Sitting of 14 July 1910

Preamble
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table (Sir COURTENAY ILBERT) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition, from this day's sitting:—
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow (Friday).
Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order Bill,
Third Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Montrose Water, etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till
Monday next at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Consideration deferred till to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended] [Provisional Order confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Havant Gas Bill [Lords],
Padstow Harbour Bill [Lords],
Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to—
Norwich Charities (No. 2) Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Belfast Corporation Bill,
Cardiff Railway Bill, without Amendment,
South Hants Water Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Great Central Railway Bill [Lords],
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to King's County and the county of Tipperary (North Riding)." [Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, Milnrow Urban District Council Tramways, and Rawtenstall Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled. "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Barnstaple Water, Chelsham and Woldingham Water, East Kent District Water, and South Kent Water." [Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and

585
Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Brownhills and District Gas, Builth Wells Gas, Chertsey Gas, Cranleigh Gas, and Llanidloes Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Ripley Gas, Rowley Regis and Blackheath Gas, Sheffield Gas, and Swansea Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Rhyl, Torquay, and Worthing." [Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time: referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No 1) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: In moving "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments," I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that these Amendments are of a drafting character and do not affect the measure in substance.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS AND RETURNS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow (Friday).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  German Naval Act (Shipbuilding Programme).
  Mr. VERNEYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what was the shipbuilding programme put by the German Government into the Naval Act which is now in force; what was the date of that Act; and whether the rate of shipbuilding for the German navy has been accelerated or retarded, and, if so, by how much, or whether it has been continued in accordance with the provisions of that Act?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I will answer this question. According to the Fleet Laws of 1900, 1906, and 1908, the German Fleet should consist in 1920 of:—

  38 battleships under 20 years old.

  20 armoured cruisers under 20 years old.

  38 small cruisers under 20 years old.

  144 destroyers under 12 years old.

  The programme of shipbuilding, however, provides for the following numbers in 1920:—

  39 battleships.

  19 armoured cruisers

  44 small cruisers.

  144 destroyers.

  It is understood that the numbers will be adjusted to those of the Fleet Law after 1920 as ships become due for replacement. There is a provision in the Law by which money assigned to any ship can be spent on any other ship. I do not know of any case of retardation, but if by acceleration is meant that the construction of t lie vessel has been completed before the beginning of the financial year in which part of the money assigned is voted, then such acceleration has taken place.

  Persian Affairs (Papers).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state when he will lay upon the Table further Papers on the affairs of Persia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I will consider the question of laying further Papers before the close of the year and during this Session.

  Persia and Russian Merchandise.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reports from the British agents showing that at Nedief, in Persia, the clergy have placarded the walls of the city with an invitation to the public to boycott all Russian merchandise, or as to this movement?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  Sultan of Morocco (Cruel Punishments).
  Mr. COWANasked whether the Sultan of Morocco recently addressed to the representatives of the European Powers a voluntary letter, in which he solemnly undertook to suppress all cruel punishments; whether, subsequently, Mulai Hafid caused the wife of Haj Ben Aissa, the late Governor of Fez, to be cruelly tortured to compel her to disclose the place of concealment of certain moneys and jewels; whether her mother has died in consequence of similar torture; and whether, considering the long series of like atrocities which Mulai Hafid has perpetrated, His Majesty's Government has come to any understanding with the Government of the French Republic with a view to bringing effective pressure to bear upon the Sultan to compel him to conform to the practice of civilised States, and to obtain effective guarantees for the abolition of torture in Morocco?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot from official information add to the accounts which have appeared in the Press of these tortures, but I regret to say that there is nothing in such information as has reached me which tends to show that the statements made are untrue. His Majesty's Government would, of course, be most ready to co-operate in any action which is practicable and likely to be effective in putting a stop to such cruelties, but the whole question of improving the internal ad-
  588
  ministration of Morocco is one of great difficulty.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will he say whether he will do all he can to prevent money being advanced to this potentate?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that anyone is advancing any money.

  Lado Enclave (Belgian Garrisons).
  Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the Lado Enclave has been completely evacuated by the Belgian garrisons; and whether the administration is now being conducted by British officials?
  Sir E. GREY: The Lado Enclave was formally handed over on the 16th ultimo to the Soudan Government, who have now assumed the administration of the province.

  Putumayo Valley (South American).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information that the Commission of Inquiry which the Peruvian Company propose sending out to the Putumayo Valley, South America, has yet been formed; and, if so, what are its terms of reference?
  Sir E. GREY: The composition of the Commission has not yet, as far as I am aware, been finally determined.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to when the Commission is likely to set out?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.

  Russo-Japanese War (Russian Fleet and British Ships).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received information respecting the acts contrary to the law of nations committed by the Russian naval forces during the war with Japan in 1904–5, in sinking the "Knight Commander" and the "Hip-sang," and in burning the "Oldhamia," and thus destroying the most material evidence for the Prize Court; whether His Majesty's Government still propose to submit to these acts without insisting upon due reparation; what steps have been taken to procure such reparation; what steps are His Majesty's Government now taking; and when does he propose to lay upon the Table of this House the correspondence relating to these cases?
  Sir E. GREY: I am waiting to receive the full text of the judgment on the last of these cases still outstanding. I expect to receive this soon, and shall then consider what further communication should be made to the Russian Government respecting them. I must, however, point out that as long as the difference of opinion, which was disclosed at the Hague Conference of 1907, exists amongst nations as to what is the law of nations respecting the sinking of neutral prizes by belligerents, and as long as the final decision in such cases rests with the Prize Courts of the belligerent Power, there will be constant risk of such cases recurring with repetition of the same difficulty in settling them.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will His Majesty's Government consider the propriety of inviting the Russian Government to submit these cases, and those of a similar kind to arbitration?
  Sir E. GREY: I think the "Oldhamia" is the last, but in any case as soon as that is received the question of a request that they should be submitted to arbitration will arise.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are still outstanding claims for compensation in respect of British ships of four, five, or six years ago?
  Sir E. GREY: In some cases of claim compensation has been awarded, and some cases have been settled. In all cases the decision is now given by the Russian Prize Courts, and I have not yet received the full text of the decisions. These are the cases which are referred with regard to which they are not satisfied, and I shall have to consider what further communication we shall make.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Are there any other cases of this kind than the three I have taken of actual sinking?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that Question.

  Carrowduff Estate, County Roscommon.
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Mr. Charles Craig)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state on what grounds the Estates Commissioners have refused to carry out the agreement for sale entered
  590
  into by Sir Henry Burke with Michael Flynn, one of his tenants on the townland of Carrowduff, county Roscommon; whether he is aware that the judicial rent at the time of the attempted sale was £69, and that the Estates Commissioners refuse to advance more than £250, or about three and a half years' purchase, for the holding; whether he is aware that the surrounding tenants are willing to buy the farm through the Estates Commissioners at a price of £1,000; and whether he will call on the Estates Commissioners to reopen the case?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This estate was sold by Sir Henry Burke to the Estates Commissioners, who have no knowledge of any agreement for sale entered into between him and Michael Flynn. Before the Commissioners entered, into negotiations for the purchase of the estate Flynn agreed to surrender the evicted farm which he bolds for a sum to be fixed by the Commissioners, who offered him £250, not as an advance for the purchase of the fee simple, but as compensation for the surrender of his interest in the tenancy. Flynn, however, declined to accept this amount. He subsequently agreed with the adjoining tenants to sell his interest in the farm to the Commissioners, but when a scheme for its division was prepared he refused to carry out this arrangement also. The Commissioners have no information as to the alleged willingness of the adjoining tenants to give £1,000 for the farm.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Estates commissioners to make inquiries?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will.

  Registration of Midwives (Ireland).
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Chief. Secretary for Ireland whether he proposes to introduce a measure dealing with midwives in Ireland on the lines of the legislation already in operation in England, subject to the necessary modifications to meet special Irish conditions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject, at all events during the present Session. I would point out that there is not the same urgency in the matter in Ireland as in England, having regard to the powers which boards of guardians in Ireland already possess.

  Land Sales (County Clare).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. William Redmond)asked what is the number of land sales under the Act of 1905 in county Clare to date, giving the number of the estates sold, the number of tenants purchasing, and the amount of purchase money paid and agreed to, together with the average number of years' purchase paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In direct sales under the Act of 1903 proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of 248 estates in county Clare comprising 5,921 holdings for a total purchase money of £1,602,216, the average number of years' purchase being 20.7. Advances have been made in the case of seventy-nine of these estates, comprising 1,098 holdings, with a total purchase money of £332,147, the average number of years purchase being twenty-one. In addition the Estates Commissioners have purchased, or agreed to purchase, thirty-three estates for a total purchase money of £145,120. Of these thirteen estates have been re-sold to 215 tenants for a total sum of £79,752. Proceedings are pending for the purchase of sixteen estates by the Commissioners.

  Labourers' Cottages, County Clare.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. William Redmond)asked what is the number of labourers' cottages in county Clare which are at present being erected under the Labourers' Act and the number for which schemes have been approved?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On 31st March last there were 620 cottages provided under the Labourers Acts in county Clare, 400 in course of construction, and 180 authorised and yet to be built. One thousand three hundred and four cottages have been authorised for county Clare since the passing of the first Act in 1883, but for various reasons 104 of these have been abandoned by the local authorities.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Constable Treacy).
  Mr. REDDY (for Mr. Delany)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will order a magisterial investigation into the charges preferred against Constable Treacy, lately stationed at Clonaslee, Queen's County, seeing that the evidence of eight independent witnesses is forthcoming charging this constable with incitement to crime and outrage on three distinct occasions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As the hon. Member has already been informed, this matter has been investigated by two experienced police officers. The constable has been transferred to another county, and I see no reason for any further inquiry.
  Mr. REDDY (for Mr. Delany)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, at the inquiry held on 19th April at Clonaslee, Queen's County, by District-Inspectors O'Connor, Kanturk, and Wallace, Cappawhite, into the charges of incitement to crime and outrage preferred against Constable Treacy, the evidence was taken on oath; and whether he will lay a copy of the report of those two police officers and the minutes of evidence upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Evidence was not taken on oath at the inquiry referred to. I do not propose to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the report of the officers who conducted the inquiry.

  Art Gallery (Dublin).
  Mr. STEPHEN GWYNNasked the Chief Secretary of Ireland if he proposes to introduce and pass a Bill giving to Dublin the same power to provide and maintain an art gallery as has already been granted to Belfast, and to prevent the possible loss of the admirable collection of modern art which private generosity and enterprise has secured to the metropolis of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The difference between Belfast and Dublin is that the rate which can be struck in Dublin for the purposes of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, including the provision of such a gallery, is limited by the Public Libraries Act (Ireland). 1855 to one penny in the pound, whilst in Belfast that limit has been extended by a local Act to twopence in the pound. The present art gallery in Dublin, which contains many valuable and interesting pictures which have attracted art students from all parts, owes its existence to the taste and generosity of Sir Hugh Lane, to whom most of the pictures belong. It is, in my judgment, a matter of great importance that the gallery should be placed on a permanent financial basis, and I am willing to introduce a Bill extending the penny limit in the case of all county boroughs in Ireland if I could be assured that the Bill would be treated as non-contentious. Otherwise I cannot move in the matter.

  Artisans' Dwellings (Omagh).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that some time ago the Omagh Urban Council promoted a scheme for the erection of artisans' dwellings and the acquisition of other such dwellings within their district, and that the Local Government Board inquiry into this scheme was held so far back as the first week of March last, and that there was at that inquiry evidence of the most appalling condition of the housing of the working classes in that town; and whether, seeing that there has been no Report or Provisional Order since made, he will say what is the cause of the delay, in view of the need for a remedy for the existing state of affairs?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The application before the Local Government Board in this case is not for a Provisional Order, but for sanction to a loan. Owing to the great pressure in consequence of the number of schemes promoted under the Housing Act of 1908 by the various local authorities, the Board have not yet found it practicable to deal with the report of the inspector, but they hope to be in a position to communicate their decision to the Council in the course of a few days.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get this scheme agreed to? It is very urgent.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no doubt.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. SCANLANasked whether Sarah Kilcullen, of Carrowcullen, Skreen, county Sligo, is entitled to her pension, allowed by the local pension committee under the Old Age Pensions Act, pending a decision of the Local Government Board on a question as to her age referred to the said Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This case does not appear to have come before the Local Government Board on appeal, and I have, therefore, no information with regard to it. I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who answers for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state why the old age pension of Mrs. Mary Hannay, widow, Carrownamodhu, Ballisodare, county Sligo, has been refused by the Local Government Board; and whether he
  594
  is aware of the facts that her age has been proved to be over seventy-one years and that she has practically no means of subsistence?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. Hannay's claim was disallowed by the Local Government Board in January, 1909, under Section 2 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act. If she can now prove that her means do not exceed the statutory limit it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
  Mr. SCANLANasked upon what grounds the Local Government Board, on 29th April, 1910, stopped the old age pension of Mrs. Bridget Healy, of Carrownamodhu, Ballisodare, county Sligo; and whether, in this case, the local pension officer, Mr. Fraser, Sligo, ascertained that by the Census Returns of 1841 she was of the qualifying age, but was reported under age in the Census Returns of 1851?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only Mrs. Bridget Healy whose case, appears to have come before the Local Government Board from county Sligo lived near Ballisodare, and her case was reported on by a pension officer named Smith. She did not appear in the Census Returns of 1841, and could not furnish any evidence that she had attained the statutory age. Her claim was, therefore, disallowed.

  Commissioners of National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of filling up the present vacancy in the Board of Commissioners of National Education by appointing a representative of the National Teachers' Organisation to the vacancy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When filling the vacancy referred to, the Irish Government will have regard to all the interests concerned.

  School Attendance (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALE (for Mr. Gordon)asked what was the average attendance for the past year; what was the amount of salaries paid to the teaching staff by the Commissioners of National Education in each of the following schools in the neighbourhood of Cookstown, namely, Drumshambo, Toberlane, Glenarney, Drumnamalta, and Oritor, respectively; and whether the Commissioners have reconsidered their refusal to take Oritor school in connection with the national system?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the average attendances at the first four schools mentioned in the question were respectively thirty - nine, thirty - three, twenty-seven, and twenty-six, and that the salaries paid to the teachers were £109 15s., £149 5s., £69 15s., and £135 10s. The last-named school is not a national school, and no salaries were paid by the Commissioners to the teachers. At a meeting on the 12th instant the Commissioners decided not to take that school into connection with the Board.

  Indian Students in England.
  Sir MARK STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary for India if he is aware that parents in India, and many interested in Indian students, desire that there should be more adequate machinery in London and at the university than at present exists for guiding and advising Indian students in this country; and, if so, if he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The Secretary of State has established an Advisory Committee in London, of which Lord Ampthill is chairman, and a Bureau of Information for Indian students under the charge of a specially qualified educational adviser. The hon. Member will find full information on the subject in my predecessor's Budget, statement on 5th August. of last year, and I propose to make a statement on the present position in my Budget statement.
  Sir MARK STEWART: Will they be careful as to whom they appoint in charge of these young men in London?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Lord Ampthill's committee will consider both educational and moral questions. The whole case will be very carefully dealt with in my statement.

  Secondary Education (Southport).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the demand for a secondary school for boys in Southport and of the disadvantage felt by working-class families through the absence of such a school; and whether he can take some early step to establish one?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The provision of a public
  596
  secondary school for boys in Southport is a matter which the Board have been pressing on the education authority for some years, but so far without success. As the hon. Member is aware, the Board have no power to force local authorities to make provision of this kind, and the Matter rests finally with the authorities themselves and with the ratepayers whom they represent. The Board are continuing to urge upon the authority in this case the desirability of establishing a secondary school for boys.

  Assisted Emigration.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Fischer, the Union (South Africa) Minister of Lands, that he does not disagree with the refusal of the Home Government to assist immigrants to the Colonies because assisted immigrants are not likely to be desirable settlers; whether the Government accepts Mr. Fischer's conclusion respecting the status of assisted emigrants; whether he is aware that 9,140 persons (men, women, and children) have been emigrated by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London between 23rd November, 1905, and 31st May, 1910, which emigration has been carried out under the direct sanction of Parliament; whether he has received any complaint from any of the Governments representing the countries to which those emigrants have been sent suggesting that the persons selected for emigration by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London under the provisions of the Unemployed Workman Act, 1905, have not proved themselves desirable settlers; and, if so, whether he will communicate the same to the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I have seen a Press telegram giving the substance of a speech to this effect by Mr. Fischer. No complaints have been received by the Secretary of State with regard to emigrants sent out by the Central (Unemployed) Body. Such emigrants are dealt with on arrival by the Colonial authorities, who are not subject to the control of His Majesty's Government in this matter and make no report to the Secretary of State.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these emigrants are sent out under Act of Parliament?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course, the authorities were permitted by the Unemployed Act to devote funds to this purpose.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is the bearing of the new regulations in Canada on the provisions of the Act as applied to emigration?
  Colonel SEELY: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the whole question of the exclusion of assisted emigrants in so far as they will not work on the land, is under consideration. I do not think it would be advisable to go into a technical discussion of the particular bearing of Acts of Parliament in a matter of such very great importance, and on which I hope we shall soon arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

  Secondary School Accommodation (Oswestry).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether it has been decided to provide a secondary school for boys at Oswestry, where there is already an ancient grammar school; whether he will take steps to prevent the commencement of any such secondary school pending a possible agreement as regards fees and curriculum between the managers of the grammar school on the one hand and the Board of Education and the local education authority on the other; and whether he will receive representations from the grammar school authorities with regard to the matter?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: With regard to the first part of the question, the local education authority have declared their intention of providing a secondary school for boys, and it is understood that they have already taken some steps towards making this provision. With regard to the second part of the question, the Board have been endeavouring during the past two years to persuade the governors of the grammar school to make such arrangements as would obviate the necessity for further provision for boys in Oswestry, but without success. With regard to the third part of the question, the Board in December, 1909, invited the governors to confer with their representatives, but the governors have so far failed to take advantage of this offer. It is, however, still open to the governors to approach the Board on the subject. I cannot say without inquiry precisely what stage the preparations of the local education authority for the provision of a secondary school for
  598
  boys have reached, but if the governors take the step now suggested promptly it may still be possible to effect an arrangement, which has always been desired by the Board and the local education authority, whereby the grammar school would supply all the needs of secondary education for boys as is the case with similar ancient foundations in the same county.

  Post Office Mail Contractors.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Messrs. M'Namara and Company, mail contractors, of Castle Street, Finsbury, employ men on pair-horse services for seventy-two hours a week at 27s. a week, other men on single-horse services for seventy-two hours a week for 25s. a week, early morning part-services of double shifts for from 18s. to 20s. a week, odd men at 4d. per hour, and Sunday work for part-services and odd men at the same rate; and, in view of the fact that these rates of wages are in all cases less than 6d. per hour, what steps he proposes to take in the matter to enforce the payment of fair wages by contractors to His Majesty's Government?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The wages paid to their drivers by the mail cart contractors referred to by the hon. Member for a full duty of seventy-two hours a week are those settled in 1907 as satisfying the requirements of the Fair Wages Clause. In addition the drivers receive uniform, the prime cost of which amounts to over 1s. 3d. a week. During a considerable part of the period of employment the men are not actually engaged driving, but are waiting. These wages and hours compare favourably with those of other employers who are not contractors to the Post Office, and show a considerable improvement on conditions prevailing under Post Office contracts prior to 1907. The question of improving the conditions of employment of the other drivers, part-time and casual, referred to by the hon. Member, has already been engaging my attention, and early this month I caused a communication to be addressed to these contractors on the subject.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will kindly say what weekly wages these men actually receive and also whether he is aware that the conditions of work as regards the men engaged in the part-services are such that it is not possible for them at any time to have more than eight hours off duty?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was not aware of what the hon. Member states in the last part of the question, but I will inquire into the matter. As regards wages, I believe the statement in the question is correct.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Messrs. M`Namara and Company, mail contractors, of Castle Street, Finsbury, are in the habit of requiring their men to return their old uniforms, trousers excepted, on the issue of new clothes, and that men have been fined for not doing so; by what authority are they entitled to require the return of old uniforms or to impose fines in the case of their non-return; and what becomes of the money received in fines and of the old uniforms returned?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The existing contract with Messrs. M`Namara and Company does not provide for old uniforms being retained by the men, and the contractors have been allowed to renovate and use them for casual drivers, for whom special uniforms are not supplied. In cases where uniforms have not been returned fines have been imposed by the contractors to balance the loss they have thereby incurred. Proposals are under consideration which may make it possible for drivers in the regular employment of the London mail cart contractors to retain their old uniforms.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether other firms doing work of this kind divide the money for the benefit of the men, and whether they render any account of the money they receive in fines?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General if he will inform the House as to the conditions under which odd men have to wait at Messrs. M`Namara's and Company, mail contractors, Castle Street, Finsbury, from 1.45 a.m. onwards, of the accommodation provided for them in wet and cold weather, and of the number of men in general for whom accommodation is required?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The casual drivers who attend Messrs. M`Namara's premises at 1.45 a.m. receive a retaining fee of 8d. for the attendance alone, and take their turn upon the work which falls to this class of drivers according to the position they secure on the list by means of drawing lots. They use the kitchen on
  600
  the contractors' premises appropriated to the drivers, of whom there are about thirty. The room is sufficiently large to accommodate this number, and a fire is provided during the winter months. A caterer is, I understand, in attendance to furnish the men with refreshment at low prices.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances in which these men are employed, and also whether it would not be possible for the Post Office to undertake the work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; there are very serious objections to the Post Office undertaking any of the mail cart work. One reason is that it would require a large capital expenditure for the erection of places where the carts might be kept and for the stabling of the horses. That is an expenditure which we think should not be undertaken at a time when motor traction is still in process of development.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is it not a fact that a Departmental Committee suggested that the chiefs of the Post Office should make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member for Hoxton?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not gather what inquiry the hon. Member desires me to make.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that the Department could perform the work much better than contractors?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The reason I have stated and other reasons preclude the Department from undertaking this work.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider the possibility of having an inquiry into the whole circumstances of employment in the case of this particular firm?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is an inspector in the Post Office who does nothing else but inquire into conditions of work under contractors. He is in touch with the contractors to the Post Office, and we are fully informed as to the conditions of employment under this firm. I have in the last few weeks made representations to that firm in respect of certain abuses, or what appeared to be abuses, arising in their employment, and I am awaiting their reply.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire at the County Council whether their places could be made available for stabling horses if the Department undertook this work?

  Post Office Motor Vans (Speed).
  Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General if he will state whether Post Office motor vans are limited to any particular speed when passing houses in the country; and whether he has received any complaints from householders as to the excessive speed used?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Post Office motor vans are subject to the usual legal limits of speed. On all the more important motor mail services, where the weight of the mails is considerable, the motor vans weigh more than two tons unladen and are "heavy motor cars" within the meaning of Article 7 of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904. The legal limit of speed for these vans is twelve miles an hour. Few complaints as to excessive speed have been received.

  Sale of Stamps (Booklets).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in India there is no extra charge or deduction of a stamp in the sale of stamps in booklets, that sixteen one-anna stamps, or thirty-two half-anna stamps, or half and half, are given for one rupee, and that specially prepared paper is inserted between the stamps to prevent sticking; and whether, in view of the fact that no advertisements are inserted in the booklets and that the rupee is frequently not worth 1s. 4d. on exchange, he will state on what grounds the purchaser of stamp booklets in the United Kingdom is compelled to pay more than the face value of the stamps issued?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the circmstances to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no information as to the cost incurred by the Indian Post Office. If the books were issued in this country at the face value of the stamps, under the present conditions there would be a considerable loss of revenue, which would increase as the sale of the books increased; but, as I informed the hon. Member a few days ago, I am giving special consideration to the question whether the present conditions of production and sale can be improved.
  Mr. BOLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the
  602
  German Government is going to issue, in October, stamp booklets giving purchasers value in stamps for the money actually paid? I have here in my hand an official dummy copy of the booklet showing that the purchaser will get full value.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I was not informed of that, but I hope it may be possible to increase the revenue from advertisements, and to realise what I know is the general desire of the public.
  Mr. BELLOC: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been particularly called to the fact that the paper now used between the stamps is unsuitable? It is a small point, but it is very important.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is being considered in connection with the new contract.
  Mr. BOLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the British Post Office is the only Post Office in the world that goes in for issuing advertisements? In the case of India, apparently without advertisements, the full face value is supplied.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That shows the high business qualities of the British Post Office. They endeavour to meet the loss on issuing these stamps as far as possible by revenue from advertisements.
  Mr. BYLES: May I ask whether the charges for postcards and newspaper covers in this country could not be removed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is another question. It is also under inquiry.

  Outport Watchers (Clyde).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Customs outport watchers on the Clyde are paid lower rates than those on the Thames doing similar work; and, if so, when he proposes to rectify this inequality by advancing the wages of the former?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The position is that the wages of Customs watchers in London are 24s. a week, while all other ports (including the Clyde ports) the wages are 21s. a week; but one-fourth of the total number of watchers at such ports are allowed to rise by 1s. a week per annum

  603
  to 24s. a week. I am not prepared to propose any change in the amount of pay of watchers on the Clyde, who cannot be considered apart from the whole Service.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these men on the Clyde are paid less than the men on the Thames?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is generally known that the expenses of living in London are greater than in any other town.

