not been arrived at without thorough investigation—an investigation conducted, I need hardly say, in the spirit of the most complete impartiality as between all interests concerned. That is all I can say at the moment in reference to that branch.
    But there is another investigation of a more comprehensive character as to which, I think, it is my duty to say a few words to the Committee. In the year 1905 the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was then Prime Minister, speaking as I am speaking to-day by way of introduction to the discussion in Committee on this Vote, made a statement which attracted universal attention, and was of the highest
    1386
    interest and importance in regard to the possibility of these islands being invaded by a foreign Power. The conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman then arrived at, with all the authority of his position, and stated to the House and to the country, were, as I think he himself said, naturally enough not merely the results of his own reading and reflection, but they wore conclusions arrived at through consultation with experts and with the Defence Committee itself. They therefore were taken, and properly taken, as representing at that time the last word, or rather the latest word, which it was possible for the authoritative advisors of the Crown to utter in regard to this all-important matter. Since the right hon. Gentleman made that speech, there have, of course, been changes—I need not particularise them, they will readily occur to the minds of hon. Members—changes and large changes in what I may call the strategical situation of Europe and the world. And, partly no doubt in consequence of these changes, and partly for other reasons, one of the most distinguished British soldiers, Lord Roberts, two years ago in a communication which was addressed in the first instance to the right hon. Genltleman opposite, himself asked in substance—I am not quoting the words—for a re-investigation of those problems in the light of the new facts and changed situation brought about since the right hon. Gentleman made his speech in 1905.
    The right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to forward that communication to my predecessor, the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who at once recognised its gravity and importance, and the result was that before his lamented death—the exact date was in November, 1907—he appointed a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to go into the whole matter in the light of Lord Roberts's representation and the previous statements made upon the authority of the Government by the late Prime Minister. I was appointed chairman of that sub-committee, which included almost all the Members—all the expert Members and almost all the Members—of the Defence Committee itself, and which carried on its investigations for the best part of a year from November, 1907, to the month of October, 1908. We had in the course of that inquiry from the gallant Field Marshal himself and other military authorities who associated themselves with him, a full presentation of what I may call his

    1387
    case. We heard a great deal of independent evidence from other officers and from military and naval experts. We studied with great care all the changes in the strategic situation, and what I may call the potentialities of invasion, going minutely into such matters as the possible time of mobilisation of foreign armies, their facilities for transport both by land and by sea, the organisation and distribution of their forces both naval and military, and the possibility, both as regards embarkation, the time of transit, and the disembarkation here of a successful invasion on a large scale such as Lord Roberts contemplated.
    Of course, I am not at liberty—the Committee will not expect it—to go into that evidence; most of it is of a highly confidential character, nor can I refer to it. If I did I should be obliged, according to the Rules of the House, to produce the Report as actually made, but I think I am not only entitled, but bound now to state in my own language, and in general terms, what are the conclusions at which we arrived after that prolonged investigation. These conclusions were arrived at after conceding to those who were apprehensive of the possibility of invasion the most favourable hypothesis for that purpose; after conceding, for instance, that the contemplated invasion would take place at a time when the Regular forces of this country were practically absent—the great bulk of them—absent from our shores engaged in some foreign expedition; after conceding further that the attack might be, as it would not likely to be, what is called a surprise attack; that it might be, in naval and military vocabulary, a bolt from the blue, made at a time of normal diplomatic relations between ourselves and the attacking country. We took, and I think we were bound to take, for granted as against ourselves, the most unfavourable possible conditions, and in favour of the hypothetical invasion the most favourable possible conditions. The conclusion to which we unanimously arrived—all the naval as well as military Members of the Committee being at one in this matter—may be summed up under two heads. In the first place that, so long as the naval supremacy of this country is adequately assured invasion on a large scale, by which I mean invasion on such a scale as was contemplated by Lord Roberts, that is the transport to these shores of 120,000 or 150,000 men, is an absolutely impracticable operation; and on
    1388
    the other hand, if we were permanently to lose the command of the sea, then, whatever might be the strength and organisation of our military forces, even allowing that you had an army like the army of Germany, whatever might be its strength and whatever might be its organisation, it would not only be impossible that this country should escape invasion—invasion might not even be necessary—but the subjection of the country to the enemy would be inevitable. It followed from that proposition that it is the business of the Admiralty to maintain our naval supremacy at such a point that we cannot lose the command of the sea, and that against any reasonable possible combination that could be brought against us we must hold the sea and make invasion impracticable. That was the first proposition. Then we come to the second. I do not know whether there is any extreme disciple of what used to be called the Blue Water school, who would tell you that you can rely so entirely upon the Navy as not to require to keep a home Army at all. There may be still such people, but they are few and far between. At any rate, they did not find any supporters in the evidence given before the Committee or in the. Committee itself. The second proposition is, we ought to have a home Army—I am not now speaking of an expeditionary force, but are Army for home defences—sufficient in numbers and organisation for two purposes—in the first place, to repel what are called raids, that is to say, sporadic offensive expeditions which are so small in their numbers as to evade even the best and most carefully watching fleets, but which are not intended permanently to occupy the country against which they are directed, but only to inflict such serious damage as they can. We should have a home Army not only adequate to repel raids of that description, but—a much more serious thing—to compel an enemy which contemplates invasion to come with such substantial force as to make it impossible for them to evade our Fleet. That, we believe, is the real function of the home Army. You must maintain your home Army on a scale in numbers, in condition of organisation and distribution, as would make it impossible for any opponent contemplating invasion to despatch against you anything but a very considerable army. It has often been said—I do not know how the figure is arrived at, the right hon. Gentleman himself takes that figure—it has often been said that no one would attempt the invasion

    1389
    of this country with less than 70,000 men. Our Admiralty believe a force of very much less than 70,000 men could not possibly evade our Fleet, but 70,000 is a number which will do as well as another. The estimate of 70,000 is small. Lord Roberts contemplated 120,000 as the number with which anyone is likely to undertake the task of invasion as distinct from a raid. No one will undertake the task of invasion with a smaller force than something like 70,000 men. I do not believe 70,000 men would ever get through at all, but you must have in these matters an ample margin of safety. It does not do to rely less or more upon nicely calculated numbers, and we must have an ample margin of safety. Our conclusion was that in order to insure that margin the force for maintaining home defence should be one capable of dealing with an invading force of 70,000 men. Of course, you require a great deal more than 70,000 men in your home Army to cope with the possible invasion of 70,000 men from elsewhere. Those were our two general propositions. With regard to the military aspect, it is, in consequence of the findings of this Committee,, the business of the War Office to see that we have, under all circumstances, a properly organised and properly equipped force capable of dealing effectively with a possible invasion by 70,000 men. If these two conditions are satisfied, that is, the naval condition and the military condition, it is the opinion of the Defence Committee, after the most careful investigation that has ever been made, that this country will be safe from invasion. But both those conditions must be satisfied.
    You must have an unassailable supremacy at sea, and you must maintain your home Army at such dimensions and in such readiness for its work that it will be able to cope with the force of the size I have described. I thought it right to indicate to the Committee the general conclusions at which we have arrived. I believe they will excite no serious controversy amongst those who have impartially studied the various phases of this matter. I have every reason to think that the gallant Field-Marshal is not altogether satisfied with our conclusions. He is, I believe, satisfied that everything he said and all the evidence which he brought in support of the allegations have been most thoroughly sifted and impartially examined. That is the deliberate conclusion to which we have come, and it is upon that conclu-
    1390
    sion that both the naval and military policy of the country, so long as our administration is responsible for it, will be carried on. I do not wish to import any element of controversy into the Debate. We may differ as to whether or not in the precise form of your naval or military preparations you are living up to that standard, but as to the standard itself being the minimum standard which national safety requires, and being adequate to secure that safety, I do not believe there will be any serious difference in any quarter of the House. For investigations of this kind a body like the Defence Committee is not only invaluable but indispensable. You could not possibly carry on an investigation like this promptly unless you had sitting side by side the representatives of the Army and Navy, and unless the whole matter had been co-ordinated and considered as a composite problem which the defence of this country and this Empire must always be. We shall derive additional advantage from the working out of the practical details of the problem from the deliberations which are now taking place between the representatives of the Imperial Government and the delegates from the dominions over the sea. They are now in conference together, and I am perfectly certain we shall be in a much better position at the conclusion of that conference than we are now to arrange our material for the purpose in view, but the governing consideration of our national strategy remains always the same, and I trust the Committee will approve of the conclusion at which the Defence Committee has come. I have nothing more to say except to apologise to the Committee for detaining it so long.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose I shall be expected to say a few words after what has fallen from the Prime Minister. I think the Committee will also anticipate that the agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is on the subject so complete that those words need be but very few. I am myself of opinion that this Vote ought not to come on at too frequent intervals, but at the same time it is desirable to do what the Government have done this year, that is to bring on this Vote periodically in order to remind the House and the country of the work which is being done with regard to the greatest of our national interests, and in order that the Government themselves may have an opportunity of explaining how any great

    1391
    problem which is in dispute has been dealt with by the Defence Committee. It must, perforce, be a matter of great gratification to those who sit on this Bench who were responsible for the original creation of the Defence Committee in its present shape, to hear that our successors have found in the instrument we have created a very valuable means of carrying out their duty, and nothing could be fuller or more handsome than the statement which the Prime Minister has made as to the value of the work which he has been good enough to attribute to us. I can say on my own behalf, and on behalf of my friends, that everything I have been able to learn either from such statements as that which has just been made, or from other sources as to the use which the Government are putting the machinery of the Defence Committee, leads me to think that every hope which the original authors may have entertained as to its future utility to the country and the Empire are in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman being fulfilled in the highest possible measure. I do not think anything I can say will really add to the admirable and lucid statement of the constitution and character of the Defence Committee which has just been made. There was one thing which the Prime Minister implied, but which he did not state explicitly. He implied quite clearly that the Defence Committee exists not merely for co-ordinating the Army and the Navy, but also for co-ordinating such other departments as the military department of the India Office which deals with the military problem of India: the Department presided over by the Secretary for the Colonies, and the representatives of the self-governing Colonies who control the other parts of our Empire.
    The PRIME MINISTER: And the Foreign Office also.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, and not least the Foreign Office. My experience of administration is that no office would either give or receive more assistance than the Foreign Office from such joint work as can be done by the Committee of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman referred in passing to the work which the Defence Committee are doing in connection with their investigation of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford's criticism upon the condition of our home fleet during the last few years, but as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee of Defence have not yet completed their Report, and
    1392
    as I understand that that Report, when it is finally complete, will be made public in some shape or another, it is quite clear it would be in the highest degree inexpedient to criticise that matter in the course of this afternoon's discussion. Therefore, I put that question on one side. The other matter on which the Prime Minister dwelt, and in regard to which the House, I am sure, will be deeply interested in what he said, related to the question of home defence. The Prime Minister described in outline the course of the investigations and the conclusions that were arrived at in respect of the inquiry set on foot originally in consequence of an appeal which Lord Roberts made to me as the ex-head or ex-chairman of the Defence Committee. Lord Roberts differed from the original conclusions, and thought those conclusions had become antiquated through the immense change which had taken place in the strategic position of this country, and he appealed to me as the individual who had to express the opinions of the Defence Committee some years ago to explain my attitude and recant, if I was disposed to recant, any conclusions at which I had formerly arrived. What I felt was—and Lord Roberts quite agreed with me—that it was not for me to carry out all these investigations, because I had not the machinery for doing so, and unless I could speak for the Defence Committee, my opinions would not carry the slightest weight or authority with the House or the country. The Prime Minister of the day has now really taken pains to acquaint himself with experts, with whom he has discussed the matter. He has laid his difficulties before them, and has come to certain conclusions in conjunction with his colleagues, after the lesson which only debate and discussion can bring to perfection. In that position the Prime Minister can speak with the authority of the Committee. Clearly, out of office, I can speak with no authority, arid I have no title whatever to modify the decisions arrived at in office with the aid of the authorities which the Defence Committee is intended to combine. Lord Roberts thoroughly concurred with my suggestion that instead of appealing to me he should appeal to the Defence Committee to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the newest developments. The Prime Minister has told the Committee how lengthy, laborious, and elaborate were the investigations which on this occasion the Defence Committee undertook. He has also told

    1393
    the Committee what conclusions they have arrived at. Those conclusions are in a sense somewhat less satisfactory than those at which, in different circumstances, and at an earlier period, the Defence Committee thought themselves justified in laying before the Committee. The Prime Minister suggested just now that the number of 70,000 men which has played so large a part in these discussions was a conventional figure. The origin of that figure was this: When the Defence Committee originally undertook this investigation they felt that what they had to determine was the smallest number of men with which any foreign country might attempt to invade this country, I will not say with the hope of conquering this country, but at any rate of forcing us into a discreditable and unhappy peace. We did not ask how many men were adequate for that task; we ask how few men it was with which it could be attempted, because evidently, if the Committee has followed the reasons so admirably laid before them by the Prime Minister to-day, the smaller the number of men with which that attempt could be made the more difficult will it be for the Fleet to resist it. We therefore rightly asked our military experts upon the Committee of Defence at that time—Lord Roberts then being the Commander-in-Chief, and not a member of the Defence Committee—what was the smallest number with which an attempt—perhaps it might be a forlorn hope—could be made to seriously invade these islands, and the figure the military authorities gave the Defence Committee at that time was the figure of 70,000. That is the origin of that figure, and that is why it played such a large part in the arguments I ventured to lay before the House when I spoke for the Defence Committee.
    The PRIME MINISTER: When I said "conventional," I did not mean to imply that it was an obsolete figure.
    Mr. BALFOUR: At the time of the original investigations the conclusion at which I think I may say the whole of the Defence Committee arrived, and certainly at which I arrived, was that in the then condition of the country even 70,000 men could not be landed on the British shore. I gather from the Prime Minister that the Committee of Defence is still of opinion that that is an extremely improbable event, but they are now, I gather, forced to the conclusion that it is an hypothesis which you must not absolutely exclude as the Committee of Defence think necessary impossible. It must be taken as being on
    1394
    the margin of possibility and something which must be calculated for, and, from that point of view, I think the conclusions at which the Committee of Defence have arrived, to use a word to describe them, are somewhat more anxious than those was arrived at a few years earlier. I must confess that from my point of view I believe the Defence Committee are absolutely right in the new conclusion, in so far as it is new, at which they have arrived, and if any statement I have made in earlier years requires qualification in the sense of the statement I have just made, I hope everybody who reads my former speeches will make that qualification. New circumstances have arisen, and, whereas I do not think that in 1903 and 1904, when our investigations were originally made, 70,000 was really on the margin of possibility, I think it is just on the margin now, and that it is a possibility you have to contemplate. That statement has the immense advantage that it gives to the War Office and those responsible for home defence a perfectly clear end at which to aim in regard to that part of our military organisation which deals with home defence. I take it we cannot regard ourselves as in a thoroughly satisfactory position until we are able to deal with this hypothetical number of 70,000 invaders in the absence of the expeditionary force. That is really what we have got to aim at. I do not know whether the new organisation, started by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane), is equal to that task, nor do I propose to enter upon such a discussion, but, at all events, we know at what we ought to aim. We know we must aim, if we are to be in a thoroughly satisfactory position, at a home defence force capable of dealing with 70,000 invaders landing on our shores after the expeditionary force has left these islands. I really do not think I have anything more to say on this subject, except to thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He has clearly laid down two things which have to be done, two ideals. He has clearly laid down the condition which the Fleet, in so far as it is a defensive force of these shores—I am not talking of commerce, but of the Fleet as the first line of defence against invasion— has to satisfy, and he has clearly laid down the condition which the Home Defence Army has to satisfy. Whether either the Fleet or the Home Defence Army is up to the Standard which the Prime Minister and the committee of Defence thing necessy

    1395
    is, of course, a matter of controversy, and in some aspects of it is a matter of acute controversy, but I do not think this is the time to raise it. On the contrary, I think, if this Committee is really satisfied with the statement which the Prime Minister has made, and if they agree with the reasons by which he has supported his conclusions, if they are prepared to accept the views he has laid before them, both as to the necessary strength of our Fleet for home defence, and as to the necessary strength of our home Army for home defence, then surely there will be an immense gain in clarity of thought, directness of action, and clearness as to the end we have to pursue, which must be of the most beneficial character in regard to our future discussions on military and naval affairs. There is one observation which has occurred to me, without making which I should not like to sit down, and it relates to and is suggested by an observation made by the Prime Minister in an earlier part of his speech. I have always hoped the Committee of Defence will more and more prove to be an instrument which will enable us to consult with the Colonies, and obtain from the Colonies advice invaluable for the defence of the Empire. It has this immense advantage. The Colonies are most jealous, and I think are rightly jealous, of anything in the nature of interference by this country with forces they raise themselves and pay for themselves. They are, I think, rightly intolerant of anything which says, "You raise a force and you maintain a force, and we will tell you what to do with it." I do not think the Colonies would ever tolerate that view, and therefore if there had been any suggstion that the Colonies should be asked to consult with us, or take part in deliberations in a body which has executive or administrative functions, I think they would have felt great difficulty in accepting the invitation. The Defence Committee has no executive functions, and it has no authority to give a single order to a single company of soldiers, or to the smallest ship which carries His Majesty's flag. In the deliberations of such a body as that it seems to me there is great hope we shall receive Colonial assistance, and, if we do, that Colonial assistance will, I think, be invaluable. My right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Lyttelton) reminds me that a beginning has been made. When my right hon. Friend and I were in office we had the assistance of representatives of the Colonies. I hope that will
    1396
    grow, and I was extremely gratified to learn from something which fell from the Prime Minister that even in the immediate future he has some anticipation that some such growth will be made. If that is so, I congratulate the Government and the self-governing Colonies. I am sure we are on the right path in these matters. There is no use in hurrying these discussions or pressing them unduly forward, or in asking people to do that which they are not as yet prepared to do, but let us by all means encourage, by every method in our control, the full, friendly, free and unfettered discussion of Imperial problems. That cannot but conduce both to the unity of the Empire and to its strength.
    Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: There is one matter which the Prime Minister introduced which is so detached that I should like to get it out of the way before I come to the two speeches to which we have just listened. He referred to the historical section he has created. "The Official History of the South African War," on which £32,000 was wasted, compared with "'The Times' History of the War," shows how right the Prime Minister was in what he said. There is, however, a technical difficulty raised to which I desire to direct attention. The Public Accounts Committee went into the question of the waste of money over these histories, and they asked the War Office who was going to account for the Vote in the present case, and who in the future was going to deal with it. The War Office said "It is no child of ours. It has ceased to be our child." "Whose child is it?" asked the Public Accounts Committee. The reply was "The Defence Committee." "Will they come before us?" the Acounts Committee asked, and the War Office replied, "We-do not know who can represent them." The Public Accounts Committee then left the matter, saying it was impossible that responsibility should be shuffled off in this way. I just call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, because, if there is to be a historical section dealing with literary work at the Defence Committee, and also one at the War Office, which at one time was highly ambitious of spending a great deal of money, and not doing exactly the work meant:, undoubtedly the Public Accounts Committee ought to be supported in a desire for a clear explanation. I should like now to deal with the speeches to which we have just listened. I will reserve till the end the question of the constitutional composition of the Defence Committee, and I will come