  Government Appointments without Examination.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can grant the Return standing on to-day's Order Paper in the name of the Member for the Isle of Wight, showing the number of Government officials appointed without examination by the Civil Service Commissioners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The preparation of a Return of all appointments made from 1906 to the present time and of the rank and salaries of the persons appointed would necessitate the collection of information from a number of Departments, and its value would not, in my opinion, be commensurate with the labour involved.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is there any reason to conceal the number of appointments they have made without previous examination?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As far as I know, no. Of course, I am not responsible for that. I am only responsible for the collection of the information from the other Departments. As pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, that would involve a great deal of time and labour.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general feeling throughout the country that these appointments are made for political purposes?
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it not perfectly possible that this Return could be given without very much inconvenience?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the information I have received.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the Secretary to the Treasury aware that several Departments have already, in answer to questions which I have put in the House, given
  604
  the very information asked for now, and, if so, what is the difficulty in compiling this Return?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was not aware of that, and I am not aware of it now.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: You can take it from me that that is so.

  Traffic in Worn-Out Horses.
  Captain FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether, seeing that many worn-out horses are shipped from ports in Great Britain and Ireland to other ports in the United Kingdom and there transhipped to Continental steamers, he can include in the contemplated Bill regulations to prevent this traffic?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The President of the Board in another place proposes to put down some Amendments to the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, which, if adopted, will give the Board further powers to deal with the coastwise traffic.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture aware that the foreigners only keep these horses for a few days, and invariably return them in the form of sausages?

  German Naval Force (China Station).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the strength, according to latest information, of the German naval forces on the China station?
  Mr. McKENNA: The ships on the China station are as follows:—
  "Scharnhorst," armoured cruiser.
  "Nurnberg" and "Leipzig," second-class protected cruisers.
  Four gunboats.
  Two destroyers.
  Four river gunboats.

  German and British Battleships ("Oldenburg" and "Temeraire").
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what period of time elapsed between the laying down and the launching of the new German battleship "Oldenburg"; and how will her armament compare with the British battleships of the "Temeraire" type?
  Mr. McKENNA: It was stated by Admiral Tirpitz, in the Reichstag on 29th March, 1909, that the contract for construction of the "Oldenburg" had been promised in the autumn of 1908. It is assumed that preparations for her building were commenced soon after the order; and the time the vessel was under construction up to the date of her launch, which took place on 30th June, 1910, should be calculated from the autumn of 1908, and probably amounts to about nineteen months. The armament the "Oldenburg" will carry is not known.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Expenditure).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what period of time is expected to elapse after the end of this financial year before the completion of the present contract works at Rosyth; what is the total estimated amount remaining to be expended during that period; and what is the amount estimated to be expended during the current year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The period allowed for the completion of the present contract at Rosyth expires five and a quarter years after the end of the current financial year. Under the terms of the contract, a substantial bonus is offered for earlier completion. In view of this inducement there is reason to hope that the work will be finished in less than contract time. It is, however, too early to make any reliable forecast of the time that may be saved. The estimated amount remaining to be expended on the contract during that period is about £1,687,000, apart from the value of bonuses that may be earned. The amount estimated to be expended during the current financial year is £250,000.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any delay was caused by the fire?
  Mr. McKENNA: An additional month has been allowed in consequence to the contractors.

  German and English Mercantile Marines.
  Mr. VERNEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the gross and net tonnage respectively of the ships in the German and the British mercantile marine and of the ships in the German and British Royal Navies in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1909?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret I have not the information available for which my hon. Friend asks.

  Naval Guns (Wages of Workers).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the first Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the fitters employed at the Royal Ordnance Depot, Chatham, are in receipt of wages varying from 36s. to 40s. a week, whilst the fitters on gun work at Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, at Erith, receive 40s. ed. to 45s. a week; at the Royal Gun Factory, Woolwich, where piece-work is in vogue, men earn 50s. a week, special work being paid for at special rates, men on tool, jig, and gauge work receiving from 42s. to 47s. a week, and gun examiners under the Chief Inspector, Woolwich, receive from 44s. to 56s. a week, whereas at Chatham only ordinary rates are paid for similar work; whether he is aware that the higher rates at Chatham are not filled as they become vacant, and that a recommendation to increase the rates of pay of certain fitters employed as above from 36s. to 38s. a week was refused; and whether he will direct that the higher rates be filled, that the increases in the rates of pay which have been refused be granted, that steps be taken to increase the minimum rates of pay to 40s. a week, or something done to bring the rates of pay at Chatham into conformity with the rates paid for similar work at the places mentioned, or state his reason for refusing the above requests?
  Mr. McKENNA: The normal scale of pay for fitters in naval ordnance depots is the same as that in the dockyards—namely, 36s. to 40s. per week, but in the Naval Ordnance Department advances from the minimum to the maximum are made on special recommendation by increments of 2s. at intervals of not less than three years. There is no fixed number of men at any particular rate, so that vacancies in the higher rates cannot be said to exist. No reason is seen for changing this scale of pay at present, in view of the nature of work upon which the men are employed. In the two cases in which increases to 38s. a week were refused in the current year, the men had served less than three years since the last increment.
  Mr. HOHLER: May I say: if so, on what ground the recommendation was made that there should be no increase in pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: Increases are only given at the expiration of a period of three years from the last increase. The two men in question did not serve for three years since their last increment.

  Devonport Dockyard (Petitions).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will say on what date the last petitions were received from the Devon-port Dockyard, the date replies were sent, and the final date fixed for sending in the new petitions?
  Mr. McKENNA: The last petitions were received from the workmen in Devonport Dockyard in June, 1909; the replies to these petitions were sent yesterday; new petitions will be received at any time within the next four weeks, but in some cases are being invited earlier in order that they may be available at pending interviews of petitioners with members of the Admiralty Board.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it a fact that at one dockyard only three days have been allowed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it must be more than that everywhere. I think so. I much regret the delay.

  Royal Navy Accountant Officers (Pay).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will say if it is the intention of the Govern to formulate any new scheme for the pay of accountant officers in the Royal Navy; and, if not, whether he will consider the question of increasing their emoluments, in view of the many extra duties that of recent years have been imposed on these officers, and which are not in all cases directly connected with their ordinary work?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question of the pay of accountant officers of the Royal Navy is engaging the attention of the Board of Admiralty.

  Osborne (Repairs).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under present arrangements, the Board of Works execute all alterations and additions at Osborne, which are paid for out of Naval Votes; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability, in the interests of economical administration, of entrusting to the Department which bears the cost the execution of the works?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
  608
  I should be greatly disposed to agree with the view taken by the hon. Gentleman had I to deal with anyone else than my right hon. Friend the present First Commissioner of Works.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable that this work should be dealt with by his Department, why has he prevented it from being so dealt with?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have hitherto been so satisfied with the work done by the right hon. Member that I feel that there is no immediate occasion for a change.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Should not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether these works could not be done much better by his own Department than by the Board of Works?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have the office of works in which my right hon. Friend serves. We have a department of works in which I have served myself, but I do not know that I could say that one is very much better than the other.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Why have a department of works if the right hon. Gentleman does not employ his own Department?
  Mr. McKENNA: This particular case of Osborne was a special case which for exceptional reasons was left in control of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I found it so when I entered the Admiralty, and I see no good reason for a change so far, but it is quite possible that I might change in the future.

  German Bounty-Fed Steel.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Sir Joseph Jonas at the inaugural meeting of the South Yorkshire branch of the Free Trade Union, attributing the failure of so many steel firms in this country to the importation of bounty-fed steel from Germany at less than cost price, and stating that he had tried to approach the Prime Minister on the matter but without success; and whether, in view of the harm done to British industry by such practices, he would be prepared to receive a deputation of those injured by the importation of bounty-fed and dumped goods from foreign countries and afford them an opportunity of bringing the facts to his notice?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am informed that the German syndicates have this year resumed the payment of bounties on exported iron and steel manufactured articles. This is entirely a trade arrangement and one with which, so far as I know, the German Government have nothing to do. There is no evidence that the iron and steel industry in this country is in an unsatisfactory condition—indeed, all the available evidence goes to show that the trade is flourishing. As regards the personal reference contained in the question, I understand that Sir Joseph Jonas was incorrectly reported and that what he said was not that he had tried to approach me but without success, but that he had failed in his efforts to organise a deputation on the subject. I see no reason in the circumstances for receiving such a deputation.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he has discovered that the newspaper report was incorrect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe from Sir J. Jonas himself.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that last year the exports of manufactured steel and iron ware were £38,000,000 and that imports were only £7,000,000?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No doubt my hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If I succeed in organising a deputation will the right hon. Gentleman receive it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If and when the hon. Gentleman does I will consider the question.

  Finance Bill, 1910–11.
  Mr. FELL: I know the Prime Minister has partly answered my question, but I wish to ask if he intends that the Finance Bill shall be introduced before the Recess; and, if so, how far he intends to proceed with it before the adjournment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I said yesterday, the Finance Bill will be introduced on the 25th instant, and the Second Reading will not be taken until after the Adjournment.
  Mr. BOWLES: Are we to have the print of the Bill before the Adjournment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. FELL: Has the House on any previous occasion adjourned until the autumn without passing the First Reading of the Budget Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say without notice.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Is there any public reasons for adjourning the Second Reading until the Autumn Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given the reasons already.

  Cruiser "Niobe" (Sale to Canadian Government).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether the negotiations with the Dominion of Canada in regard to the cruiser "Niobe" have yet been completed; and, if so, what price is being paid for her by the Canadian Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: An agreement has been come to for the sale of the "Niobe" in an efficient sea-going condition to the Canadian Government for the sum of £215,000.

  Cordite (Rejected).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether, on the discovery that certain cordite had in its composition a limited quantity of mercuric chloride, all such cordite was immediately withdrawn both from the ships and stores of the Fleet; and, if so, from what source the deficiency thus created was remedied?
  Mr. McKENNA: The cordite in which mercuric chloride was discovered was not issued to the fleet. The cordite referred to was rejected as not complying with the specification, and other cordite was purchased in its place.

  New Lock Works, Portsmouth (Fatal Accidents).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty's attention has been drawn to a fatal accident to a workman employed by the contractor on the new lock works at Portsmouth; whether his Department was represented at the inquest; and if it is proposed to independently investigate the cause and circumstance of this case, in view of their frequent occurrence on these works?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, it is not considered that there is any need to hold an independent investigation by

  611
  the Admiralty, as the facts were fully brought to light at the inquest at which the Inspector of Factories was present.

  Navy Manœuvres (Destroyers).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many destroyers of the old 27-knot type are now borne on the Navy List; and how many have been commissioned to take part in the present manœuvres?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is thirty-four; and to the second part, none.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that these destroyers were not commissioned for the manœuvres through lack of men or inefficiency?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were not certified as requisite for the particular service of the manœuvres.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it the fact that these vessels are not fit for sea in home waters?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that.

  Signal Ratings (Australian Station).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the number of signal ratings borne in His Majesty's ships on the Australian station has recently been reduced; if so, to what extent, and for what reason?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; twenty-four signal ratings is the number, and the reason is that their services can be utilised to greater advantage in the large fleets at home, where the signalling work is much heavier.

  Stokers, Royal Navy (Age Limit).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the age limit for stokers joining His Majesty's Navy has recently been raised from twenty-three to twenty-five years; and, if so, for what reason?
  Mr. McKENNA: The age limit for stoker entries has been twenty-five since 1901; prior to this it was twenty-eight; but until recently it has been the rule that Admiralty authority should be obtained for the entry of any candidate over twenty-three years of age for continuous service. This rule has recently been suspended in view of the large number of stoker entries to be made this year.

  H.M. Ships "Centurion" and "Barfleur" (Sale List).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the battleships "Centurion" and "Barfleur" have been placed on the sale list; and, if so, on what date the decision to sell these vessels was taken?
  Mr. McKENNA: The battleships "Centurion" and "Barfleur" were sold at the auction sale held at Portsmouth on the 12th of this month. It was decided to sell these vessels in the preceding month.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that these vessels are included in this year's Return, and will the right hon. Gentleman remove the general impression that all the vessels in that Return are effective?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were effective at the time the Return was published. The Return is made up in the same way as by other nations, and I could make no distinction in the case of this country without making a similar distinction in regard to foreign vessels.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it the fact that these vessels were removed on 1st April last year from the effective list, and, therefore, were not effective for the purposes of the Return of this year?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the head of the Return he will see clearly and distinctly the principle on which the Return is compiled. It is compiled on the same principle for all countries.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Why, if these ships were effective, have they been sold?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would take much longer to explain than would be suitable in answer to a question, but if the hon. Gentleman raises the question in the course of the Debate which is about to take place I shall be happy to reply.

  Lighthouse Keepers (Hours of Duty).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the hours of duty of lighthouse keepers in the service of Trinity House; whether there is any other work to be performed outside those hours; and what facilities are given to the keepers for leaving their stations when off duty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I am informed by the Trinity House that

  613
  there are no stipulated hours of duty for light housekeepers in their service, but that the regulations provide that during the daytime one of the keepers shall be on duty for the purpose of keeping weather records, etc. At night the keepers in turn are on watch in the lantern, and such watches do not, as a rule, exceed five hours. Keepers are allowed occasionally to be absent from the station during the day, but must return half an hour before sunset. They are also granted fourteen days' annual holiday.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. WILESasked when he proposes to appoint advisory committees in connection with the various Labour Exchanges in the London district?
  Mr. TENNANT: Invitations to serve on the advisory committee for the London area have been addressed to various persons selected after consultation with associations of employers and workpeople respectively. It is hoped that the committee will hold its first meeting during the course of the present month.

  Railway Traffic (Codification).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that prevails regarding the present state of the law affecting railways and railway traffic, which has been declared by at least one judge to be revolting, and seeing that many other authorities have declared it to be practically impossible to give a decision complying with the requirements of all the existing Statutes, the Department will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the present state of the law regarding railways, with a view to the codification of the same on similar lines to the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not acquainted with the declarations to which my hon. Friend refers, and should be glad if he would let me have copies of any such statements. In any case I should doubt whether a Royal Commission of the nature suggested would be an appropriate remedy.

  Consular Reports.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked why the original practice of publishing on the first page of Consular Reports the date when received in this country has now been abandoned; and whether he will consider
  614
  the advisability of restoring this practice, substituting, however, the date of despatch for the date of receipt?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon-Wood): The practice of printing on the first page of the Annual Reports on Trade by His Majesty's Consular Officers the date of receipt in this country was discontinued in the year 1906, because it tended to mislead the public into supposing that the information contained in them related to the year in which they were issued, and not to the previous year; it is also to be deprecated in view of the fact that it is frequently necessary to refer the Reports back to their authors, thus giving rise in the case of distant posts to a very considerable delay between the original date of despatch or receipt and the date of publication. I think, therefore, that the balance of advantage is against reverting to the former practice, or adopting the proposal contained in the second part of the question.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Why cannot the simple and rational practice of putting the date on which it was written be adopted?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: For the reason stated in the answer.

  Steeple and Chimney Climbers.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatal and non-fatal accidents have occurred to persons employed as climbers, etc., in the work of repairing steeples and tall chimneys during the last five years; and what precautions are taken by his Department to prevent accidents through loose cornices and large stones being neglected until it has become dangerous to approach or handle them, and by reason of defective repairing gear or other cause?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): No statistics in respect of this class of accident are available. Such accidents would in most cases only be reportable, if at all, under Sub-section (2) of Section 105 of the Factory Act, and have not been classified separately. There is no power at present to take any action for the prevention of accidents in the construction or repair of buildings except where power is used; but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a Departmental Committee in 1907

  615
  drew up a seris of recommendations on the subject, and a Bill has been introduced in the last two Sessions to give the necessary power to carry them into effect.

  Woolwich Arsenal Police (King Edward's Funeral).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether some of the men in the Woolwich Arsenal division of the Metropolitan police have not yet received the two days' extra pay granted for services rendered during the late King's funeral; if so, will he take steps to remedy the grievance?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All the men attached to Woolwich Arsenal who did special duty in the streets in addition to the ordinary duty for which their services are paid by the War Department, and all who had extra work put upon them, directly or indirectly, in connection with the funeral of the late King have, I am given to understand, received the extra two days' pay.

  Testing of Cordite.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether during the last three years it has been found necessary to withdraw from manufacturers of explosives the Home Office supply of litmus paper issued for use in testing cordite by the heat process? The words "litmus paper" should be "heat test paper."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer the question on the Paper. No litmus paper is or has been supplied by the Home Office for testing cordite; but heat test papers for use in connection with the heat test of explosives of Classes III. and IV. (which include cordite) are supplied by the chemical advisers of the Explosives Department to any manufacturers of explosives who apply for them. Last year it was found that there was deterioration in the stock of filter paper held by the chemical advisers from which heat test papers were made, and it was considered desirable that the filter paper should be obtained from another source. A circular was issued to manufacturers acquainting them with this fact and stating that for the present filter paper would be obtained from the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey. No heat test papers have been withdrawn during the last three years, but in the case of one firm a batch of papers was, at their request, exchanged for new ones.

  Newport Dock Disaster.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether he is able to state the probable date the collapsed trench at Newport will be reopened; and whether he can assure the relatives of the deceased workmen that such reopening will be conducted in such a manner as will enable proper means of identification and reinterment to be secured?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that it is hoped the concrete monoliths which are being constructed to make the work of excavation safe will be completed by the end of next month, and that the work of piling and reopening the trench will then be proceeded with. It is intended by those responsible that the work shall be carried out with reverent regard to the desire of the relatives of the deceased to have the bodies identified and separately interred, but they are unable to say how far identification will be possible.

  Truck Acts (Tunstall Prosecution).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a prosecution by the local factory inspector, Mr. S. Shuter, of Messrs. Meakin, Limited, of Tunstall, for an offence under the Truck Acts; whether the fine was afterwards remitted as delayed wages by the firm; whether a fine sheet had been made out against the worker and registered; what was the decision of the learned stipendiary relating to the case; and what action he proposes to take to prevent similar evasions of the law?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention was called to this prosecution. The defence was that no fine had, in fact, been imposed, and that the amount in question, which was the wage for work that had not at the time been examined and passed, was only withheld—though withheld admittedly by way of punishment—until the examination had been made. It is the case that an entry of the stoppage had been made in the fine register, but it was stated that this had been done by mistake. The decision of the stipendiary, as reported in the newspapers, was to the effect that on the whole of the evidence this was a case in which he ought not to convict. The question, in any case, whether a fine has or has not been imposed, is, of course, one of fact for the courts to decide on the evidence before

  617
  them, and there is no action which I can usefully take in the matter.
  Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no appeal whatever from this decision?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised there is no action which I could take.

  House of Commons (Ventilation of Members' Rooms).
  Mr. POWERasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take steps to provide a better system of ventilating the Reading Room and the Tea Room than the one prevailing at present, which, by the rush of wind through the perforations in the panelling, causes such inconvenience to Members?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I have for some time been trying experiments on Members—with a view to their greater comfort. I have lately reduced what the hon. Member calls the rush of wind, and am waiting to see if he appreciates the decrease of ventilation.

  Buckingham Palace (Cost of Stone Front).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state the approximate cost of supplying a stone front to Buckingham Palace in place of the present stucco and paint facing; and how much of such sum would be expended in labour?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The approximate cost of refronting Buckingham Palace in stone to an improved design is £150,000. Almost the whole of this amount, except the contractors' profits and the cost of materials and carriage, would be expended in one form or another of labour.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of obtaining this money, in view of the large amount of labour which would be employed and of the great addition it would give to the value of the building when the time comes for the Socialist Government to take it over?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am willing to submit to any pressure which the majority of the House chooses to put upon me.

  Woolwich Borough Council (Milk Depot).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Local Government Board
  618
  if he can now state what has been the result of his communications with the Woolwich Borough Council regarding the closing of the municipal milk depot?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I understand that the Woolwich Borough Council have decided to discontinue their milk depot. I think such a course is to be regretted, and I have so informed the council. The matter is not, however, one in which I have any control over them.

  Income Tax (Percentage to Collectors and Surveyors).
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums per cent. are paid to collectors and surveyors of Income Tax on the amounts they collect from the public?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Neither collectors nor surveyors are paid by a percentage on the amount of Income Tax collected.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to amend the law by which, as at present, the sick pay of members of friendly societies is included in estimating their claims for old age pensions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 22nd ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tottenham Division.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the Chancellor if he is aware that some of the Poor Law guardians grant no outdoor relief and other guardians grant outdoor relief ranging from 1s. 6d. to 4s. per week, as in the West Ham Union, and, in consequence of the unequal method of granting relief, the guardians that are most generous to the poor will be penalised under the abolition of the pauper qualification scheme which will come into force next year; and if he can see his way to provide that the whole of the cost of pensions under the abolition of the pauper qualification will be borne by the national Exchequer?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I explained very fully in my Financial Statement why I proposed that local authorities should contribute towards the cost of abolishing the pauper disqualification, and I do not see any grounds for modifying the views which

  619
  I then put before the House. As regards the first part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that it is not proposed that the local authorities should contribute anything beyond the amount by which the rates will be relieved through the removal of the disqualification.

  Valuation of Estates.
  Captain FABERasked whether, when part of an estate is sold at £100 per acre during the lifetime of the owner, Death Duties are charged on the whole estate at the death of the owner at that rate, or whether the whole estate has to be valued acre per acre; and, if not, on what basis the valuation is made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The valuations are not necessarily made on the basis suggested in the first part of the question, each case being considered on its merits and the valuation made accordingly.
  Captain FABER: If after the first valuation is made part of an estate is sold for £100 per acre, will the remainder be calculated at £100 per acre or will there have to be a fresh valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like the hon. Gentleman to put that question down.

  Invalidity Insurance Proposals.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether only registered friendly societies are to be made the medium for carrying out the Government proposals in reference to invalidity insurance, or whether such privilege will be extended to unregistered friendly societies and slate clubs?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which I gave on the 16th ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, if friendly societies are to be made the medium for carrying out the proposals of the Government in reference to invalidity insurance, the present members of such societies will enjoy, under the proposed scheme, additional benefits commensurate with the amount of their financial interest in their respective societies consequent upon their past providence and self-sacrifice?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Every care will be taken to safeguard the interests of the great friendly societies and of their mem-
  620
  bers, but I cannot at the present stage lay before the House the details of the proposed scheme.

  Licensed Houses Duty (Remissions).
  Mr. WHELERasked the Chancellor whether he proposes to remit the 30 per cent. Licence Duty imposed under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on licensed houses valued at over £50 in Dublin; and, if so, whether he proposes to grant a remission to licensed houses of similar value in Great Britain?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand the question should read 20 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. in the second line. I do not know what particular charge of Licence Duty is meant by the "20 per cent. Licence Duty" mentioned in this question, but I may say that there has not been any remission of duty in respect of licensed houses in Dublin, and the answer to the question is in the negative.
  Mr. W. PEARCE: Considering the special circumstances of London, and the extraordinarily high assessments, will the right hon. Gentleman extend the mitigation, which is given to Ireland, to London?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand the question of the London assessment of public-houses is sub judice at the present moment, and I should not like to express any opinion. I believe there are appeals in several of those cases.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the remission of Licence Duty on those Irish houses will not be granted by way of a reduction on the annual rental basis on which they are at present assessed for duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has a question later on that point, and I shall hand in the answer.

BILL PRESENTED.
  UNDER-SHERIFFS (COUNTY BOROUGHS) (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for the appointment and tenure of office of Under-Sheriffs in Administrative County Boroughs in Ireland," presented by Mr. MOONEY; supported by Mr. Kettle, Marquess of Hamilton, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Augustine Roche, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Hazleton, and Mr. Power; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
SUPPLY.— [17th Allotted Day.]
  NAVY ESTIMATES.

    SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.
    [CLASS 8, SEC. I.]
    [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley) in the Chair.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,444,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £2,000,000. This Vote shows an increase of £4,635,000 over the Estimates of last year. I do not think that the Government expect that the House will vote this money without a protest from those of us who condemn and abhor this policy which has led to this monstrous increase. I have therefore put down this Motion to reduce this Vote by £2,000,000. That may appear to some hon. Members to be an excessive proposal, but I would ask hon. Members what the effect of that reduction would be. The effect would simply be to postpone the completion of some of this monstrous programme of ironclads which is now submitted to the House. Whether that be contract work, as most of them are, or dockyard work, the only effect of reducing the Vote for this year by £2,000,000 would be to postpone the period at which the ships would be completed.
    I think I shall be able to show that that would not in any way, even on the most extravagant supposition, endanger the safety of the country. Some of us who have sat through all the Debates on the Navy Estimates during the last three years, and, having studied all the information available on the subject, have come to the conclusion that, neither in the statements nor in the speeches of Ministers nor in any publications open to the public, has there been any substantial justification for the monstrous increase now proposed. That brings me to the question of expert knowledge as against outside ignorant opinion
    622
    on this subject. I know from long experience that, in Debates in Committee of Supply, we laymen and outsiders, who from the nature of the case can have no special skilled knowledge on naval or military affairs, are always liable to be attacked by the naval and military experts who are so numerous in this House—I am not quite sure that it would not be to the benefit of the House, if they were not quite so numerous—and we are liable to be looked upon as outside ignoramuses who know nothing about the necessities of the case. I have deeply regretted to see, both in the form of the House and in the character of recent Debates, a very powerful tendency to increase the influence of experts in regard to the amount of the Estimates. This matter touches a profound constitutional question. The government of England for upwards of 200 years has been a civil Government, and the very essence of English government is that the experts of the Army and of the Navy must submit their opinion to the Civil Government of the country. I am sorry to say that in my opinion, speaking as an old Member of the House, who has watched these matters as well as an outsider can watch them, and having no expert knowledge on the question, there is a growing tendency to flourish in the face of the House of Commons the opinion of Boards of Admiralty and of Army Boards. In recent Debates Ministers have constantly been asked, "Is this the opinion of the Allay Board or of the Navy Board?" "Have they consented to the Estimates being kept so low?"
    What I have stated is a fundamental principle of British Government and of all free Governments, and if you once surrender the control of the Estimates to Army or Navy experts, good-bye to economy or social reform. On this question of expert advice and opinion, and of expert intimidation of this House—because that is what it has come to—I could quote very high authorities, to whom hon. Members above the Gangway ought to listen with respect. The late Lord Salisbury was a great Tory Minister, but he was also a great peace Minister. What did he say on the question of experts? I was recently reading a book which I have frequently studied, namely, Lord Cromer's great book on Egypt, in which are given some of the most interesting extracts I have ever read from the private correspondence of Lord Salisbury. In a private letter to Lord Cromer, Lord Salisbury used these words, "Do not listen too

    623
    much to the soldiers; they would insist upon our garrisoning the moon to protect us against an attack from Mars." That was the opinion of Lord Salisbury on uncontrolled experts. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They were soldiers."] Does the hon. Member think that the Navy experts are philosophers? Are they impeccable any more than the Army experts? It is their métier. They are so wrapped up in their own profession that they think we civilians exist for no other purpose but to provide funds for the Army or the Navy. I do not complain of that. We all admire these gentlemen, their courage, and their skill; but after all we must claim the right of citizens who have to bear the burden of taxation. I might give one other illustration on this point. About three months ago we had a very interesting Debate on Somaliland, when the experts on foreign affairs, who have now made their way into this House, and the military experts, declared that we ought to send an expedition to Somaliland, at a cost of about a million of money, otherwise the whole prestige of England would be lowered in the dust.
    We did not engage in that expedition, to the horror and despair of Lord Curzon and of the experts above the Gangway; but nothing particular has happened except that peace and contentment have settled down on that unfortunate country.
    The total increase in the Navy Estimates this year is £5,464,700—an appalling sum. The increase last year over the Estimates for 1908–9 was £2,823,000. The automatic increase next year I put at a minimum of £3,000,000. My own opinion is that I am greatly under-estimating the amount, and that the automatic increase arising from the enormous and unparalleled programme of this year will be far in excess of £3,000,000. But putting it at £3,000,000, what will be the result? That within three years of Liberal Government the Navy Estimates will have been increased by close upon £12,000,000—an increase unparalleled in the history of the country. There is this sinister aspect of the question. Does that increase satisfy the Imperialists, the jingoes, and the experts? Not a bit. We had an opportunity of judging of that in this morning's paper. Last night there was a sinister conjunction of stars of ill-omen at a banquet in the City of London, presided over by Rudyard Kipling, with my gallant countryman (Lord C. Beresford) as chief speaker. They
    624
    wiped their boots, metaphorically speaking, on the Government, and this miserable increase of £12,000,000 a year was a fleabite utterly unworthy of notice. The Noble Lord, in his speech last March, said "Forty millions? Absurd! Preposterous! Next year it will have to be £60,000,000, or the country is lost."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: £50,000,000.
    Mr. DILLON: Then the year after, £60,000,000. I say that these enormous Estimates, so far from satisfying the experts and Imperialists, only minister to their appetite, and their appetite increases by what it feeds on. Take the famous memorial presented to the Prime Minister in the joy of their hearts, by the flag officers:—
    "The appeal … has now the public endorsement of no less than 247 flag and general officers, who all thus concur in affirming their conviction that 'National danger does threaten, and that the need of special effort to meet it is urgent.'"
    What did they say then—
    "It will, we think, he generally recognised that no such weight of expert authority has ever before been attached to any communication touching the national safety…"
    4.0 P.M.
    It "constitutes a new factor in the situation," and they proceed to say that unless we borrow £100,000,000 in addition to this enormous increase—not as a substitute for it—the country is in imminent danger. And that is the opinion of 247 flag captains. Having had the opinion of 247 flag captains—[An HON. MEMBER: "Flag officers."] That is still more important; they are flag officers. Having, I say, had the opinion of 247 flag officers, what is the use of hurling at our heads Boards of Admiralty and Army Boards? I might go on for a long time giving the authority of experts, but I will only add one more authority, and a very great authority, that is Lord Roberts. What does he say? He declared in a speech in November last year—a speech I have frequently studied:—
    "All the money you spend on the fleet is no use because the fleet may be avoided, may be sent to sonic other part of the world; and unless you build up a great army which is prepared to defend England against the German army and is equal to meet the German army, your fleet is no use at all."
    That is the thing to which this country is going to be committed if these experts have their way, because—and I speak in all seriousness—can any man imagine that the result of these Estimates are the unbiassed, the uninfluenced, and, I would almost say, the uncoerced opinion of Liberal Ministers? We all know they are not. No matter what statement is made

    625
    to this House, they are the result of a kind of compromise of what we used to call at school in our youth "the resultant of forces." This, as a term in the statics of finance, indicates the result of the struggle of the Liberal Cabinet and the irresistible pressure of the board of experts. If you are going to be guided by experts what do you eventually find? That it is perfectly impossible to get the experts to agree. I have read and studied all the recognised great experts upon this subject. What do I find? That some of the very greatest experts say that these great and enormous ironclads, costing a couple of millions each, are useless in the North Sea, and that the true way to meet the German invasion—the only true and safe way—is by a swarm of torpedo boats and submarines, and that when you come to defend these coasts you will find these great ironclads of no use at all.
    Let us turn for one moment before I deal with the attempt to justify this expenditure to the effect upon the general well-being of this country of this enormous and bloated naval expenditure. We have all heard with great interest and great hope the promises held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to social reform. We want more money for education. We in Ireland have been waiting for some years to get money for education, which is in a retrograde condition. We have heard about invalidity insurance and other points of that kind. Where is the money to come from? If there is going to be, as seems likely, an automatic further increase of £3,000,000 next year on the Navy, then I do not know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get his money from to carry out these reforms without piling on great taxes. Let me turn to the attempt that has been made to justify this extraordinary increase, because, as we all remember, the one attempt to justify it has been on the score of national safety and national defence. The Navy Estimates for 1909–10 were introduced by the present First Lord of the Admiralty in a speech of a character more extraordinary than was ever made by an English Minister on such an occasion. The chief feature of that speech, which will be in the memory of most hon. Members who are listening to me, was this: The whole programme, the whole argument, was directed against one European Power, a thing which I do not think has occurred in England since the famous days of the French scare, which led to a waste of £11,000,000. It was absolutely grotesque and laughable. But after
    626
    all the waste was only £11,000,000. The direction given by that speech in the Debate which introduced the Navy Estimates last year, and to subsequent Debates, was in my opinion most uncalled-for and mischievous in the highest degree. Hon. Members will recollect that the main point which governed the whole of that Debate and the arguments which took place was the question as to whether four or eight great battleships should be laid down. Can anyone who listened to that Debate and subsequent Debates say honestly for a single moment that had it not been for the strong statement made as to the action of Germany in secret—and I lay stress upon that word—secretly accelerating her naval construction, the House would for one single moment have listened to that proposal that four additional ironclads should be laid down? One thing I can say for an absolute certainty. The Liberal party would not have listened to it. On 16th March, 1909, the First Lord introduced the Navy Estimates. The increase of the Navy Vote was £2,823,000 for this present year. To justify that increase the First Lord, in a speech which caused an immediate and violent panic in this House, and throughout the country—a violent panic I say—used language which, in my opinion, was entirely unjustified, even if the facts on which the speech was based were correct, well-founded, and true. I do not think it was a wise thing, I always thought it was an unwise thing, for a Minister of the Crown to come down and make a speech raising a violent panic against a neighbouring Power, with which we are at peace, which created the greatest amount of irritation and alarm in that neighbourhing Power. As we know now, the statement, the facts, were absolutely without foundation. I do not think it will be possible to use language sufficiently strong to condemn the character of that speech. Let me give one or two short extracts from it. The whole point, as I said, was whether four or eight ships should be laid down. No one raised much objection to laying down battleships last year. That was really not seriously in dispute. But here is the first sentence that I desire to quote from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 16th March, 1909:—
    "I will deal afterwards with the earlier types of ships and I will endeavour to lay before the House the view of the Board of Admiralty with regard to the value of these ships in the computation of relative warlike strength in 1912 and later years, for that is the period which we have to bear in mind when considering our present programme."

    627
    He never did it. I have put several questions to him, but the right hon. Gentleman has never given an authoritative statement to the House as to the opinion of the experts as to the fighting value of these immense floating battleships. The First Lord of the Admiralty continued:—
    "The difficulty in which the Government finds itself placed at this moment is that we do not know, as we thought we did, the rate at which German construction is taking place." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1909, cols. 933, 934, 936.]
    This most ill-judged sentence started the panic. I do not wonder that, coming from a responsible Minister of the Crown, a statement of that kind should raise it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
    "The German law provides for four more ships to be laid down in 1910–11. If the construction of these ships were to be accelerated, I understand the four ships of the 1909–10 programme would be completed by April, 1912, and at that date Germany would have seventeen Dreadnoughts' and Invincibles.' But even if no acceleration takes place before April, 1910, this number would be completed in the autumn of 1912... The Board of Admiralty must be in a position—"
    Now mark these words:—
    "if the necessity arises"
    Because the whole argument turns upon that:—
    "to give orders for guns, gun-mountings, and armour and for materials at such a time and to such an amount as will enable them to obtain delivery of four more large armoured ships by March, 1912. We shall be prepared to meet the contingency of Germany having seventeen of these ships in the spring of 1912 by our having twenty, and we can only meet that contingency if the Government are empowered by Parliament to give the necessary orders in the course of the present financial year."
    This was a contingency that has never arisen from that day to this. When these Estimates were submitted I maintain that the First Lord of the Admiralty gave an undertaking to the House that in the event of it being ascertained that Germany was not accelerating her programme, that the four additional ships should not be laid down. Of course, I need hardly say that the Opposition improved upon this from the Government Benches. Here is an extract from the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) said:—
    Then we shall have fourteen, but in the meanwhile the Germans, if they build their four ships this year, in addition to the anticipated ships they laid down in November, they will have seventeen, as I understand. We should still have fourteen in July, 1911."
    It shows the insane recklessness of those who are called statesmen. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Yes, I repeat the words. For a responsible statesman to get up in his place and amidst a scene of panic declare
    628
    —and stick to the declaration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not think I am exaggerating the scene in the House in March of last year. At all events, there was a wild panic on these benches, because the Leader of the Opposition said:—
    "Germany will have seventeen of these great Dreadnoughts' in July, 1911, and we shall only have fourteen."
    The Debate proceeded:—
    "The Prime Minister: In July, 1911?
    "Mr. Balfour: Yes. Of course, that depends on what they lay down this year. It is admitted on all hands that they will have thirteen in 1911.
    "Mr. Churchill: No, no.
    "Mr. Balfour: Yes, that is right. There is no doubt they will have thirteen on 1st April, 1911.
    Mr. McKenna: My own opinion is that they will have thirteen completed in August, 1911—"
    Remember this date—
    "They will not have thirteen completed in April, 1911.
    "Mr. Balfour: Therefore I say I was right in my original estimate that we have to count on the possibility of there being seventeen 'Dreadnoughts' to our fourteen in July, 1911, and that even when the two ships laid down next November are built, we shall then he only sixteen 'Dreadnoughts' to the German seventeen, And then if the Germans go on at the rate, which is more than possible, the probability is that they will have on 1st April, 1912, twenty-one 'Dreadnoughts' to our twenty." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1909, cols. 950, 952, 959.]
    Is there a single man in the House who will stand behind these words? Not one! The language was laughable and absurd.
    Well now I come to the intervention of the Prime Minister in the Debate. Here is what he said:—
    "Well, call it March. By that time the Germans will have nine. I am giving the Admiralty computation. That is the Admiralty estimate. By that same month of March the Germans will have nine. I quite agree two months later they may have eleven, but coming to the month of August, 1911, when our programme of this year comes into force, with the first two ships laid down in July, we shall then have fourteen, and in November, 1911, the other two ships laid down in November of this year, having become living entities, we shall have sixteen against thirteen. That is our computation…."
    The Prime Minister went on to say—and I must say that it is an enormously important point, which has been dropped to a large extent out of these Debates:—
    "But I must say, and it is fair and right to the German Government that I should say it, that we have had a most distinct declaration from them that it is not their intention to accelerate their programme, and we cannot possibly as a Government, believing as we do most implicitly in the good faith of those declarations, put before the House of Commons and Parliament a programme based on the assumption that a declaration of that kind will not be carried out…."
    The Prime Minister continued:—
    "We have been told by them expressly and explicitly that that is their intention—an intention not to accelerate, or, in other words, not to do what the right hon. Gentlemen contemplates—what he credits them with …

    629
    "I said seventeen was a possibility, thirteen is a certainty. It is because seventeen is a possibility that we are taking this power, otherwise we should not take it at all. It is a possibility against which we may have to contend, and we take the power." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1909, cols. 959, 960, 961.]
    Now I put a question to the Prime Minister: Has that possibility not since been proved to be an impossibility; and, if so, how can he and the present Liberal Government, with any decency in the face of Germany, after that declaration of the good faith on the part of Germany, if she has observed her part in not accelerating her programme, defend his action in laying down these four additional ships? We have the words of the Prime Minister—they are known to Germany—that if Germany did not accelerate her programme these ships would not be required. I pass now to the Vote of Censure.
    On 29th March last the Opposition moved a Vote of Censure upon the Government—and let me here call attention to what I believe to be the greatest danger to which this country is exposed, and that is the abominable kind of talk about taking the Army and Navy out of party politics. Party politics are the only instrument by which the views of the people of this country can be made felt, and if you take the Army and Navy and the politics of foreign affairs out of party politics, you leave yourselves entirely in the control of the officials. That is the reason why some gentlemen are so eloquent and vehement in their desire to take these great Departments of the State out of the region of party politics. I warn the Radical Members of this House if they take foreign politics and the Army and Navy out of the region of party politics, they will have very little left in party politics. I come now to the Vote of Censure, and it is a good illustration by the way as to how gentlemen on the Opposition side apply their principles when they think they have the Liberal Government in a difficulty. Here is an extract from the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur H. Lee), who moved the Vote of Censure. He said:—
    "It is quite true that the figures of thirteen to ten, in 1911, will not be realised if the Germans should choose to dawdle over their construction; but it is exceedingly probable that they will have eleven ships to our ten at that period, and no one disputes—not even their Government—that they will have nine ships to our ten at that period. The Government further admit that the Germans will have eleven ships to our twelve in April, 1911, and they will have thirteen ships to our fourteen in the summer of 1911." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1909, col. 46.]
    That was the interpretation put upon the matter by the hon. Member. I now come to the speech delivered, in reply, by
    630
    the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He used very extraordinary language, which greatly aggravated the intensity of the Naval panic, and which has been again and again quoted in the controversy which has ever since taken place. He said:—
    "First of all, the House and the country are perfectly in the view that the situation is grave. A new situation in this country is created by the German programme. Whether that programme is carried out quickly or slowly, the fact of its existence makes a new situation. When that programme is completed, Germany, a great country close to our own shores, will have a fleet of thirty-three 'Dreadnoughts'; that fleet will be the most powerful which the world has ever yet seen….. That imposes upon us the necessity of which we are now at the beginning—except so far that we have 'Dreadnoughts' already—of rebuilding the whole of our Fleet." [OFFICIAL REPORT, March 29th, 1909, col. 55.]
    That was the most extraordinary and sensational statement, and it created the greatest excitement at the time, and I say it was absolutely unjust to press upon England the necessity of rebuilding her Fleet, as is shown by the fact that at that time he had received a clear pledge on the matter. There was no new situation created by this programme of acceleration, and to speak of rebuilding the British Fleet as if you were to immediately destroy and blow up the Fleet you possessed and put a new one afloat was to make a declaration calculated to excite public opinion and to increase the panic. The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain the assurances given to him by the German Government, and he was very categorical in his statement. He said:—
    "Early in January, some time after we had news that the German programme was, according to our information, being accelerated, I did take an opportunity of making it known that although we have always been told by the Germans that they were not going to exceed their present Naval programme, according to our information there was acceleration. They must, therefore, not be surprised if our Naval Estimates showed a considerable increase. The information which I have now given to the House has been given to me at various times since—some before this Debate began in this House; some—pand the most specific statements—after the Debates in this House on Naval Estimates began. That is a declaration of intention, and not an undertaking. It does not bind the German Government."
    And now mark these words:—
    "It does not bind the German Government; it leaves them free to change their intention, but it does dispose of the idea that they were preparing to have thirteen ships ready in 1910. No Government preparing to have thirteen ships in 1910 would have voluntarily made those declarations. Taking at the present moment the German declarations of intention, they are in themselves a reason why we should keep an open mind with regard to the future needs of the present."
    Here is the situation announced by the Foreign Secretary who had himself approached the German Foreign Minister and told him that the English Government had reason to believe that the Germans

    631
    were somewhat accelerating their programme. The German Minister, after communication with his own Government, assured the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the German Government had no such intention, and assured him that they would not have thirteen ironclads ready before the Autumn of 1912, and the Foreign Secretary stated to the House of Commons that explanation and said that he accepted it unreservedly, and that it left reason for keeping an open mind as to the future. I say that was an honourable engagement on the part of the German Government, and what must be the effect upon the Government of Germany if it can be proved, and it is not denied, that they honourably observed the undertaking given to our Minister and that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, at any rate, came down to the House of Commons and used that knowledge in the Debate upon the Vote of Censure, and said that if this German acceleration—for that was the only interpretation that could be placed upon their words—that if this German acceleration did not take place there would be no need for these additional ships. When July came, without attempting to show that the Germans had in the slightest degree departed from their undertaking, this country proceeded to lay down additional ships. That seems to me to be almost a breach of faith. Certainly that action will leave a very bad impression upon the Germans. Here is what the Prime Minister said, in the Vote of Censure Debate:—
    "Let me point out once more what the situation will be so far as it is possible to forecast it in what has been called the critical month of April, 1912. At that time—I am speaking now of 'Dreadnoughts' and 'Dreadnoughts' only—we shall in any case have sixteen 'Dreadnoughts,' that is not taking into account the four ships of what I may call the contingent programme. The Germans at that time will certainly have eleven; but for the statements which have been made in Germany, and to which of course we are bound to have regard, I should have been disposed to say that they would have thirteen. They will certainly have eleven, they might have thirteen, and if their rate of production was accelerated in the same way and to the same extent as it has been, they might conceivably have seventeen. That is the absolutely outside estimate of the possible potential German strength in 'Dreadnoughts' in the spring of 1912. We shall, as I have said, in accordance with the actual programme necessarily have sixteen, and if the four contingent ships are constructed we shall have twenty. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1909.]
    And then the Prime Minister went on to argue that that provision would be ample in the event of acceleration on the part of Germany He said:—
    "We have assured the House that if the acceleration in German construction goes on—and they have told
    632
    us it will not—or if the actual course of things is shrouded in concealment and uncertainty, we shall not hesitate to exercise the powers which the House has given us."
    He clearly and absolutely indicated that if the acceleration did not go on, and that the German promises were honourably observed, and if there was no mystery about the matter, the four additional ships would not be laid down. On 26th July, on the Construction Vote, the four additional ships were announced, and not one word or justification for that course was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty so far as the action of the Germans was concerned. I was listening to him very carefully, because I expected something of a conciliatory or friendly tone would be used with regard to the German Government, recognising their fidelity to their intention, or that some explanation would be given as to whether the acceleration had gone on. Nothing of the sort occurred. The words which the First Lord of the Admiralty used were these:—
    "After very anxious and careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries, the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all necessary steps to ensure that the second four ships referred to in this year's programme, should be completed by March, 1912." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1909.]
    Not one word did he say about German acceleration. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman:—
    "May I interpose a question? Have the Germans anticipated, or have they adhered their understanding given to the Foreign Office in regard to shipbuilding?
    "Mr. McKenna: I did not think it desirable to go into these matters, but the hon. Member has addressed a question to me and I will answer it very briefly. Three years ago a most earnest expression of desire was made on behalf of the British Government of the day to curtail and restrict the rapid growth of armaments, both in this and in foreign countries." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1909.]
    The right hon. Gentleman then went on to find fault with the Germans over The Hague Conference—a subject which was absolutely foreign to the question I put to him. He never answered my question, and throughout the whole of the discussion there was not one single word to show that the German Government had departed by a single breath from its intention expressed to the Foreign Office, or that there was the slightest justification for the laying down of these four additional ships. I come now to the Naval Estimates for the present year. The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary last year on the Vote of Censure and the opinion he expressed gave hope to me and to other economists whose views

    633
    are so futile in this House, that if it turned out that the German building was not going on at the rate people feared, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to strike a balance this year by not laying down such a large number of ships. But when we came to examine the Naval Estimates we found that the Government calmly proceeded to lay down five instead of four new ships, and they have done that although the German declaration remains unchanged up to the present moment, as far as I have been able to study the declaration of Ministers, that the Germans will have thirteen of these monsters at their service before the autumn of 1912. There is also the fact that the Colonial "Dreadnoughts," as I understand, are to be built quite apart from the enormous programme which we are adding to the British Navy in the meantime. That is all I propose to say with regard to the details of this controversy about naval expenditure. It seems to me to be a most deplorable and disastrous condition of affairs, and I do think the Government owe it to the House of Commons to say definitely whether they consider the German Government have adhered to their declarations or not. When pressed in the Debate last year the First Lord of the Admiralty took refuge in Austria and Italy. He said nothing about Germany. He said they had discovered Austria and Italy were building "Dreadnoughts." Has it come to this, that we are called upon to build "Dreadnoughts" against Italy? I always thought this country looked upon Italy as a friend. Are we to build "Dreadnoughts" because Italy is building "Dreadnoughts"? Everybody who is not an expert knows perfectly well Italy is building against Austria, and because Austria is attempting to build. Austria was the most dangerous case of all. What has become of the Austrian case? I asked the other day in the House of Commons, and the First Lord of the Admiralty was obliged to admit that he knew nothing of any Austrian "Dreadnoughts" being laid down, and up to this very hour the Austrian Government have not been able to get the Austrian Parliament to vote one shilling for a "Dreadnought." All we hear is that the keel of one "Dreadnought" is laid down as a private speculation, and it may ultimately be bought by the Austrian Government when finished, which will probably not be for three or four years. Yet that is brought forward as a reason for these ad-
    634
    ditional four ships. I say this country is mainly responsible for this horrible and sickening competition in armaments which is ruining Europe.
    Let me turn to another aspect of the question, to the provocative effect of these charges on foreign Powers. One of the worst aspects of the whole of the Debate of last year and of controversy which took place was not the increase of the Navy Estimates, but the way in which it was brought about, and the way the whole thing was pointed at foreign Powers. It is an abominable thing, but there are men in this country, who are deliberately and avowedly without any concealment whatever, trying to provoke war between Germany and this country. That is no charge for me to make, because many of them, notably Mr. Maxse, of the "National Review," and many other publications, openly say this war is bound to come, and the sooner the better, because we want it while England is able to beat them. In view of that, the Debates of last year were simply deplorable, because they gave the greatest possible impetus to the agitation. I want to refer to an article in the "Contemporary Review" of April, 1900. It is headed, "The German Navy Case," and it is the best, most moderate, and ablest statement of the German side of this question, which never gets stated in this House, I have ever read. I would ask the attention of the House whilst I read one or two short extracts. Here is what Mr. Michel says:—
    "To this I replied, 'If we are to have a Navy at all, it must be a strong Navy, for a weak fleet is simply a hostage in the hands of a powerful enemy. For us, it is either a strong fleet or no fleet at all. With our world-wide commerce, our infant Colonies, and our immense mercantile marine, your example, your precept, and your practice, taught us that it was impossible to do without a Navy altogether. A weak Navy is a source of weakness and not of strength. One thing I can assure you, that we are not building our fleet with any desire of attacking you. We are building it because we are afraid that you may some day attack us, and that the weakness of our fleet may encourage you to destroy our ships and sweep our commerce off the seas!'"
    Then he alludes to what happened at Copenhagen, a thing which is not forgotten on the Continent:—
    "Have you not afforded us Germans in these later years only too painful a reminder that you are not proof against the temptation to take advantage of a trusting and defenceless neighbour? I have no wish to rake up old sores, but it is impossible for you to understand the suspicion and distrust that prevails in Germany against England without referring to the recent history of South Africa. Rightly or wrongly, to us Germans, the Jameson Raid was an act of piracy much more flagitious and far less justifiable than the attack on Copenhagen,"