    1397
    straight to the matter with which the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was entirely concerned. In describing the official Members who are permanent Members of the Committee, the Prime Minister stated that there were also two Members who were not official, Lord Esher and Sir Arthur Wilson. We ought to have some explanation as to the nature of the Committee in future, and as to the effect of those appointments. I pass now to the most important matter which was raised and which affects the whole character of the military and naval situation of this country, the whole of our national strategy and the relative cost of the Services. We were prepared by the Debates on the Army this year and by the speeches of the Secretary of State for War for the announcement with regard to the 70,000 men invasion. As the Leader of the Opposition put it, it is an old friend. The Secretary for War based his Territorial Army of 300,000 men and 100,000 reserve upon this possibility of invasion by what he called "from 70,000 to 100,000 men," and this was said to be based upon a "re-examination" of the facts; that re-examination has resulted in the figure being once again brought down to 70,000 men, so that the re-examination has not affected the old condition of things.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid it has.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: You began by saying that this was a hypothesis altogether exceptional, and that you believed yourself such an invasion never would happen. I wish people to read the right hon. Gentleman's own words. I am satisfied with those words, and my case is not that it is an impossibility—the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary for War have both said nothing is an impossibility—but that it is not a probability; it is not one of the things on which we in this country are called upon to spend money and energy, and you cannot do so until you have decided the numbers and size of your expeditionary force. I am criticising one central fact in connection with this expeditionary force. You must spend more money on the fleet and the preparation of the striking force to send across the sea. If you are to have 400,000 men to deal with this most unlikely and most improbable bare possibility of invasion by 70,000 men, and if you also need a striking army of 170,000 men to send across the seas, plus nine divisions in India, and a striking force in Egypt, our money will not run to it if you are to do the thing effi-
    1398
    ciently. It is more important you should have your Navy and your striking Army efficient than it is for you to provide against this hypothesis of a bare possibility of invasion by 70,000 men.
    The questions of mobilisation and transport of foreign armies were gone into very carefully by the Committee. The whole problem as to the rapidity with which an invading force could be put on board ship and transported, with all the necessary armaments, was discussed. A material point was how long it would take to cross the sea. Much depends on their not being able to do it in a single night, and, so far as looking towards Germany, instead of towards France, as formerly, goes, the change is one entirely in our favour. Everything, I confess, seems to me to point in a positive way to a reduction of any danger of that kind. The pressure is growing for an increase of our Fleet, but this other particular pressure does not seem to have been aggravated by any changes which have occurred in recent years; it has been rather diminished by them. With reference to the portion of the Prime Minister's speech calling for an ample margin of safety as regards home defence, I should be very glad to see such an ample margin in all forms—in regard to our Navy, to the striking force, and to the Home Defence Army. The least material of the three is the third. It is admitted that the pressure coming upon us with regard to naval armaments—whose fault it may be I will not stay to discuss here—that pressure is one to meet which we shall have to strain every nerve. There must be an ample margin of safety, so far as the Navy is concerned. This point is quite supreme in our minds at the present moment, even to the extent of indicating the possibility of the Territorial Army being organised not less efficiently, but on a smaller scale than is suggested by the consideration devoted to the question by the Secretary of State for War. Has this re-examination of the bare possibility of invasion by 70,000 men to-day increased the gravity as regards home defence? The Leader of the Opposition has used words to-day which almost suggest a recantation which he was asked by the Prime Minister to make. I do not think there is really any difference between the Leaders of the two parties on this matter of invasion. The Leader of the Opposition did accept the invitation of the Prime Minister in language far too modest, but which, still, some people might take to be a sort of recantation. Will the right hon. Gentleman

    1399
    allow me to state his argument once again? He has happily repeated it with immense force. At the Press Conference this year he repeated the old argument in an improved form, and he suggested that if naval and military experts exercised common-sense their real opinion would be that this bare possibility of invasion was not one of the most real dangers against which we have to guard. Is there any reason for suggesting that the danger has increased? Is there not a risk that it will mean an insufficient margin of safety for the Fleet, because you will have to devote to the Territorial Army the money which would provide that margin? At the Press Conference the Secretary for War followed the Leader of the Opposition in saying that naval defence, even in the case of invasion, was cheaper. He destroyed the armada which it is assumed, by an extraordinary concatenation of circumstances, had escaped the Fleet, and sunk and destroyed the transports by means of destroyers and submarines, and other arrangements for coast defence. At last he had to admit that it does not necessarily follow because the battle fleet could not keep out a force of that kind, that coastal defence could not do it more cheaply and more effectively than the Territorial Army. How is the Territorial Army going to be organised to sleep in peace by the side of quick-firing guns with which, in the hypothesis which has been laid down, we are to guard against this invasion? There have been admirable Papers prepared to show the possibility of invasion by Lord Lovat and by Professor Mackinder, although the prize essays called for in several directions have generally proved the opposite case. In all the assumptions they not only put our Fleet out of sight, but they always assumed that in time of peace you cannot provide sufficient garrisons for working the quick-firing guns. The case put by the Prime Minister was that in profound peace you cannot have a thorough defence of our coasts, and that the naval defence is the only kind of defence which is likely to be permanently effective.
    I do not want to bore the Committee with suggestions as to foreign complications and changes; they are not as dangerous as some people think them. They might in some circumstances affect our strategy, but I should like to point out this one fact: that India has to-day been brought into this strategic calculation by
    1400
    both speakers, without any suggestion of the particular kind of organisation for which a striking army is required for India, under the hypothesis laid down by the Leader of the Opposition four years ago, to face dangers which have distinctly diminished and not increased during the years that have intervened. Even those who believe, though there are not many, in the possibility of Russia reaching India must admit that the danger has diminished if it has not disappeared. I mention that, in addition to the other circumstances which have improved our position as regards military matters in the last four years, and it is a happy position that it should be so, because our position in regard to the Navy in the next four years will be such as will show we must cease to divert our energy from the fleet to things which are of less importance. I will say nothing more about the recruiting for the Territorial Army, except that I do think that it did divert national attention a little too much from the main object. You cannot keep people equally excited about your Naval position and about the Territorial Army, and a large amount of heat is needed to keep up steam in regard to both objects. The arrangements for the Territorial are no doubt admirable, when upon a small scale, but when applied to an army of 300,000 or 400,000 they lead, I think, to a diversion from the main object which in any scheme of defence everyone agrees to, including the head of the War Office and the War Office officials themselves. The Navy stands first, even having regard to India and any other complication you may name. I think that the Leader of the Opposition will not dispute the general view that I have given of his opinions on this point. He stands by the speech which he made at the Press Conference, which is on my side and the side of all of us, including the Prime Minister's side and that of the Secretary of State for War sometimes, though sometimes the right hon. Gentleman talks about his 46 divisions and his armies, in which he mixes up together his 400,000 Territorial and his expeditionary force in such a way as to make us think that the British fleet has disappeared as a factor in the defence of the country. I think the Committee agrees very much more with what are the real views of the Leaders of the two parties—ithe real views of statesmen on Naval, as compared with Territorial defence, and leaving that aside I will go to the other matter that I previously mentioned. Our whole position

    1401
    and our whole strategy is dominated by the fact, which I should not like to put myself, but which I will quote from Professor Mackinder, that whether we like it or not, according to him, our unwitting crime is our geographical position.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty told us the other day that he was going to build one new ship which was to be a big cruiser and which was to be a commerce defender. I do not quite believe in commerce destroying in the ordinary sense of the words, but I do understand what might be suggested to our minds by that consideration. It is also brought before us by a certain proposal which has been made by New Zealand, and as to the disposition of the money they offer to this country or its equivalent in "Dreadnoughts." I will not state the difficulty which is obviously before the Conference at the present time, about whether the Colonial "Dreadnoughts" ought to be added to the provision which is thought sufficient here. Circumstances, financial and other, will come before that Conference, and I will not attempt to deal with the matters which are being debated by it, but I think one might say that even those of us who do not believe in commerce destruction, do think that this may be a valuable asset to this country at the moment when we are straining every nerve to hold our own in naval preparation in the next three or four years in Home waters. It may be a valuable asset to this country, much more valuable than a Territorial Army, that we should have a squadron of cruisers or fast battleships in the Pacific or any portion of the globe where we have enormous interests which we have been obliged to abandon, so far as war protection goes, and we, according to the proverb, have to put the fire out which is burning next door before we think of more distant objects. I do not think this great battleship cruiser would be wanted in New Zealand at all and as the Leader of the Opposition said to the delegates, the Armageddon in which they are concerned will be fought in the North Sea, and they will not be sharers in it by having any torpedo boats in their waters. Of course it may be a valuable contribution to the British Navy in the long run, the creation of fast battleships for the Pacific service. I merely throw that out in passing, as a suggestion, which has arisen from a remark which was dropped the other day by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    I come to the composition of the Committee of Defence, which is another
    1402
    matter upon which I said I should like to say one word—a word which I think ought to be said, and which I will say as briefly and as mildly as I can. Debates took place here on the composition of the Committee, and its benefit, from a high Cabinet point of view, has been proved more abundantly than was the case before, in the last few months, by the publication of books about previous wars. There have been a great many—Mr. John Fortescue's book about the great war, the exposure of the strategy of Pitt and the Cabinet at that time, Lord Panmure's volumes and other volumes about the Crimean war, showing the enormous ignorance with which this country has directed war. It is a shocking revelation, but it shows the kind of danger which in a non-military country you have to guard against. We learn from them how war must be conducted to be conducted with success. This matter was argued on the Motion of the present Under - Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Seely), who wished to reshape the Committee of Defence of the Cabinet. Although I was in the councils of my right hon. Friend, yet I did not agree with him, but I agreed with the view of the Leader of the Opposition and of the then Prime Minister. That view has been inconsistent, I think, with what has been said to-day, and inconsistent in respect of its official and Cabinet nature. I do not know that Sir Arthur Wilson has expressed any strong opinion of his own, but Lord Esher, in his letters and speeches, has dealt with matters differentiating his views from the aspect of the question we are discussing. These utterances have been free from official responsibility, and therefore violate the position taken up by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and the Leader of the Opposition. We were told in that Debate that however perfect any man might be as a member of such a Committee, he would not be a good member unless he were subject to Cabinet rule and official responsibility. But there are two views. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies took one view, and I, with the House, took the other view, and that seems to be violated by this permanent appointment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was not permanent.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: Yes, it was permanent.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend will allow me to say that there is no such thing as a permanent appointment.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: But it was so stated.] it was an official announcement. Of course, the Government are not themselves responsible, because it occurred at the change of Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not speaking of the word; I am speaking of the fact.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: But I am speaking of the word, because "permanent" was the word used.
    The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER dissented.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: It was used. It was the phrase of Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man when this matter was brought before the House, and when there was a great Debate upon the whole functions of the Committee. It was thought that the effect of the appointment of this Committee would be strongly in favour of economy, because the separate demands of the Army and Navy would be brought together by the Committee, and the requirements of a single Department it was thought would be much less than those of two Departments. I think we all hold that view, but the force of a separate Department was very great, and I do not think anyone can read the Estimates and hear the defence of the Territorial Army, for example, without seeing that the Committee has failed to secure that real hold over the relative expenditure on the two services which the Foreign Secretary and others expected from it. In that Debate, which turned upon consolidating what were called these two separate demands, this question of the non-official Members was raised, and on 2nd August, 1906, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies asked that non-official experts should be appointed to the Committee, and the reasons which were given against that by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and the Leader of the Opposition exactly agreed, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in the strongest terms, expressed his abhorrence of the idea of adding Peers who did not belong to the party in power and were without official responsibility. On Monday, 4th December, two days' after the last Cabinet was held, when the late Government went out, there occurred this appointment of Lord Esher, with the word "permanent," and from that time he has attended every meeting of the Committee.
    1404
    The first announcement appeared on the day of the last Cabinet, and it appeared in these words:—
    "Mr. Balfour has requested Lord Esher and Sir John French to hold themselves at the disposition of the Committee of Imperial Defence."
    The official announcement on the Monday contained the word "permanent" as regards the membership of these two gentlemen. That is why I insisted that the word "permanent" was used.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's power to completely reconstitute the Committee, and he deliberately continued Lord Esher's appointment.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: The House ought to clearly understand which doctrine is to prevail. The two doctrines were clearly stated, and as, I understand, Sir John French is an official, and was an official at the time he was appointed. Lord Esher is to be outside the Cabinet Committee composed of supporters of the party in power or of officials. This is directly in accordance with the proposals made by the hon. Member for Liverpool but counter to the doctrine which prevailed on that occasion according to the teaching of the two right hon. Gentlemen. The non-responsibility of these members allows them to take part in controversy where it is dangerous, I think, for a non-official member to take part—it is so easily misunderstood. Of course, there was the letter which was written last year which caused a great deal of feeling abroad because of the importance which was attached to that particular membership. That and the citation by Lord Esher in the case of the Fisher policy undoubtedly contributed to the ill-feeling which has led to the exaggeration of the strain of naval preparation under which we labour at the present moment.
    I should like to say a word on the effect on continuity of policy of the decision which seems to have been taken outside the decisions of the Cabinet Committee, and which ought to have been referred to it, but which was not. In the last Parliament there was a great difference of opinion on both sides of the House with regard to the wisdom of keeping a large force of regular troops in South Africa. An immense, amount of money— £3,655,000—was spent for hutting troops there and for other experiments; but finally, after' a great deal of obvious struggling, the idea was abandoned and even publicly denounced in this House as being a great and costly mistake, and we

    1405
    reversed the whole policy and the idea of bringing the troops home as soon as possible was entertained. This year the Secretary of State in his speech on the Army Estimates reopened that question and assumed that the House agreed that South Africa was a good place to keep reserves for India. That is the exact opposite of what the House agreed in the last Parliament, and we have had no further Debate on the matter. If that matter, which is a most grave matter of policy, and which undoubtedly affects our Estimates and our whole strategy in the next few years, has not been brought before the Defence Committee of the Cabinet it ought to have been, because it goes outside the real functions of the War Office as a separate Department. It was debated over and over and over again in the last Parliament, and, although the arguments were well balanced, yet on the whole the view against keeping them in South Africa prevailed. I have often asked the House to consider how these attempts to be strong at all points affect the total cost of our military and naval preparations. We tax India for military purposes on the highest scale, and we make her pay even more, I think, than is her absolutely fair share. At all events, we make her pay a share which varies from double to five or six times what we make a Crown Colony pay. The total cost of our Services must be constantly held in view and especially as concerns this margin of safety, more important in the case of the Fleet than in the case either of the exaggeration or inflation of the expeditionary force or of the Territorial Army.
    Mr. C. BELLAIRS: The extremely instructive Debate to which we have just listened will confirm everyone in the value of having this discussion. The Leader of the Opposition, when it was proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. W. Dilke) in 1903 to have these Debates, strongly deprecated it. No one can doubt that no harm whatever can follow from a discussion such as we have had to-day, whereas the country generally and the Committee have received a great deal of instruction. The right hon. Baronet drew attention to one point on which I, too, feel very strongly, that is the presence of Lord Esher on the Committee. He bracketed him at one moment with Sir Arthur Wilson, but the justification for bringing Sir Arthur Wilson in is that he is a great naval expert, and it is open to the Prime Minister to summon whom he likes, and
    1406
    really the decisions ultimately rest with the six or seven Cabinet Ministers who are on the Defence Committee. But the position of Lord Esher is entirely different. The Prime Minister referred to him as an expert, but I do not know on what question he is an expert. He certainly is not an expert on naval or military questions. He can only be an expert on the very questions on which the Cabinet themselves are experts, and when we choose a Cabinet we choose the best men we have in the country, and they do not need the advice of Lord Esher on these questions. But Sir Arthur Wilson has to advise the Defence Committee on this very question into which the Prime Minister has been carrying out a laborious investigation, the defence of the country. The Prime Minister also referred to a class of men whom I have never discovered, whom he called the extremists of the Blue Water school who do not see the need of a Home Army at all. I have never been able to find any writing by any naval or military officer nor anyone else stating that fact, though there was a Debate years ago in this House in which Sir Wililam Harcourt stated that we did not need an Army at all. I am sure Sir William Harcourt will not be trotted out as an exponent of the Blue Water School.
    I wish to reinforce the contention of my right hon. Friend (Sir C. W. Dilke) with reference to what horse you are going to put your money on, the Territorial Army in its extreme form or the Navy. The Prime Minister has, of course, told us that 70,000 is really an outside figure. The naval experts do not believe in this figure of 70,000, but they adopt it on grounds of safety. I think the benefit of the doubt ought really to be given to the Navy, and the money should go to the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a question a few months ago, stated that the cost of a destroyer, allowing interest on first cost, allowing for replacement, allowing for cost of the crew, stores, repairs and any docking work to be done, was £17,500 per year. That is to say, if you could save on your home defence £1,750,000 and hand that money over to the Navy, you could build more than a hundred destroyers. That was the original figure given by the Admiralty, and it includes everything.
    One thing struck me in listening to the Prime Minister's speech, and that was that he stated that the Committee has been very laboriously considering the standard of the Army for the defence of these

    1407
    islands for about a year past. We have got great value out of that in that we have a standard for the Home Defence Army, but I rather suspect that in the process of their labours they got hypnotised by the idea of the defence of these islands, and in that way it has led them somewhat to regulate their two-Power standard by the defence of these islands. I only throw that out as a suggestion. I know one can be hypnotised by considering one subject. It is often brought against me in this House that I am rather hypnotised on the question of the Navy. The whole object of the Defence Committee is that the parts should not be considered until the whole has been surveyed. The thing should be considered as a whole. It should not be the Army, Navy, or Finance alone, but the Army plus Navy, plus finance; and as regards England, it should be England plus the Empire. All the harm which has resulted in the past in the way of extraordinary expenditure has resulted from Committees which were given terms of limited reference, and which consequently brought in limited reports. We had a Royal Commission in Lord Palmerston's time with limited terms of reference. The Navy was ruled out, and we fortified the dockyards. We put up forts round Portsmouth, and I understand that the Secretary of State for War is now endeavouring to find a purchaser for the land. Then there was the policy of establishing coaling stations, in connection with which there was a great deal of extravagant expenditure. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister state that the Defence Committee, which has done such splendid work, is going to take up the work of historical instruction. I am delighted to hear that the public are to get the benefit of that historical work, for I am sure it will be of great educational value, both to the general public and to the Members of this House. We are too apt to forget that the British Army during the last 150 years has never fought in this country, but always oversea.
    Another thing which I have pointed out in the Navy Debates is that this country, when it has fought against relatively an equality in personnel and an equality in ability, has never won battles unless it had a preponderance of force. The last occasion on which this country fought an enemy equal in efficiency with ourselves was the War of American Independence, and in that campaign there was not a single battle which we won with a relatively inferior
    1408
    force. There was one occasion, and that was when the French, under Suffren, defeated a superior British force. But what I wish to point out is that we shall not always win with a force equal to that of the enemy. May I point out also that all the wars which this country has conducted in the past were conducted by small Cabinets. Pitt's Cabinet consisted of ten or less. Then when we come to the Crimean War we find that it was fought when there was a Cabinet of 16, and it was not a brilliant success. The South African War was fought by a Cabinet of 20, and I do not think it was a brilliant success. The Cabinet, from the point of view of conducting matters in relation to Imperial defence, has become utterly unwieldy, and gradually all the functions in connection with the Army and Navy are passing from the Cabinet to the Defence Committee. I think, as time goes on, we will find that that Committee is the true Cabinet in regard to Imperial defence. Another point to which I desire to call attention is that we do really need some sort of inquiry in reference to the administration of the Admiralty and the War Office. The Secretary of State for War, in addressing the Conference in 1907, pointed to the work which the Esher Committee had done. He said:—
    "That scheme was adopted by the late Government, and has been carried on by the present Government. One broad feature is this, that our naval organisation has been the one with which we have been conspicuously successful in the history of this country, as distinguished from our military organisation, and therefore, as far as was possible, the naval organisation was taken as a type. But the broad feature which emerged with regard to military preparations was this—Count Moltke was able to organise victory for the Prussian and German armies in 1866 and again in 1870, because he and the general staff working under him were free to apply their minds wholly to war preparation. That he was able to do this was due to the fact that; the organisation and business administration of the Army in peace were kept entirely distinct from the service which consisted in the study of war problems and in the higher training of the staff and of the troops. That was the principle recommended by the Esher Committee, and it culminated in the prevision of a brain for the Army in the shape of a Genera Staff. That General Staff we have been at work on for a long time past in endeavouring to get together."
    Four years ago all the talk was about the inefficiency of the Army administration. Now all the talk is about the inefficiency of the Navy administration. The Secretary of State for War is enjoying a quiet time, and I hope he will continue to do so. That cannot be said with regard to the Admiralty, and if hon. Members will examine what has taken place they will find that the Moltke of the Admiralty is considering questions relating to the designing and building of ships and a mass of details. In allowing him to do that we

    1409
    have gone in exactly the opposite direction to that of the Germans when Moltke organised a successful war. The Defence Committee should take cognisance of this fact. It is impossible for the Colonial representatives to respect the advice they get from the Government of this country if the Government one year give one piece of advice and another year give another piece of advice. The advice which Lord Selborne gave to the Colonial representatives in 1902 was dead against all forms of coast defence. He advocated the building of ships, holding that, if we were to be successful in war, it would be with battleships, cruisers and destroyers. But the advice which Lord Tweedmouth gave in 1907 was dead in favour of coast defence. He urged the building of submarines and torpedo boats. If the Defence Committee take that problem on hand they will, I believe, return to the original advice which Lord Selborne tendered, and which agrees with the conclusions of the Colonial Defence Committee, which was presented so far back as 1890.
    Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: In the first place, may I say that I strongly deprecate personal attacks being made on individual members of the Defence Committee. Surely it is entirely in the power of the Prime Minister to appoint whom he wishes to serve on the Defence Committee. If he thinks that outside of Government circles or the Members of this House gentlemen exist who, by their experience and abilities, are able to help the Defence Committee to carry on their deliberations, these gentlemen should not be ruled out because they are not Members of the political party in power, or Members of this House. I do not at all agree with the view of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bellairs) that the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, is in any way to be censured for employing Lord Esher, or any other member of the Defence Committee. I do say that I think it would be more advisable and constitutional if a dummy Vote was put on the Estimates so that we in this House might be enabled to criticise the action of these gentlemen just in the same way as the action of others engaged in the public service is criticised. I understood from the lucid and excellent speech of the Prime Minister that the great work of the Defence Committee was to co-ordinate the work, ideas, and plans of different Government Departments, and chiefly those of the War Office and the Admiralty. But it seems to me
    1410
    that they have not been successful in one important point, and that is in co-ordinating the War Office and the Admiralty as to the way in which they view the possibility of the invasion of this country. The Admiralty take up the attitude that no invasion of this country is possible. They rely entirely upon their ships to prevent it, and they think they could do so. The Secretary of State for War and the War Office take an absolutely opposite view, and they think that invasion is possible. On what do I base my contention that the view of the Admiralty is that invasion is not possible? They have, in the first place, destroyed the excellent submarine corps which the Engineers had for the defence of our ports. They have wholly or partially dismantled the forts protecting our great fortresses, and, what is even worse, they have permitted the War Office to allow all our so-called fortresses—Portsmouth, Chatham, Devonport, and other fortified towns in the United Kingdom— to fall into the condition of open towns. They have done the same thing in many places abroad. In fact, these so-called ports which are called fortresses, are absolutely open towns, and they are no more defended than Winchester, or any other county town in England.
    It is absolutely clear, therefore, that the Admiralty consider that no invasion is possible. Otherwise they could not have allowed the dockyards, which are essential to the efficiency of the Fleet, to be in such a condition that they might be captured on a raid being made by an enemy in time of war. Take, for instance, Portsmouth. There some of the defences are being used as store-houses and barracks. The right hon. Gentleman last October admitted, in answer to a question, that the fixed defences had been removed, but he stated that after all it did not very much matter. The movable defences consisted of Howitzers, which the Territorials are supposed to use in the event of invasion. I wish to know whether the Government mean to defend our ports by means of Howitzers? Do you find that the French at Toulon or Cherbourg defend those places with a few Howitzers? Any hon. Member who goes there knows that they are fortified with the best modern guns, and that they are provided with modern fortifications. The German fortresses are protected in this way, and if you take the case, too, of poor Denmark you find the Government there have a large scheme of defence by fixed fortifications of the most modern kind.

    1411
    And yet our Admiralty, relying on the hypothesis that no invasion is possible, have allowed the War Office to remove all the defences from our great fortresses, leaving them open towns and unable to resist any attack from the land side. In the same direction has been the treatment going on at Gibraltar and Malta. There the garrisons have been reduced and the guns taken away. The infantry garrison has been reduced from three to two battalions. In Malta the Artillery has been reduced, and the infantry battalion was reduced so much that two years ago, when manoeuvres were carried out in Malta to see whether landing might be possible at the back of the island, it was proved that not only was landing possible but that there were not sufficient men left in Malta to defend the fortifications and to prevent Malta from being captured. Therefore I press my argument that obviously the Admiralty must think that no invasion of this country is possible, and that no landing of an enemy at such places as Malta is likely, or they would' not have permitted the War Office to diminish the garrisons to such a serious extent. Then they must also imagine that our great trading ports are not open to any attack. Take the case of Bristol. I have here a letter addressed by the British Branch of the Navy League to the Committee of National Defence pointing out that there is absolutely no defence for the port of Bristol, where three millions sterling have been laid out on the new Royal Docks, which are in addition to the other docks, and they are quite unprotected, because the guns which were placed there owing to the petition by the citizens have now been removed. It seems a most extraordinary state of things that the Government should regard with perfect contentment the fact that the great port of Bristol is absolutely unprotected from invasion. Again it shows that the Admiralty must take the view that no defences are necessary, and that their ships would be able to protect this port from any attack by sea. What view does the War Office take? Obviously they do not agree with the Admiralty.
    Mr. HALDANE: All these things have been fully considered, and the action taken was on the best advice that could be got.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Then, very humbly, I must state my opinion, that the Committee of National Defence have not carried out their duties properly, because
    1412
    we must come to this conclusion: That the Admiralty do not believe that an invasion of this country is possible. The right hon. Gentleman obviously believes that an invasion or a serious raid is possible; because if he does not believe it, why does he propose to spend three and a half millions of money on having 300,000 Territorials in this country, who, by the terms of their engagement, are not allowed to serve outside the country? What is the use of having these Territorials unless to guard against invasions? Nor does the War Office carry out this conclusion to its logical end, because if the War Office, as they must, as they have this force, imagine that invasion is possible, they would keep a force in this country which would be able at a moment's notice to deal with the enemy when he came. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that there were other considerations, that practically 70,000 foreign troops might be landed, and that you would have a Territorial Force to meet them. What will these 70,000 foreign troops consist of I Will they consist of men who have been trained for 15 days in a year? No; they will consist of the very picked troops of men who had been trained for a minimum of two years. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, who must naturally suppose that an invasion is possible, proposes that these 70,000 men, with their minimum of two years' training, are to be met by 300,000 Territorials. But what number of Territorials will be free after garrisoning the various dockyards and all over the country and Ireland I By the time you have eliminated these men you will have very few more than 70,000 Territorials, with their training of 15 days in the year, to meet the 70,000 foreign troops with two years' service who may come here. If that is so, I hope that the advice of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) will be carried out, and that we shall put our money on the Admiralty, so as to maintain a strong fleet which would prevent the possibility of these 70,000 foreign troops coming in who are so well trained and who will have to fight against men who, however brave and anxious to defend their country, cannot, owing to their training, be on an equality with these foreign troops.
    We have had put forward by Lord Roberts, a man whose opinion on these matters is of more weight, and rightly so, than that of any other man living, a proposition that we should go in for compulsory service. I am not expressing any

    1413
    opinion as to whether that is right or not, but I have no doubt of this, that compulsory service, whatever the calculations of the National Service League may be, will cost a great deal of money. At the present moment we are spending some £60,000,000 a year upon our regular Navy and our regular Army, which, to my mind, are the two branches of the service which we must consider. First you must consider the Navy, then you must consider the regular Army, and then the Territorials. In the near future we shall have to spend a great deal more on our Navy, and at no distant time on the regular Army, owing to the undue parsimony of the present Government in cutting down the numbers by 20,000 men, land making it weaker than even before the South African War, in spite of the reserve built up by Lord Lansdowne and the late Mr. Arnold-Forster. We shall have to spend £70,000,000 instead of £60,000,000 on our Army and Navy. If ton. Members consider that the people of this country are willing to increase the Estimate for Army and Navy to 70 millions, and to spend another 15 millions on Territorial Forces, if we can afford to do so, it will be a Council of perfection, which we shall all be in favour of; but the tendency of human nature is to rebel against all amounts of money spent on armies, and the only result of increasing the money spent on the Territorial will be that it will diminish the amount of money for the Regular Army and the Navy, and by diminishing the money spent on the Army and Navy you will diminish the efficiency of these two great Services.
    Mr. H. P. BELLOC: I rise to bring forward only one point that may seem to be a, detail to Members of this House, but which I consider to be one of some importance, and which can only be brought forward, at any rate adequately, on this one day of the year and on this one Vote. It has been touched on in the speech which Ave have just heard, and just touched on only for one moment, in the speech made by the Hon. Member behind me (Mr. Bellairs). I refer to the fortifications of the land fronts of the naval bases of this country. It seems only a small point, a technical point, and one which experts would discuss better than a Member of a popular assembly. I want to try to show the House, or, at any rate, to convince the House from my own point of view, that the matter is of exceptional importance. In the first place, I ask the House to consider what any great Power does when it is
    1414
    fighting, and what the strategical problem is. You read in your books that he attempts to strike at the heart. That, as a metaphor, means nothing more than that the defences of this country lie in the Fleet. What an enemy attempts to do when he is striking, as the metaphor goes, at the heart of an opponent is to get at the vital organism of the defence and destroy it. Politicians have talked—I do not think any soldier has talked—of a raid on London. The idea is absurd. An enemy would have for his prime object, especially in the first stages of the war, the crippling, in some way or another, of the British Fleet; and unless the British Fleet were in some way or another crippled, although outlying portions of the Empire might be menaced and might be lost, there would be no compulsion on this country to give way. If the Fleet were crippled, that compulsion would be felt within 24 hours. It would be felt by the simplest of all processes—the immediate rise in the price of food to famine prices. It is as an integral part of the Navy, as the most vital of all vital organisms of the Navy, that the base and a certain measure of land defences are of importance. In the first place I may say, for what my personal opinion is worth—but it is the opinion of the vast majority of those who have studied the subject—that an invasion is, I will not say impossible, because nothing is impossible in war, but so improbable that all those who are concerned in the defence of this land do well in putting it last among the possibilities of what an enemy might do to us. An invasion in force, an invasion such as have been in the past the invasions of Germany, France, Russia, or Italy means not only the transport of a great number of men and a vast amount of material, but also absolutely secure communication, and it means that to so obvious a degree, and it is so startlingly true even on land, that the greatest conquerors, if their communications during an invasion in force had been endangered, if only for a few days, would have had the whole success of their adventure imperilled.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Egypt.
    Mr. H. BELLOC: I should say that the invasion of Egypt hardly corresponds to the invasion of one Great Power by another. It was the invasion of an Eastern people, and I do not think that it can be done as between one great European Power and another. Another reason which makes me think that an invasion

    1415
    in force could not take place is that long before this invasion in force could be accomplished peace would have been made. Long before it would have been possible so to cripple the Navy as to maintain communication between the country being invaded and a large invading Power the pressure would have been put on the governing classes by the poor to compel peace. The price of food alone would do that. Though it is infinitely more likely, I do not believe, even in a raid by a large body of men, by a division of 10,000 men, but I do believe in the possibility, or the probability in our present condition, of a raid by a much smaller body of men, who may strike at the vital organism of the naval defence of our country. I ask the House to consider for a moment, technical as the matter is, and to some extent unfit for popular discussion, what a modern naval base is and why our naval bases at the present moment are in a sense so much more important, especially so much more important in the first days of the war, than they were, say, during the Napoleonic era. With every step in advance in science, with the one exception of wireless telegraphy, bases are becoming more and more immediately and continuously essential to modern fleets. In the first place, consider the rapid exhaustion of material under modern conditions of fighting. On land the problem with which all experts in tactics are most concerned just now is how to feed what we may call metaphorically the fighting line, the power in front, with sufficient material, so rapid is the exhaustion. The Navy must depend on the great depots at the naval bases. Secondly, there is the question of repairs. A modern fleet cannot keep the seas without being in touch with the naval bases for repairs, and a modern fleet, more than was the case in the past, depends for its efficiency on the co-operation of all its units. Any proportion of its units sent off for repairs must return as soon as possible to the battle line. Complete victory at sea is rare, and even in the case which occurred at the close of the Russo-Japanese War extensive repairs were necessary. It is essential to a modern fleet that repairs should be readily obtained, and they can only be got at our naval bases. A further point is the continued necessity of these things. A modern fleet must be in touch with its base to be an efficient fighting machine. In regard to fighting in the near future,
    1416
    it is upon our Home bases that all discussion would turn. One further argument in favour of Home defences. In the case of an attack the enemy would consider the point on which it would concentrate it, and would be certain to fall on one of the small number of points chosen. We may be absolutely certain that if there was a German invasion of French territory that there would have to be a siege of one of the four great fortresses; or, in the case of an invasion by the French of Italy, it would be absolutely necessary that the French should attempt to secure the highest passage of the Alps. The smaller the number of the points of objective the more certain is there to be concentration on one of them. In our case the four vital points of attack are Portsmouth, Plymouth, Rosyth, and Chatham, and we have to consider what an enemy would do. If war were declared between this country and a great Continental Power, it is unlikely, and, I would say, almost impossible, in the present balance of naval power, that there would be an attack by battleships against battleships. The very first thing a foreign Power would consider would be how to get at some vital point, and undoubtedly they would decide, even with the great risk involved, to attack Portsmouth and the dockyards, probably by night, taking advantage of fog, or bad weather, in an endeavour to pierce one of these points. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ashley) said our naval bases were practically open. They are not only "practically" open towns, they are actually open, and even with the smallest force, damage could be done. Land communication and railways could be destroyed, bridges blown up, and so forth. It would be easy to damage the vital parts of a naval base. One graving dock could be ruined in a few moments by the use of dynamite. That applies to all the complicated machinery of modern warfare.
    But I do not mean to suggest that enormous expense should be incurred on strongholds. I see no reason for constructing in England such places as are seen at Spezzia, Toulon, or Cherbourg. We need fortifications on a smaller scale. No one fortifies to make a place impregnable. Napoleon's great maxim was "fortify to gain time." Every fortification is a draft on time, and is the introduction of the element of time in your favour. There can be no doubt, especially at the opening of a naval campaign, that we shall require that sense of security over very short periods of time,

    1417
    though I think it is extremely unwise to attempt to fortify English naval bases on the scale on which the great Continental bases are defended. Take the case of Rosyth. At the present moment it is proposed to defend that place with three batteries on the level of the water, which should be sufficient to prevent attack by destroyers or torpedo boats. But dominating these batteries is Mons Hill, which would be a suitable place for a landing. A small raiding party provided with artillery could capture Mons Hill, destroy the Forth Bridge, and disarrange the conduct of the port behind.
    Portsmouth is ideally situated for defence by land. It is a peninsula cut off by Portsdown. With the present range of artillery, Portsdown could be wholly swept from one fort; nobody could live on it. We do not need have very large and expensive fortifications, we need one permanent work at Portsdown. With one, or at most, two, you could cover your base at Portsmouth, which is, I should imagine, a permanent work in the centre, or certainly two permanent works at either end of the ridge, would be sufficient. The arguments against this are the arguments of the Blue Water school, that if your Navy is sufficiently strong nothing else is needed. If anyone says that an overwhelming fleet would prevent an invasion in force, I will listen to him and I will agree. And if anyone says that a large raid is impossible, I will listen to him, and perhaps agree. But if anyone says that our supremacy would prevent a short raid at a vital point, then I do not think that anyone who has considered the matter could agree. Another argument is the argument of the Treasury: "Are we to be led into this expense? If we are to spend money let us spend it mainly on the Navy." That is a perfectly sound argument against fortification on a large scale. Fortification on a large scale of our naval bases at present would be folly. If we were to attempt a permanent and expensive fortification of our great commercial ports it would be wrong. We should have small single works—not a ring of fortifications—by which the means of approach to a base would be checked for three or four days. That would be worth our while, and is, I think, an absolute necessity. If technical details had received more attention in this House, this matter would long ago have been settled. To any man who knows the temper of this country, the type of Press which influences public opinion, and the
    1418
    way in which that public opinion veers round in moments of panic or excitement, one thing is certain, that if we are engaged in a European war we shall begin to fortify the land bases; and do it in a hurry, do it badly and far too expensively. I only plead that we should do it on a smaller scale and in time of peace.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I feel very much in sympathy with the particular point which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc), and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), and I think it is one which possibly during late years, at any rate, has been a good deal neglected. I wish to refer to a few rather more general considerations. May I say I think we listened this afternoon at the commencement of this discussion to what was incomparably the most important and the most interesting speech that has been delivered in this House during the present Session? It dealt with subjects which are absolutely vital not only to our safety here in these islands, but to the very existence of the Empire, and I cannot but think that it is a sad reflection on the House of Commons that that speech, and the speech which followed it, should have been listened to by, I believe, less than a quorum of Members. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need suppose that the audience which he was addressing was by any means as narrow as that. I am sure the statement which he made will be read with burning interest by British citizens in all parts, not only of this country, but of the Empire. The most interesting thing to me in his speech, and for which I should like to thank him, was the two very definite conclusions of the Defence Committee which he found able to announce to the House. Of course, I know that he dealt almost entirely with the question of Home defence—the defence of these islands. I have no doubt there is a good reason for that, because the larger question of the defence of the Empire is, to an extent, sub judice—that is to say, it is receiving the attention of a special conference and very rightly, I think, he did not anticipate in advance any decision which the Imperial Defence Committee may come to.
    He did give us two main conclusions more definite than almost any which have ever been given publicly to the House of Commons, or the Country. The first was that the Defence Committee, had decided as to the business of the Admiralty and the War