    635
    He goes on to say:—
    "It was not till after the Jameson Raid that we began to build in earnest."
    Then he alludes in another passage to the arrest of a German steamer off the coast of Africa, on the plea that it was carrying arms to the Boers, who had more arms and ammunition than they could use. I always thought that one of the most disastrous blunders ever made, and it was that and the suspicion which it caused which created the German Navy League. This man goes on to say:—
    "An England pacific, Gladstonian, free trading, relying upon voluntary service for her armed force—such an England may have as large a fleet as she pleases without exciting any alarm, but an England that is aggressive, protectionist, armed to the teeth by conscription, is another proposition altogether. Against the latter England we must, in self defence, push on our naval defensive forces with the utmost rapidity. We are accused of an act of moral treachery which would justify armed reprisals because we took advantage of the cheapness of materials last autumn and the dearth of employment to lay down two of our 1909 'Dreadnoughts' in 1908, and to accumulate materials for the second pair in advance of what we intended. But there was no intention on our part to hurry up the construction of these ships, nor did we intend to lay down four snore ships this year. What we shall now do depends upon the extent to which your agitators succeed in inflaming public sentiment in both nations."
    When you go on with this provocative campaign, such as has been indulged in during the last three years, one thing provokes another, and it is a long time before the hope expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be realised and you get back to saner ideas. The Press of this country is doing very little to promote that. Let me give an example—I will only quote one, I might quote a dozen—of the outrageous and, criminal agitation carried on against Germany for the last three years. Let me take an extract from an article written by Sir E. C. Cox in the "Nineteenth Century." These things are not laughable, because, published as they are in responsible English journals, they are quoted in Germany, and they are accepted as representing the opinion of a considerable and influential section of the English people, just as the expressions of certain jingo newspapers in Germany are quoted by the "Daily Mail"—that organ of the Angels of Peace. Here is Sir E. Cox's contribution to the controversy. He says:—
    "How can we meet the crisis? Is there no alternative to this incessant war and competition in shipbuilding? Yes, there is an alternative, and the only possible one is to say to Germany, 'All that you have been doing constitutes a series of unfriendly acts. Your fair words go for nothing. Once for all, you must put an end to your warlike preparations. If we are not satisfied that you do so, we shall forthwith
    636
    sink every battleship and cruiser that you possess.' When a Liberal Government is convinced of the imminence of the danger, what further need have we of witnesses?"
    That is the effect of such speeches and such Debates as we had in this House last year. I say, in my opinion, the laying down of those four great ships last year, which are responsible for so much of the increase of this year, and will be responsible for a much more disastrous increase next year, is absolutely unjustifiable by anything that was said by Ministers. It was an act of insult to the great nation of Germany, and, if this Government continue on the same lines, they must be content to bear upon their shoulders the burden of the shame and humiliation of being the leaders in this insane and ruinous competition of armaments, which will yet be the destruction of this Empire.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I promised yesterday, when a question was put to me whether it was not possible to give a longer time for the discussion of this Vote, and when reference was made to the fact or to the alleged fact that the Front Benches are in the habit of occupying too much of the comparatively small opportunities which art afforded for the discussion of the Estimates, that so far as this Front Bench, at any rate, was concerned we would exercise a self-denying ordinance. I hope I am not departing from that promise if I venture for a few moments to say one or two words in answer to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I have been in this House a long time with him, and I quite recognise the hon. Member is an earnest and strenuous partisan of economy, who has always distinguished himself by his hostility—and I have often sympathised and acted with him—to unnecessary expenditure on our defensive services. I venture to say so far as the present Government is concerned, and, as he has referred to myself, so far as I am concerned, there is no reason whatever, or there is no ground for presumption from our past record that we should suddenly, in a fit of emotional panic, attempt to deviate from the path of economy when at the same time we are prosecuting urgent and essential matters of social reform unless we felt ourselves bound to act as we did in the interests of national security. For the best part of three years I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. During that time I occupied myself, as all Chancellors Of the Exchequer do if they know their

    637
    duty, in a continuous battle with the spending Departments—I think not altogether without result. In this particular matter of the Naval Estimates we have been reproached with great severity by the Leader of the Opposition with the alleged laxity and insufficiency of our expenditure in the first three years of our term of office. During these three years, whereas according to what was called the Cawdor Programme four of these great battleships should have been placed on the Estimates each year—twelve in all—I think the total number for which we provided was eight. There are some who still think—I am prepared if that question is raised to meet it, but it is hardly relevant now—there are some who think we were remiss in making what they regard as inadequate provision for the necessities of the nation. I do not think so. I think, having regard to the shipbuilding programme of the world as it then was, to the enormous superiority of our Navy in pre-"Dreadnought" ships, and to the fact that new types of ships are necessarily of an experimental kind, and that it is extremely undesirable, in the early years of a new experimental process, to multiply and stereotype classes of ships which may speedily become obsolete—I think we were well advised in limiting our programme as we did. I think hon. Gentlemen will agree—certainly my hon. Friends behind me will agree—that we showed a real desire to pursue economy in matters of naval expenditure, and, unless you suppose that we were suddenly bitten by some heaven-sent, I will not say heaven-sent, but by some gadfly madness which came from some obscure and indescribable quarter, it is difficult to understand how, in a single year, we should suddenly be transformed into what we are now represented to have become, roaring and rapacious jingoes. That is not a description which will be applied to us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I can honestly say there is no man within these walls who regrets more than I do the necessity for this increased naval expenditure.
    There is another point—a very important point—which was raised by my hon. Friend in the speech which he has just made, and which, I agree with him, is a matter for deep regret. I mean the fact that the increase in our naval expenditure should have been associated, in so far as it has been associated, with the notion that we are in any sense hostile to, or entertain hostile designs against, the friendly nation of Germany. Nothing is
    638
    further from the truth. I very much regret it. I regret, in the interest of international amity and comity, that my hon. Friend should think it worth while to cite from magazines anonymous articles by anonymous writers having no public authority suggesting either on one side or the other—the first article in the case of of Germany, and the second in the case of the United Kingdom—that the reason for the increased naval expenditure which both countries felt themselves bound to incur is that either one or the other contemplates a hostile attack from the other. Nothing is further from the truth. I can say with the most perfect sincerity that our relations with Germany have been, and at this moment are, of the most cordial character. I look for increasing warmth and fervour and intimacy in those relations year by year. I welcome—every man on both sides with any sense of true patriotism must welcome—the various agencies and movements by which the two peoples are getting more and more to understand each other. I do not believe the German Government would in the least subscribe to the view which has been imputed to the German nation in the article just quoted, that our naval preparations are directed against them any more than I subscribe to the view that the German naval preparations are directed against us.
    Germany has her own policy to pursue, her own interests to safeguard. She is a great world Power. She has outlying dependencies. She is constantly sending her sons and daughters to the uttermost parts of the earth. Her trade is increasing everywhere. The German statesmen and people honestly and legitimately believe—and it is not with us a question whether the manner in which they express and carry out their belief is politic or wise—that is a matter for them—they believe they cannot maintain their position as a great world Power, with the numerous and constantly increasing interests they are bound to defend in every quarter of the globe, unless they increase their navy. That is, so far as I know, the German position. What is our position? Our position is this. We are responsible not so much for looking after an increasing and newly developing Empire as we are responsible for the defence and security of an Empire which already exists, and we should be false to the trust which the nation and Empire have reposed in this House and in the Government of the day unless we maintain

    639
    that ample margin of security which is the only insurance a nation such as ours can possess—an insular country with 40,000,000 of people dependent on foreign supplies of food and raw material, and responsible for the protection and defence of dependencies and dominions in every quarter of the globe—unless we maintain an ample margin of security against all probable or even possible risks. I very much regret that the name of Germany has been so frequently introduced into this Debate. It would be exactly the same thing if this increase of naval development which has taken place during the last few years in Germany had taken place in France, between which country and ourselves most intimate ties of friendship and even affection exist. What we have to do, if we are to discharge the trust of which I spoke a few moments ago, is to look at the shipbuilding programmes of the world. You must take into account all possible risks, and you must never sacrifice that margin of safety by which alone we can secure our trade and our Empire. It is in no sense from hostility to Germany that we have had to look at German shipbuilding as being to a very large extent of late years the governing factor in the problem of the margin which has to be secured. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Debate which took place in March last year. Amongst other things he referred to a speech of mine. I rather gathered that he associated himself with those who thought I had ministered wantonly and most unnecessarily to the creation of a panic. My conscience is perfectly clear on that point. I was replying to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I was endeavouring to show that, with or without good reason, his apprehensions, both of our unpreparedness and of the formidable character of the German programme, were alike exaggerated. At the same time I quite agreed, and I did think it necessary to point out in justification of the Estimates we were submitting to the House, new facts which had emerged, which had at least become ascertained, during the course of the preceding twelve months. What were those new facts? They were, first, that there had been what has been described, perhaps in a not very accurate way, but in a popular way, as an actual acceleration in the execution of the German programme. The second was that there had been a very large and, as we conceived, an increasing growth in the productive capacity of Germany in
    640
    turning out these instruments of war. Was I wrong in either of those propositions? It is suggested that the consent of the House to the Estimates of last year was procured by misleading information. I adhere absolutely to the literal accuracy of everything I said in that Debate. First of all, what about acceleration? The language I used was this, quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
    "It is undoubtedly the case—I speak with as much reserve as I can about it, because I want to keep strictly within the verifiable truth—that during the autumn of last year there was an anticipation with four ships which belonged to the German programme of 150910, in the sense that orders were given. materials collected, and it may be that in one or two cases, possibly in more, ships were actually laid down." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1909, col.961]
    Is that or not the truth? It is not disputed by anyone—it is certainly not disputed by the German Government that materials had been collected and one ship at any rate had been laid down, so that my statement of fact is literally accurate. At the same time, I was careful to take note in the speech to which my hon. Friend referred of the declaration that had been given to them by the German Government that no future acceleration should take place. When I said that an acceleration or anticipation in the sense described in that passage had taken place I was stating that which was true, and which nobody could dispute. As regards the increase in the German power of productiveness, it is not so much a question of volume as of rate, and particularly of the speed at which, owing to the development of their productive machinery, battleships of this class can be turned out. When I speak of the last twelve months I do not intend to convey that the whole development has taken place in that time, but that its existence and its extent had become known to His Majesty's Government in that time. We have been blamed. It is said we ought to have known before, that we ought to have anticipated it. I will not go into that question. I think we took all the precautions we could, and we were right not to act till we were perfectly certain of the facts. In past days, three or four years ago, it was a matter taken for granted—I see many hon. Members opposite who can, bear me out—that the period of construction of German battleships, with the facilities which Germany then possessed, averaged from thirty-six to forty months. As a matter of fact, if you take the five German "Dreadnoughts"—four are actual battleships, one is a cruiser of the "Invincible" class, but for convenience I

    641
    will call them all "Dreadnoughts"—if you take the five German "Dreadnoughts" now available for warlike purposes, you will find that the time of construction has varied from two years two months for the shortest to two years nine months for the longest. That cannot be disputed.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is that from the laying down?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the laying down.
    Mr. LOUGH: That is only two ships.
    5.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of the whole five. I am sure I am accurate. I have all the dates here. The shortest time after laying down is two years and two months, and the longest, for any of the five ships, two years nine months. Can anyone deny that that was an important change—the difference between the period of three years four months and the period of two years nine months and two years and two months in the length of time it takes a German battleship to be constructed? That is nearly the reduction of a half in the length of time which it takes to build a German "Dreadnought." I say that any Government to whose mind those two sets of facts were brought home would be bound to revise its programme if it were to maintain the same margin of superiority which, by the contention of all parties in the State, has been hitherto maintained as essential to the public security. Those are the two new facts to which I committed myself last year, and neither of them has been in the least degree disproved by what has taken place.
    Now I should like to go on to what has subsequently happened, and what is likely to happen. I draw a broad distinction, as everybody must, between statements of fact and anticipations of the future. I thought the right hon. Gentleman accepted those facts, as, of course, he was bound to do, but took an exaggerated view of the rate at which the German Fleet would be multiplied and increased. What I said was this: In our view the German Fleet—when I am speaking of the German Fleet I am speaking of "Dreadnoughts"—the German Fleet, in the month of April, 1912, would certainly, or almost certainly, amount to thirteen, and it might conceivably amount to seventeen. When you are in doubt in matters of this kind you must always give the benefit of the doubt to the margin of safety, and
    642
    that is what we did in the programme we proposed last year. We are now in a better position to see what the real facts are likely to be than we were. First of all, I will give the House a brief statement of this class of ships in Great Britain and in Germany. There are at this moment built, ready for war, in Great Britain ten "Dreadnoughts," in Germany five. Those ships are ready for war, ready to be commissioned. There are actually launched—I am now anticipating so far as we are concerned by including amongst those launched two about to be launched in July or August—there are actually launched: Great Britain, six; Germany, five. There are on the slips in Great Britain four, and in Germany three, and so far as our information goes there are ordered, although we do not know that anything has yet been done, in Germany four more. It appears from the official records of the German Government that those four were ordered in the month of April this year. Very probably nothing more has been done beyond the giving of the order, but four were ordered in the month of April. We do not know whether they have been begun; very possibly they have been begun, but we do not know. We know they are ordered. That is the actual statement of the account as regards "Dreadnoughts" at this moment. Now let us come to dates. I will take, first, as the most convenient date, the state of things which will be in existence at the end of 1911. What I am giving now are those actually ready for war.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Are they actually in commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is an immaterial point. I do not know whether they are in commission or not, but they are ready to be commissioned. They could take the sea to-morrow, and therefore to all intents are ready for war. That is far more important than whether they have been commissioned or not. Assuming that to be the definition, I will take the figures for the end of 1911. Great Britain will then have in that sense of the word sixteen and Germany will have eleven. That is at the end of 1911. Now I will take what was called last year in many of these Debates the critical month, April, 1912. In April, 1912, Germany will have thirteen and we shall have, including the four contingent ships which were authorised by the House last year and which then ought to be ready, twenty.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Does this take into account the Austrian "Dreadnoughts"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No. I will come to them directly. I am confining the comparison now to ourselves and Germany. I have stated the position in the spring of 1912. Then I come to the spring of 1913. It may be earlier, because we are dealing now with four ships which have been already ordered—ships which the German Government say they ordered in the month of April of the present year. I am trying to put it off as far as I can. It might conceivably be at the end of 1912, but certainly by the spring of 1913 there will be these four additional German ships. I have brought into the account four contingent ships which were not on the Estimates last year, but to which the House assented last July. Now I take the five ships of the programme of the present year; they will bring us up to twenty-five in the spring of 1913. Then the four additional German ships which are still to come, which belong to the programme 1911–12, and which we may assume will be ready in 1913–14, bring them up to twenty-one. That is the strict actual account as between Germany and ourselves of our comparative strength at each of those dates. We have got to add to the British strength the two "Dreadnoughts" which the Colonies have so generously promised. They must be taken into account. On the other side of the account you have to put—as I have said it is not a question of unfriendly feeling at all, no question of differences, no question of enmity—but we have to take as potential figures for comparison with our own strength the Italian "Dreadnoughts," of which we know there are to be four.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: By 1913?
    The PRIME MINISTER: By 1913 or 1914. I do not like to say much about the mysterious Austrian ships, because the Austrian Government has done nothing so far to indicate its intention one way or another. It may be the Austrian Government will never move in the matter at all, but we do know, as a matter of general knowledge, that there is in course of construction one "Dreadnought," possibly more, in Austria. If that is the prospective state of the account—and I do not believe the figures I have given can possibly be refuted—I have rather, if anything, minimised or postponed to the latest possible moment
    644
    the dates at which the foreign ships will be completed (wherever there has been a doubt I have given the benefit of the doubt rather in that direction, but I do not think I am far wrong)—if that is the prospective state of the account, I ask anybody if the programme which we are proposing for the present year, which will give us these twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" on the date I have mentioned, with the addition of two Colonial "Dreadnoughts," is excessive, having regard to the number of this same class of ships that will then be in existence in European waters. I agree there may be a difference of opinion as to its sufficiency. I daresay I shall be told by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the margin I have named is not sufficient and that we ought to accelerate our construction more than we have done. I have no doubt some of my friends behind me will say it is excessive. Is it, however, very excessive? Add them up. Twenty-five British "Dreadnoughts," two Colonial "Dreadnoughts," which by the very conditions under which they are given us must be employed more or less at the other end of the world. Against that you have twenty-one Germans. I do not say "against" in the sense that they are going to be opposed to one another, but as two items on the opposite sides of the account I do not really think that anybody can say that that represents an inflated programme promoted by a sudden access of jingo zeal on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    I have purposely spoken at the very earliest moment possible because it is desirable that the Committee should have the actual facts. There is no man in this House who regrets this kind of expenditure more than I do. I see quite as clearly as does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every new "Dreadnought" that you build postpones pro tanto the achievement of some urgent work of social reform; but national security, national insurance, after all is the first condition of all social reform. You may say, "Is it not possible to come to some kind of arrangement between the nations of the world, particularly between ourselves and the great friendly Empire of Germany, by which this kind of thing might be brought to a close?" I wish it were. The German Government told us—I cannot complain, I have no answer to make—their procedure in this matter is governed by an act of the Reichstag under

    645
    which the programme automatically proceeds year by year. That is to say, the year 1911–12 is the last year in which, under the law, four "Dreadnoughts" are constructed, and the rate of construction drops in the two succeeding years to two each year, so that we are now, we may hope, at the very top of the wave. If it were possible even now to reduce that rate of construction no one would be more delighted than His Majesty's Government. We have approached the German Government on the subject. They have found themselves unable to do anything. They cannot do it without an Act of Parliament repealing their Navy Law. They tell us, and no doubt, with great truth, they would not have the support of public opinion in Germany to a modified programme. These are the governing and unalterable facts of the situation for the moment. We must deal with them as facts and make our provision for them. We feel that there is no body of men in this country who would, with more unfeigned satisfaction, put a stop to the construction of these necessary, expensive and wasteful instruments of warfare and thereby divert the money which is so employed to purposes for the welfare and progress of our people. Every opportunity that offers we shall eagerly avail ourselves of in that direction, and in the meantime we ask the House to support the Government in an expenditure which, having regard to the circumstances of the case and having regard to the facts I have cited, though lamentable, appears to us to be necessary for the security of the Empire.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The naval Debate this year, under the guidance of the hon. Gentleman who initiated it, has been really more concerned with the Debates of last year than with anything which directly appears in these Estimates. I make no complaint of that. I do not think it would be possible to discuss the larger topics of naval policy in 1910 without referring to the Debates of 1909 and without passing in review the circumstances which have led up to the present condition of things. I speak with some hesitation and some reluctance on this question, as I understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in a part of his speech, which I was unfortunately prevented from hearing, accused the two Front Benches of having agreed over questions of foreign policy and also over the questions of the Army and of the Navy.
    Mr. DILLON: No; that was not what I said. I said there was a custom arising of withdrawing these questions from party politics.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think I was not unfairly paraphrasing the hon. Gentleman, but I naturally accept the correction which he has just made. He said there is a tendency to withdraw these questions from party politics, and in so far as the tendency of which he complains prevents the Opposition of the day making what is called party capital out of the particular difficulty in which the Government may find themselves at the moment in connection with the complicated problems which are necessarily involved in foreign policy and other allied administrative work, if the present Opposition have, indeed, succeeded in withdrawing these questions, or many of them, from the purview of party politics, we have contributed greatly to the smooth working of representative institutions, and I rejoice that it is by way of criticism on the part of an hon. Gentleman that my name, however unworthy, should be associated with a movement of that kind. But I am not sure that the previous Debates to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech fully bear out that statement. I certainly am not conscious, and I certainly do not plead guilty in the smallest degree to ever having used the question of the Navy for party purposes only. Undoubtedly it is a fact that it was a matter of the sharpest controversy between the two sides of the House last year, and one of the speeches to which the hon. Gentleman has more particularly referred—the famous speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—was delivered on the occasion of a Vote of Censure brought forward by the Opposition on the naval policy of the Government of the day. I do not know that in the practice of this House or in our constitutional procedure it is possible to carry party differences to a further point than bringing a Vote of Censure against the Government that for the time being holds the reins of office; and whether we were right or whether we were wrong in the Vote of Censure, at all events I venture to think that we could not be accused last year of having in any way failed in our duty of becoming the critics of the Government when we thought the safety of the State was in question; nor I hope any of us, from whatever party they are drawn, will in future shrink from taking that course, if they think it is necessary, which

    647
    we took last year, and which, I am sure, we were right in taking, and which none of us have ever regretted taking. The Prime Minister, I think quite rightly, has passed lightly over the differences of opinion which at that time separated the two Front Benches. He referred to the fact that we thought the Government were guilty of haying relaxed the efforts in shipbuilding which they should have made during the two preceding years, and that in consequence we have the tremendous, almost overburdening, and in some respects the gigantic, expenditure to which the House is now asked to assent. Was not that criticism a just one?
    The Prime Minister seems to think that there are reasons excusing the Government, but I will venture to ask hon. Gentlemen who are candid critics of their own Front Bench in this matter, and who may he therefore, however much they may object to our attitude, prepared to consider and weigh the contentions that take place between these two Front Benches in a fairer way—I ask them whether, in looking back, they do not think that the Government are now right in making this immense progress, or whether it would not have been better for them to have spread it over a longer period? I would ask them, further, whether panic or anything which could be called by any critic panic, would not have been avoided, whether much irresponsible criticism in both countries in the past might have been avoided, with the consequent heart-burnings, if such necessary modifications as may have been proved to be necessary had been steadily continued from the day the Government came into office? I firmly believe that those years of relapse on the part of the Government have been largely responsible, not only for the gigantic expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now got to meet, but for much of the international friction which has arisen. When I say friction, I do not mean between the Governments or between the peoples, but I mean between those who take up these matters in the Press of both countries.
    Much of that friction would have been avoided had the Government pursued the even tenour of their way and not for a moment relaxed their efforts, with the inevitable result that they had to put on a violent spurt afterwards. I am not going into that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he discussed—I do not
    648
    think in a particularly happy spirit—the international relations between the peoples of Great Britain and Germany. I should have thought a speech like his would, of all others, be the most calculated to embitter such international feelings which may exist, fanning into flame any sparks which I am sure might be allowed to die down and reviving controversies which he, more than any other man, has done his best to revive at the present time. But there is one part of his speech of which I think the House should take notice. He quoted an article, written anonymously, in one of our British Reviews, in which he said the German case for a great navy was put more powerfully than he had ever seen in any other presentation of the argument. I listened to the extract that he gave us from the article, and I gathered from it that the reason that the German Government, or the German Navy League, were so anxious to augment their Navy was in order to prevent hostile aggression on the part of this country. Anybody who really puts Germany and England as being in an equal position with regard to navies does not understand the elements of the controversy. The idea that we, whatever our Navy was, could invade Germany is grotesque in the extreme. I have no right to say that the author of the article did or did not believe that; I have no doubt he may have believed it, but that any sane man in any other country thinks that if we had ten times the number of "Dreadnoughts" that Germany possesses, that that would be or could be a threat of British invasion, is an absurdity so great that I am inclined to put all controversialists of that kind out of court.
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The question of possible aggression is as regards commerce, not as regards invading Germany.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not so sure; that may be the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not think that anybody listening to the extracts to which I listened just now would imagine that it was the argument of the anonymous author.
    Mr. DILLON: That was the argument that they were afraid that England would destroy their ships and drive their commerce off the seas.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Then what was that reference to conscription? What had that got to do with it? However, I do not wish to enter into a controversy with hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House

    649
    as to the meaning of that article. I only desire to repeat what is absolutely commonplace to everybody I am addressing, that however much Germany might be embarrassed by an unsuccessful sea war with this country she would not be in any vital sense injured. Our existence as a nation would come to an end and to put these two possible opinions into opposite scales is perfectly absurd. It is perfectly absurd to say that we ought to look at the question of the Navy with the same eyes that the patriotic German should in Germany. We have to look at the question of the Navy with the same eyes that the German looks at the question of the Army. It is on the Army that their national existence depends. It is on the Navy that our national existence depends, and if we would only deal with our Navy as the Germans deal with their Army I for one should be content. I do not think I need go back any more upon the controversies of last year, except perhaps to answer the criticism of the Prime Minister—not a criticism advanced in any very controversial spirit—which he suggested in his speech. He said that last year we had made certain anticipations of the possible growth of the German Navy which he at the time deprecated as being excessive and which experience had shown to be excessive. That may be quite true. I think it is quite true. But what we said last year was, Germany is anticipating her programme in 1908. [An HON. MEMBER: "1909."] The anticipation took place in 1908; it was the anticipation of the 1909 programme in 1908. Therefore it is quite evident that it is perfectly legal and may be thought perfectly proper by the German Government to carry out precisely the same course in 1909 or 1910. If she does that or anything like it she will have a fleet of these capital ships which will put us in the minority.
    Mr. LOUGH: That was your calculation.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Of course it was my calculation. That is the point. I was defending my calculation. I did not say then that the Germans would do that. I said that was a contingency which must be regarded as possible in view of what they had done. I am as pleased as the Prime Minister or as any little Navy advocate that the Germans did not do it. But I do not think I was to blame, and I do not stand here in a white sheet for an instant because I suggested that they might do
    650
    it, and it was a contingency which had to be considered. It was a contingency which had to be considered, and I rejoice that the worst that might have happened has, as a matter of fact, not happened. I now turn to comment upon what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the future relative strength of these two countries, in connection with ships of the new type.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I purposely did not refer, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, to the pre-"Dreadnought" ships, because that was not a matter for the moment. I strongly maintain—it is the position we have always held—that we have an immense superiority in them.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I will not revive that branch of the controversy. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that whatever weight we must give to the three "Dreadnought" ships in the balance of power between us and foreign nations is a rapidly diminishing quantity, and the rate of diminution is an increasing rate. I do not imagine that it will be disputed by the authorities of the Admiralty, and I do not mean to make it a matter of controversy at present, nor do I mean to say anything controversial in what still remains to be dealt with. But there was a peculiarity in the Prime Minister's speech which, I think, has struck everyone who listened to it. He actually found himself bound by the exigencies of debate to put the case at its best for our country. Usually when the Minister responsible for the defence of the country gets up to explain his policy, he puts the matter the other way. He does not say that everything is going to be the very best for us; he says we must imagine things are going to go in the worst possible way. But the right hon. Gentleman, for perfectly obvious reasons, inverted that which is the natural course of argument, and felt himself so oppressed by the small Navy section below the Gangway, that he actually had, as it were, to apologise to the British House of Commons, not for himself, but for the programme he has put forward, by assuming that everything was going in the best way for us. So far did that controversial necessity carry him that, as I understand, he altogether omitted to deal with what might very easily happen at the end of 1912. By his own account of German shipbuilding there is no earthly reason for supposing that we may not at the end of 1912 have only a margin of three "Dreadnoughts" over the German

    651
    fleet. If German shipbuilding be slower than it need be, and if the ships which might be built in 1912 are, as a matter of fact, not finished until April, 1913, the case, of course, would be much better. Then, as I understand him, we shall have twenty-five ships to the Germans seventeen.
    But if the Germans build as fast as they have built, or as fast as we build—I only took down the figures, and I may be wrong in my calculations, but I think at the end of 1912 the position may be that we shall have twenty and the Germans seventeen. In other words, there is no ground, on the Prime Minister's own statement, for thinking that in a little more than two years from the present time the margin of British strength over German strength will be a margin of three "Dreadnoughts" out of a fleet of twenty. [An HON. MEMBEN: "I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the Colonial 'Dreadnoughts.'"] If the hon. Gentleman followed the Prime Minister as closely as I did, he will see that I am going on his lines, and I am leaving Colonial "Dreadnoughts" and non-German ships, Austrian and others, out of account. I am dealing, as the Prime Minister dealt, with the relative strength in "Dreadnoughts." I may be wrong, but I am quite honest in trying to state the case, and if I had given my figures wrongly the very able array of experts I see opposite me would have found the error. Therefore I assume that I am correct in saying that in the later months of 1912 the margin of Great Britain over Germany would be three "Dreadnoughts" and no more. If they are adequately supported by all that is necessary in the way of destroyers and cruisers, it may be that that is sufficient for the national safety, but has this House ever been content with so small a margin? I do not believe that, at all events in the last quarter of a century, there has ever been a time when a single Power has been in that percentage of strength to the British Navy.
    The right hon. Gentleman has not made any reference—there was no reason why he should—to the two-Power standard. He said we have to consider all nations alike, which I think is rather withdrawing from the position which the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and I think he himself, have taken up from time to time in the controversies of the last few years. But though I welcome that statement, on the two-Power standard he has said
    652
    nothing, and I ask the House, and I ask the hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote for this reduction of £2,000,000, whether they can in their whole memory recall a time when, not in relation to two Powers, but in relation to one Power, and that the most highly organised and most efficient Power probably in its management of such concerns as these that the world has ever seen, those responsible for the administration of the defences of this country were content with a margin so narrow over the forces at the command of one single naval rival, however friendly that rival might be? In these circumstances I do not desire to say another word of comment or of criticism. I am anxious to hear how the Debate will develop. I think the general feeling which the Debates of last year aroused through the country have been admirable in their effect upon the work which the responsible Departments have thrown into the problem of defence. If we who sit on these benches and if my my friends around me had anything to do with arousing the feelings and the knowledge of the country to the peril in which we then stood, I rejoice that we took that share in what hon Gentlemen regard as a criminal agitation, and for my own part I do not believe anything has more conduced to peace in the world, and, I will add, to the good feeling between nations, than that movement in which the Government themselves have now taken a part, which at all events shows a general consciousness that we must preserve everything we hold dear for ourselves, and everything we hold dear for other nations, not to relax by one item, not to diminish in expenditure on ships, in expenditure on men, in expenditure on all those subsidiary services which are required to make ships and men efficient, a sum which will be enough to enable us to look confidently upon all the changes and chances of our international relations, and to preserve without fear the peace and friendliness which to every Government, although it may surprise hon. Gentlemen, and to every party and every section of every party, is the greatest and dearest interest which this country can secure.
    Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I desire to say a few words in support of the Motion for reduction, though I should have preferred that the amount of reduction had been that which I have placed on the Paper, because I made an attempt to indicate, in the sum of money, the first year's cost of building the five great battleships which form the main part of this

    653
    year's programme. However, this is not an occasion upon which a specific amount matters very much. We are dealing today with essential differences of feeling and of policy which exist between different sections of the House. The bon. Member (Mr. Dillon) has graphically depicted the scene that some of us witnessed in March of last year. There was no need to recall those circumstances to me, and I think other Members will never forget the proceedings that then took place. The Leader of the Opposition appeared in his peroration to put before the House the idea that the Debate which took place then and the subsequent events had made for the peace of the world and good feeling among nations. I hold exactly the opposite view. I hold the view to-day, as I did then, that the events of that month and the way in which the Debate was conducted in the House were most unfortunate events, and I would, if possible, readily forget them. I think on that day the House was urged into a state of unreasoning panic and alarm the effects of which will be shown on our foreign relations and on our Exchequer for very many years to come. I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister to-day, and I must be allowed to say how very much I feel—shall I say sorry?—at having to differ from him in the advice he has given to this party. I have followed him long, and it is a real trouble to me to have on this occasion to announce that I can follow him no longer in regard to this Vote. The Prime Minister made kindly references to foreign peoples, and I am sure we were all delighted to hear them. I am sure his speech will produce a most excellent effect upon the relationship between us and foreign countries, but to my mind the good effect of what he said must be partially vitiated by the fact that he appeared to see a reason why his Government should provide for the danger of conflict, not with one of the European Powers, but with all the great fleets in European waters. I think if our Government is going to anticipate such a horrible conflict, the programme to-day suggested is inadequate for the purpose it is intended to fulfil.
    I venture to think that the Prime Minister did not deal entirely and adequately with the indictment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon). What was that indictment? It was that we in this House were asked last year to take a certain course for certain reasons which were placed before us, and that that course was
    654
    taken on the basis of prophecies which have not been fulfilled. We believe that these prophecies have been proved to be unfounded and alarmist, and that the course of action laid down on the basis of them ought to be altered. Surely we have given the expert advisers of the Government long enough time to prove the wisdom of their speculations and forecasts. What has time revealed? Time has shown that every element on which the scare of last year was built up has been falsified. In the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty he said that if the German programme was to be accelerated, they would have by April, 1912, seventeen "Dreadnoughts" and "Invincibles" available for the purpose of war. It was against that contingency—the continued acceleration of the—German programme—that we were asked to consent to the provision of these four extra and contingent ships.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARVEY: I heard the First Lord make his speech, but I will accept his correction, if he corrects me. I understood him to say—and I am confirmed from having read the speech—that if the German programme was accelerated, the contingency would arise that they would have seventeen great battleships ready for war in April, 1912. All the world to-day knows that the most they can have will be thirteen, and it is extremely likely that they will only have twelve, and yet these four contingent ships are being built by us, and an enormously enhanced programme has been set afoot for this current year. Why? Has Germany continued to accelerate her programme or has she not? I must confess that it was a somewhat bitter reflection to me that, while we were moved by feelings of scare almost to the point of hysteria, while craven cries were ringing in our ears, Germany pursued the policy she announced she would pursue consistently and with dignity all the time.
    I want to refer to a Return which is annually published on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke). I take, first, the great British battleships of from one to ten years old. I find that we have thirty-five of these great battleships and three "Invincibles"—thirty-eight warships in all, with a tonnage of 587,000 tons. Against these in ships of similar age I find that Germany has twenty with a tonnage of 280,000 tons—not half ours. I take

    655
    the gun-power of these vessels, and I find that there are in these thirty-five British vessels 166 12-inch guns, eight 10-inch guns, and fifty-two 9.2 guns, so that we have a total of 226 guns. The twenty German vessels have 104 guns of from 11 inches to 9.4 inches. Surely that shows an overwhelming preponderance of sea-power at this time, at any rate, in favour of Great Britain. But that is not all. I take the great battleships of Great Britain which are from eleven to fifteen years old, and we are not yet scrapping vessels at fifteen years old. They are supposed to be available for good service. We have twenty of these ships, with a tonnage of 28,000 tons, in which there are eighty guns of from 13.5 inches to 10 inches. I venture to say that, as far as a layman can understand these things, there does not appear to be a single ship in the German navy to pit against these.
    6.0 P.M.
    Of course, these are not "Dreadnoughts," but do we still agree to count only "Dreadnoughts"? Eighteen months ago we talked of nothing else. The name itself was popularly conclusive of supremacy at sea. Experts would have none other, and the Foreign Secretary, with the idea that "Dreadnoughts" alone meant power, said that we must commence to rebuild our Fleet. Well, who holds that view to-day? There is no unanimity. Among experts there is a doubt and bewilderment all round. I have seen it stated by men of great authority that it might be the case if war broke out that a "Dreadnought" would hardly dare to go into the open sea until things had been made smooth for her by the intervention of smaller and quicker vessels. No doubt it is thought by some that the time may be coming when it would be wise to abandon the policy of these gigantic ships and to put your eggs into more baskets, and that possibly the day might unfortunately come when a gigantic and overwhelming vessel like a "Dreadnought" might be sunk by a livelier ship of a few hundred tons burden manned by a few men taking their lives in their hands. We should think of the interest of the taxpayers in this matter of expenditure. Since 1895 our Naval Estimates have gone up from £19,500,000 to the gigantic sum of £42,500,000, and we can all see that if this course is pursued, in a short time our naval expenditure will reach the gigantic total of £50,000,000 annually. I know that the national safety
    656
    is the first thing to be considered. We must be safe. There is no good of talking about social reforms, of the condition of the people, if we do not feel that our people are secure. I do ask the First Lord of the Admiralty and his advisers to look again over the list of the great battleships and to see whether, taking the national situation into consideration, it is not possible to bring about a pause in this rapidly increasing and gigantic expenditure. We are a rich country, and of course we can find the money. That financial fairy the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only to wave his wand and untold gold flows into the Exchequer. I am told that the returns of the Super-tax are offering a constant and pleasing surprise as they come in. This is also a country of abounding poverty, and taxes that fall very lightly on the rich fall with overwhelming weight and stress upon the poor. We have not only to provide for the social reform which was indicated by the Home Secretary and which we shall all welcome, but there are many taxes on the necessities of life which weigh heavily on the poor and which ought to be reduced. I have heard those who are in opposition to me in politics find fault with me as a Free Trader because so many millions of revenue are derived from taxes on the people's food. I want to remove these taxes. I want to see something done to carry out the promise of a free breakfast table. Although I acknowledge that national safety must ever be our first purpose, I do venture to urge that we may not be called upon to spend a single penny more than is necessary on armaments. Money which is spent unnecessarily on armaments is money thrown away. I most firmly believe that every unnecessary ship you float and every unnecessary gun you place upon that ship is a threat and a menace to international friendship and security. It is with these feelings—feelings of great responsibility, as differing from my Government and my leaders, that I am going to support the Motion of the hon. Member.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a remark that I hope will go right through the country—indeed, through the Empire. They said that in all these Debates as to our naval affairs, and what we think is necessary, we should keep a civil tongue in our heads in regard to what Germany is doing. I have said

    657
    in this House before, and I repeat it, that Germany has a perfect right to build what ships she thinks is necessary from patriotic views, and it does harm, and infinite harm, for any Member of this House to make speeches which are derogatory to Germany in carrying out what she considers necessary for her defence. I should like to reply to one or two remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He began by making a rather extraordinary statement that he condemned and abhorred the policy of the Government with regard to their shipbuilding views. I think the hon. Member will have a certain amount of sympathy on this side of the House in condemning and abhorring that policy, but from quite a different point of view. I am not astonished that the hon. Members who sit on those benches and the hon. Members who sit on these benches are greatly surprised at the line of policy which the Government have undertaken in regard to expenditure on naval matters. The Prime Minister himself, during the last election, said that the Navy was absolutely unassailable, now and for the future. That was only last January, yet between that date and the present he and his Cabinet have increased the Naval Estimates by an enormous amount of money, which he never referred to when he said that the Navy was unassailable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, very rightly, has called attention to that as increasing the Estimates enormously for next year. If hon. Members will only take the trouble to see how all this was brought about, they will have to throw considerable blame on that Front Bench opposite for the continuous evasions and continuous contradictions in which they have been indulging for the last three or four years in regard to naval matters.
    Another remark made by the hon. Member for East Mayo was that he thought too much attention was paid to experts in preparing these Estimates. It would be a lucky thing for this House and for the country if experts had more to do with preparing Estimates. You would not then have the party policy of, for the sake of economy, reducing expenditure one year and running it up to fabulous and gigantic sums another year. We should have continuity of policy and ordinary common-sense. But, on the other hand, I do think that if experts had to determine it altogether it would be a dangerous thing. The Services must be
    658
    governed by the civil element. It is in accordance with our Constitution. And all I wish is that the civilian element would pay more attention to experts in making their Estimates. The hon. Member was also perfectly right when he said that the money which is wanted for national defence will interfere with the money that is wanted for social reform. I said so the other day, and I believe that the cause was that the Estimates were run down, and then they were suddenly raised up to the enormous price we are paying now. That is why you will not be able to get the money necessary for these social reforms which we all on this side of the House should like to see come about. I come now to the remarks which I wish to make on Vote A. That is the foundation of our naval strength; it is the building Vote. Every other item and unit hinges on Vote A—that is to say, men, stores, docks, and everything else. I want to criticise the naval administration of the Government on three cardinal points. I want to show that the Government have been totally devoid of any definite naval policy with regard to shipbuilding. I want to point out that the emasculated standard, the two-Power standard which the Prime Minister suggested as necessary in May, 1909, leaves no standard whatever of the strength which the British Navy should be; and I want also to point out that the Prime Minister has deserted the traditional principles which have always guided the use of sea power for the British Navy. That is to say, in his speech of 20th May, 1909, he deserted the principles which we have maintained all these years for utilising our sea power at sea.
    That want of policy, of ordinary foresight, and of common-sense, and, more than all, the want of the necessary war staff has resulted in enormous expenditure, which I maintain might have been avoided if proper organisation had been made out by a war staff for the Admiralty which at present does not exist. The point the Committee might remember with regard to all this expenditure is that there is nothing that the Government know now that they did not know for four years. Then why was this sudden expenditure brought about which the Leader of the Opposition called attention to a short time ago? We have had scares, panics, and contradictions, and I say that they are entirely due to the want of definite naval policy which resulted in a haphazard hand to mouth manner of shipbuilding Votes during the last three or four years. The

    659
    position is too critical to waste much time in recrimination, but I must refer to certain speeches to show how we have arrived at the present condition. The Prime Minister's speech in March, 1909, has often been referred to. He used language which astounded Europe, and caused the gravest anxiety both in this country and in the Dominions, particularly in the Dominions, where they actually telegraphed over after that speech to say that they would be glad to help the old country. The Foreign Secretary has also made a very grave speech which is mentioned by the hon. Member for Mayo. Is it for a moment supposed that those right hon. Gentlemen did not tell the truth? They did tell the truth, and it is shown that they did tell the truth at that moment by their subsequent action, and by the enormous expense that has been thrown on the country this year and the immense additional expense that will be thrown on the country next year.
    The Prime Minister's words are worth repeating. He said they had discovered grave matters affecting the welfare and safety of the Empire as a whole. He said that these circumstances were not only unforeseen, but were wholly unexpected, and he ended up by saying that when it was brought home to the Government it came as a great surprise. Now, what was the cause of the right hon. Gentleman making that speech? He was referring to the rapidity with which a neighbouring Power was making arrangements to accelerate its naval requirements, and in his speech he referred to the date as November, 1908. I wish the Committee to pay particular attention to this, because I maintain that this is the fact of the Prime Minister not knowing those circumstances earlier which has produced as a result this enormous extra naval expenditure. He referred in very strong language to certain circumstances that had occurred in November, 1908. But the fact was that those circumstances occurred two years and six months before—in July, 1906; and the question has never been cleared up how it was, when the Admiralty knew the fact in July, 1906, they never communicated their knowledge to the Cabinet until November, 1908. The result is—and I beg the attention of the hon. Member for East Mayo to this fact—that we now have this enormous extra expense, because during those two years and six months we were decreasing our naval shipbuilding while
    660
    the neighbouring country was increasing its shipbuilding by leaps and bounds. Illustrating the complete ignorance of this Eery crucial point, which I maintain is the cause of this very large expenditure now, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said on 29th March, 1909: "The doubtful point of the situation in regard to Germany is our comparative capacity for the construction of gun mountings." And during all that time there was a firm which had put up mountings for creating heavy guns at immense expense that was not allowed to tender by the Admiralty for two years and six months.
    I say that hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides, when they look into that question, cannot find fault with this large expenditure on armaments. That is the reason for it. For two years and six months the Prime Minister and the Cabinet did not know that Germany was accelerating to the immense extent it was, and during that time we were decreasing our shipbuilding. There was a personal element introduced in the matter, and the House and the country always dislike personal elements, and they are quite right. But there is a national element in it, too, which ought to be considered and ought to be thrashed out thoroughly. We have a right to know why the Admiralty did not communicate with the Cabinet on this very important point. How do we know that the same thing may not occur again? At any moment the Prime Minister or the Cabinet may come down and tell this House of other new discoveries. Certainly, if they have got no naval policy, as this shows they have not, it must come again. The fact that at one moment you have an immense reduction and the next moment there is an enormous addition to the Naval Estimates, with a further promise of more ships to be built later on, shows clearly that there is no policy. I now turn to my second point: that there is no standard whatever for British naval strength at this moment. The Prime Minister completely abolished the two-Power standard, as we have always understood it, in May, 1909. I remember in 1908 the Prime Minister stated, and it is worth repeating again and again, that the two-Power standard meant an equality in capital ships to the two next strong Powers, whichever they might be and wherever they might be situated, plus 12 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition called attention to the fact that the Prime Minister had not mentioned anything now of the two-Power

    661
    standard. I am not astonished at that, as he has abolished it altogether, and has started an emasculated standard within six months of his making that speech.
    Take the speech made in May, 1909, in which the Prime Minister referred to geographical conditions, and never kept to the point that we should have an equality of capital ships with the two next Powers, whichever they might be. That point has disappeared altogether, and at this moment we have no standard whatever given to us by the Cabinet of the day, because the Cabinet of the day have never told us what they mean by "geographical conditions." I think what happened was that owing to what I call culpable negligence in regard to shipbuilding the Cabinet found that the strength of the Fleet had got too low, and to make that up to the two-Power standard there was an enormous expenditure of money. Than down comes the Prime Minister and gives us this extraordinary exposition of his new two-Power standard, which no one on this side of the House or in the country can understand at all. That is my view of the situation—that there was not enough money, or that the Prime Minister was afraid to ask for the money to make the Fleet up to the two-Power standard which he said, in November, had to be maintained. The Prime Minister has started a new doctrine altogether with regard to the utility or the way in which the Fleet would be used in time of War. On 29th May, last year, in dealing with the two-Power standard, the Prime Minister said:—
    "In dealing with the two-Power standard and the question as to whether or not we in this country have a naval force which is adequate to satisfy that requirement, we must of course not merely take into account the number of 'Dreadnoughts' and 'Invincibles,' but you must take the total effective strength for defensive purposes, as compared with the combined effective strength of any other two fleets for aggressive purposes. I believe that represents clearly and fairly the two-Power standard as it has been understood and acted upon by successive Administrations in this country. Let me say at once, so far as the Government is concerned, we have made no new departure. We have not in any way changed the policy which was followed by Administrations that preceded us, whether Conservative or Liberal." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1909, col. 1291.]
    The First Lord of the Admiralty nods his head as if that were correct. Let me read his Memorandum on the "Principles of Sea Power" and what it involves, to the Colonial Conference, in October, 1902:—
    "In the foregoing remarks, defence does not appear. It is omitted advisedly, because the primary object of the British Navy is not to defend anything. but to attack the fleets of the enemy, and by defeating them,
    662
    to afford protection to British Dominions, shipping and commerce. This is the ultimate aim. To use the word 'defence' would be misleading, because the word carries with it the idea of a thing to be defended which would divert attention to local defence instead of fixing it on the force from which attack is to be expected. The traditional role of the British Navy is not to act on the defensive, but to prepare to attack the force which threatens, in other words to assume the offensive."
    I think both the House and the country have a right to demand an explanation from the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the reasons which have lead to an absolute reversal of our naval policy. The Prime Minister shakes his head. But I cannot imagine anything more different from the line he laid down as to the way our Fleet should be used in war than the line laid down by this Memorandum sent by the Admiralty to the Colonial Conference. I say that in one sentence he has destroyed the principles on which we have always worked and on which alone we can retain command of the sea. The Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly that our position is absolutely different from that of any other country in the world. We live by the sea, and all our frontiers are sea frontiers. We cannot, like Germany, in time of war have raw material and food sent to a neutral port. We have no neutral ports. We must command the seas absolutely and entirely, and if the right hon. Gentlemen on that bench would only make this country so powerful that we could not be attacked, then we might get some sort of an idea about diminishing armaments, and in a period of peace do something towards social reforms so much needed in this country. But in war command of the seas is absolutely our life and existence, and it is becoming more necessary every day to protect the mercantile marine, on which we are dependent, seeing that the country is becoming more or less done except for its coal. And that control and protection can be ensured without arrogance to any other country. Every other country knows that command of the sea is our life, and, so long as we are the wardens of the sea, nobody will try to wrest that command from us or will ever threaten our supremacy. But it was by our arrogant conduct in regard to what "Dreadnoughts" could do that we put up the backs of other countries, who wished to see whether we were going to maintain the position of bully or not. It was, indeed, that which led to this enormous expenditure. The Government of the day have not the shadow of an idea of how a fleet is to carry out its true business in war. The Leader of

    663
    the Opposition called attention to our position in regard to "Dreadnoughts." It is absolutely true that in the year 1912 we shall be in the position of having twenty "Dreadnoughts" to Germany's seventeen. I will not say that is absolutely correct, but the possibility remains. We have, however, no right to run any risk whatever.
    Mr. DILLON: What about the German Government's assurance that they will not have thirteen until 1912?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not believe in any assurances of anybody where the safety of my country may be concerned. I want to see a proper defence of our commerce, our shores, and of the whole of our Empire. Make that defence certain and it does not matter what any country or any combination of countries can do. That is not arrogance—that is commonsense. Hon. Members opposite I suppose are just as keen as I am to keep control of the seas, and the only difference between us is as to what is necessary to ensure that control. I maintain with very great respect that, though I may go a little bit further than hon. Gentlemen opposite, still we will be found on the same platform in desiring to keep the peace and stopping those scares and panics which will recur. So long as you do not have a definite policy as to what is necessary in regard to your shipbuilding, and a proper organisation for war made during peace and before war breaks out, so long you will have these panics and scares, these reductions of your shipbuilding Vote one year, and these increases made madly and wildly another. Therefore, there is not so much difference between me and hon. Gentlemen opposite as may perhaps be thought. As to the power of construction in Germany, the First Lord of the Admiralty was perfectly fair in stating that the power of construction in Germany is such that she is capable of having seventeen battleships available in 1912. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister both spoke of margins. My experience of margins is very practical. We shall be, I think, in the position, in 1912, of seventeen "Dreadnoughts" to twenty "Dreadnoughts." That gives you a margin of three. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to keep to "Dreadnoughts," which was the line very properly taken by the Prime Minister. I know that we are superior by three "Dreadnoughts," and
    664
    very largely superior in other directions; but, unless you have all the units which go to form a fleet in an inefficient state, and none short, you may perhaps jeopardise the whole fleet. The fleet is exactly like an Army corps, which must have all its units—so many artillery and cavalry, hospital service, ammunition service, and all the other branches which go to make an Army corps efficient for fighting. A fleet, besides its battleships, must have heavy cruisers, light cruisers, scouts, torpedo destroyers, mines, submarines, and all the stores and auxiliaries necessary to fit it for practical work. I am obliged, however, to argue in reference to "Dreadnoughts," because the public understand that form of argument better. The Committee will agree that a fleet cannot be efficient without all the auxiliaries necessary to enable the heavy battleships to, perform their work. And that is where immense expenditure will come in next year or the year after. We have been building these heavy battleships, but we have not been making up, as we ought, all the units necessary to their efficiency. On the question of margins, I remember when I was Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, I had a fleet of eight battleships. There occurred then what may occur at any time, that of the battleships I had under my command, three had to be refitted, which meant that they would be away three weeks or six weeks, and I had four more laid up for a considerable time for repairs to machinery. The uprights of the cylinders, as the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, are made of cast iron, and these split; and it took more than five weeks to get those uprights secure. One had a cracked pin that parted, and another
    had a boiler explosion. Therefore, for some five weeks, and this is a practical point, I had six of those battleships, which, were all first-class ships at that date, laid up through nobody's fault but through unforeseen contingencies—just one of those things that always happen, or may happen with regard to machinery. When I am speaking of "Dreadnoughts" I am speaking also of all the auxiliaries that should be with them. When we come to the command of the sea necessary for our existence we should be so organised so as to be able to act instantly. It is not right for us, and I say it is absolutely wrong for us to run our margins too low, or to have a single doubt in our minds that whatever happens we have such a margin that no matter what any other country or any

    665
    other two countries do we shall be able to keep the peace and to keep our full supply of raw material.
    That is one of the reasons why I thought that the shipbuilding policy was not enough. It certainly was not enough when the Prime Minister and the Cabinet did not know of the two years and a half acceleration by the Germans, because they were decreasing their shipbuilding then. And I doubt if this is enough now with regard to what may happen and with regard to the margin necessary in 1913–14. It certainly is not enough with regard to what the proposals are as to the units which make the battleships effective. In the year 1913 I make out that we shall have twenty-seven battleships, twenty-five of our own, and two for the Dominions, against twenty-one of the Germans, and a possible four for Austria, which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord does not think, or at least never tells anything about them officially. But he knows perfectly well, unofficially, that two of those Austrian "Dreadnoughts" are laid down, and if he does not know, will he allow me to have the pleasure of telling him. I think the four will be ready, and I think the four Italians will be ready. The hon. Member for East Mayo is perfectly right in stating that it does not seem possible that the Austrian four and the Italian four will combine against the British Navy, but very curious things happen in politics. The hon. Member will remember that there is such a thing as the Triple Alliance, and the Triple Alliance, under certain circumstances, might have to join their ships together owing to something that occurred between this country and Germany. I acknowledge the argument that it is not likely, but again I say that we have no right to risk anything as to what is probable or as to what is possible in regard to our defences. Again, I think the margin is far too small. In 1913 we shall be two less under ordinary circumstances than the combined—and I am speaking of "Dreadnoughts," and in them include all those units which make them effective—we shall be two less than the combined "Dreadnought" fleet of the Triple Alliance. That is too small. We have no right to be in that position. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord recognised that position, and I would ask him to explain what he meant when he answered the hon. Member for Armagh on 4th July. The hon. Member for Armagh was asking whether we would have twenty-seven ships
    666
    in 1913, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord said:—
    "The hon. Member has apparently not taken into consideration the British programme for 1912–13."
    That rather points to the fact that the Government are going to lay down five ships for this year and call this year's ships next year's ships, because the five ships last year, we were told, were this year's ships, and they were no more this year's than the four contingent ships are last year's ships. The position appears to be this, that the right hon. Gentleman will take money, and he will have to get a Supplementary Estimate. I do not know where he will get the money. I would like him to answer, Is he going to lay down next year's programme next year? The right hon. Gentleman is not going to lay down this year's programme this year. He will not lay it down until January or February, which will be within the financial year, but that is all political juggling. It is political juggling, because the Germans do not do it. The Germans are laying down four ships for this year, this year. And the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord is laying down his five ships for this year next year, the same as he did with the contingent ships. The House was told they were getting the four contingent ships last year, but they never got anything of the sort, and how long they have been in finding it out. The position will be this—if the Cabinet think we are getting too close with regard to acceleration abroad they will be laying down, and I am talking of 1911–12, the five ships of this year and five ships for their new programme. Therefore that is ten battleships they will be laying down this year. Going back a year or two they were only laying down one or two, and how reasonable it is for hon. Gentlemen on these benches to find fault with the policy of the Government. It is all any way, it is all haphazard—one year we have two battleships, another year three, and the next year ten battleships.
    Next year, in addition to the ten they are building there will be this extra ten, and with the two for the Dominions they will be actually building twenty-two battleships in one year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain it. Is he not building ten now, and will he not be building those other ten next year? He has got to build his five this year, which he will build next year. That sounds very Irish, but it is true. According to what the right hon. Gentleman infers, he may build his next year's programme properly next