    1419
    Office. The business of the Admiralty was, to use his actual words, "to ensure that we cannot possibly lose the command of the sea." He amplified that by saying that "we must have an ample margin of safety, and that it is not a case of a nicely calculated less or more." I need hardly say I entirely agree with that view. I think it is one which has been very largely expressed on this side of the House during the recent Debates. I do not want to go over the ground of the recent Debates, as we have already expressed our fears with regard to the actual situation. We are not satisfied that that standard which the right hon. Gentleman set up in that conclusion has, as a matter of fact, been worked up to by the Government. I do not propose to go into this more in detail now as we shall have another opportunity next week. Then he laid down as the function of the War Office that it was to have always here a force ready equipped, and sufficient to deal decisively with an invasion by not less than 70,000 men. There again I think there are a great many who have grave apprehensions as to whether the War Office have worked up to that standard which has been set before them by the Committee of Imperial Defence. I shall refer to that again, but I have no desire whatever to question the two main conclusions to which the Defence Committee has come, but what I do feel bound to question is whether the means provided to work up to those conclusions are as a matter of fact sufficient. I think the conclusions which the right hon. Gentleman announced would not cover quite the whole of the ground. At first his statement seemed to cover all the joints in our national armour. But I think there were certain contingencies which he did not specify, and which, as a matter of fact, are not provided for by any of the defensive forces which we have at the present time.
    The key of our National defence, of our Home defence, appears to be, in the opinion of the Government, and in the opinion of the Defence Committee, that we must rely on forcing any invader coming to these islands to come in such a large force, 70,000 men or upwards, that it would be impossible for him to elude the Navy. That is a principle which was laid down before, I think, by my right hon. Friend at the time he presided over the Defence Committee, and the justification of that theory surely is that we must at all
    1420
    times have a Home Army which would be sufficient to force an invader either to come in this large force, or not to come at all. After all a better plan, and the best plan of all, seems to me not that we should force him to come in large numbers, but that we should have a sufficient Navy so that he would not have a chance of starting away from his own country, and that we should establish the command of the seas so certainly, and so beyond dispute that this question of a "forlorn hope," should really be beyond all possibility, but the Government appear to shrink from carrying out the conclusions of what I call the sane Blue Water school to the extent of making our command of the sea absolutely secure. They are providing only against certain contingencies which may or may not arise, contingencies which I venture to say are only likely to arise in the event of our command of the sea not being absolute.
    For this function of protecting this country either against a small raid or against a forlorn hope of invasion they are relying upon land forces which consist of a comparatively small number of fully trained men of the regular Army, and a very much larger force which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) has created in the Territorial Army. He has always deemed, I mean the Secretary of Slate for War, that the position is safe, because whilst he admits the Territorial Army is not ready at the outbreak of hostilities, he thinks that being mobilised they will always have sufficient time in which to get trained before the regular Army is called upon to leave these shores, and that in the meantime if this bolt from the blue should come, and if there should be an attempt of any kind that the regular Army would be here, and would be quite able to deal with any force of 70,000 men, or with anything of that kind suggested. It seems to me there is no provision being made for another contingency. Suppose, for example, that there was unhappily a repetition on a more serious scale of the state of affairs which existed in India in 1857, and that it became necessary to despatch very large reinforcements to that country. We might not be engaged in hostilities with any foreign foe, our relations might be apparently friendly all round, but if, as would be absolutely necessary, the Government decided to despatch the greater portion of our regular troops to reinforce the Army in India, then surely we should be in the position, in the event of a bolt from the blue, where there would be no time given

    1421
    to the Territorial Army, with a remnant of an Army left behind, to prepare for repelling, I do not say a small raid, to which we need not attach great importance, but one of those forlorn hope invasions which it has been suggested are possible. The point I am trying to make is this: that the Territorial Army of course will need time, and a great deal of time, before it is able to deal, with any possibility of success, however great its numbers, with an attack by an organised body of Continental troops. But the question of how much time can be given will not rest with us. It is the invader, it is the enemy, who is going to decide how much time the Territorial Army shall have. It is pretty certain that an invader who knows his business, if he gets his opportunity of our having had to send away our regular Army or having placed us in the position that we would have to decide to abandon India to its fate or denude these islands of their own trained defenders, if he got us in that position, then it is pretty certain the attempt against us would be made not late but soon, and before the Territorial Army could be made effective to repel it.
    I do not wish to deal with the question of a raid, because it is comparatively unimportant. The Territorial Army might deal with a small raid, but it is quite clear that a small regular force could deal with it much better, and, therefore, other things being equal, and as there is only a certain amount of money available, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) that the money would be better spent upon forces which would be available not only for defensive purposes here in these islands, but for the still more effective defence of this country, which very often takes the form of offence in the event of war. After all, we have got to consider all eventualities. Our ultimate fear in the worst event is, I believe, not a raid or even a forlorn hope invasion of 70,000 men—against which, I believe, in any case, the most effective defence will not be the Territorial Army or any land forces, but our submarines and destroyer flotilla, the moral effect of which will be almost overwhelming against a fleet of transport—but the worst we can possibly have to fear is not necessarily the serious invasion of these islands, but what would be equally effective—a blockade of these islands in the event of our Navy ceasing to retain in an effective sense the command of the sea. I cannot help feeling that during the last
    1422
    few years the situation has very much changed—I do not wish to say anything too contentious—in the relative weakening of our strength compared with that of our rivals. That has materially altered the situation, and, in addition to that, there is the point raised by the hon. Member for Salford and the hon. Member for Blackpool with regard to the dismantling not merely on the land side, but on the sea side of many of our coast defences, which has thrown an additional strain upon the Navy, has given it additional defensive duties to perform, to which its strength is not, in my belief, adequate, if we are to maintain the complete and undisputed control of the sea. Therefore, I come to this. I am in general agreement with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) when he says that we cannot pay for everything. We cannot have an overwhelming Navy, an overwhelming Army, endless fortifications, and all the rest of it. There must be some limit to the amount we spend, and if we have to sacrifice anything, I agree with him that the least important thing—I am not taking into account questions of national hygiene or anything of that sort—from the strictly military standpoint of national defence is the Territorial Army. Therefore, I am one of those who, if only a limited amount of money is available, would prefer to see less of it spent upon those forces which are very unlikely to be of serious use, and more of it spent not only on the Navy but on the Regular Army. I am not one of those Blue Water extremists who think that all that is necessary is a Navy. Obviously, if ever a war is to be brought to an effective conclusion, we must have an Army strong enough to proceed from these islands and make effective the position which the Navy has won. Speaking for myself, I can only repeat what I think I said on the first occasion when the Imperial Defence Committee was discussed, in 1903, that whilst I fully realise that the Defence Committee cannot be in any sense an executive body—it cannot have any functions of that kind; it cannot even be what the Prime Minister called a Court of Appeal—I had hoped it might occupy to a certain extent the position of assessor. The situation in the past—I am not sure about the present—has been that the real assessor has been to a large extent the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been the business of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for War to press the claims of their respective

    1423
    Departments as hard as they can upon the Treasury. If the Secretary of State for War happens to be stronger than the First Lord of the Admiralty, the chances are that his Service gets better attention. To stop that there is required some form of allocation of funds by a body upon which the Admiralty, the War Office, and all the Government Departments concerned are represented. I had hoped that one of the functions of the Defence Committee, if there is only a certain amount available for national defence, might be to allocate between the War Office and the Admiralty how that money should be spent. I do not know whether that is done. I think it is an extension of the functions of the Defence Committee which is not altogether unreasonable, and which may possibly be developed in the future.
    There are two questions on minor matters which I should like to put to the President of the Defence Committee. He referred to the inquiry which has been concluded into the question of the strategic value of the Forth and Clyde Canal. I do not know whether it is possible for him to give in a few words the conclusion which has been arrived at. It is a question which has excited a great deal of interest in the country, and in which personally I have been very much interested; and I think it would be of great value if we could know, in the most approximate manner, what general conclusions the Defence Committee have come to with regard to it. There is one other point which, I think, comes within the purview of the Defence Committee. Can the Government see their way to give any information as to the position of the new command or new post which was created quite recently, namely, the High Commissionership of the Mediterranean? That post has just been vacated, I understand, and it has been suggested in the Press—
    The PRIME MINISTER: That has nothing to do with the Defence Committee. It is a War Office matter.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Then I will put a question to the War Office about it another time. I hope that in the few remarks I have made I have not dealt in any captious or meticulous spirit with the points raised by the Prime Minister. Many of us on this side feel grave apprehension as to the sufficiency of the means which the Government have provided to carry out the conclusions of the Defence Committee; but on this occasion I will only thank the Prime
    1424
    Minister most sincerely for his intensely interesting statement, a statement which, as are all his statements, was extraordinarily lucid, and one which, I am sure, will be read with the utmost possible interest as being of vital importance not only to the people of these islands, but to the whole of the British Empire.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. A. Lee) began his speech by referring to the statement of the Prime Minister in very generous terms. While concurring entirely in his estimate of the value of my right hon. Friend's statement, I wish to add that, in my view, another speech made was equally important. I refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, in which he expressed his complete concurrence with the broad standard which has been arrived at as the result of the investigations of the Defence Committee. Taking the statement of the Prime Minister, together with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke with all the authority of his great position in the country, I feel that the Debate of to-day marks a stage further in the evolution of naval and military policy. If we had had 25 years ago these standards laid down and concurred in by both parties, forming a foundation of continuity, we should have saved more millions of public money than it is easy to reckon at this moment—money which has been thrown away simply for want of these standards. Nobody who is not responsible for a great Department like that over which it is my fortune to preside can realise how we are paralysed, how impossible it is to work out even the most important things for want of agreement on broad principles. No one who is not in that position can realise what a complete lack of those principles there has been in days gone by, and what an extravagance and waste of money has resulted from the constant attempt to define subordinate policies without having the chief policy in the first instance laid down. The statement of my right hon. Friend affords a clear standard which enables us to work out on a basis, which I believe is a basis of continuity, a whole set of problems which, without that standard, could not have been approached. Therefore, I think I am not exaggerating when I describe, fully appreciative as I am of the speech of the Prime Minister, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition as of not less importance on this occasion.

    1425
    The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. A. Lee), accepting the standard, expressed a doubt as to whether the Government have worked up to it. I put aside for the moment naval questions, and come to what he said about the Territorial Force. It is necessary to be very clear upon these things. If you rely upon your Regular troops or upon your Navy alone for home defence, you tend to do two things—largely to keep the Navy to these shores, which is a bad thing, and, what is still worse, to concentrate the public mind upon home defence, and home defence only. We have always succeeded in this country by taking a wider view than that. It has often been said that our frontier is the enemy's coastline. It is not a ring round these islands, and what we require are the command of the seas and the free use of the expeditionary force, which has been our most potent weapon of defence in days gone by; and the function of the Territorial Army is and can only be to leave us as free as it is possible to be for the use of our primary weapon of defence. The hon. and gallant Member threw some doubt upon the utility of the Territorial Army for repelling an invading force of 70,000 men. He put the case of the expeditionary force having gone abroad, say to India, and after it had been there for some little time, complications arising, and our coasts being left undefended from a military point of view. But if the hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind the terms of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, he will find that, unless the Government of the day depart from the plan laid down in that Act, the Territorial Force will be mobilised the very first day. Therefore, to take the first case, if the regular troops have left these shores, it would have taken some little time to transport them all, and the Territorial Force would be in good military training. Whether it is six months that are required to put them in proper training after mobilisation, or whether it is something less, does not matter. Assume that it is six months. The point is that the Territorial Force, under the scheme of the Act, is mobilised from the very first mobilisation of the Regulars. Whenever a Proclamation calling out the Regulars is issued, the Territorial Force is mobilised at the same time, and embodied for its war training. Therefore the war training begins at a very early stage. That disposes of the case of the Regular Force being away.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I was assuming a case where there was a sudden emergency, say in India, where it became necessary to send with the utmost speed the whole of the available Regular troops to India, and that immediately, if you like treacherously, a bolt from the blue came in the shape of an attack upon us by a foreign Power. In these circumstances the period which might elapse from the mobilisation of the Territorial Army would be extremely short, and would not be long enough to give them any training at all.
    Mr. HALDANE: I was taking only the first case. I think the hon. Member is proceeding to what I was going to put as the second case. I will come to that at once. Suppose you sent your expeditionary force with the utmost despatch to India. Before you could transport the 168,000 troops some considerable time would elapse, and behind those there are It at the present time in this country some 330,000 Regulars.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Including the Reserves?
    Mr. HALDANE: Certainly. On mobilisation you call up about 330,000 Regulars, including Reserves.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think there is a little confusion. The right hon. Gentleman said that after the 168,000 troops had been sent abroad we should still have 330,000.
    Mr. HALDANE: I meant just the other way. You have got, when you call out your Reserves, somewhere about 330,000 Regulars, out of whom, say, 168,000 are in training. Moreover, it would take a very considerable time for a force of that kind to leave these shores for India. But take another case. Suppose a bolt came from the blue—well, I need not discuss that at any length, because we have got the whole of the Regular troops at home. They are quite competent to deal with that situation. Take yet another case—a case in which the Regulars had begun to go, and, say, got to the extent of half through before the attempt at invasion took place. How would you stand then? First of all, you have taken every precaution. You would have taken care that during the period of maturing the Territorial Forces you would have kept sufficient of the Regulars at Home. You would have dealt with the defence of the coast by the Fleet in such a fashion as to give yourself time for maturing. There are three cases of "the bolt from the blue." The case the hon. and gallant Member particularly

    1427
    alluded to is the intermediate case. That was the case in which your Regulars had begun to go and your Territorials had not had time to perhaps complete their war training. That is a case which must be and can be dealt with according to the circumstances. You can deal with it in two ways. You would see to it that your. Fleet particularly attended to your coast I for the short time that it was necessary in order to put the Territorial Forces into proper condition, and, in the second place, you would see to it that your Regular troops had not all left these shores before the Territorial Forces were in a condition to be of some use. I have laid down over and over again that you cannot rely upon the Territorials, man to man, against the I troops whom they might be led against unless they have had at least six months' embodied training. But I have never said, and nobody who knows the use of that force has said, that you would not make some employment of the Territorials from the very first stage. Suppose that a force had landed in this country. It would find I itself surrounded by the enormous mass of troops which 12 divisions of Territorials at war strength would constitute. Any force is compelled to make detachments for observation, and a comparatively small force of Regulars would be sufficient to deal with what remains. I, for my part, believe that it would be found that the Territorial Forces would improve day by day and week by week, and would be found sufficient to cope with the emergency in conjunction with the Regulars which any prudent Administration would take care to keep at home for the purpose. I agree with the hon. and gallant gentleman that it is that intermediate case that wants the closest watching. I have only to say further that these problems have been most closely worked out, and with the utmost care by the General Staff in accordance with standards now laid down. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of another point. He referred to the dismantling of fortifications. The decisions in respect to this matter were discussed by the Sub-Committee, and submitted for review to the Committee of Imperial Defence. It is on the decisions stamped and approved by the Committee of Imperial Defence that the work has been done. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he passes on to the matter of economies in the Territorial Forces. The Territorials are not an ex-
    1428
    pensive force. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had appeared in Lancashire the other day, I think he would have been impressed with the efficiency which, even in a short time, the Territorial divisions have reached. I wish the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) would look at the Territorial Forces which come from his Division.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I never said anything against the Territorial Forces. I think they do their work extremely well. But I do say, and I adhere to it, that it is impossible to train a man in a fortnight or three weeks to be equal to a man who has been trained for three years.
    Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member proposed to get rid of the Territorial Forces, because, if you are not going to spend money on them, you will do so.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: You are spending on too large a scale.
    Mr. HALDANE: My right hon. Friend seems to think that the Territorial Forces ought to have nothing spent on them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a question about the Forth and Clyde Canal, as to what conclusion had been come to with regard to it. The expenditure necessary to make this canal of any use would be enormously out of proportion to the value to be got from it. That is the conclusion come to by the most distinguished Admiralty experts who have investigated the matter.
    Mr. A. LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman before he haves that point whether the conclusion was come to solely on financial grounds; assuming that the cost of constructing the canal might be borne—as I think it might be—by the commercial interests concerned; or was it come to from a strategical standpoint?
    Mr. HALDANE: There was no prospect of those commercially interested paying more than would provide for its upkeep. They were not in any way near providing for interest and capital. The conclusion was clear, when the Admiralty experts came to inspect the matter, that the money would be enormously better spent in other directions. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) travelled in some other regions. He spoke of the constitution of committee of Imperial Defence, and he took exception, not on personal grounds, but on what I may call technical grounds, to the presence of Lord Esher—
    Sir C. W. DILKE: On official grounds—on grounds previously stated.
    Mr. HALDANE: Well, I think one of the most useful things the right hon. Gentleman did in connection with the Defence Committee after it was constituted was to make Lord Esher a member. He has been a most valuable member, and has worked at this matter with extraordinary devotion and knowledge. He qualified himself by the work he did in reorganising the War Office, and I do not at all agree either with my right hon. Friend or with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bellairs) in thinking that the appointment was not one of the very best that could have been made in the circumstances.
    Sir C. W. DILKE: That was not my point. You took the Under-Secretary's view of the Committee, and the opposite was taken by everybody else.
    Mr. HALDANE: I think you ought to look at what gives you the best result, and at what is the interest of the nation. My view is that the country owes a great deal to Lord Esher for the work he has done in this and other directions. Then my right hon. Friend referred to the troops in South Africa. I think that may be said to concern the Committee of Imperial Defence. These troops have been reduced very much lately. I think we have as good a distribution of troops as we could get, and I should be very sorry to see that distribution altered, just as we have succeeded in getting rid of sources of unnecessary expenditure which arose from bad organisation. I am sure these troops are regarded as of great value by the statesmen of South Africa who are here at the present time. I should be very very sorry to disturb the arrangements, at all events until affairs in South Africa have got into a settled position. Other points were raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to the number of troops which we keep, and said that the amount of provision we made was a provision in which we spend too much upon Army matters and too little upon the Navy, and that it would be better to spend much more largely upon the Navy than we do at the present time. My right hon. Friend did not indicate in the slightest degree any principle which was to regulate the relations of the two in the reform which he proposed, nor am I able to discover from his speeches any indication of what is in his mind. The Navy is of very little use without an Army, except for the purpose of home defence. And my right hon.
    1430
    Friend seemed to me to lead back to the old vicious idea that we have nothing—
    Sir C. W. DILKE: I never speak on the subject, and never did, without saying exactly the opposite—that we must have a small, highly efficient, highly trained, and rapidly mobilised oversea force.
    Mr. HALDANE: I do not clearly under stand what the right hon. Gentleman means by his criticism. At any rate, generalities do not solve these things. The sum of the whole matter seems to be that if you take the speeches of private Members to-day you will find that almost everybody has said something different from everybody else. One plank to which they cling in the middle of all this is that we have a body which enables us to come to some sort of scientific and settled conclusions about these matters. Just for that reason I think this Debate has illustrated the value of that Committee of Defence to which such tribute has been paid on both sides of the House.
    Mr. GEORGE RENWICK: I wish to say how much I admire the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Territorial Forces. I certainly hope he will be successful in the great work he is doing. I should like to call the attention of the Defence Committee to the defenceless state of the North-East Coast of England, and especially the Tyne. We are greatly exercised at the present time owing to having the river in so defenceless a state. Part of it is absolutely in a defenceless state, although there are several arsenals and several warship engine building works situated along its front. We cannot understand why Portsmouth and other naval dockyards should be so heavily fortified while private arsenals of almost similar value are left practically in an entirely defenceless state upon the Tyne. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet the importance of considering the defences of the North-East Coast, and it will try to improve them. All the important works on the North-East Coast are open to attack from cruisers or torpedoes coming up within a quarter or half a mile from the shore. That shows the importance of having some sort of fortification to guard against, I will not say invasion, for I do not for a moment fear, no one in our district fears, invasion, but to guard against a raid, and not only a raid by land troops upon the shore, but a raid from cruisers or destroyers. We have a certain number of