    667
    year, and not put it off to the year after. That is my point. Anyhow, the reply to my hon. Friend distinctly points to the fact that he is considering it. I think the House should know whether that is so or whether it is not so, and I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when he makes his remarks at the end of the Debate. I wish to point out another question that has been referred to very often before, and what I call again, juggling. The country was under the idea when the right hon. Gentleman came forward in the House and told us that he was going to build thirty ships this year, that the enormous expenditure and increase of money for construction was for those ships. As a matter of fact, out of the £13,500,000 for construction this year £11,600,000 is being expended on ships that the House have already approved of. There is only £1,400,000 going for the thirty ships which the country thinks are going to be laid down this year, but are really laid down next year. Out of that £321,000 is spent on these five battleships this year. Why I want to dwell on that is that hon. Members opposite must be prepared for a very large and immense increase in the Vote for construction next year, because we shall see that our margin will be too small with regard to battleships.
    The right hon. Gentleman will come down, but he says he will not have a Supplementary Estimate. I think he said that last year, and he had a Supplementary Estimate of £600,000. There will either be a large Supplementary Estimate or an immense increase in the Estimate to finish those ships, because the margin will appear too small to the country under the conditions laid down by the Admiralty at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman certainly admits the need of ships, but does not admit the need of money to pay for them. That will be the difficulty that will occur in the near future. In his Budget speech the Prime Minister took credit to himself as having saved £8,000,000 on the Defensive Services, comparing 1904–5 to 1910–11. That saving at the wrong moment has brought about the present position. We shall probably pay four or five times over for that false economy at the wrong moment. There is no economy so false as that which makes you pay two or three times more later on than you would have had to pay if you kept at your normal. That is what is
    668
    occurring now in regard to the Navy Estimates. I do not want to dwell longer on the shipbuilding Vote, and an hon. and gallant Friend of mine will deal with the question of cruisers, but I would impress on the House my view for what it is worth. I must modestly claim I was right before in this House when both sides were violently opposed to me. I brought forward a scheme for the construction of seventy ships at a cost of £20,000,000. I ask the Committee where would we have been in the South African War if we had not had those ships for that £20,000,000? Everybody in the House knows that the Chancelleries of Europe were considering whether we should not be asked to stop that war. It was our Fleet that stopped them from making any such impertinent suggestion—that Fleet, and what hon. Members opposite call scares. There is no scare yet that has ever been produced in this country that has not been justified. Hon. Members laugh, but perhaps they will get up and tell me one. You talk of scares, or so-called scares, but I call it the anxiety of the country, and no greater anxiety was ever created than by the speeches made on the Front Bench opposite. What is the result? You added, with the Supplementary Estimates, £6,000,000 to the Navy Vote, and I do not know what you will add next year. That is the result of the so-called scare. It was the same in 1889. Where would you have been in the South African War but for the so-called scare? It is called a "scare," but it is really people who know what they are talking about calling the attention of the country to matters connected with inadequate defence. When the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) talks about the experts provoking war, I must totally differ from him. No expert who has ever written has done anything in the nature of provoking war. All the doctrines they have laid down and the arguments they have used are with a view to keeping the peace. Peace is the greatest interest we have, and you have no right in any way to jeopardise peace by having the national defences, particularly the naval defences, not adequate to the need. That is my view of the situation.
    I hope the First Lord will really realise our position, and take a strong stand now. I believe you want a new Naval Defence Act. I made bold on a former occasion to produce in this House a programme, some part of which has been adopted. I am not conceited enough to say that it was adopted out of my head, but the views of

    669
    the right hon. Gentleman and mine for once coincided. He has produced five battleships out of the six I asked for; he has produced 4,000 or 5,000 out of the 5,000 I asked for; he has produced docks out of what I asked for; he has produced twenty-three catchers out of the twenty-six I asked for. He is lamentably adrift in regard to cruisers, because the cruisers suggested are leaving our arteries and trade routes without any defence at this moment. We want a new Naval Defence Act. How you are to get the money is not the business of anybody on this side of the House. I and other people have suggested a loan; but the Government of the day, if they adopt a programme, must be responsible for when, where, and how they get the money. You want a new Naval Defence Act, a large addition to the shipbuilding Vote, and a proper war staff to stop all these scares. You want your Navy properly organised and prepared in time of peace. I feel just as confident advocating this increase of the Fleet to run us up to such a position that the whole world will see that it is no use competing—[Ironical cheers.] Is not that better than having scares and possibly war? Then hon. Gentlemen opposite who, quite within their right, want to reduce armaments, will be in a position to do so. An hon. Member shakes his head. But he will be in a better position to reduce armaments if he is very strong than if he is very weak. I am just as keen as he that we should use this money for social reform, and not for this mad, wild, insane competition in armaments. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Yes, but whose fault was it? The Gentlemen responsible are staring me in the face at this moment. If you had not shown such culpable negligence in reducing your Fleet; if you had known something about your business, or had had a war staff to tell you how to do your business; if, for instance, on the first of every month the war staff had said, giving their reasons: "We are short of cruisers. We are short of men. You are building ships without men; you are building ships without docks"—if that had been done on the first of every month—
    Mr. DILLON: We should soon be up to £100,000,000 if we did that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. You will be up to £100,000,000 if you go on with these driblets. If you had had normal shipbuilding every year during those years when
    670
    the Government reduced its shipbuilding, you would never have encouraged Germany to accelerate, and you would have been in a stronger and better position now for far less money than you have got to spend at the present moment. That is my argument, and I cannot see how any common-sense business man can argue any other way. It is the same with an individual or an industrial concern as with a bureau. If you go on spending, deferring your liabilities, and not paying your rates and taxes, the time comes when you have either to go bankrupt or to get a loan. [Laughter.] I see the financier, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, means that getting a loan is increasing your debt. But any way you can afford to pay interest on that, and to provide a sinking fund to pay it off. If you go on as you have done, deferring your liabilities, you will have to get money somehow sooner or later, and I think you will have to get it by a loan, because you will impose such a tremendous burden when you increase your Navy Estimates to, say, £50,000,000, that the country will not be able to bear it. Posterity will be able to pay it very well, and will be very glad to pay it if you hand over to them the old Empire just as it is. You are risking the life of the Empire. Your own action shows that when the Prime Minister and others on the Treasury Bench created that panic they were telling the truth. The attitude and the action of His Majesty's Government invited other nations to challenge our supremacy, as they have most certainly done. I cannot pay the Government any compliments whatever. I do not think any Government has ever shown such incompetence or have been so extravagant in the management and administration of naval affairs as the right hon. Gentlemen apposite. I want to regain our old position, which was supreme at sea without any doubt whatever. When other countries see that competition is hopeless to wrest from us that control of the sea on which we depend, this competition will cease, and there may then be some chance of reducing armaments.
    Before I conclude perhaps the Committee will allow me to make a personal explanation with reference to a statement which I made under a misapprehension on June 8th last concerning Mr. Rollo Apple-yard. In a letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Appleyard takes exception to a statement that I made, and informs.

    671
    the First Lord that he was a civilian, and a duly qualified full member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, engaged in active work. I accept the statement without reserve, and desire to express my regret that I should have been led to believe, and should have led the House to believe, that the facts were otherwise.
    Mr. BARNES: In the breezy and no doubt technically well-informed speech of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) there are certain things with which I agree. In the first place, it is unnecessary for him to remind us that the programme we are now discussing will automatically land us in a very much larger expenditure next year. Under this Vote we are called upon to spend only about £330,000 on the construction of the five new "Dreadnoughts" of this year. It is perfectly obvious that that is but a small fraction of the total cost, and, therefore, we shall have to provide the bulk of the money for those ships next year, in addition to the other ships which have been enumerated. It is just as well that the Committee should clearly understand that. I also agree with the Noble Lord—and I think most of my colleagues will be of the same opinion—that a very important factor, at all events, leading to these increased Votes was probably the boasting and bragging about the first "Dreadnought" that was built in this country. I remember the language that was used at the time in all the Service newspapers and in the speeches of admirals and people of that sort, and I think it is very probable that that boasting led to the acceleration, and, I am inclined to think, the only acceleration, of German or other shipbuilding. I also agree with the Noble Lord as to the stupidity of building these immense ships without first of all or concurrently taking the necessary steps to provide for their proper docking, repairing, and overhauling generally. I am sorry that has not been done, but a start is being made this year with the floating dock.
    7.0 P.M.
    I had an opportunity, of which I availed myself, last March of speaking on the Navy Estimates, therefore I do not wish to go into the matter in detail again. I want to say most emphatically, however, that the expressions of opinion to which I then gave utterance, and the position I then took up, I see no reason to alter, nor have I heard any reason adduced to-day why I should alter them.
    672
    I believe that the programme is excessive, and must lead to hostile feelings abroad. I believe it is unduly costly, and therefore is, in effect, the alternative to social reform at home. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer only the other day speak about the questions of insurance against invalidity and unemployment. I heard him plead poverty, and lament the fact that, although these schemes were already prepared, and all ready for submission to the House, that he had not the money, and therefore could not go on with them. I am sorry that Governments can play like this with matters which come so near to the vital needs of the people. I believe it is true that the unemployed problem is not so acute as it was a year or two ago. We are on an ascending scale of employment, no doubt, and in for a period of good trade; but I ask the attention of the Government to the other matter which was mentioned by the Chancellor: that is the matter of invalidity. I know, and many of my colleagues who are constantly in touch with the facts know, that owing to the increased pressure of life, owing to the fact that there is such an anxiety on the part of a man to keep in steady work, that sometimes that man suddenly breaks down, and leaves a family, a young family it may be, to be taken care of by the widow, and to be brought up as best she can. Therefore I say there is no more urgent problem than this of invalidity insurance. For my part, much as I want to spend whatever money may be necessary for the defence of the country, I say that this question of invalidity insurance is far more important that these increased Estimates which we have to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "We have no money." I do not accept that statement, or, rather, the excuse Chat there is no money. I believe, if we had a Government thoroughly in earnest, we should have money enough for both purposes. We can have £5,000,000, or, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, £4,650,000 increase in this year's Estimates for the Navy, and we cannot get £1,000,000 for unemployment.
    Mr. DILLON: I think the figure is £5,500,000.
    Mr. BARNES: We are now on the Building Vote, and I believe the money wanted is between four and five millions. This Vote and this programme of the year is the strangest and most topsy-turvy bit of politics that has come about in my life-

    673
    time. Here we have a Government which came into office five years ago steeped to the very lips in professions of regard for economy. They were pledged right up to the lips in regard to the retrenchment of naval armaments. Now instead of proceeding in that direction, they are, I venture to say, leading the world in a mad race of expenditure. That race is based upon nothing more substantial than the mere vapourings of jingo journalists and more or less disinterested support of their political opponents.
    One of the most disquieting features of this Debate to me to-day has been the manner in which the scare of last year has been dealt with by the two Front Benches. It will be in the recollection of everyone what took place last year. We had the two Front Benches apparently fighting with one another as to who could engage in the most exaggerated language on the position of affairs. We had the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister giving statements as to, not only the possible, but the probable building of Germany. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition using still more exaggerated language, and saying that, as a matter of probability, Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in 1911, I believe, twenty-one, or possibly twenty-five, in 1912. We find to-day the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides coolly ignoring a good many of the statements made in March of last year, and putting a very fine gloss upon the rest of them. Let me remind the House of some of the statements made—I will not say by right hon. Gentlemen—but statements made upon which I believe this policy has been more or less based. We have heard not a single word to-day about the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee). I have called attention to that statement three times before. I am now going to give the hon. Member another chance.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Gentleman called attention to it earlier in the Session. I made a full reply. He was not in his place when I made it.
    Mr. BARNES: I do not remember seeing any reply.
    Mr. LEE: I do not want to trouble the House now, but, perhaps, the hon. Member will kindly consult the OFFICAL REPORT.
    Mr. BARNES: If the hon. Gentleman withdraws that statement I have nothing more to say.
    Mr. LEE: I do not.
    Mr. BARNES: He does not. I was in the House subsequently in the course of that Debate at which the hon. Member was present, and at which the matter was again referred to by one of my colleagues. As I understand it, that statement has not yet been withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "What statement?"] It was one of many statements of an exaggerated character that were made at that time, statements that directly contributed, must have directly contributed, towards ill-feeling between this country and Germany. I know this because I have been in Germany three times since then. Having been on the spot, I know that these statements have contributed to the ill-feeling. I am now referring to statements that have not been referred to to-day, and this is one of them.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: What are they?
    Mr. BARNES: Two statements were made. First of all, one was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham that Messrs. Krupp were employing 38,000 men more last year than the year before. That statement was obviously and ridiculously untrue. It did not require any refutation, as a matter of fact, because if one had taken the slightest trouble to think of it for a moment, it would be easily seen that no town could absorb 38,000 additional men in a single year. As I have shown, firstly, from official returns from Berlin; secondly, from statements made to me by friends on the spot; and thirdly, from official figures submitted to me by the Chamber of Commerce at Essen, as a simple matter of fact the number of men engaged at Essen that year was a few hundred more than the year before, and the number of men employed by Messrs. Krupp as a whole last year was actually a little less than it was the year before. That is one statement. We have heard not a single word about that to-day. Having served its purpose last year it is allowed simply to slip away into the region of forgotten things. Another statement made was even more grotesque still. It was not made by the Front Opposition Bench, but by an hon. Member sitting behind, who was no doubt stimulated and prompted by the Front Bench. What did he say? He actually told the House of Commons that the Emperor of Germany had some secret arrangement whereby Messrs. Krupp were to contribute the

    675
    armament for ten ships in a single year. No reference has been made to that today. I say grotesque statements like that, insane statements like that, were the statements upon which these Estimates that we are now discussing have been more or less based. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is here. I want to make a reference to his speech to-day. I am sorry to add that after all we have got another sort of wild-cat scare started to-day. What are the facts? The Germans, as I understand, have five ships of the first class afloat, and they have other eight ships on the stocks. That makes thirteen. I heard to-day for the first time that four more had been ordered. We have heard a good many statements of that kind—
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): It is official.
    Mr. BARNES: I should have attached considerably more importance to a statement of that sort prior to March of last year. If I know anything of what is passing in Germany it will take the Germans all their time to add these eight ships to the five by the end of 1912. The Leader of the Opposition tells us so.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I did not intend to speak in this Debate, and I think I got all my facts from the Prime Minister.
    Mr. BARNES: That is a very convenient way of shelving responsibility. It does not alter the statement. I say again, not only have we the statement made by the German Government that they will only have thirteen ships at the outside finished by the year 1912, but we have also to take the capacity of the German shipyards into consideration. Taking that fact into consideration, I venture now to make these predictions which will come out much nearer the truth than the predictions of the two Front Benches last year: that the Germans will have thirteen ships at the end of 1912, and not one more. Nor can they have one more. Yet the Leader of the Opposition—
    Mr. BALFOUR: The Prime Minister! The Prime Minister!
    Mr. BARNES: At all events the right hon. Gentleman may have adopted the figures and predictions of the Prime Minister. I take them from him.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BARNES: The Leader of the Opposition has followed the same course as last year; that is to say, he has improved upon the Prime Minister and has devised "Dreadnoughts" out of his own inner consciousness—out of his head or pen. We are told the Germans are going to have seventeen ships by the end of 1912. I venture to say that it is absolutely impossible for them to have anything of the sort. It has also been said that we are only going to have twenty, and therefore we are only going to have a margin of three as between ourselves and Germany. What are we going to be doing all next year? As a simple matter of fact, there are five ships already ordered this year. Well, £300,000 odd have been taken from this Vote for this, and, following precedent, I should say we are going to have not twenty, but with these five ships, twenty-five, plus the two ships of the Australian Commonwealth and New Zealand, a total of twenty-seven. That is my prediction, and the Committee may take it for what it is worth, but I think it is entitled to some consideration, at any rate, when it is compared with that made by the Front Benches last year My prediction is that at the end of 1912 we shall have twenty-five "Dreadnought" ships of the first class, whilst the Germans will have thirteen.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will my hon. Friend allow me, we shall not give the contracts for the five ships in time to have them completed at the end of 1912. The terms of the contract do not admit of their being finished by then.
    Mr. BARNES: That may be so. At all events, you are asking for the power in this Vote to build five ships in addition to the twenty already under construction, and therefore there is no reason why you should not have these twenty-five ships before the end of 1912.
    Mr. McKENNA: The contract would not allow that. We do not intend by the contract that they should be finished in that time.
    Mr. BARNES: The amount of money next year might admit of their being finished. I am not at all surprised that we should have Amendments, not only from hon. Gentlemen who support the Government, but also from the hon. Member for East Mayo. I think the most unkind cut of all came from the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth, and from the Member for Dulwich last Friday.

    677
    Having beguiled the Government into this immense expenditure, they now turn round and say they are not responsible. The hon. Member for Dulwich last Friday, and now the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, and even the Leader of the Opposition himself, throw the entire responsibility for this scare and for the expenditure based upon the scare upon the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty. If we reflect on their action I think it suggests something about base ingratitude. I shall leave them, however, to settle the responsibility between them. All I am concerned about is to absolve myself and my colleagues from any complicity in the expense that has arisen.
    We come now to the experts. I was glad to hear the reference made to the experts by the hon. Member for Mayo. The experts have been the "Oliver Twists" of naval expenditure. They always call for more. I heard the Noble Lord plead for large expenditure, so that other countries might not be able to compete with us. I think that was his general idea. It has been the idea of naval experts, so far as I can gather, from time immemorial. They have always asked for more, and when they get it they want still more, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty has any idea of satisfying these experts, I think he had better abandon it. As a matter of fact, we had a statement from experts some weeks ago, signed by 247 captains and admirals, and other people of position of that sort, and what was what they wanted? One hundred million loan? I venture to say if they got that one hundred million loan it would simply incite other countries to come nearer to us, and would lead to a demand for another hundred million loan for shipbuilding. I do not know whether any of these 247 gentlemen are in the pay of the Government. It may be they are only on half-pay. I was looking this morning for a document sent to me a month ago, but could not find it; but I remember sufficient of it to enable me to say it was signed by a large number of gentlemen who are admirals or captains in the Navy, or who had been, and therefore these gentlemen are taking part in political controversy, and are running the country into serious danger, and the point is this: How is it that these high-placed individuals are allowed to do that which is denied to Civil servants?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not a single one of them are on the Active List.
    Mr. BARNES: There are many of them on pension, and some of them are on half-pay.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, not on half-pay. Every one of them has retired.
    Mr. BARNES: Well, they are on pension. I venture to say if the facts were known a large number of these men are in the pay of the country in some way or other, and, that being so, it ought to be a matter of honour with them to leave these matters alone. I think the expert view is entitled to every consideration on matters of technical knowledge. If these gentlemen were concerned with questions of the construction of ships they would be entitled to consideration. The Government are responsible for what amount of money is spent, and it is a matter outside the range of the expert altogether. These Estimates are supported on two grounds, and two grounds only. First of all, there is the fact that they have been based on the consideration of Germany's relative position to ours, and also upon the consideration as to the alleged elasticity of the German Naval Bill; and, secondly, as to the possibility of German finance. In regard to the first of these, I believe the German Navy Bill is simply running its normal course. It was increased in 1906 as the result of later and more scientific information about the lifetime of a ship, and the Navy Bill, which was started in 1900 to get a navy of a certain size in the water for Germany, is simply taking its normal course, and in the course of the next two years the number of ships to he added is considerably less. For that reason I consider the present time is auspicious, not for inflating our armaments such as we are now doing, but for the reconsideration of the whole matter with a view to the reduction of armaments by mutual understanding between ourselves and Germany.
    There is the further point of view of German finance, and here one must have regard to the political situation in Germany. I believe the political situation in Germany is such that it will be impossible to satisfy the German jingoes by starting another big German naval programme. Such a prospect is altogether impossible. I have been in Germany with my friends, and we have met all classes and conditions of people, and from everyone we heard intense hostility to the taxes already imposed for this and other purposes. The German Socialist party has stood four-

    679
    square against the Navy Bill of Germany not only against the increase in recent years, but against the Navy Bill from the beginning. There is nothing more clear than that the German Socialist party is increasing its strength, as proved by every election in recent years. I have been informed by a German Socialist delegate to the Reichstag that their party has been largely augmented, not merely by increase of Socialists—that is going on, of course—but by a very large number of people outside the Socialist ranks altogether; and that is the most significant feature of the situation. Going back a month or two, I find that the head of the German Admiralty made a statement in which he said—and I hope some reference will be made to this by the First Lord when he speaks—that "there have been no overtures on the part of the British Government in regard to the reduction of armaments." I take that to be an indication that the German Government was willing to consider the matter if something was done from this side.
    The member of the German Reichstag, to whom I have alluded, wrote to me the other day, enclosing me an extract from an official organ of the German Government, and there it was stated on behalf of the German Government—so he put it to me—that the German Government would not accelerate the building of the now outstanding ships, and the programme of the coming year would only be one of holding up to the standard of the German fleet. I think that indicates a specific view on the part of the German Government. For my part I believe all this base scare about the Germans is absolutely groundless. So far as the great mass of the German people are concerned they want to be at peace with us. The German Government have, I think, justified their plea for a fleet. Their commerce since the time of the German Confederation has increased by something like 250 per cent. I believe the Germans now depend to the extent of 25 per cent. for their foodstuffs on foreign countries, and, therefore, most of these considerations, which apply in our own case for a big Navy, apply also as far as Germany is concerned. Therefore, there is no reason why we should be afraid of Germany as we are. But there are some people in this country who are never so miserably happy as when living in a bogey atmosphere, just like some of those women who rehearse their feelings by
    680
    reading trashy novels about deserted wives and cruel husbands. I remember three distinct sets of scares. The first arose in connection with Russia. There were people with their eyes turned towards the end of the earth who were always talking about the Afghan Frontier or Constantinople, and connecting them with some terrible raid by Russia until I verily believe there were a number of people in this country who went in such fear of Russia that they were afraid they would find a bear upon their doorstep every morning. A little while after that it was France, and there was much talk about Fashoda and the long spoon. That passed away, and now it, is Germany that is the bogey.
    I venture to say in the light of the information I have obtained, and in the light of the information that has been given to this House, that the bogey about Germany has been more malicious, more mischievous, and more costly than any of the others that preceeded it. There is absolutely no justification about what is stated of Germany, and therefore I hope and trust that the hon. Member for Mayo will stick to his Amendment. I should have been more glad to have voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale, because I think it raises the matter in a more clear form. However, I shall vote gladly for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo. I know there will be a good deal said to Members on this side that the time is inopportune. It will be said no doubt the constitutional issue is at stake. So far as I am concerned I believe the constitutional issue is almost as dead as Queen Anne, but even if it were there will always be something else. During the five years I have been in this House there have been discussions upon the Army and Navy every year. It is said to us "just pass these Estimates this year and you will find next year they will be less, and therefore we ask you to be loyal to the Government and vote for them this year." I hope my hon. Friends will not be put out by that kind of talk on this occasion, and they will go loyally into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo in favour of a reduction of these armaments which I believe altogether unnecessary. At all events, speaking for myself, I shall do so, and, in doing so, I am convinced I shall be casting a vote as much in favour of the interests of the class which I specially represent here, as any vote I have given since I came here. In saying

    681
    that I do not speak as a fanatic who would refuse to Vote necessary moneys for the defences of the country, but because I believe the moneys we are now asked to Vote by these Estimates are altogether excessive, and because they keep back those problems in which I am primarily concerned and which have to do with the bettering of the conditions of the great mass of the people of this country.
    Mr. WALTER F. RICE: I noticed in the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty issued in 1908 the following remark:—
    "The new construction for the year will cost £7,545,000, and of this sum £6,795.000 will be spent on the continuation of ships already under construction."
    When we come to the Estimates of this year we find the First Lord of the Admiralty says:—
    "New construction for the year will be £13,279,000, and of this amount £11,850,000 will be spent on the continuation of ships already under construction, and £1,429,000 on ships of the new programme."
    Do hon. Gentlemen wonder at the reason of this great increase? The answer is given by the First Lord in 1908. He adds these words:—
    "To what extent it may be necessary to enlarge next year or in future years, must depend upon the additions made to the naval forces of foreign Powers."
    I am very glad to think the Admiralty and the present Government have realised the position and given us these extra Estimates. I welcome them, but I do not say I am absolutely satisfied. I wish the Admiralty was spending more money this year on the five large armoured ships they are laying down. We are going to spend less on those five armoured ships than they have already spent up to date on the four contingent ships. In 1905 the Admiralty laid down that there ought to be four large armoured ships built every year, but in 1908 we find they only built two. It would to my mind be a great thing for the contractors and workmen of this country if we had a normal and steady shipbuilding programme instead of these spasmodic jumps up and down which we have had lately.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement was, I think, rather optimistic. He mentioned that he hoped the year after next we should find the German programme decreasing by 50 per cent. I think that was very optimistic. I should like to give him a little bit of advice, the same advice the Prime Minister gave to us, namely, "Wait and see." I notice that at a meeting of the General Committee of the National Liberal
    682
    Federation, held at Leamington last year, there was a long discussion on the question of the Navy, and one gentleman, not a Member of this House, mentioned that if there was one thing the Government came into office upon it was the pledge to reduce the expenditure both on the Army and the Navy. It is not for me to say if there was a pledge of that kind given or not by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but I am very glad and thankful to think that anyhow his Majesty's Government at this moment do realise our position and the absolute necessity of spending these large sums on the Navy. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) was also present at this meeting, and he made no bones about the question at all. He simply said the Navy was too big already. I cannot understand the feelings or the position of a man who can say the Navy is too big. A small Navy would be the most useless thing it is possible to conceive. We might as well have none at all. You would not laugh very long; you would soon find your country in the hands of somebody else. Last year the "Daily News" had a leading article on the question of the expenditure on the Navy. It was very nervous lest the Government was going to produce too large a programme, and, in the course of the article, referring to a large expenditure, they said:—
    "It would burden our finances to the point of bringing peril to Free Trade."
    That is a very remarkable statement of the "Daily News." Free Trade cannot produce the money for "Dreadnoughts." If you produce "Dreadnoughts," you imperil Free Trade. That is the objection of the "Daily News" to these "Dreadnoughts." You are imperilling Free Trade if you do it. I welcomed the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) earlier this year when he said:
    "He believed that, irrespective of party, the great majority of the people of this country were. under no delusion as to the vital necessity of keeping our fleet in a position of unassailable supremacy In his opinion, weakness was more likely to be provocative of war than strength. Strength was a security for peace. It was no good halting between two opinions. Either they should scrap the whole British Navy at once, or, as far as was humanly possible. make it invulnerable against attack."
    With those words I fully agree. I remember a few years ago an American visitor, who was in this country, went round our fleet during the great review at Spithead. He did not speak a single word from morning to night whilst he was going round the fleet—not a word could be got out of him—

    683
    but when it came to the time to land, and he stepped ashore, he just ejaculated:—
    "I guess that means peace."
    I thoroughly agree. If you have a big Navy, you will have peace, and you will not have peace without it. The First Lord of the Admiralty was equally good when he said:—
    "No matter what the cost, the safety of the country must be assured."
    I could have wished he had added the word Empire, but no doubt he had that in his mind at the time. He also added this:—
    "we should be prepared to meet the contingency of Germany having seventeen of these ships in the spring of 1912 by our having twenty."
    I put this to the First Lord of the Admiralty: Does he think those figures are keeping up the two-Power standard? May we have a statement from him this evening as to exactly what the Government mean by the two-Power standard? We have had two or three different statements on the subject. May we have it now definitely laid down exactly what they mean? There is one Member of the present Government who, I suppose, is not so very anxious for this expenditure on the Navy as some of his colleagues. I refer to the Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill). Last year he was certainly very agitated about this question, for he took the trouble to write a letter, a column and a half of the newspaper, to Mr. Ritchie, the chairman of his association in Dundee. There are one or two points in it to which I should like to refer. After drawing the attention of Mr. Ritchie to our pre-"Dreadnoughts," he added these words:—
    "If in 1912 the German Navy shall have strengthened by thirteen 'Dreadnoughts' the British Navy will possess sixteen, and if the German Navy shall have been strengthened by seventeen ships, twenty new British ships will have been commissioned. In view of these tremendous margins of safety—"
    Tremendous! Where is the tremendous margin of safety?
    "The cries of sheer cowardice with which the air is filled contribute a good deal more to the gaiety of other nations than to the dignity of our own."
    Where is the cowardice? Is he saying the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were cowards for drawing our attention to the state of things last year? I do not believe there was any scare at all; but a grim determination went through the country that they wanted the ships, and they meant to build
    684
    them. The Home Secretary further said:—
    "We must not now begin to build the ships that will be wanted in 1913, and the years that follow. Those ships will be better built next year and the year after. They will be stronger ships; they will be newer ships; their effective lives will begin later and will last longer."
    That is obvious, but if you go on those principles you will never build at all.
    What is required is steady building, not panic building."
    I wish the Government had adopted that policy a little earlier, and had kept up a regular steady ship-building programme every year instead of this vast increase this year. What we want, to my mind, is continuity in shipbuilding. I very much regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have last year said:—
    "There is no such thing as continuity of programme."
    I hope he has changed his mind, because, until we have continuity of programme, and until both parties agree as to what is really necessary, I am afraid we shall not get this naval question out of party warfare. I should be very glad if we could do so, but, until we come to some arrangement as to what is absolutely wanted, it would be very difficult to do it.
    I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us to-night what the United States and Germany are spending this year on new construction. Last year we only spent very slightly more than the United States, and we spent £500,000 less than Germany spent on new construction. That is not keeping up the two-Power standard. I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty earlier in the year what would be the armament of the new "Dreadnought" cruisers in Germany, and he told me he had no official information. I hope by this time he has official information. The following appeared in the Press as to what the armaments of the new German cruisers would be. Can he tell me if there is any truth in the statement?
    "The three newest 'Dreadnoughts' on the stocks will he armed with twelve 12-inch guns, in addition to a secondary armament of ten 65-inch, 45 calibre quick-firers, capable of throwing twelve 154lb, projectiles a minute."
    If that is true, I hope we may have an assurance from him that our "Dreadnought" cruisers will be quite equal, if not better than those. We must take notice of the wording of the German Navy Act, 1900. That was the period when Germany was building her Navy, and this Act laid it down that Germany must have a Navy of such strength that, even for the strongest Naval Power, a

    685
    war with her would involve such risks as to imperil its own supremacy. It was the German Emperor who declared, "The trident should be in our fist." As we know, at this moment the trident is in our first. The German Emperor must have known that, and could not have been thinking of anybody else when he used that phrase. He having used it, we must keep it in our minds, and be ready for any emergency. If we do not have a supreme Navy, the rate of interest in this country will go up; insurance rates will also increase, and I maintain strongly that you cannot have a strong foreign policy unless you also have an absolutely supreme Navy.
    Mr. BELLOC: May I explain that the interruption I made in the speech just de livered by the Leader of the Opposition was not made with any intention of discourtesy. I am afraid my tone was misunderstood. I only made it because that sort of interruption represented the very point I desire to make upon that speech, namely, that the public fears or public panic with regard to the purposes of Germany towards this country are exaggerated. I emphasise that opinion, however, on rather different grounds to those held by many of my colleagues. It is not that the German Empire appears to be particularly pacific at the moment. I cannot recall, during the whole of the forty years which have elapsed since it was established, any public statement by any of its chief men, which would enable one for a moment to assume that it had that regard to the necessity for maintaining peace and the same ideals as the older and greater civilisations possess. My reason for believing that these fears are exaggerated is that I do not see in the organisation of modern North Germany that efficiency for aggression which so many of my fellow subjects detect. That North Germany is a very great Power is obvious, and I need not insist upon it. That it has a great conscript army well organised, and that its finances are in very good condition may be also true. But we do not know, and we cannot judge, whether it has any moral superiority over the other four great conscript modern organised Powers. I do not say that they are right in all they assert about their military calculations, but I do submit that there is no ground for the exaggerated state of mind which obtains in certain quarters in this country.
    686
    There is exaggeration of the power of Germany in the English mind, and it is an exaggeration we should do well to get rid of, because, in the immediate past, some of our statesmen and some Departments of our public service have been led by the nose to take advice in a roundabout way from the German Emperor. I think it is time we should take a more general view of the situation. I consider it my duty to support the Government on this occasion. I am profoundly convinced that the power of North Germany—of Prussian Germany—is grossly exaggerated by publicists and by statesmen in this country. You can exaggerate the offensive purposes of that Government—I do not mean the offensive purposes of Prussia with regard to ourselves alone. But the evil, or rather the peril, which you cannot exaggerate, is the now nearly 200 years old tradition of the Prussian Government that contract and bond do not count between Christian men, and that when occasion comes you may by any means in your power strike and destroy your enemy. That is the continuous tradition of that particular centre of European power. It is regrettable, and we do not often mention it. I may, perhaps, be wrong, speaking as a private individual, in mentioning it in such an Assembly as this, but at the same time it is true, and it is of vast importance to ourselves. I suppose most people are familiar with the circumstances of the Ems Dispatch, and I want to remind the House there would never have been the war of 1870, with all the vast consequences which followed upon that war, had not a document been deliberately falsified for the purpose of making war, and had not the signature of a leading statesman of those days been forged. When you are dealing with a Power of that sort, even if it be not the strongest kind of Power, it is a power against which you must ever be on your guard. This sort of thing is always deprecated by men who speak with the responsibility of present, past, or expectation of future, office.
    We have been told that the masses of the German people—of the Prussian people—do not desire war, that the Socialist party is growing, and that popular feeling would not allow offensive action on the part of the Prussian Government. The hon. Member who made that statement probably knows more of Prussian and German society than I do. I have only one short journey through Germany to my credit. But I would ask the

    687
    hon. Member whenever, in the past 150 years, have the masses of the poorer subjects of Germany been able to affect the policy of the reigning classes? There is not in all Europe a body of men less capable of virile political initiative and of bringing pressure to bear on their own Government—there is no body of men less possessed of democratic sentiment and power than the industrial masses of North Germany. If the Government of North Germany—if the Prussian Government—think the moment opportune for taking action, it will not matter a snap of the fingers what the masses of the poorer population in industrial towns or agricultural plains think. Those masses dare not, even in matters vital to their own interest, move at the present time. They have no power of initiative. No one can deny that. We all agree it is right that responsible men should not emphasise this fact, and that they should ask private Members not to emphasise it. But some one must voice it, not because we believe the enemy to be so strong, but because we know, from his past acts, that that enemy will be prepared to put down anything which may stand in his way, and we stand right in his way.
    There is another reason why I think it my duty to support the Government on this Amendment. The building of a Navy, and of a supreme Navy, is an economic question, and it constitutes one of the most important functions of the State. It is the general opinion of economists that our economic power of development in the immediate future is unfortunately likely to decline, compared with the power of other countries. The long peace we have enjoyed they are now beginning to enjoy, and the inevitable result may be that the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Russians, and the Austro-Hungarians will all in the near future possess economic powers of development more rapid in comparison than our own. If that is the case, we have to consider not only the peril of immediate and possible adversaries combining under that old formula, the two-Power standard, but we ought to be ready to meet any combination or any likely combination not expressed in terms of particular nations, but expressed in the abstract terms of any possible two stronger Powers. That must be guarded against not only by thinking of particular possible adversaries, but by remembering that anyone may in a short
    688
    period become the adversary of anybody else. As to what exactly the Government should do in one year or another, and whether they are asking too little or too much for naval expenditure, does not so much concern me.
    In common with many Members of this House, I do not understand the naval question. I do not know how much it costs to produce a fleet; I do not know what amount may be wanted in a particular year; but I do think that, side by side with the evils our party system produces, this good is produced, that when men responsible for the Government of the day, acting on the best expert opinion, divorced by thousands of miles from the game which is played in this House, when the men responsible declare that a certain thing is necessary, then any Member of this House who does not pretend to any detailed expert knowledge of the question feels it his duty by his vote to support the responsible Administration. I further think that that is the best representative action which a man, however strong he may be in his desire for economy, however keen he may be for spending money on social reforms, can possibly take. The people who send us here are exactly in that frame of mind. They, too, do not know what a Navy costs. They are not experts, but they do demand that their representatives in Parliament shall conform to the considered opinions of the Administration with regard to the necessities of the country. For these reasons, and in spite of the fact that I think that the power of North Germany is exaggerated and that the scare and panic are ridiculous. I shall certainly support the Government.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: A few nights ago an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, sitting below the Gangway, made a remark to the effect that he did not think naval officers ought to be allowed to have seats in this Assembly. I confess to feeling somewhat hurt at the time, as, after all, we were a fairly harmless class. But, having listened to some of the speeches made by Members of the Little Navy party. I almost sympathise with the view held by those hon. Gentlemen who dislike having anybody in this House who has some real practical experience of what our Navy should be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been called to task many a time in many speeches for the remarks he made about the Navy in his Budget statement.

    689
    He tried to make out that the amount of this shipbuilding Vote was un necessary, and that we on this side of the House were scaremongers. I regret as much as anybody that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made those remarks about the Navy, but I think, to give him his due, he has been absolutely consistent all along in this respect, and if we ever learn the true history of the present Cabinet we shall discover that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always opposed increased expenditure, and is the real head of the "Little Navy" party in this House. I think it is much more serious when the First Lord of the Admiralty goes down to the country and makes the same kind of remarks. "Where are the scaremongers now?" asks the right hon. Gentleman. The country knows very well who were the "scaremongers," if the Government like to apply that term to themselves, and it also knows perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman himself was not unsuccessful in that direction last March. Personally, I do not in the least mind being called a scaremonger. To anybody brought up in a gun-room "scaremonger," as a term of reproach, is a most elementary one. On the contrary, I think I should be proud of the title if I thought anything I had ever said or done had induced anybody in this country to realise this very serious problem of our Naval policy as it was realised last year. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing themselves a grave injustice by not taking to themselves the credit which is justly due to them for having awakened the country to the grave state of our naval policy last year; for having for once lifted that veil of mystery which they seem to love to draw over naval affairs. I have a much stronger argument. I deeply regret the remarks of right hon. Gentlemen, especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for they must have the inevitable tendency of dragging this question of the Navy back into an atmosphere of party politics from which I had hoped and believed it was emerging.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer wants the country to think that he cannot proceed with his schemes of social reform because of this increased expenditure on the Navy, and that we, the panic-stricken Tories, were responsible for forcing this enormous expenditure. It was not we on this side of the House, it was the party opposite who came into power in 1906 and
    690
    were led by the "Little Navy" party then. They economised on the one thing they could not afford to economise on, the Navy. They showed weakness where strength was needed, and gave a deliberate opportunity to a rival Power, an opportunity that the Power was longing for, and of which it took full advantage. We are paying now, and paying dearly, for this so-called economy of the "Little Navy" party. The members of that party practically dictated the policy of the Government in 1906, and in doing so they played a sort of "poker" with our naval programme, the sad thing being that they played the game very badly and that they played it with a stake they had no business to play it with, namely, the supremacy of our Navy. In 1906, when this Government came into power, they only built two ships. In 1907 they only built three large ships, and in 1908, after repeated warnings of what would happen, they reduced that programme to two "Dreadnoughts" a year. In 1908, when we reduced our shipbuilding programme to only two "Dreadnoughts" a year, what did Germany do? She altered her Navy Act and increased her shipbuilding programme of "Dreadnoughts" to four. It is that increase we are now paying for, and it is not too much to say that that increase was directly the result of our weakened naval policy in 1906 and 1908.
    Mr. J. WARD: Was not the programme for 1906 settled by the previous Administration?
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I am talking about what happened in 1908 when we only laid down two "Dreadnoughts." It was in that year that Germany doubled her programme.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that in 1908 Germany doubled her programme.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I maintain that Germany's programme was two ships annually up to 1908 and it has been four since. They built three in 1907, but that was right at the end of the year. If we had maintained a firm policy we should not have had Austria and Italy entering the lists also in building "Dreadnoughts." I should have thought that those past events had taught us the failure of economy as applied to the Navy; that economy on the Navy is the most expensive policy we could possibly pursue. This is the worst possible time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw out hopes to the

    691
    "Little Navy" party. The right hon. Gentleman says that in two years' time Germany is going to reduce her programme by 50 per cent. We all hope that she is going to do so, but the only way for that to be brought about is for us not to waver for an instant in our shipbuilding programme, not to let a murmur be heard in this House against it which might give the idea—I believe the false idea—that there is a large or influential party in this House anxious to cut down our expenditure on the Navy. May I say in passing that the units that make up the Fleet are quite as important as the big ships, and, as I said last March, we have not got enough destroyers.
    I want to deal with the most important question of the protection of our trade route by our cruisers. It is a commonplace to say that we of all countries depend upon our seagoing commerce, and to say that that commerce must be protected. The necessity of that protection has, I believe, been increased by the Declaration of London. The Declaration of London will have the effect, amongst others, of making all food coming into this country, whether carried in our own ships or in foreign bottoms, be contraband of war. Therefore the adequate protection of the trade routes becomes of vital importance to us. Our great weakness in this respect is the reduction in the number of cruisers and small craft we have now on foreign stations. In North America, at the end of 1902, we had fourteen; now we have nine. In the Pacific, six; now two. South-east America, three; now none. At the Cape, fifteen; now three. East Indies, ten; and ten now. Australia, twelve; now nine. China, thirty-six; and now twenty-seven, ten of which are river gunboats up the Yangtse. We ought to have more small cruisers abroad on the spot in case of an outbreak of hostilities, because the first part of the business would be the worst. There ought to be more ships on those stations to form the nucleus of a larger and better system of trade protection. I will examine as an example one route along the southeast coast of America, the Argentine route, which supplies us in the spring with a very large amount of our food supplies. Living as we do from hand to mouth, a cessation of those supplies for any length of time would be a great inconvenience to us. On the southeast coast of America we have not got a
    692
    single ship: we had three. I want to give an idea of the very large number of British ships out there. Leaving Monte Video and Rio most of them call at Pernambuco. It is the trade route between Pernambuco and the Cape Verde Islands that I want to say something about.
    As giving an idea of the very large amount of British shipping on that route I will state that a British ship would pass any given parallel of latitude at least every four hours, or six ships per day; that is giving an average speed of ten knots. At any given moment there are sixty British ships between Pernambuco and the Cape Verde Islands. Moreover, in the Consular report of Brazil of 1908 it is said that of all the shipping that enters Pernambuco 62 per cent. is British, and I think we may fairly state the same proportion on the route from Pernambuco to the Cape Verde Islands. That means that besides the six British ships passing the same parallel of latitude every day there are three foreign ships. Besides the sixty British ships at any given moment at sea between those two points we have thirty foreign ships, and in the spring of the year practically all those foreign ships, or most of them at any rate, are bringing food to England, and, under the Declaration of London, are liable to be contraband. To be perfectly on the safe side I will only take British ships. I want the Committee to imagine a commerce destroyer or commerce destroyers in possession of that route at the outbreak of hostilities. Near the Cape de Verde Islands, although I am afraid the Admiralty would have no official information on the subject, a foreign Power really might use a part of their merchant vessels for this service, and with this great advantage over us that we do not know what they are. All they have to do is to get on a trade route, hoist up a gun out of the hold, break out a pennant at the mast, and then for the captain to open an envelope and bring out and read his commission, and then start the vessel as a commerce destroyer. This gives them the great advantage that we do not know what they are until they have actually got into this position, and I think that really does constitute a very dangerous state of affairs. We must remember that it will take six days for the cruisers from England to get south of the Cape de Verde Islands with an average speed of eighteen knots, because the difficulties of coaling would be very great. If the ships in these seas did not know that war was going on

    693
    without the cruiser having the slightest chance to come up with them, the commerce destroyer would have the opportunity of destroying the whole of those sixty ships if they interfere with the operations of the enemy. I say they could sink all those sixty ships besides all the others that left Pernambuco before they got news of hostilities. But when they had got news I think the case, as far as food supply is concerned, would be very nearly as bad, as I think this would mean the disorganisation of our food supply, at any rate temporarily, for a period of three weeks, and after that the supply would be spasmodic and intermittent. I do think that this interruption of that important food supply might so disorganise our home forces as to prove perhaps fatal to our plans. In conclusion, on the whole of this shipbuilding programme I would beg the Committee with all the earnestness that I am capable of not to be led away again into that violent cry for economy as they were in 1908. If we now stick to this heavy and large expenditure for another two years I think we might then safely take the step of reducing our shipbuilding programme; but I think that for every one ship that we build now we shall save three or four in the future, and we shall insure at the lowest rate that which we mean to insure—namely, the supremacy of the sea.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I have listened with extreme interest to the most excellent speech of my hon. Friend opposite, adorned as it was by the knowledge and the modesty of a sailor, and I wish most particularly to deal for a moment with the extremely important question which he raised at the end of his speech—a question which I venture to think is of infinitely more importance than that of how many millions of money you are going to spend on "Dreadnoughts." I think so because those observations concern the Declaration of London, which deals with the rules of the game, and if you will let me make those rules I will undertake to beat you, however strong you are in "Dreadnoughts" or anything else. I entirely share with the hon. Member his fear as to the effects of the Declaration of London against ourselves in case of warfare. There is not an Article in that Declaration which is not against England, not one which is not in favour of any possible individual enemy. It deprives us of the power of searching the vessels of pretended neutrals who are under the convoy
    694
    even of a torpedo boat. It deprives us of the power of blockade, and it deprives us of almost all the naval powers which that still more wretched and miserable Declaration of Paris left to us. But I think my hon. Friend opposite has a little failed to realise the practical working of it in regard to the interference with commerce. He has taken one of our important trade routes, and he has suggested an enemy with commerce destroyers. Of course, if these are cruisers known to be such I presume that on the outbreak of war our Admiralty will pretty well know where every one of those commerce destroyers and will look after it, and if the Admiralty does not know, I shall hang this Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara), or whoever is responsible, on a lamp-post in Parliament Square.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I said "armed merchantman," which, I think, would be put upon a different footing.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I was coming to them, and there is indeed one of the most stupendous advantages created in favour of the enemy by the Declaration of London if, which heaven forbid, we should ever allow it to be ratified; and it rests with this House to say whether it shall be ratified, and some of us will have a word to say before it is. But if it is ratified it would leave to the other Powers who maintain the doctrine the right to send out merchantmen with their guns in the hold and to transform them into destroyers on the outbreak of war. That, as the hon. and gallant Member put it, gives the captain power to read a paper on the quarterdeck, to break out a pennant—and there you have your commerce destroyer. But what is she going to do? The hon. Member suggests that she is going to seize 20, 30, 40, or 100 of our vessels and sink them. Does he suggest that?
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Yes.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: But that is not commerce-destroying; that is piracy. I have read the Declaration of London myself, and I think he has read it a little wrongly. The Declaration does permit, in certain circumstances, the destruction of vessels carrying contraband or enemies' cargo. I am coming to the question of what is contraband, which is quite another matter. It gives the right to capture vessels carrying contraband or contraband of war, and we will assume that food is contra-

    695
    band. No doubt, in certain specified instances, a cruiser or commerce destroyer might destroy a vessel, but the hon. Member suggests that she can always capture and sink a vessel carrying our commerce.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If it interferes with their operations.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think that is exactly the wording, though it comes to that, and my hon. Friend will remember that is exactly what the Russians did with two or three of our vessels in the late war. They sank two and burned another. That really does not perhaps make part of the new Declaration of London, but it is a monstrous and outrageous rule and one of the worst rules possible. In my opinion, the rule which ought to hold now is the one which always has been held in the old time, that an act like that was an act of piracy, and every man engaged in it, every British cruiser, should hang at his own yard-arm. That is my conclusion, and I would only say that if we are foolish enough to agree to that Declaration of London, which throws a certain amount of respectability over these acts, we shall deserve everything that happens to us in the next naval war. But it is not so easy. You capture your English vessel laden with corn, and you are going to sink her. What are you going to do with the crew—a hungry crew of at least thirty or forty? If you capture a hundred ships you will have 4,000 men to look after. Are you going to keep them on board your man-of-war, or your commerce destroyer? It will be extremely difficult. Are you going to kill them—to make them walk the plank? That is impossible.
    Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: You keep one ship and put them on board.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: And then sink the merchantman? You would then want not one commerce destroyer, but two. The practical difficulties are very great. If I were a commerce destroyer—if I were a merchantman and had broken out my pennant and declared myself to be a man-of-war, it would be as false as it could be. A vessel can only be truly commissioned from one of her own ports. But assume that this is possible under the Declaration of London, and that I have done it. If I were a commerce destroyer and had cap-
    696
    tured a vessel worth half a million of money I should not sink her; I should send her home.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must say this is going a little too much into details on the Declaration of London. It can only be referred to in relation to the programme of shipbuilding.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: With much contrition I allow it, but it is so fascinating a subject, and so important, that I followed a little more at length the remarks which the hon. and learned Gentleman made. I will only say that I not only earnestly trust, but I think every hon. Member should require, that before that Declaration of London is attempted to be ratified, or any Act under the name of a Naval Prize Act attempted to be passed, to legalise any part of it, the fullest opportunity should be given for the fullest possible Debate. To come back to the main question, I do not myself like this increase in Naval expenditure. I cannot forget that the Prime Minister, when fresh from his election in April, 1906, said it was the mission of the Government to economise, and above all to economise in the Army and the Navy. I do not like it, but, nevertheless, I mean to agree to it for the simple reason that I do not know what secret information the Government may have. I know that things are somewhat menacing across the seas, we will not say where, and I feel bound on the whole to accept the statement of the Government that they do not need the expenditure of this vast sum of money. I myself have always doubted it. I doubted the scare when it was made, but it was made on these benches. It is no use blinking the fact. There would have been no scare but for two speeches which were made from this Front Bench last year. But it was encouraged and exaggerated on the other side. It is in their rôle. It is part of their plan to spend as much money as possible. I am perfectly certain that it was with some regret and with some misgiving that the Government thought itself forced into this tremendous increase in naval expenditure.
    Let me now have a word with the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford). I do not suppose there is a more popular man, and I am quite sure there is no better Admiral in the Service than the Noble and Gallant Lord. But this is not an admiral's question. This is a question to be decided