    1431
    fortifications there armed with 7-in. guns, but we cannot imagine how 7-in. guns in a fortification can cope with 12-in. guns on battleships, and we ought to have similar guns in the fortification. I hope the Defence Committee will pay some attention to the defence of this part of the coast. If they, will make inquiry into the matter they will come to the conclusion that the present defences are thoroughly inadequate for the defence of such important portions of the coast.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) who spoke upon the other side of the House, said no soldier suggested that a raid upon London was possible. I might remind the Committee that the great blunt soldier who has just now addressed the House told us at Bristol that the first thing an enemy would do would be to try and get into London and so conquer us rapidly and easily, and I certainly think that is the first thing an enemy would do. The Prime Minister told us that as long as we keep up our unassailable supremacy of the sea that invasion was impossible. We probably all agree about that, but I do not think that anybody can say that some new invention or sudden attack might not, at all events, deprive us of the command of the sea for several days. When the last Government was in power we had considerably more than the two-Power standard of naval strength, but it was only a few days ago that we were actually discussing the question as to whether in two or three years' time we should have a one-Power standard as compared with one great nation. Germany alone has got more ocean-going torpedo destroyers in the North Sea than we have. There is not much two-Power standard about that. The same is the case with fast scouting cruisers. The minimum amount of these auxiliary ships laid down as absolutely necessary by Lord Charles Beresford have not been provided—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not allowed to discuss upon this Vote matters which ought to be discussed on the Navy Estimates.
    Mr. HUNT: I thought this Vote opened up a pretty wide question. Are we not allowed to discuss the "Dreadnought"? Perhaps I may say that the four extra "Dreadnoughts" are not to be laid down in April, and, therefore, they cannot possibly be ready in March, 1912. There
    1432
    never has been any great ship except the one "Dreadnough," and under special circumstances that was completed within two years. Therefore the Government's intimation that they are going to have these ships by March, 1912, cannot be relied on.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is really not in order. The hon. Member is now dealing with matter which is purely a matter for discussion on the Naval Estimates.
    Mr. HUNT: I am very sorry. I thought this Vote opened up the whole question of defence. I will not go further with the matter. I may, perhaps, say that the defences of this country, both from the naval and military point of view, seem very unsatisfactory, and it is seriously to be hoped that the Defence Committee will inquire into these matters and try to improve them.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday (2nd August); Committee to sit again upon Monday.

LABOUR EXCHANGES BILL.
Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.
Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, in respect of the Amendment to Clause 4 standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Dundee."—[Mr. Tennant.]
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): I do not know whether it is necessary to explain to the House that the Bill as it is at present drafted makes it rather doubtful whether travelling expenses can be paid, inasmuch as there are many precedents for having such provisions actually put into the Bill. It is for that reason that we move to re-commit the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill considered in Committee.

CLAUSE 4.—(Expenses of the Board of Trade.)
The Board of Trade may appoint such officers and servants for the purposes of this Act as the Board may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine, and there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to such officers and servants

1433
such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine, and any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying this Act into effect, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, after the word "effect" ["and any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in carrying this Act into effect"], to insert the words, "including the payment of travelling and other allowances to members of Advisory Committees and other expenses in connection therewith."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with an Amendment.
Mr. W. PEEL: I have a short Amendment to move in section (l) of Clause 2, namely, after the word "Exchanges" ["The Board of Trade may make general regulations with respect to the management of Labour Exchanges "] to insert the words "established or assisted under this Bill." This Amendment is moved on behalf of the London County Council, though it may apply possibly to other councils as well. Under Part XI of the London County Council (General Powers) Act of 1905 the council has certain powers in regard to the registration of agencies for the employment of governesses and female domestic servants, and concert, theatrical, and music-hall employment agencies. The council regards these powers as important for the protection of those who seek employment through these agencies, and has decided to apply for Parliamentary power next Session extending these powers so as to meet defects found during the administration of their Act.
Mr. TENNANT: I accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. W. R. PEEL (on behalf of Lord Willoughby de Eresby)Mr. W. R. PEEL (on behalf of Lord Willoughby de Eresby) moved, in Clause 2 (Regulation and Management), at the end of section (1), authorising advances to be made to meet the travelling expenses of workpeople, to insert "but no advance shall be made to enable workpeople ordinarily resident in Ireland to travel to any other portion of the United Kingdom unless it has been found impossible to find employment for them in Ireland." One of
1434
the difficulties in the case of Labour Exchanges is that although they may be useful in bringing labourers to towns and other places where labour is required, they may sometimes bring them in excessive numbers, and thus cause an undue competition or tend to set up the idea that there will be undue competition in those particular places and towns. There is not much danger of any difficulty arising in the case of trades which are fully organised, and the trades unions can take care of themselves. If any difficulty of that kind should arise, and if there was a complaint in a particular district or town that undue competition was arising owing to persons having been brought from another district, representations might be made to the Board of Trade and elsewhere, and the grievance would be rapidly redressed. I do not, however, think that the same facilities apply to agricultural labourers, and I am moving this Amendment on behalf of agricultural labourers. They are unorganised, and have not the same vocal powers as the great unions, and consequently they ought to be safeguarded and protected from any undue competition that may arise through the working of these Labour Exchanges. During harvest time labourers obtain a considerable increment to their usual wages, and other advantages which they cannot get at other times of the year. It is not too much to say that if these advantages were taken from the agricultural labourer his position would be very much changed for the worse. At harvest time, in the districts of the West of Ireland, a considerable number of agricultural labourers come into the Midlands and the North of England and to South of Scotland for the harvest. Already they come over in considerable numbers, and I do not wish to stop, these persons coming over from the poor-districts of the West of Ireland because, unfortunately, Ireland is a very poor country, and in the western districts there is very little employment. I am afraid, however, if much undue encouragement is given by the working of Labour Exchanges to the bringing over of a larger number of agricultural labourers from the West of Ireland at harvest time a very severe and unfair competition will be set up with the English agricultural labourer at home. This may be done in many ways. Farmers may give notice in their own country districts and they may communicate to the labourers in the West of Ireland the information that

1435
they will want a certain number of men, and they may come over in large batches. That is a difficulty I wish to meet, I think there should be some control in this matter and some safeguard against too much competition being set up against the English and Scottish agricultural labourer who finds that competition in his own district, and has not the means or the opportunity of defending himself. An Amendment very similar to this was moved by an Irish Member in the Committee, and therefore it is possible I may get some sympathy from the Irish Benches. I admit that this Amendment is drawn rather widely, because it applies to workpeople "ordinarily resident in Ireland," and that includes more than agricultural labourers. The Amendment also says "unless it has been found impossible to find employment for them in Ireland." I do wish to press upon the hon. Member in charge of this Bill, on behalf of the agricultural labourer and the men who follow the plough—who are not in the position to take care of themselves, who are not organised, and might suffer very hardly from undue competition with other agricultural labourers—to do all he can to mitigate the evil which may arise through the establishment of Labour Exchanges.
Mr. ROWLAND HUNT Mr. ROWLAND HUNT seconded the Amendment.
Mr. TENNANT: There is no intention of giving permanent aid to persons who wish to emigrate permanently. The only intention, is to pay expenses in the case of temporary work where a hardship may arise. It only applies in the case where employment has been found, and so the agricultural labourers will not be affected.
Mr. PEEL: A farmer might say he requires a dozen labourers in a particular month, and he could ask for them at the Labour Exchange.
Mr. TENNANT: That is a conceivable case, but there is no intention on the part of the Government to give this kind of aid to that kind of person. It would be, I think, a distinct disadvantage to tie the hands of the Board of Trade so as to say that in no conceivable case should you ever give travelling expenses to a harvester who wishes to go from Ireland to England. I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved. I believe the hon. Member himself said he did not expect the Government to accpt his words, which he admitted were too
1436
wide. I may say, however, that in the regulations to be made under Clause 2 we may be able to do something which will carry out what the hon. Gentleman opposite wants. For instance, we might so frame the regulations as to provide that care should be taken to avoid unduly encouraging agricultural labourers to come over to this country permanently. I do not know if that would meet the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest ho would be well advised in withdrawing his Amendment, and he might accept my undertaking to have it dealt with in the regulations.
Mr. PEEL: I was not only dealing with the question of agricultural labourers coming over permanently, but with the flow of labourers who come over in the summer to work in the harvest.
Mr. TENNANT: I will consider that, and if it is necessary to meet the hon. Gentleman's point we will frame regulations accordingly.
Mr. PEEL: In view of the hon. Gentleman's promise, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I have an Amendment which has been put down owing to an apprehension which exists in some quarters that in the regulations to be made under the Bill some time limit in regard to residence in the locality in which the Labour Exchange exists might be insisted upon; and it would be obvious, if any such rule were made, it would severely handicap sailors and soldiers on their discharge or on their transfer from the Reserves in obtaining employment. If the hon. Gentleman is able to give me a definite pledge that no such regulation as a time limit of residence will be made, I will not trouble the House by moving my Amendment.
Mr. TENNANT: There is no intention whatever of placing any such residential qualification upon any person who desires to obtain employment through the Labour Exchanges.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Then I will not move.
Mr. TENNANT Mr. TENNANT moved to leave out section (3) of Clause 2 ["(3) Subject to any such regulations, the powers of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be exercised in such manner as the Board of Trade may

1437
direct"] and to insert instead thereof the following section:—
(3) Any general regulations made under this section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days after any regulations have been so laid before that House resolves that the regulations or any of them ought to be annulled the regulations or those to which the Resolution applies shall, after the date of such Resolution, be of no effect without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under the regulations or to the making of any new regulations.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Resolved, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes after Eight o'clock.

  Stamps on Contract Notes.
  Stamps on Contract Notes.
  Imperial Revenue (Ireland's Contribution).
  Imperial Revenue (Ireland's Contribution).
  Taxable Capacity (Ireland).
  Taxable Capacity (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Amending Bill).
  Old Age Pensions (Amending Bill).
  Inland Revenue (Branch Offices).
  Inland Revenue (Branch Offices).
  Finance Bill (Cost of Valuation).
  Finance Bill (Cost of Valuation).
  Finance Bill.
  Finance Bill.
  London Traffic Branch (Board of Trade).
  London Traffic Branch (Board of Trade).
  Trade Boards (Staff).
  Trade Boards (Staff).
  Irish Land Bill.
  Irish Land Bill.
  Old Age Pension Appeal (Alice M'Donnell, Currea, Sligo).
  Old Age Pension Appeal (Alice M'Donnell, Currea, Sligo).
  Eviction at Cordal, Kerry.
  Eviction at Cordal, Kerry.
  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland).
  Intermediate Examinations (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Athenry District).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (Athenry District).
  Untenanted Land, Fedamore, Limerick.
  Untenanted Land, Fedamore, Limerick.
  Land Purchase, County Limerick.
  Land Purchase, County Limerick.
  Evictions, County Wexford.
  Evictions, County Wexford.
  Bevan Estate, Bruff, Limerick.
  Bevan Estate, Bruff, Limerick.
  Suicide at the Curragh (Private Andrew Jamieson).
  Suicide at the Curragh (Private Andrew Jamieson).
  Special Army Reserve (Short Rifle).
  Special Army Reserve (Short Rifle).
  Army Officers (Promotion).
  Army Officers (Promotion).
  Suicides in Colchester Garrison.
  Suicides in Colchester Garrison.
  Army Equitation Bounty.
  Army Equitation Bounty.
  Dromard Postal Facilities.
  Dromard Postal Facilities.
  Postmen (Revised Scheme of Duties).
  Postmen (Revised Scheme of Duties).
  Agricultural College, Athenry.
  Agricultural College, Athenry.
Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
HEYWOOD CORPORATION.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be suspended for the sitting on Tuesday next; and that the Committee Stage of the South Africa Bill [H.L.] have precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Crewe)); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend the definition in Clause 2, which provided that—
"the word 'dairy' shall include any creamery, farm, farmhouse, cowshed, byre, milk store, milk
808
shop, or other premises from which milk is sold or supplied for sale or in which it is stored or kept for purposes of sale, or which are used for the making of butter or cheese for purposes of sale; the word 'dairyman' shall include any occupier of a dairy and any person carrying on the trade of cowkeeper or purveyor of milk; and the word 'milk' shall include cream, skimmed milk, separated milk, and butter milk,"
by substituting the word "mean" for the word "include" in the three places where it occurred. The word "include," as he understood it, implied that there were some other meanings to be attached to the words "dairy," "dairyman," and "milk," besides those actually laid down in the clause. The definition of "dairy" was already a wide one, and he did not think it was intended that it should have other meanings than those in the clause. The earlier part of the section provided that expressions used in the Bill should have the meanings assigned to them in the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and those meanings were reproduced, with certain modifications. He gathered that there was no further meaning which could be included in the word "dairy"; and they would object to the word having any wider meaning than that assigned to it in the clause. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first of his three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'include' and to insert the word 'mean.' "—(Lord Clinton.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) said he did not pretend to be an authority on drafting, but he was advised that the word "include" was the word used in earlier legislation, that it would only lead to confusion to use a different word now, and that there was no danger, as the noble Lord anticipated, that the use of the word "include" rather than "mean" would lead to any wider interpretation. He therefore submitted that it would be safer to adhere to the word "include."
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON said that if the Secretary for Scotland was satisfied that there was really no danger of a larger meaning being attached to the word "dairy," he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he had no doubt upon the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to insert words in Clause 2 providing that "dairyman" should include any "maker of butter or cheese." He explained that the words were in the original draft of the Bill, but by some mischance they had dropped out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 18, after the first 'milk,' to insert the words or maker of butter or cheese.' "(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought the words proposed to be inserted were superfluous because they were already contained in the definition of "dairy." But if they were inserted it would be necessary to add at the end the words "for sale"; otherwise any person who made butter or cheese would be a dairyman.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND said he was assured that the words "carrying on the trade" and "purveyor" implicitly conveyed the notion of sale. He would, however, consider the point, and if the words suggested were necessary they should be inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments to Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 5, which provided that—
"Any person proposing to carry on the trade of a dairyman in premises for which a certificate of registration is not in force shall, not less than two months before beginning to occupy or use such premises as a dairy, lodge with the local authority an application for a certificate of registration,"
by omitting the words "for which a certificate of registration is not in force." This Amendment would place the two categories of farms, those which had been used hitherto and those which had not been used hitherto as dairy farms, in the same position.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'for which a certificate of registration is not in force.' "—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to add to Clause 5 a new subsection, the
810
object of which was, he explained, to make quite sure that the certificate of registration was a continuing thing. The Bill, even as amended, did not make that quite clear. He was not certain whether Lord Pentland's Amendments would have this effect without this subsection, but he did not think it would do any harm to make the point clear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 24, after the word refusing,' to insert the following new subsection:
'(4) A certificate of registration shall remain in force until it is revoked by the local authority or until the person to whom it was granted quits the premises in respect of which it was granted, in which case it shall cease to be in force unless and until it is renewed upon the application of the person proposing to carry on the trade of dairyman in the premises in respect of which the certificate of registration was originally granted.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND submitted that the proposed new subsection was unnecessary. In the Amendments standing on the Paper in his name the Government had accepted the position imposed upon them by the change made in the Bill in Committee abandoning the system of annual licence. He could not answer for what night be the future course in regard to this Bill, but they had loyally carried throughout the Bill the change effected by the decision of their Lordships. If the machinery was not complete they would be very glad to adjust it, but the proposed new subsection would be surplusage in the Bill as it stood.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to strike out from subsection (4) of Clause 5 the words—
"Every application for the renewal of a certificate of registration shall be lodged with the local authority not later than the first day of March. The local authority shall, not later than the thirty-first day of March, intimate to the applicant their decision on the application, and, in case of refusal, their reasons for so refusing."
He explained that the object of leaving out these words was to do away with the difficulty arising out of entry at different times of the year. If the Amendment were adopted it would be possible for registration to be secured at any time of the year.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 25 to 30, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (4) to the word Provided' in line 30."—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH understood that, acting differently and in different ways, the noble Lord's Amendments which their Lordships were now going through were designed to have exactly the same effect as the Amendment he (Lord Balfour) had just withdrawn—namely, to provide that the certificate was to be a continuing thing and not to be annually renewable.
LORD PENTLAND: That is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved the insertion in Clause 5 of a new subsection giving power for revocation of a certificate of registration under certain conditions. He explained that the power was similar to that in the English Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 42, after the word sale 'to insert the following new subsection:
'(5) In respect of any premises the local authority may refuse to grant a certificate of registration or may revoke such certificate if—

(a) The premises are or become unsuitable to the purposes of the trade which is proposed to be carried on, or which is carried on therein; or

(b) The premises are a nuisance.'" —(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN pointed out that Lord Pentland had not placed on the Paper the Amendment in subsection (8) of Clause 5 which he deferred when the Bill was in Committee. He had since looked into the point and now thought that Lord Pentland's Amendment would have been an improvement. The result of the Amendment would be that a person whose dairy was in one district and who sold milk in another would require, to obtain two certificates. As the subsection stood it only dealt with one case, whereas if the words which Lord Pentland had proposed to leave out were omitted it would deal with both. Therefore if the Secretary for Scotland agreed, he would move to omit the words which the noble Lord had proposed to leave out when the Bill was in Committee.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND admitted that there was a little doubt on this point, and said
812
that he intentionally omitted placing upon the Paper the Amendment referred to by the noble Earl. He had taken that course in order to admit of further consideration of the point, on which he hoped to arrive at a decision before the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that in these circumstances he would not move.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved the addition of a new subsection to Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 25, after the word Board 'to, insert the following new subsection:
'(11) With respect to the granting of certificates of registration in the year nineteen hundred and ten, the following provisions shall take effect; that is to say—

(a) A person carrying on the trade of dairyman without a certificate of registration under this section shall not be guilty of an offence thereunder prior to the twenty-eighth day of May nineteen-hundred and ten;

(b) An application for a certificate of registration may be lodged with the local authority at any time after the passing of this Act, and the local authority shall immediately after receiving such application have power to obtain the necessary reports on the premises of the applicant, provided that such application shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been lodged on the first day of January nineteen hundred and ten, and the local authority shall not be bound to intimate their decision to the applicant within a less period than three months thereafter.'"—(Lord Pentland.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend Clause 10, subsection (1), which ran—
"The Board shall make regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, for the prevention of danger arising to public health from the importation of milk intended for sale for human consumption,"
by inserting, after the word "milk," the, words "and milk products." He noticed that Lord Pentland had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the word "milk," the words "butter and cheese." That, however, did not go so far as his Amendment which would also cover such articles as condensed milk. He felt that words should be inserted to protect the public against diseased condensed milk.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 17, after the word 'milk,' to insert the words 'and milk products.' "—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH pointed out that the definition of milk in Clause 7 mentioned a number of things that did not include condensed milk. There might, therefore, be a powerful argument that it was intentionally left out.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND doubted whether their Lordships would do wisely in extending the definition. It was difficult to say what milk products were. He was of opinion that imported condensed milk was covered in different ways; but perhaps the noble Lord would allow him to take advice on the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to insert, after the word "milk," the words "butter and cheese."
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 17, after the word 'milk,' to insert the words 'butter and cheese.' "—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to amend subsection (2), which provided that—
"The Board may from time to time make such general or special orders as they think fit for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect,"
by inserting, after the word "Board," the words "after consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." He hoped this would reassure noble Lords opposite as to the Government's intentions in this matter.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 19, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'after consultation with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.'"—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 13.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
'14. A local authority on receipt of a report under this Act from which it appears that a cow is suffering from tuberculosis with emaciation, or from tuberculosis of the udder, or is giving tuberculous milk, shall, if they are not the local authority under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894,
814
of the district in which the cow is kept, send to that local authority a copy of the report or a sufficient extract therefrom.' "—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to add at the end of Clause 15—
"15. The medical officer of health of the district in which milk is produced shall with all practicable speed furnish to the medical officer of health of the district to which the milk is consigned, or in which it is sold or offered or exposed or kept for sale for human food, information regarding all cases of infectious disease of which he is cognisant occurring amongst the persons employed or in the families of persons employed, or amongst the persons residing at the dairy from which the milk is consigned,"
the words "and for the purposes of this section the dairyman shall furnish such first-mentioned medical officer of health with a list of the districts to which his milk is consigned."
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 34, after the word 'consigned,' to insert the words 'and for the purposes of this section, the dairyman shall furnish such first-mentioned medical officer of health with a list of the districts to which his milk is consigned.' "— (Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved to amend Clause 19—
"19. The local authority and any officers appointed by them for the execution of this Act shall have power to enter, inspect, and examine at all reasonable times any dairy, and for the purposes of this Act the medical officer shall have power to examine any person employed or residing at any dairy and the veterinary inspector shall have power to examine the cattle in any dairy, and every dairyman and the persons in his employment shall give all reasonable facilities and assistance to the local authorities and their officers in the execution of this Act,"
by inserting, at the beginning of the clause, the words "'Within their district."
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 12, at the beginning of the line, to insert the words Within their district.'"—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 23, page 12, line 14, to leave out the words cancel the licence held by such dairyman,' and to insert the words suspend his certificate of

815
registration in respect of any premises for such period as may be specified in the order, or cancel such certificate, but in the latter case without prejudice to the right of the dairyman to make application for a new certificate of registration.' "—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN thought the present would be a good opportunity for the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture to give an answer as to how the expenses incurred by the local authority for the purpose of this Bill were to be borne. Clause 25 provided that these expenses should be chargeable on the public health general assessment leviable under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. He would like to ask whether the Government proposed to make any contribution out of the Exchequer towards the expenses of the Bill, which, so far as Scotland was concerned, had to be taken in connection with the Order of the Board of Agriculture issued in May last.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON) said he was very anxious to meet the noble Earl. The matter was now under close consideration, and he would promise to do his best to make a statement on the subject on Third Reading.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said it was very desirable that before the Bill left their Lordships' House the position in this matter should be understood. It would be remembered that he asked this question on Second Reading and again in Committee, and received on each occasion a similar answer to the one now given. After the Third Reading the Bill would practically be out of their Lordships' hands. He did not think the Third Reading ought to be taken before a definite answer one way or the other had been received to his question. He therefore asked the noble Earl to name some day before the Third Reading on which the question should be put as a separate Question.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON said the only reason he did not wish to reply now was not to be obliged to give a negative answer in any way. His desire was to meet the noble Earl, and if he would put down a Question on the point that would, perhaps, be the best way of meeting the object.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN intimated that he would put down a Question for Tuesday next.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to amend Clause 27, subsection (2), which ran—
"The Cattlesheds in Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1866, shall not apply to any premises which are required to be licensed in terms of this Act,"
by substituting the word "registered" for the word "licensed."
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 34, to leave out the word 'licensed,' and to insert the word 'registered.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 122.)

PUBLIC HOUSES IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
THE EARL OF CARLISLE THE EARL OF CARLISLE had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in Clause 1 (Provision for facilities and improvements), the following proviso—
"Provided that nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the existing prohibition of gaming upon the premises or any provision of the Gaming Act of 1845, or the existing law, as to the regulation of places ordinarily used for public dancing, music, or other public entertainment under any Act of Parliament."
He explained that this Amendment had been postponed from the Committee stage at the request of several of their Lordships. Dealing first with the question of gaming, the noble Earl said that although he was sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill did not desire to relax the provisions of the existing Act, his supporters largely wished to do so. When the Bill was in Committee he (Lord Carlisle) referred to a pamphlet on this question by Mr. Platt, but Lord Lamington stated that he had not read the pamphlet and rather suggested that it was a bogus pamphlet. But this pamphlet, the writer of which was a voluminous author on this question, contained the same arguments

817
and exactly the same figures, some of them very questionable, as had been given by Lord Lamington, and the pamphlet also contained long quotations from Lord Lamington's speeches. In these circumstances he thought it was not unreasonable to suppose that the pamphlet represented the views of a large number of persons who supported this Bill. The writer of the pamphlet said—
"I am disposed to think that the gaming provisions of the Act of 1872 should be modified to bring them more in accord with present day conditions. So long as they remain as they now stand the ideal public house as a place of entertainment on reformed lines can hardly be realised";
and he added—
"There are scores of laws on the Statute Book which are never enforced at all."
This gentleman suggested that the gaming provisions were of the class of laws which it was desirable not to enforce. And he was not alone in that. Mr. Alderman Johnson, chairman of the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society, in a recent issue of a trade paper, stated—
"However desirable reform of the public-house may be, I do not think it can be effected without the repeal of the gaming laws."
As they had this strong expression of opinion from the supporters of the Bill though not from the noble Lord in charge of it, it seemed to him very desirable, unless their Lordships wished these laws to be largely disregarded, that his Amendment should be inserted.
With respect to that part of the Amendment dealing with music, he would like to insert the words "other than automatic music "after "music." What he wanted to do was not to establish any fresh restriction, but to make it understood that this reform did not mean that the existing regulations, which had been established by successive Acts of Parliament brought in by the late Government and their predecessors, should be allowed explicitly, or by inference, to be interfered with.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word recreation 'to insert the words Provided that nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the existing prohibition of gaming upon the premises or any provision of the Gaming Act of 1845, or the existing law, as to the regulation of places ordinarily used for public dancing, music other than automatic music, or other public entertainment under any Act of Parliament.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON said he understood from what the noble Earl had said that the existing statutes were very often disregarded and not acted upon, but the people who offended in that way were liable to a police prosecution. But he did not see that that was any reason for inserting the Amendment in his Bill.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE THE EARL OF CARLISLE explained that he meant that they might be disregarded in the future.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON failed to see how his Bill would entitle magistrates to disregard the existing law. At all events, he was in possession of legal opinion to the effect that the Bill in no way conflicted with the exercise of the statutes referred to by the noble Earl. The fact was that his Bill had been pretty well knocked out of shape by the acceptance of an Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Haversham, by which the magistrates were given unfettered discretionary powers. The Bill was merely a directing post as to what they considered desirable attainments in the conduct of public-houses, and he believed that if the Amendment was accepted it would tend to confusion and to still further weaken the Bill. It was, moreover, superfluous, and he therefore deprecated its acceptance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREHURN)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREHURN) said that if the Bill would be weakened by the insertion of an Amendment that the existing prohibition of gaming and the provision of the existing law as to dancing, music, and other public entertainments should not be altered or affected, that was rather an argument against the Bill itself. He could not see why existing laws should not be safeguarded.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said they did not desire to pass bad legislation or confusing legislation. They did not want to send down to the House of Commons legislation which was so bad that it would be difficult to interpret it. Therefore he would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the proposed words were necessary and whether, in the absence of Lord Carlisle's proviso, the Bill would not mean exactly the same thing. The Bill did not propose to repeal in any sense the Gaming Act or any provision of the existing law as to the regulation of places used for public dancing, music, or other

819
public entertainment. He thought it was contrary to practice to insert words preserving any particular Act unless it would be otherwise infringed by the Bill. Their Lordships would be glad to be guided in this matter by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR did not think the Bill from beginning to end was good drafting, and he was not prepared to recommend the Amendment on that ground either.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved to amend the proviso—
"Provided always that no alteration in the premises or fittings, the chief effect of which would be, in the opinion of the licensing justices, materially to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquors only, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this section,"
by adding, after the word "only"the condition," or would conceal from observation any part of the premises used for drinking."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, after the word 'only' to insert the words 'or would conceal from observation any part of the premises used for drinking.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved a new clause declaring that in the application of the Bill to Scotland the words "licensing justices" should be rendered "the licensing court" and that the appeal should be to the Court of Appeal.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
'In the application of this Act to Scotland the words "licensing justices" shall be read as "licensing court," and appeals shall be to the Court of Appeal.' "—(Lord Lamington.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE inquired what Court was meant by the words "Court of Appeal."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH assured the noble and learned Lord that the
820
expression was in accordance with the Scottish Licensing Act. The Court was composed of licensing justices from the various Benches in the district over which the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that if the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the words were correct he would be content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR replied that his recollection of the Scottish Licensing Act was the same as that of Lord Balfour. But he hoped their Lordships would excuse him if it turned out that there had been on his part any lapse of memory on this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 123.)

HOPS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved to add a new subsection to Clause 1 (which prohibited the use of hop substitutes in brewing) providing that nothing in the Bill should prevent the use of any preservatives which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise were necessary and for which hops could not be substituted without detriment to the beer. He said the object of the Amendment was to bring the Bill into exact harmony with the statement of the President of the Board of Agriculture on the Second Reading. Lord Carrington then said that the Government had not agreed to prohibit the use of preservatives altogether, but only when the necessary preservation could be obtained by the use of hops. The clause was rather obscure upon the point, and the Amendment was designed with the object of making the intention of the Bill quite clear. There were unquestionably other articles used for preservative purposes in the brewing of beer which could not be replaced by hops. Those compounds were compounds of sulphur dioxide; but hereafter other articles of the same kind might be discovered, and therefore it seemed to him to be desirable that the words should include not only dioxide of sulphur but also any substance which might hereafter be discovered of a similar nature and which

821
could not be replaced by hops. He wished to make it clear that if hopes could be used in the place of these substances then the use of these substances would be illegal; but if there were substances which hopes could not supply the place of, then his Amendment would cover them.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 16, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
'(3) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the use of any preservatives in the brewing or preservation of beer which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are necessary for the purpose, and for which hops cannot be substituted without detriment to the beer.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was a wrecking Amendment. The clauses at present laid down clearly all the substances that one could brew beer from. The Amendment, if carried, would do away with the other two clauses, and would practically admit anything that might be allowed by the Customs and Excise, who were the arbitrators in the case. He also opposed the Amendment because it introduced another example of government by Department. Finally, he regarded the words of the Amendment as insulting. He hoped that those, like himself, who were interested in pure beer and hop growing would take exception to the Amendment because hops were actually talked about as substitutes. It was suggested by this Amendment, too, that the Commissioners of Excise and Customs might consider hops detrimental to beer. He could not conceive any Amendment which would be less worthy of being inserted in a Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON urged his noble friend not to press the Amendment. As the Bill stood brewers could use any necessary preservatives if they were not used as substitutes for hops, and any question on that point should be settled by the Courts of law and not by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. He hoped the Government would be able to meet to a certain extent Lord Eversley's point on the Amendment to be moved next by Lord Mayo.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY said the difference between his Amendment and Lord Mayo's was not considerable, and if the Government were prepared to accept the latter Amendment he would not press his.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved to exclude from the definition of "hop substitute" the various compounds of sulphur dioxide. He said he used the expression "various compounds "because, sulphur dioxide being a gas, its compounds must be put into the barrel in order to create gas.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word 'article,' to insert the words other than various compounds of sulphur dioxide.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
VISCOUNT HARDINGE*VISCOUNT HARDINGE said that as he understood that brewers asserted that sulphur dioxide did not take the place of hops, he did not wish to oppose the Amendment, and he could assure the noble Earl that hop-growers never had any wish to prohibit the use in beer of anything which did not displace hops. Hop-growers had no desire to put any obstacle in the way of brewers, whom they recognised were their best customers, but who, like themselves, were being severely tried at the present time. All they wished was that the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, which included a prominent brewer, should be carried into effect as quickly as possible. On the understanding that the noble Earl and others who represented the brewers in the House would agree to eliminate the words "various compounds of" and would not raise any further objections to this part of the Bill, the hop-growers would be only too willing to compromise on this point in the spirit of live and let live, which had ever been the motto of the English tenant farmer. He had an Amendment upon the subject later on the Paper, and he hoped that that Amendment would be accepted in the same spirit.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON thought the word "compounds" too general a term. The chief analyst's opinion was that sulphur dioxide and its preparations were not substitutes for hops, and could not be held to displace hops. Therefore he suggested that the words of the Amendment should be altered to "other than sulphur dioxide and its preparations." If that were done he thought the Government could meet the noble Earl's wishes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH thought there was danger in specifying any particular article lest they thereby excluded others. He was entirely in accord with noble Lords behind him in

823
desiring to exclude the use of anything which was purely a substitute for hops. There were certain articles used, he believed, to a limited extent, which had a bittering but not a preservative effect. All the class of articles which were purely and strictly substitutes for hops ought, in his opinion, to be prohibited. He understood that under the Bill they would be prohibited, and that seemed to him to be entirely right. But he thought it would be wiser and would make the Bill freer from possible litigation if the articles which it was desired to prohibit were specified. There was no doubt that dioxide of sulphur might be said in one sense to be a substitute for hops in respect of its being a preservative. It was a preservative against a class of germ against which hops in large quantities were also a preservative; but if hops were used in such large quantities in the classes of beer for which sulphur dioxide was used the beer would be destroyed to the taste of the people who drank it. He deprecated the specification of any particular article, as Lord Mayo had suggested. He did not understand the difference between compounds of sulphur dioxide and preparations of sulphur dioxide. To the lay mind they seemed very much the same; but it was clear that the more they limited in strict terms the exception in the way proposed the more risk they ran of perfectly harmless substances which were necessary for the brewing trade being prohibited.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): I think it is clear, from what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, that there are two ways in which this matter might be approached. You might either take a schedule excluding certain named substances, or you might take a schedule including one or more named substances and permitting their use. The noble Lord suggested that it would have been better to have had an exclusive schedule, but in that case I do not quite understand why he did not put down such a schedule in the form of an Amendment. When the noble Lord says that an inclusive schedule which contains only this one article, sulphur dioxide, is of rather a dangerous character, that can only be because in his opinion, or in the opinion of his friends, there are some other articles which they want to use and think they may be prevented from using. If not,
824
I do not see the objection to naming what, I think, is the one article which they wish to use and which, by common consent, they ought to be allowed to use. With regard to the term "preparations," that is the term used in the Poisons Acts, and there is, I fancy, a distinct chemical difference between a compound and a preparation. A compound may include other articles, but a preparation means one article prepared in a particular way. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to the Amendment as amended by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO accepted the suggested verbal alteration in his Amendment made by Earl Carrington.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE*VISCOUNT HARDINGE moved to add to the paragraph defining the expression "hop substitute," the words—"and any bitter article or substance, and any preservative other than hops used in the brewing, preparation, or preservation of beer shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been used as a substitute for hops for flavouring or for preservative purposes." He explained that he wished to throw on brewers the burden of proof that any preservatives other than hops which they required to use were not hop substitutes, and therefore did not displace hops.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 24, after the word 'excise,' to insert the words 'and any bitter article or substance, and any preservative other than hops used in the brewing, preparation, or preservation of beer shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been used as a substitute for hops for flavouring or for preservative purposes; '"— (Viscount Hardinge.)
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON said that if the House were prepared to agree to this course the Government did not object. The proposal to put the onus of proof on brewers did not, however, come from the Ministerial side of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON moved to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 2, which provided that "the name of the country and district in which the hops were grown" should be marked on bags of hops, and insert:—" (b) Such particulars as to the

825
place in which the hops were grown as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." He observed that it was very difficult to define areas in foreign countries corresponding to the English district or parish. There would be more elasticity in the procedure proposed in the Amendment, and in accordance with Lord Lansdowne's suggestion the Government were prepared to adopt it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 17 and 18, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) Such particulars as to the place in which the hops were grown as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH objected on general grounds to giving a power of legislation to a Government Department. This was quite contrary to public policy. There was no sort of appeal. He did not know that he would not be satisfied with the decision of some Boards of Agriculture, but he was not certain that he would be satisfied with the decision of a Board presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Hardinge. It might happen that the noble Viscount might be appointed President of the Board of Agriculture, and if that happened he was not at all certain that the noble Viscount would be himself prepared to say that he would approach the consideration of this question in an absolutely judicial spirit. The noble Earl had spoken of elasticity, but he thought it was the business of Parliament to prescribe conditions, and not to leave them to Government Departments.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK protested against the practice of relegating difficult points to Departments for settlement instead of the matters being dealt with by Parliament. He was not sure that the best course would not be to put an end altogether to the requirement that the name of the grower should be marked on hops. This would remove a difficulty in the way of small growers. If it was desired to extend small holdings, it was worth bearing in mind that the growing of small patches of hops seemed to offer one of the best hopes for small holders in Kent. Perhaps the President of the Board of Agriculture would consider the matter before the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Earl ascribed the paternity of this Amendment more or less directly to me. Let me remind the House of what happened with regard to the question of marking bags. We understood that the policy of His Majesty's Government was to place the foreign producer of hops on exactly the same footing as the British producer, and therefore as the English hop-grower has to mark his bags with his name we contended that the foreign hop-grower should also be required to similarly mark his bags; and that was the promise given by Mr. Lloyd-George in distinct terms to the hop deputation.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON dissented.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There can be no doubt about it. I quoted the passage on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill; but I do not in the least wish to pin His Majesty's Government to an obiter dictum of Mr. Lloyd-George's. The noble Earl explained that there was a practical difficulty in giving effect to that pledge, because the foreign hop-grower produced his hops in such small quantities that it was impossible to get them marked in the same way as English hops are marked; and I suggested, in the course of debate, as a possible way out of the difficulty, that if we could not obtain a system of marking for foreign hops exactly corresponding to the system which prevails here, it might be done by some plan which would obtain at any rate full particulars as to the origin of the foreign hops. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but I think the whole difficulty may probably be met by the suggestion made just now by the noble Earl behind me, and which, I understand, finds favour with Lord Hardinge and the other promoters of this Bill—namely, that the whole of these proposals for the identification of packages of hops should be dropped, and that similar treatment should be extended to producers of hops in this country. If the noble Earl accepts Lord Hardinge's Amendment to omit the whole clause, then this discussion becomes rather academic.
LORD HARRIS*LORD HARRIS said he was surprised to hear the suggestion from Lord Cranbrook that it would be a good thing for hop-growers in England if the practice of

827
marking English hops were done away with.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK explained that what he had suggested was that the requirement that the name of the grower should be marked on the hops should be put an end to. He had not suggested doing away with the marking of the county or district.
LORD HARRIS*LORD HARRIS said that English hops had a higher reputation in the market than foreign hops, because under the English system it was possible to trace the hops to the place they were grown and the individual who grew them. That gave an honourable reputation to English hops which foreign hops could not claim, and he was doubtful whether the suggestion made by Lord Cranbrook would be received with favour in some parts of the county in which Lord Cranbrook lived. He was not surprised that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had lost conceit in his word "district." He could not imagine any term more vague. He was advised that there were territorial divisions in Germany, Austria, and France corresponding to the English parish, and that there would be really no difficulty in tracing foreign hops to the parish from which they came. Whether there was a difficulty in the case of foreign hops, in consequence of there being a number of small growers in a territorial area corresponding to a parish, in marking the names of the growers on the pocket, he could not say; but the foreigner was living under a system so elastic now that it was possible for, say, Russian hops to be taken to Bavaria, packed in bags there, and imported into this country as Bavarian hops; or English hops could be sent into one of the best areas on the Continent in which hops were grown, put into bags there, and brought back as hops coming from that particular country. There was no marking on the bags; it was known that this could be done, and therefore foreign hops had not the same reputation as English hops. The effect of the proposal of the Board of Agriculture would be to give a spurious reputation to foreign hops.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The discussion on this point has proved to be an interesting one. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, first made a strong objection, I think on a larger scale than the circumstances
828
warranted, against a matter of this kind being left to the Board of Agriculture, and he pointed out that it might so happen that some President of that Board would be so biassed by local considerations as to deal with the matter in a way of which the noble Lord himself could not approve. We always assume in this House, I think, that everybody on every occasion is absolutely unbiassed by his own interests, and more particularly, I hope, is that the case with those who hold Ministerial office. But I am quite sure that my noble friend behind me has no desire to undertake a responsibility of this kind if a better means can be found of meeting this question. Those who represent the hop industry are not entirely agreed in this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, as I understand, made a suggestion that it might be well in the case of the English grower to drop the regulation that the name of the grower should be placed on the pocket. On the other hand, it was pointed out, I have no doubt with considerable force, that by many growers that necessity is regarded as a most valuable advertisement, and that the dropping of it might not be altogether a popular thing. Then the noble Earl said—at least so I understood him—that the small holder whom he wished to see become a grower of hops was placed at a disadvantage in this country. But is that so? Is there anything in the present law to prevent people growing hops in small quantities on small holdings, sending them to a central kiln to be dried, the pockets being then marked with the single name of the person who had packed the hops into the pockets? As I understand, there is nothing whatever to prevent that being done in this country; and therefore it is not accurate to say that in this respect the English small holder is in a worse position than the foreign small holder. Lord Harris pointed out that at present there was nothing to prevent hops being carted about all over the world, if that is a lucrative thing to do, and taken, say, from Russia to Bavaria and thence exported to this country. The Bill as it stands, at any rate, will prevent that practice being carried on, because the name of the country and district in which the hops were grown must be placed on the pocket.
LORD HARRIS: You are proposing to take those words out.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am coming to

829
that in a moment. The name of the country and district in which the hops were grown must be placed on the pocket, or a fine of £20 may be inflicted. We all know that Russia is not a district of Bavaria, and therefore the particular case which the noble Lord suggested as possible would be prevented by my noble friend's original suggestion in the Bill. If the amended proposal of my noble friend is objected to, he is quite prepared to leave the Bill as it stands. His Department do not think that it is possible to find ally closer term of definition than "district" which would meet the case Lord Harris made. It is very difficult, if not impossible, in their opinion, to put into the Bill such terms as "parish," which do not possess a real analogy in the different countries in which hops are grown. I have no doubt that if any noble Lord can suggest an ingenious form of words which would carry out a somewhat closer definition than appears in the Bill my noble friend will be glad to consider it. But in the circumstances my noble friend, having no desire to have this forced upon him against the wish of the House, will, I have no doubt, withdraw his Amendment.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE*VISCOUNT HARDINGE then moved to leave out Clause 2, which ran—
"2.—(1) No hops shall be imported into the United Kingdom except in bags or pockets having marked on the outside thereof with durable ink or paint in plain and legible words and figures, of not less than three inches in length and half an inch in breadth, the particulars following (that is to say):—

(a) The name of the owner, planter, or grower who packed the hops into the bag or pocket;

(b) The name of the country and district in which the hops were grown;

(c) The year in which the hops were grown; and

(d) The net weight of the hops in the bag or pocket;

and if any hops are imported into the United Kingdom in contravention of this section, the importer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every such bag or pocket.
(2) The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall not permit to be delivered for home use any imported hops unless they are imported in bags or pockets so marked as aforesaid, and there is produced to the Commissioners an invoice of the hops containing such particulars as aforesaid and verified in such manner as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, subject to the consent of the Commissioners so far as any duties may be thereby entailed upon the officers of Customs, and any hops so detained shall be for-
830
feited unless they are exported within fourteen days after the date of the importation or such further period as the Commissioners may allow. Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners by reason of the detention of any hops under this section shall be paid by the importer.
(3) Prosecutions for offences under this section shall be undertaken by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and this section shall have effect as if it was part of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the word importer 'as used in this section shall include any person who, whether as owner, consignor or consignee, agent or broker, is in possession of or in anywise entitled to the custody or control of the hops."
The noble Viscount said he moved this Amendment in consequence of his failure to persuade His Majesty's Government to consent to the deletion of the word "owner," the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture having told them that if they persisted in eliminating the word the Bill would be dropped. The retention of that word in the Bill could have but one effect—that of enabling the foreigner to pursue an entirely different system of marking from that which was carried out in this country, where for over forty years the name of the actual grower had had to be placed on every pocket of hops. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had stated the other day that he based his Bill on the Act of 1866, but Clause 4 of that Act clearly required that the name of the planter and grower of the hops should be marked on the pockets; it made no reference to the owner at all. He therefore failed to see what possible good could accrue to anyone except to the foreigner by proceeding further with this clause. The sole object of the demand of English hop-growers was that all foreign hops coming into this country should be marked with the name of the grower, in accordance with the English custom and in compliance with the undoubted promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hop deputation which waited upon him last year. One object of his demand was to put an end to the iniquitous system of gambling ill "futures." It would also have the effect of putting an end to the system of mixing different grades of hops, and thereby render fraud ill connection with foreign hops as difficult as it now was with English. Again, if the name of any "owner" were allowed to be substituted for that of the actual grower it would be practically impossible to place any efficient check upon foreign hops, for no parcel of hops could be properly identified unless the name of the grower was marked on

831
each package. Since the noble Earl would not consent to the deletion of the word "owner" the hop industry considered that the best course was to abandon the clause altogether and thereby lighten the Bill and assist the Government in passing it through the House of Commons without much opposition in order that it might come into operation on October 1.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 2."—(Viscount Hardinge.)
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON hoped the noble Viscount would not insist upon the Amendment. The noble Viscount had told them that there was an entirely different system of marking English and foreign hops. This showed how a misconception, if constantly repeated, became accepted as a fact. Acts of Parliament on this subject should be read together, and he was informed on the highest legal authority that there was no difference in the system of marking English and foreign hops.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: Are foreign hops marked at all?
EARL CARRINGTON: Of course they are. The bag is marked with the name of the person who puts the hops into the bag or pocket.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: And with the date and origin?
EARL CARRINGTON: Exactly the same rule applies to English hops as to foreign hops.
LORD HARRIS: Is it rule or law?
EARL CARRINGTON: It is the same law.
LORD HARRIS: They are not marked.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: They are not marked at all.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK said it was impossible to do this in the case of foreign hops because there were such numbers of small growers that the names could not be marked. That might mean half a dozen on one pocket. They did not mark them at all.
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON said that there was no reason why the name of the growers
832
should be on the bag in England. It was the custom and a great safeguard for the English grower. The Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that such marking provisions of the Hops Act as were applicable should be applied to imported hops, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill on those lines last year. Now when he was carrying out the pledge given to the hop-growers he found that strong objection was taken to it. The Committee presided over by Sir William Collins found that the two main grievances were substitutes and marking. On the second point, this was the pledge given to the hop-growers throughout the country—Herefordshire and Worcestershire, as well as Kent—and he presumed that they knew last year what they were about and that the marking grievance of last year was a grievance this year. He was bound in honour to stick to the clause. If those who championed the hop industry cut a limb off the Bill they would be responsible, but if necessary he would be bound to take the sense of the House on the question, for if the clause was dropped he was afraid that he might be unable to proceed with the Bill.
LORD HARRIS*LORD HARRIS said that it was hardly necessary for the noble Earl to take so serious and despondent a view about the Bill, even if the middle, instead of a limb, was cut out. What the growers were concerned about was that the foreign hop should be traced to the person who grew it and the place where it was grown. That was imposed by law on the English grower, and all that they asked was that the foreign grower should be put in precisely the same position. Surely, that was not a very extravagant demand. The reply to that was that these people grew their hops in such a way that it was difficult for them to comply with this requirement. If hops could not be imported from those particular districts in consequence of there being a number of small growers, then those districts must go without the advantage of importing hops into England. It would not deprive the English market of foreign hops but only of hops from particular districts where there were a number of small growers, and no doubt the foreign grower would make arrangements to secure the advantage hitherto enjoyed of entering the English market. He was astonished to hear the noble Earl say that it was not necessary for the English grower to put his name on the pocket, for the Act of

833
1866 seemed clear on the point and there was a penalty for any one who put some other name on the pocket. He advised Lord Cranbrook to test the matter next picking by sending up a pocket or two without a name and seeing whether the authorities would prosecute. If this clause was dropped they fell back on the existing system, and if the growers were content why should the noble Earl regard it as a bad compliment to himself? They appreciated to the full the hard work he had given to the Bill. They would rather be without the clause which the noble Earl offered them than have it in the form proposed, with the permission to omit-the name of the grower and the elastic description of the area in which the hops were grown. The reason they objected to the clause was that at present the foreign hop was a disreputable article, and the clause gave it a spurious respectability. At the same time they accepted gratefully the rest of the Bill.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH also supported the omission of the clause, insisting that if they did not put the name of the actual grower on the bag it would be difficult to trace the place of origin. There could be no question as to the promise which Mr. Lloyd-George gave to the hop deputation. Mr. Lloyd-George said—
"I have no fear of the principle which has been impressed upon me by Mr. Bannister—that you should compel these gentlemen to mark their hops with the country of origin and the date of origin. There is nothing unfair in that."
Then Mr. Bannister said, emphatically—
"And the name of the grower, sir; exactly the same as we have to do in all particulars";
to which Mr. Lloyd-George replied—
"Quite right. Whatever conditions you impose on the British grower should be imposed on the foreigner. That is not a departure from Free Trade."
At present there was no means of earmarking foreign hops. Nothing was put on the pockets to show the place of origin, and it was well known in the trade that foreign hops were mixed both in regard to the places from which they came and the date of the crops. The name of the owner had little meaning. It was essential that the name of the grower, as in England, should be placed on the pockets to prevent fraud. There was, in regard to hops, a great deal of gambling in futures. Agents came over to this country and offered to
834
sell hops a great many months ahead, knowing that as they were under no obligation to mark the hops they could describe them in any way they liked, and, if necessary, send over mixed hops. The English grower could not deal in futures in that way because every bag had to be marked, and if the crop was a failure he could not deliver. For these reasons he supported the omission of the clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is some apparent difference as to the state of the law as it stands. My noble friend is advised that it is not, in the strict sense, necessary for the name of the grower to be placed on English hops. On the other hand, the legal advisers of the noble Lords opposite apparently inform them that it is. If they are right it would undoubtedly constitute a difference between the treatment accorded to English and to foreign hops, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Lords opposite are mixing up the law and the practice. It is, no doubt, the English practice, and for reasons which have been explained in this debate it is one which is found most desirable by English hop-growers; but I still maintain that, if small English growers choose to act as the sin all foreign growers do—grow a small quantity of hops, have them collected and dried with others, and placed in bags by one person—the name of that person is the name which would appear on the bags. If that is not so, the aspirations of Lord Cranbrook for hops to be grown by small holders cannot be fulfilled, because they would not be able to carry out the provisions of the law. I hesitate, I confess, to believe that is so. Lord Harris seemed to me to use a somewhat incompatible argument. He objected to the marking of foreign hops, as suggested by Clause 2 of this Bill, because it would give what he called a spurious advertisement to those hops. But I should have thought that if the name of the grower could have been put on that advertisement would have been all the greater and all the more effective, and it is impossible to avoid the suspicion, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, that, knowing as he does that the name of the grower cannot be put On—
LORD HARRIS: I do not know why.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that what

835
noble Lords would like to do is to exclude foreign hops altogether.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, if noble Lords say they do not, I entirely accept their disclaimer. Then Lord Des-borough spoke of the habit which he said existed of mixing hops from different districts, and, I think, even from different countries, and using them for the purpose of gambling in futures. All that would be prevented by this clause, because if the name of the district—
LORD HARRIS: What is the territorial area of "district?"
THE EARL OF CREWE: I should have thought that the interpretation placed upon the word "district" would have been that of the smallest area which could be described by one name. We all know what a district council is in this country; and certainly nobody could say that Bavaria was a district. Speaking quite at random, I should suppose it would be the area answering possibly to the county or whatever might be the parallel area in the particular country.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My point was that if the name of the actual grower was not given it would be difficult to trace the hops. The name of the grower is the important thing.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite understand. But assuming that that cannot be done, I confess I do not follow the argument of Lord Harris that it is better to have nothing at all than to have the clause in the Bill. It may be that the complete safeguard which the noble Lord desires cannot be given, but I should have thought that a very real safeguard is given by this clause; and believing that such would be the view of a great many of those interested in hops in
this country, we are compelled to ask your Lordships to retain this clause in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY Commented on the difference of opinion which prevailed between the President of the Board of Agriculture and his noble friends as to the marking of the packages. The noble Earl held that English hop-growers were not compelled to put their names upon the pockets, but his noble friends behind him argued that they were so compelled. That was a matter on which he would have thought, considering the time that the discussion had lasted, the President of the Board of Agriculture might have made absolutely certain.
THE EARL OF CREWE: He has.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said that, if it was not the law, it was, at any rate, the universal practice throughout England for the name of the grower to be marked on the hops. If the practice was universal it was almost the same as the law; he did not think it made very much difference, and therefore, if they were placing the foreigner on the same footing, the conditions under which the foreigner imported hops should be assimilated to the practice which universally prevailed in this country. His noble friends had also shown that without the insertion of the word "grower" the clause would be useless, and he submitted that in these circumstances no practical advantage would be gained from the passing of a law in the form intended by the Government. As between the Government and their critics, he said that he must accept the view of those who represented the districts concerned, believing that the only reasonable course was to leave out the clause.
On Question, whether the clause proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 17; Not-contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdare, L.

Haversham, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Balfour, L.

Herschell, L.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller]

MacDonnell, L.

Carrington, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pentland, L.

Cromer, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Glantawe, L.

Sanderson, L,

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Morton, E.

Abinger, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Camden, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clonbrock, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Desborough, L. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

Camperdown, E.

Churchill, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cathcart, E.

Hardinge, V. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hutchinson, V.

Saltoun, L.

Eldon, E.

(E. Donoughmore.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mayo, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 124.)

TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS (PREVENTION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved an Amendment in Clause 1 (Landing and selling of fish illegally caught prohibited) striking out the proviso at the end of the clause. The words of the proviso were—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate to impose liability to any other penalties under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in respect of the importation of prohibited goods."
He explained that the effect of the proviso, which was inserted against the Government in Standing Committee, was to relieve notified vessels from their liability to any penalty under the Customs Consolidation Act, except, it would appear, forfeiture of the prohibited fish. Even this was not made clear in the proviso, for by the use of the words "any other penalties" an element of uncertainty was introduced. No penalties had been referred to in the previous part of the clause, and it could not, therefore, be said with any degree of certainty what the precise effect of the proviso might be. The ground on which the Government had consistently resisted the insertion of any such provision was that the result would be to place prohibited fish in a different category from any other prohibited goods referred to in the Customs Consolidation Act and in subsequent statutes which had extended its scope. Where a large staff was concerned it was always undesirable to multiply separate provisions in regard to different articles; but the main reason for retaining powers which doubtless it would not be necessary to exercise was that it was the existence of those powers in the background which
838
enforced compliance with the orders of the Customs Department in regard to forfeiture of prohibited articles. What were the provisions which it was suggested should be excluded? Section 172 provided for the forfeiture of vessels or boats used in the importation, landing, removal, carriage, or conveyance of any uncustomed or prohibited goods. Section 186 provided for heavy penalties upon persons importing or assisting in importing prohibited goods, or delivering, removing, or withdrawing such goods from any ship, wharf, etc., or otherwise assisting in the evasion of the laws prohibiting the importation of such goods. Section 202 gave further power of seizure and detention of boats and persons, and Section 203 made persons refusing to stop or allow examinations when required by Customs officers liable in heavy fines. The Customs Department, however, had full power, under Sections 208 and 209, to exercise a full discretion in regard to all these proceedings, and it was understood that vessels had never been forfeited except in the case of dutiable goods, which prohibited fish were not. In practice the powers complained of would not be exercised, but their exclusion would weaken the executive powers of the Customs officers when desiring to board and detain vessels carrying illegal catches. For that reason the Government objected to their exclusion.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 15 to 18, to leave out the words 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate to impose liability to any other penalties under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in respect of the importation of prohibited goods.' "(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said the proviso was inserted in Standing Committee on the motion of the Duke of Northumberland, who was not able to be present that day and had asked him to state the case for the proviso. In moving to strike out the proviso Lord Pentland had described the use of the words "any

839
other penalties" as introducing an element of uncertainty; but the words which almost immediately preceded the proviso were—
"fish so caught within such areas shall be added to the table of prohibitions and restrictions contained in section forty-two of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876."
Section 42 was quite clear, and provided that if the goods described in the table of prohibitions and restrictions were imported they should be forfeited. Therefore under this section these fish were liable to be forfeited. Then there were certain other penalties which might be imposed under three other sections which Lord Pentland had mentioned. Those penalties were very severe. Under Section 172 the vessel itself might be forfeited; under Section 186 the captain was liable to a fine of £100, and under Section 202 there was another penalty. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that there were certain other additional and heavy penalties which could be enforced under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. He submitted that if it was not intended that these penalties should be enforced in cases arising under the Bill, that ought to be made clear, so that any person affected by the Bill should know what his liabilities were. If it was a fact that the only penalty to which the trawler in these circumstances was to be liable was the forfeiture of the fish, what objection could there be to saying so? He was certainly not on the side of these trawlers himself, but it seemed to him that the persons affected by the Bill ought to be informed what they were really liable to. That was the sole meaning of the proviso, and he hoped their Lordships would retain it.
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH was of opinion that if there was no other sanction behind the authority of the Customs but the confiscation of the fish the commander of a trawler might give a great deal of trouble. If he did give trouble and refused to obey the legitimate orders of the Customs authorities, then he ought to be punished; but he would be punished not for attempting to import prohibited fish, but for disobedience of the lawful orders of the Customs. The retention of the proviso would, he thought, weaken the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said there was not one word in Section 172 of the Act of 1876 about disobeying the orders
840
of the officers of the Customs. It might be declared that it was not the intention to enforce the powers under Section 172. But how were they to know it?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that somewhat too much has been made of these terrible penalties by the noble Earl and by the noble Duke on whose motion the proviso was introduced. As has been pointed out, they apply uniformly to all prohibited goods and not merely to dutiable goods. If one prison-made brush was brought into the country these penalties would apply. I presume that in such a case they would not be exacted. But, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is necessary for the Customs to have behind them these very formidable, though rarely exercised, powers. The noble Earl said just now, quoting from a clause of the Act, that it contained nothing which compelled the officers of the ship to be obedient to the orders of the Customs. No; but it is conceivable that the knowledge that the Customs have these powers would make them infinitely more disposed to be careful to obey the orders of the Customs, whereas if there was no such penalty in the background they might safely defy them. If the argument of the noble Earl is a good one, what he ought to do is not to insert this proviso, but amend the Customs Consolidation Act. Those Acts are full of anomalies of all kinds. I remember that in a debate on the fiscal question, during the term of office of noble Lords opposite, I pointed out that there were provisions in one of the Customs Consolidation Acts which directly sanctioned the imposition of retaliatory duties. These are not, as a rule, applied; indeed, I think they never have been applied. Therefore it seems to me not a very desirable thing to do to break into the symmetry of the Customs Consolidation Act on this point, instead of, if these unused powers are considered to be a grievance, going through the Act as a whole and putting its provisions into a less anomalous form. But I quite agree, on the merits, with Lord Balfour that even in this particular case it is desirable that the Customs should retain these powers, and I therefore hope your Lordships Will consent to my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN intimated that he had intended to vote for the retention of the proviso, but on considering the whole

841
matter he was inclined to support Lord Balfour and the Secretary for Scotland.
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved an Amendment to Clause 3 providing that where it is possible for the Fishery Board to take proceedings under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, for penalties against the master or owner of any British vessel for fishing within the prohibited areas, they shall not notify such vessel to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, as provided by the clause. He said that in the case of genuine foreign trawlers the closing of British ports to the sale of their fish would not be a very serious matter; they would be able to sell the fish at home. British trawlers, however, would suffer much more severely. They could not take their fish elsewhere, and for two months they would be debarred from bringing fish to a British port. The existing law under which a heavy fine could be inflicted on British trawlers was, however, sufficient to deal with their case, and there did not seem to be any necessity for treating them with this increased severity. Another reason for the Amendment was that under the present law the master of the trawler would be summoned before a Court, where he could state his case; under this clause no opportunity whatever was given to the master to be heard in his defence. That was a very serious increase in the penalty against British trawlers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 19, after 'Kingdom' to insert the words 'Provided that where it is possible for the Fishery Board to take proceedings under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, for penalties against the master or owner of any British vessel for fishing within the areas aforesaid, they shall not notify such vessel to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, as provided by this clause.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND opposed the Amendment. It would be highly dangerous to adopt differential legislation for British and foreign trawlers. They must have equal treatment under our laws. The noble Lord would notice in Clause 4 a provision against the application of both procedures to an offender under this Bill —that was to say, there would be no danger of an offender under this Bill being proceeded against under the Bill and also under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act. He urged that to carry out these
842
provisions there must be a summary procedure. No course other than that suggested in the Bill would be effective in stopping illegal fishing in the Moray Firth. It was impossible to proceed under the Herring Fishery Act because that involved laying information, and by the time that could be done the cargo of fish would have been discharged and probably sold by the offending trawler.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 125.)

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEDI- CAL TREATMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, at this late hour I will not detain you for more than two minutes in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and even on the merits of the case I do not think it necessary for me to do so. The object of the Bill is to wipe out a blot that undoubtedly exists in the law. As your Lordships know, under the Education Act of 1907 power is given to a local authority to medically inspect children when they first enter the school, and to provide such medical treatment as the Board of Education may authorise. Both these are at present charged on the rates. This Bill makes no change as regards inspection, but it makes it possible in future for the local authorities to recover the cost of medical treatment from the parent, if the parent can afford to pay it. I lay stress upon the point that the parent must be in a position to afford to pay, and there is in the Bill ample protection for very poor parents. Local authorities have been diffident as to the exercise of this power to any large extent owing to the great charge it would obviously place upon the rates. That, my Lords, is the reason for presenting this Bill. I may add that there is a precedent for the Bill in the Provision of Meals Act, 1906, which gives power to the local authorities to recover from the parents. The Children Act which your Lordships passed last year makes neglect to provide necessary medical treatment

843
an offence under the Act, and this I think, points to the fact that the provision of medical treatment by parents is an obligation which the State recognises. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. It has passed through the other House, and I am quite prepared to believe that in some cases it will have a good effect in inducing local authorities to institute a system of medical treatment when otherwise they might be somewhat nervous about doing so. I think, however, it must be admitted that, like some other measures of this kind, its success will depend very largely on the care and the spirit in which it is administered. It would be very unfortunate if in any locality too hard a construction were placed upon the provision that the parent must pay if he is able to do so. If too hard a construction were placed on that provision I fear it might have the rather dangerous effect of discouraging parents who are really poor if not absolutely indigent from having recourse to this medical treatment for their children. That is really the only criticism I have to make of the measure, that it is one of those for which very sympathetic and reasonable treatment is required on the part of the local authority. I hope that any fears I may have on that side may not be realised, and if that is so I am quite willing to believe that the Bill may prove to be in some respects a useful measure.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I was glad to observe the spirit in which the noble Earl the Leader of the House received this Bill. I have no fault to find with anything he said, and I quite agree with him that the greatest care should be taken by the local authorities in carrying out the Bill. I think, however, that the local authorities may be trusted not to abuse the measure if it becomes law. The Act of 1907 imposed on local authorities the duty of seeing that medical inspection was brought to bear on the children in their schools. It was made compulsory, and consequently in cases where the parents are fairly well off the cost of medical inspection should not be
844
thrown on the rates, which are already greatly overburdened.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess is mistaken, is he not, in thinking that this Bill refers to inspection? I think it refers to medical treatment only.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I meant to say medical treatment. There is a precedent for this in the Provision of Meals Act, and I cannot see any reason why local authorities should be called upon to pay the expenses of the medical treatment of children whose parents are well able to pay. I do not think that any difficulty will arise except in very extreme circumstances. My mind goes back to the Departmental inquiry held at the time I was President of the Board of Education and conducted under the auspices of the late Duke of Devonshire, and I remember that when we went into the question of the feeding of children in the poorer parts of London we found that there were three classes of parents—parents who could pay and would not, parents who felt rather insulted at the proposal that their children should be fed for them, and parents who could not feed their children at all. Again, we find that there are a certain class of parents who desire that their children should not go to the ordinary elementary schools and are prepared to pay fees in respect of education practically the same as that given in the public elementary schools. Recognising that parents who can afford to pay for the education of their children do so in many cases, I think that there is no need for apprehension in regard to the working of this Bill, and that this will be found a satisfactory method of in some way relieving the burden placed upon the shoulders of the ratepayers under the Act of 1907.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

REMISSION OF SURCHARGES (DUBLIN) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, this is a Bill to discharge certain

845
surcharges made upon the accounts of the Municipal Corporation of Dublin. It was introduced into the House of Commons and has passed through all its stages there. It was backed by the four Members of the City of Dublin, and no objection to it was raised in the other House by His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, one clause —Clause 2 (Payment of auditor's costs)—was inserted in the Bill at the instance of the Irish Government. Whether your Lordships think it desirable at this late hour that I should give a detailed justification of a Bill which comes to you with these credentials I am unable to say; but if your Lordships desire that I should enter into a detailed statement I am quite ready to do so.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord MacDonnell Swinford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

TRAFFIC IN DECREPIT HORSES.
The EARL OF MAYO*The EARL OF MAYO rose to call attention to the exportation of decrepit horses to the Continent, and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is no doubt that this traffic exists, and that the reason why the exportation of horses to Holland and Belgium is so large is that it is an imperative necessity for the poorer classes in those countries to have cheap animal food. The Dutch Government prohibit the transit of meat across their frontier, and the Belgian Government, by an Act passed in 1905, allow only live animals to enter their country. This is no new subject. It has claimed the attention of Parliament before. A Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in December, 1908, by Mr. George Greenwood, and supported by eleven other Members of Parliament. In February, 1908, a Bill was presented by Sir Howard Vincent, and another one just before he died in March, 1908.
But before these dates, as long ago as 1898, a deputation was received by Mr. Walter Long, who was then President of the Board of Agriculture. The result of that interview was that the Board of Agriculture issued an Order, dated November 25, 1898, regarding the prohibition of the exportation of unfit horses. That Order pro-
846
vided that it should not be lawful to convey in a vessel from any port in Great Britain any horse which, owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other reason, could not be so conveyed without cruelty during the intended passage and on landing; and penalties were provided if anything were done or omitted in contravention of any of the provisions of the Order. I do not wish to make any comment on that Order. I had thought that that Order would have covered everything, and I was going to urge the noble Earl to put it in force; but I am informed that it only deals with horses on board ship in the direction of seeing that they are properly treated there.
Now let me tell your Lordships what is going on at the present moment. Horses of £5 and under were exported to Belgium in 1904 to the number of 2,475, and in 1907 the number fell to 1,777. The figure in regard to Holland in 1904 was 2,333, but in 1907 that number rose to 15,719. There is a larger number of horses classified by the Board of Agriculture as of £5 in value and under shipped to Holland. This is easily explained because Holland imports these horses only for food; they are under the supervision of the Dutch police, and are slaughtered at the port of entry. The Dutch traffic compares favourably with that to Belgium. The larger proportion of the horses that are sent to Belgium are of the value of £10 and under, as many of them are worked before they are slaughtered. I make no appeal to sentiment, but will let the House draw its own conclusions from the facts.
The ports from which these old and decrepit horses, many of which suffer from horrible complaints, are sent abroad are Hull, Goole, Newcastle, Leith, and the London docks. The traffic has nearly ceased in the London docks owing to the action of the metropolitan magistrates, who have not only enforced fines but have put people in prison for dragging these wretched horses through the streets. On one occasion when an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals came up to some ruffians who were dragging a horse through the streets they fled, leaving the horse, which had to be taken away and slaughtered. I ought to mention that the Wilson Line, one of the largest shipowners in the world, carry the greatest number of these horses. A gentleman who returned from Antwerp yesterday, having been sent

847
there by responsible persons, and who is prepared to corroborate the facts in a Court of Law, states in his report that four boats from Hull, Goole, Newcastle and Leith respectively disembark horses every Monday at Antwerp. Some are in such a bad condition that they have to be taken in wagons to the market, three miles distant from the quay; some are slaughtered on the quay; and some die on the voyage, mainly during the winter months. Before I proceed let me say that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has all these facts before him. I am not springing anything upon him.
The following is a record taken from the report of the Antwerp Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 'to Animals, which has been signed by M. Henri Duflon, the Society's inspector who watches these boats—
"From January 4, 1909, to July 19, 1909. Horses conveyed from the quay in wagons: Hull boat, 86; Goole boat, 34; Newcastle boat, 21; Leith boat, 21—total 162. Horses arrived dead: Hull boat, 9; Leith boat, 2; Goole boat, 2; Newcastle boat, 1—total 14. Horses killed on quay: Hull boat, 2; Leith boat,2— total, 4."
I think that those are terrible statistics. M. Duflon states that—
"On every Monday this year the Hull boat has disembarked horses in such a state as to need transport to the market";
and that the total number of horses shipped to Antwerp from January 4 to July 19 of the present year was—From Hull, 3,305; from Goole, 2,086; from Newcastle, 1,237; from Leith, 408—total, 7,036. That is a not unimportant trade which brings large profits to the people who deal in it. These men go round the country and when they find wasted and broken-down horses, suffering, it may be, from horrible complaints, they purchase them for very small sums indeed.
M. Joseph Moulekers, the secretary of the Antwerp Society, states that twenty per cent. of the horses arriving in Antwerp are in a lamentable state and unable to stand transport. I must now dot my i's and cross my t's in this matter, and I will therefore read to your Lordships exactly what this gentleman, who returned from Antwerp yesterday, saw. He states—
"The following cases I saw myself on Antwerp quay this week: Roan gelding with much swollen sore foot hound up with sacking, and stinking
848
horribly. Dark brown mare in similar condition. Grey mare with neglected open tumour on elbow. Horse with open wound on fetlock, discharging freely and much flyblown. Horse with overshot fetlock. Pony in similar condition, and must have been so for some months. Bay gelding with bind fetlock bowed. Horse very lame through deformity of foot. Horse with foreleg bowed."
He also saw a black gelding about sixteen years old, blind in both eyes, lame in both hind legs, and in an extreme state of exhaustion. Owing to blindness it had knocked itself about badly on the boat, and its head was covered with bleeding cuts. When led on the quay it walked into an iron pillar and gave itself another wound on the nose. The Antwerp officials were astonished that such an animal should have been embarked. This gentleman spent four and a-half days making inquiries as to the fate of the animals when purchased, and he asserts that beyond doubt many of them ate put to do more work. The dealers travel regularly, some of them weekly, between Belgium and Great Britain, and one man of East Dereham admitted to this gentleman that he had a slaughterer's licence. That is not fair, because, of course, men with these licences can purchase horses presumably for slaughter and can then convey them to the docks and ship them abroad. The three points which my informant lately from Antwerp wishes to emphasise are—

"(1) That many sellers of old horses in England are deceived by the dealers who ostensibly purchase the animals for slaughter.

(2) That in the case of about 75 or 80 per cent. of the animals shipped to Antwerp there is cruelty in England in subjecting them to the risk of being put to Further work.

(3) That many of the horses I have seen arrive at Antwerp must have been suffering in England for a considerable time."

I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that I desire to interfere with the trade in old horses for food if they are sound and if the Belgian and, Dutch people choose to eat this meat; but it is disgusting to think that these diseased and stinking horses should be made into sausages.
I feel a certain amount of shame at having to mention it in public that Great Britain should permit such a horrible trade as that to which I have called attention to go on, but I have thought it my duty to bring it before this House, and I hope we shall have a satisfactory statement on the subject from the noble Earl. We in Ireland are lovers of horses. The

849
breeding and training of horses is one of our chief industries. Two years ago I was asked to call attention to this matter in Parliament because of the gathering together of a lot of "old crocks" for this purpose on a certain field near Dublin. The attention of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was directed to the matter, but the horses disappeared and the people could not be got at. This is a traffic which is carried on in the early morning and late at night, and your Lordships can imagine the sort of low-class horse "copers" who do this work. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will conclude by thanking the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture for affording me the opportunity of directing his attention to this matter, and by moving for the Return asked for in my Motion.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return relating to the export of decrepit horses to the Continent in the following form:—

Number of Horses at each Port.

Shipping Firm.

Exporter.

Whether Inspected or not.

—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Earl has gone so fully into this matter that it will be necessary for me to say very little. But as a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals I desire to say that we welcome the Motion which the noble Earl has moved, and that I endorse all he has said. The noble Earl gave the credit for the great reduction in this traffic at the London docks to the metropolitan magistrates, but I should like to say that great credit is due also to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as nearly all these cases are brought forward by their inspectors. The inspectors are greatly hampered in their work because, as the noble Earl has said, these horses are often moved at midnight and in the early morning to avoid public scandal and also to avoid the inspectors. Moreover, the inspectors cannot follow the horses beyond the dock gates, as they are then on private ground. But, in spite of the
850
difficulties under which their inspectors work, the Society have since 1902 obtained no fewer than 635 convictions in this trade alone. I do not wish to say more, but I would urge the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture to provide several qualified veterinary inspectors to put an end to this disgraceful traffic.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must confess that since I have been at the Board of Agriculture I have been rather uneasy about this trade, owing to the unsatisfactory reports about it which have reached the Office. I honestly think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl for having brought this matter forward. The Motion of the noble Earl and the action which has been taken by the newspaper Press, by those public-spirited men and women who have spared no pains to elicit the truth in the matter, and last, but not least, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, have enormously strengthened the hands of the Board in dealing with it, and I can assure the House that we shall make the fullest possible use of the assistance which has thus been afforded us.
I may say that this morning, with the sanction of the Treasury and the approbation of the Prime Minister, I have been empowered to obtain the services of a special veterinary inspector, who will be appointed at once, and the whole of whose time will be devoted to the enforcement of the provisions of the Order and the supervision of the work of the local authorities. This inspector will begin his work, I hope, during the present week. We have got our eye upon a man specially qualified, and I think he will make a very valuable official. The requirements of the Order are emphatic enough, but everything depends upon the manner in which those requirements are interpreted and carried out in practice. There have been cases, I must admit, in which much too sanguine a view has been taken of the capacity of a horse to travel during the intended passage and on landing without cruelty, and I am determined that these cases shall not recur. The special inspector will, therefore, be instructed to secure the adoption of a much higher standard of capacity to travel than has hitherto been the case and to bring about a uniform inspection at all the ports.
I am confident that I can count on the

851
co-operation of the shipowners, and I am pleased to say that from no source have I received any complaints as to the way these old horses are carried when once they are on board ship. I think I may say that the shipowners have so far satisfactorily carried out the regulations as regards accommodation on board ship. We shall also press upon the local authorities the necessity of employing an increased number of veterinary inspectors for the purpose of enabling them to enforce the Order; and our own inspectors will be instructed to take more frequent voyages in order to see for themselves the condition of the horses on arrival. I hope the House will see that we are in absolute earnest in this matter, and I am hopeful, indeed confident, that the measures we have taken will secure the required result. If not, I shall be prepared to ask Parliament for further powers. In conclusion I may say, not only on behalf of my own Office, but the whole Government, that we are determined that nothing shall be done to impair the reputation which this country happily enjoys throughout the civilised world for its humanity and sense of what is right in all matters in which animals are concerned. I shall be glad to give any Papers that we possess.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the answer which the noble Earl has just given is, in my opinion, very reassuring. I set great importance upon more veterinary inspectors being appointed, and the further statement of the noble Earl that if the steps he has now foreshadowed do not achieve the desired result he will ask Parliament for further powers is absolutely satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.] (No. 126.)
A Bill to provide for the appointment of women as members of visiting committees for prisons in Scotland: And

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.] (No. 127.)
A Bill to remove doubts as to the manner in which accused persons may be detained in custody pending trial under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908:
Were presented by The Lord Pentland; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am requested to state that it is proposed to hold a formal sitting to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock to receive and read a first time the Labour Exchanges Bill, and that afterwards, except for judicial business, the House should adjourn until Tuesday next, there being no business on the Paper for Monday.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, Eleven o'clock.