    697
    upon information in the possession of Governments, and of Governments alone—not even of admirals. The Government alone has the sources of information from which they can determine what kind of naval enemies they will have to meet, if any, and if ever. That is why I feel myself bound to leave myself largely in their hands. The Noble Lord denounces the "Dreadnought" idea. I think he is probably right in that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I never denounced the "Dreadnought" class of ship. What I said was that she is not so superior to the "Lord Nelson" as she is to the others. What I denounced was the arrogant pretension that she can sink the whole fleets of other nations. That is what has run us into this expenditure. We were quite right in building "Dreadnoughts."
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: That may be so, but I think this race, which was begun by the "Dreadnought," must have been followed up by other nations, because they did believe that she could sink everything she met. I myself believe that this is a particularly unfortunate moment in which to have embarked on these enormous ships. They carry an enormous number of men, and represent an enormous amount of money, and would be exposed to a terrible new risk if they were at war, for this is just the moment when the hornet is taking her place among the fighting machines. The torpedo has increased in range and the submarine has become very much more effectual than it ever was expected to be, and any one of these things, if it once got home, would sink your "Dreadnought" and away go £2,000,000, and probably a thousand men. Therefore, I think the moment is unfortunate. But if I may go a little further in criticism than my Noble Friend, with whose objects and ends I am always in entire agreement, I would rather take him to task for complaining that we have no definite policy and no standard. I think it is impossible to have a definite policy in naval affairs for more than a year. It depends upon what other nations are doing. It depends upon the changes in the designs of ships. How can you pledge yourself now to the sort of ship you will build five or ten years hence, or to the number of those ships? It surely must vary. I am quite sure my Noble Friend will feel that you cannot definitely pledge yourself to a definite policy. Then he says
    698
    there is no standard. That is very true. I believe the Government have no naval standard in their mind, but I think it is extremely difficult to have one, because there, again, our standard must depend upon what other nations do, and it must also depend upon their present, and probably their future, attitude towards ourselves. Suppose for a moment that all the world were at peace and in formal alliance with us. We have got to that with most of the leading Naval Powers already. Japan, America, and Russia are our friends. But suppose we had an offensive and defensive alliance with Germany. The case for building "Dreadnoughts" would largely disappear. At any rate, it would be diminished. My belief is that if we were friends with all the world we must still keep up a large naval force, for we are a maritime people, and, whatever others do, we must keep strong upon the seas.
    But I certainly lament this scare. I believe it to be altogther unfounded. My conviction is that it is not we who should be afraid of Germany, but rather poor Germany who on the sea should be afraid of us. It is not they who are menacing, but us. We have set up a Rosyth; we are setting up stations on the Eastern Coast, and I am profoundly convinced that a great many people in Germany believe we intend to repeat the exploit of Copenhagen, and go into her rivers some day and destroy her fleet; and I am profoundly convinced that they think we can do it if we like. I earnestly trust that no such attempt will be made. If you ask me to be afraid of the German army I will be, but I refuse to be afraid of any German navy. It is manned by landsmen at the best. They are men of three years' service, and a third of the whole of their crews are landsmen fresh from the plough. They have none of the instincts of the sailor. The sea is not in their blood, and, although they are very good in high and scientific things—I believe their guns and their ships are good—in the elementary things, such as veering cable when it comes on to blow, I think they are incapable of the elements of seamanship. At any rate, they are not so capable as we are. Our sailor-men are seamen by nature and seamen by training, and I cannot, with the best will in the world, feel that terror of the German navy that many of my countrymen seem to have acquired. If I am going to be afraid of anything German, it will be not that end of the dog, but the other—the army. I see my hon. and gallant Friend has come

    699
    back with the Declaration of London; but perhaps I may inform him that we are ruled out of order on that subject to-day. I earnestly trust that we shall have a real good opportunity of discussing a Declaration which will be, if passed, the death knell of British supremacy at sea.
    Mr. ASHLEY: As a humble landsman I feel rather shy in addressing the Committee when we have had so much naval talent and such brilliant speeches, but, as I have taken some little interest in naval matters, I may be allowed to address the Committee for a very short time. I think the speech made by the hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Belloc) is one which deserves considerable attention. The hon. Member put the case of this country and of Germany from a point of view which has been real in the minds of many people of this country. He pointed out that, as a matter of fact, the Prussian Kingdom in the past has not been too nice in its international relations. He pointed out with irrefutable truth that the war between France and Germany in 1870 was brought about by a forged document, but he did not instance the war with Denmark and the war with Austria, which were brought about in an equally unexpected and unsatisfactory way. Therefore I think we ought to be much impressed by what the hon. Member said, because, as he pointed out, however well intentioned the people of Germany and the members of the Reichstag- might be to keep the peace, and even if the Socialists were to greatly increase their present number, they would not have the power, although they had the will, to keep the peace if the German bureaucracy desired to fight. In connection with this, I do think that we ought to keep the fact in mind that Germany is not ruled by its Reichstag, and that the opinion of that Assembly may be overborne by the bureaucracy. Attention has been drawn by an hon. Member to what I consider to be the unsatisfactory state of our destroyer building programme and the number built at the present moment. I know that this is a matter of considerable controversy in which a layman like myself must speak with some diffidence. It is a matter of considerable controversy among naval experts how you should class destroyers, what ought to be considered efficient, and what ought not to be considered efficient. I think the only safe plan for this country is to adopt the
    700
    standard set up by our most likely—I will not say our most likely, but by the country which most nearly approximates to us in strength, namely Germany. Germany has laid down that automatically after twelve years a destroyer ought to be replaced, and if they have come to that conclusion, it seems to me that to be on the safe side we ought to adopt the same standard, I would ask the Committee to put before themselves what would be our destroyer strength in May, 1912, two years hence. At the present moment we have 150 completed destroyers, and besides these we have thirty-seven building. This year's twenty have just been ordered, and will be ready by November, 1911, so that in May, 1912, we shall have 207 completed destroyers. That seems avery large number, and if they were all efficient and up to date, they would be more than sufficient for our needs, but we must undoubtedly, in order to get a fair comparison with Germany, deduct from the 207 all the old 27-knotters, thirty-six in number, and also all the vessels of more than twelve years old, forty-seven in number, which leaves us on 1st May, 1912, with only 124 effective destroyers, including those in this year's programme. Germany at present has got eighty-five destroyers completed, and there are twelve more building, making ninety-seven. There have been twelve more ordered in this year's programme, and when these are completed Germany's total will be 109. If, therefore, we compare our strength in May, 1912, with the German strength, and take twelve years' limit as the Germans do, we shall only have 124 destroyers as against Germany's 109. Surely that is not a satisfactory state of things.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) stated that the way to carry on war was not to be on the defensive but the offensive. If, therefore, we were unfortunately engaged in war with a great Power in the North Sea, we should not be content with having our destroyers round our coasts, but we should send them out to the Elbe and elsewhere to blockade the enemy's ships. How would that be possible if we had only a margin of twenty or sixteen above Germany? How could we possibly hope to hold them with such a very small superiority? It seems to me that we are dangerously behindhand in the matter of destroyers. An hon. Member, who dealt with the question of cruisers, has proved that the number we possess is inadequate.

    701
    We have heard that in 1912 our preponderance of "Dreadnoughts" will only be three. I have proved, at least to my own satisfaction, at any rate, our destroyers will be 124 to 109. Surely, if that is the case, hon. Members who go in for a reduction of armaments ought really to see that the present state of things is not satisfactory. We have, not heard anything to-day in this Debate about the two-Power standard. In November, 1908, the Prime Minister said he adhered to that standard, but in May last year he whittled it down by excluding the United States Navy. He might as well have excluded Germany or any other Power. Why choose the United States? It has been said that we shall not be engaged in hostilities with the United States, but it seems to me that it is just as likely that we shall be engaged in hostilities with the United States as any other country. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say, "No," but if you begin to exclude one country, you ought to exclude all the countries with which we are in friendly alliance, even more than the United States. Therefore we have the two-power standard now officially excluding the United States. In 1912 Germany and France will have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" to our twenty. Where is the two-Power standard there? In 1913 Germany and France will have thirty-nine "Dreadnoughts" to our twenty-five, plus the two Colonial ones, which we ought not to count in our available strength. They are not under our control. I am perfectly sure that as soon as possible our loyal Colonies would send these ships to our help. But it is almost certain that they cannot be here when the decisive battle is fought. We cannot count them as ships which will be in the forefront of battle. The two-Power standard for "Dreadnoughts" is absolutely gone. We have barely got a preponderance over one-Power in destroyers and we have an inadequate number of cruisers. Therefore I do think that hon. Members who support the reduction ought to be satisfied and not persist in the course which they are adopting.
    Mr. WILKIE: I trust I need no excuse for intervening in this Debate. As I understand we are dealing with ship construction, and as a ship constructor I should like to say a word or two. I do not propose to follow the various speakers in the proposals, assertions and assumptions which they have made to-day. In nearly all these Debates hon. Members
    702
    are drawn into prophecies. I remember on the last occasion when I took part in one of these Debates, I think last year, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) took me to task for asserting that you may have all your "Dreadnoughts," your destroyers, and the submarines—those deathtraps to our people which ought to be either improved or avoided altogether—yes, I was pleased to hear the Member for King's Lynn a moment ago contend for the superiority of our men, while I was in favour of an efficient Navy, efficiency meant being efficient in men as well as efficient in equipments and in means of destruction. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated that his object was to have the best article possible for our vessel, with which I agree, but I think he will agree with me that the next best thing, in order to have the advantage of an efficient Navy, is to have efficient men as well as efficient ships.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Both are necessary.
    Mr. WILKIE: That is the point to which I wish to bring the Committee back for a moment. I listened carefully to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), because I had a lot of correspondence with the south of England dockyard towns as to what certain of the Members returned at the last election were going to do for the working man, and though I listened very patiently to the Noble Lord I never heard a single word from him on behalf of the workers, neither in the ship-constructing department, in the yard, or aboard the ship. We have been told that the cause of this extra expenditure is because of the decrease of the shipbuilding programme of recent years, followed by violent fluctuations or of what the workman would call a hunger or a burst; and he also told us, on the other hand, that it was because we built the "Dreadnoughts," and boasted of them, and proclaimed that nobody had any "Dreadnoughts" but ourselves. Well, plenty of others have them now. But who commenced the "Dreadnoughts"? Who were the cause of that boasting? The party of which the Noble Lord is a Member. They started the very thing which he deplores, and now they blame other people for the result of their own action. I come now to the question of the working men whom the Admiralty employ, and I should like, as a practical man, to draw the attention of

    703
    the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to this matter. He, I believe, is a practical man in another line. How is it that the Admiralty draw this distinction between skilled labourers and labourers, and where then would the skilled mechanic or the skilled ship constructor come in? This has been a puzzling matter for many years. They call, roughly, rivetters, drillers, and others skilled labourers; but in one sense we are all skilled labourers — every tradesman and artizan to the highest mechanic is a skilled labourer. We have no such distinction outside. Let me say at once I am not at all anxious to bring outside practices inside, or to take inside practices outside. What I want is to deal with the things as they are. And if we now take the difference between skilled labourers and labourers and tradesmen and mechanics, why not fix some apprenticeship and give some lead to the country?
    We continue in our craft to support apprenticeship. Why not continue it with that work? We once did the whole of it. It is now given to lesser paid men. Several concessions have been made in wages, and I thank the Admiralty for the concessions which they have given for some of the men. I have no brief for all those men, but I have for a considerable number. But if the Financial Secretary will allow me to put it in this way, I may say that he takes the whole of the gilt off the gingerbread so far as this advance is concerned by immediately stating that the new rate of pay which is created will be regarded as special, and will be awarded only to a limited number of men who are employed upon more skilled operations and are actually at a machine the whole time as a responsible workman. That is the very thing I complain of. The Admiralty themselves ought to be model employers, and I agree that they are in some respects, but where they are not I trust they will excuse me for drawing attention to the fact; for if we are to have the Fair Wage Clause insisted upon on the one hand as regards outside firms we should have it also on the other hand insisted on as regards the Admiralty. This new regulation simply means that they are getting the best class of work done at those rates which are not skilled craftsmen's rates. I find on Page 19 with regard to skilled labourers employed at a machine that they are to receive higher remuneration where they are skilled labourers who are
    704
    regularly and continuously employed as responsible workmen on dangerous wood work machines. I hold that these men should be described as skilled tradesmen and not as skilled labourers at all. These men should be classed as tradesmen in the trades to which they belong. Then those skilled trades such as shipwrights, ship constructors, ship joiners and others contend that the Admiralty do not pay a rate equal to the rate paid by their competitors in ship building, the outside ship builders, and that therefore they do not comply with the Fair Wages Clause.
    If the Admiralty could give me an assurance that they will do what has already been done by the Secretary for War in his Department, namely, allow this matter to go to a Committee of the Board of Trade, it would cut short my remarks. The joiners and others are not paid rates which are paid by your own contractors who do your work outside, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty would grant my request to do what the Secretary for War did, it would at least have the effect of shortening matters. For myself I do not see why, if that course could be adopted by one great spending Department of the State, it should not also be adopted by the Admiralty. As to the question of demarcation, I will not touch upon it here; it is a domestic matter which we arrange among ourselves. There is another case which perhaps does not altogether come within the shipbuilding Vote—I refer to the ship carpenters on board our warships. They have been trying to get their case before the responsible officials of the Admiralty, and have failed. The men of whom I speak in the old days were the only skilled mechanics on board ship.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not come within the Vote.
    Mr. WILKIE: I thought I should be called to order, but I only wanted to make a passing reference to that class of workman. They have never had any alteration for over a quarter of a century. Other trades have been brought on board, but the whole structure of the ship still remains in their hands. Yet these ship carpenters are the very men who have been overlooked—the men who keep the ship afloat in cases of emergency. Another question which has been repeatedly before the Committeee is that of pensions. A number of workmen have petitioned that their higher rate of pay should be counted whenever they get the pension. They have been

    705
    put up to the rate of 35s. per week, but that is immediately reduced by the deduction of a contribution towards the pension fund. If our association in connection with the trade received a similar weekly payment they would be in a position to grant the workmen much more than the Admiralty give.
    9.0 P.M.
    The complaint is that when the pension is paid it is calculated on the lower rate of wage, after the contribution has been deducted; but the men contend that it ought to be paid on the higher rate, namely, that which is really their wage. When the workmen asked that this should be conceded to them they were told by the Admiralty that they had no power to consider the request, as the matter was governed by the Superannuation Act. That, however, does not answer the complaint. I want to know by what legal authority you take 1s. 6d. from the men's wages. It is not done in any other branch of the Government service—not in the Post Office or the Army, or any other Department. Is there any legal right by which you are entitled to make this deduction? In case of death the whole amounts paid by the men are retained by the Admiralty. I think it is a very great hardship on the workmen that they should have this deduction made from a wage which, after all, is not very great. I am, of course, asking for more money. Yes. but I am asking for it to save life, not destroy it; I am asking for it to improve life, not to extinguish it. The matter I submit ought to be considered by the Admiralty, and if they have no power under the Superannuation Act then they ought not to deduct 1s. 6d. per week, or whatever is the amount of the contribution. One word as to the conditions of work. We find that in other trades there is blood poisoning, but investigation shows that blood poisoning is far more prevalent among workers in the shipyards than one would believe. In the case of huge vessels, with double bottoms, and submarines also, an immense amount of white and red lead is used, and we have had a number of cases of blood poisoning—one very recently, that of an intelligent man who was a member of our association. He had to work on one of the submarines, and in his case the Admiralty, I admit, have been very generous in the way they have treated the orphans of that member. What we want is that every precaution should be taken to see that the rules are carried
    706
    out. It is not compensation we want; it is the safety of life and limb of our workers.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has raised various questions which I think it is desirable to dispose of forthwith. The First Lord of the Admiralty will reply to general questions of policy before the Debate closes. I have not one word of complaint to make, on the contrary, that the hon. Member should have raised these matters. It is my duty and my pleasure to do what I can to reply to him. The workmen in the dockyards, of course, represent a very considerable body of men. They numbered, on the 11th of June, 35,867, and it is interesting to note that the number on the 1st January, 1906, was 27,974. This is owing to the larger operations on which we are engaged, but into which I will not go, as my right hon. Friend will deal with the general question of policy. My right hon. Friend is aware that every year the Board of Admiralty visits the yards. We propose to go to Devonport next week, then to Sheerness and Portsmouth, where we will listen to the men's petitions. I am very glad indeed of an opportunity to give every consideration and care to the representations which the men make from time to time. As a matter of fact, since 1st January, 1906, the amount of wages paid to the men in the yards is over £70,000 per year more now than it would have been if the corresponding rate of pay had been maintained. That is an estimate, of course. The principal classes benefited are the labourers, shipwrights, joiners, riggers, and smiths. There have been a great many other concessions, but those represented the largest number of men. The minimum rate for labourers has been raised from 20s. to 21s., and the skilled labourers from 21s. to 27s. to 22s. to 28s. in the case of the hired men, and from 21s. to 25s. 6d. to 22s. to 22s. 6d. in the case of established men. The shipwrights have been increased 1s. per week.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly refer me in the reply to the petitions where the labourers are raised to 21s.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member thinks I am referring to this year's reply, but I am not. They have been raised since January, 1906. The organisation of the yards with regard to unskilled labour

    707
    enables us to give more continuous employment. In addition to the rates of pay there are other concessions. Since 1906 we have made the working hours uniform at forty-eight hours per week, in place of an average of forty-eight hours. I was very glad, as an old schoolmaster, to have had the opportunity of assisting in the provision of improved facilities for the boys to attend school. In regard to plumbism, I can send my hon. Friend ((Mr. Wilkie) the whole of the dockyard regulations, and I shall be glad to hear from him whether he thinks they are sufficient to secure immunity.
    Superannuation is, of course, a burning question at the yards. A man gets, say, 25s. per week as an established man, while, as a hired man, he had 26s. 6d. per week, the 1s. 6d. per week being taken off for his superannuation. My hon. Friend say that the man ought to be superannuated on the 26s. 6d. per week, but he is not the only person by any means who comes under superannuation on his establishment rate. That is common throughout the Service. It is calculated by the 1s. 6d. per week he pays £117 during the thirty years of establishment, and, assuming an expectation of thirteen years of the pension, he receives a total of £585, at £45 per year.
    Mr. WILKIE: Have you any idea what is the average amount of pension received? My information is that it does not work out to even ten years.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was taking the ordinary expectation of life. Our difficulty in the matter is a legal one. The Superannuation Act lays it down that the annual allowance shall be according "to the annual salary and emoluments" in an established capacity. It is the legal view, and the view of the Treasury, that 26s. 6d. does not represent the salary and emoluments, but it is the 25s. Therefore we are estopped, without going into the merits of the case, from doing what the hon. Member desires. We have not been able to do so up to the present, and I could not now hold forth any prospect of doing so. We cannot pay the fixed superannuation on the higher scale.
    Mr. GRANT: The hon. Gentleman has told us the figures of the amount of the pension, can he tell us how would they compare with the same contributions to any well-established life assurance company?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am afraid I could not. As to the men generally, we are entitled to say that we do spend considerable time and pains in endeavouring to hear their grievances and to meet those that are reasonable.
    Mr. WHELER: As the representative of a dockyard constituency, may I say with reference to the petitions from the dockyards, we have been waiting a rather long time for the answers, and there is a feeling of great disappointment amongst most of the petitioners at the answer that they have received. However, we must be thankful for small mercies, and we are glad that at any rate the skilled labourers have received an increase. But I think that something should have been done for the hammermen. They are a class who ought to receive far more attention than they have received, bearing in mind the work they do and the way in which they do it. The total increase of pay, amounting to £70,000 is, I think, a complete answer to the "Little Navy" party with regard to the amount of increased employment and better wages involved in a large naval programme. If the programme were cut down, the logical outcome would be that the staff in most of the dockyards would have to be reduced, and a large number of skilled and unskilled labourers and mechanics discharged.
    I should like, as a new Member, to give my impression of the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have given up entirely the two-Power standard. That has been the standard by which we have been guided in the past, and it will be a bad day for the country when so little is said by responsible Ministers on the question of the two Power standard. I hope we shall be told whether or not that standard has been definitely abandoned. I do not think we ought to look at the question of our naval armament as a question of "Dreadnoughts" versus social reform. Without "Dreadnoughts" we have not confidence; without confidence we cannot carry on industry; and without industry and the means of employing our people we cannot provide those happy homes and satisfactory incentives to work which must go in conjunction with all schemes of social reform for the betterment of the people. When the hon. Member for Portsmouth was speaking about the various units of the fleet, I thought there was one which is mast important but very much neglected, namely, docks,

    709
    especially floating docks, which we want, but have not got, and which are essential not only when our battleships are disabled but in many cases for repairing ships before they go to war. We have only two of those floating docks, and only one will be on the North Sea. None of us wish to consider that that will be the battleground of the future; still it is a danger zone, and must be considered as such. The question of floating docks ought to be considered in conjunction with the other units of the fleet. In regard to our lines of commerce and the provision of cruisers, when one considers the enormous extent of our coast-line as compared with the coast-line of Germany and the increased responsibilities which must fall on our cruisers, any comparison between ours and the German fleet is absolutely fallacious. I hope before the Debate concludes we shall have from the Government a statement as to what is going to be their future policy and whether they really consider that a margin of three in "Dreadnoughts," which may be the only margin we have in about two years time, is a satisfactory margin for the safety of the country, and whether they intend to abide by it, in view of the enormous commercial responsibilities of the Empire. Reverting to the dockyard question, I congratulate the Government on again starting the establishment system. I am certain it will have the effect of keeping the best class of men, those who have been brought up and trained in the dockyards, so to speak, and I hope that, having been re-started, the system will never again be given up.
    Mr. JOHN ELLIS: In supporting the reduction which has been moved, I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in reference to experts. The Vote before us is not a matter to be decided by experts. The hon. Member quoted Lord Salisbury; I could quote Mr. Gladstone. I remember a conversation I had with that great Statesman on this very question of experts in naval and military matters. At the end of that conversation Mr. Gladstone said, "Throw the reins on the neck of the Services, and they will ride you to destruction." That was the doctrine held by Lord Salisbury and Sir Robert Peel, while Sir James Graham always dealt with these matters in the House of Commons from the lay point of view. Therefore I do not follow the experts. If they once control us, Heaven help us. Nothing worse could befall a great public Department than
    710
    that the Minister should allow himself to fall into the hands of his experts. Like lawyers, they are good servants, but very bad masters. I think the Committee will agree that this Vote, according to all tradition, raises the question of policy rather than that of details. The question for each one of us to face in this matter of Naval armaments is how fast we require our pace to be. It is impossible for anyone who has sat in this House for a number of years, and listened to the terrible words of 16th and 22nd March of last year, not to think of it. Therefore I am not surprised, as the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be surprised, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo and other speakers have alluded to what transpired then. As I understand this new departure—and it is a new departure—the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth thinks that it is unfortunately a new departure, and that we ought to have kept on a more even level all through.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
    Mr. JOHN ELLIS: There is much to be said for that from one point of view. But this new departure was recommended to this House last year in respect to what had taken place in one particular country. In March Germany was mentioned. In July, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo pointed out, that country was never mentioned. Two other countries were brought forward, Italy and Austria. In respect to none of these to-night has any attempt been made for a single moment—I do not know whether it will be by the First Lord of the Admiralty—but no effective attempt was made by the Prime Minister to support the arguments which were put forward on 16th March of last year. That is surely a very striking fact? Here we have embarked upon this most extraordinary, unheard—of, unprecedented demand of £40,000,000 sterling for the Navy. We are going along on a mad career on a foundation which is proved to be false and insecure; for none of the anticipations—I am not going into the particulars of these precious sums in arithmetic, which have been made as to the number of ships and so on, but which in the end are very confusing, and, to my mind, do not carry conviction—have been realised. I am looking, as I said at the outset, to the pace at which we are going, and the direction towards which our

    711
    faces are set. The Prime Minister, in the Budget discussion the other night interposed to point out that after all the figures of increasing armaments were not so very great as was sometimes supposed. He did not seem to me to deal very effectively with these figures, for he forgot to mention this fundamental fact, that the first period which he gave, and which he was comparing our present figures with was a period in which the expenditure was falling. This is a period in which the expenditure is rising. This is a salient point. As everybody knows perfectly well the figure of naval expenditure and naval construction is not only enormously greater this year than last, but it is going to be greater still next year. That is the point at which we have to look. It is not even going to be just greater, but the percentage of the increase has risen.
    Where are we going? It is impossible for anyone to say at present. The figures, to my mind, are most alarming. I am told that it is only part of the policy which was decided upon a year ago. On the 20th July of last year I took a similar course to the hon. Member for Mayo, and moved a reduction. I accepted the whole responsibility of my act. One hundred Members of this House voted for that reduction. My action was brought up against me at the General Election in January. Of course, I was called what I suppose is a term of opprobrium—"a Little-Navy man," and all the rest of it. I do not know that it did me permanent harm. We are told that this is in consequence of the policy decided upon last year. But this is a new Parliament. A good deal has happened since then. I venture to think that we, every man of us, are bound to review the circumstances of the case in the light of recent events. The circumstances, I believe, have completely changed since this policy was entered upon in March of last year. The figures with respect to the various fleets are in themselves most striking. No one can read and examine carefully the Return made on the motion of the hon. baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) without seeing beyond the slightest dispute—withoutgoing into the nicer items of arithmetic—that we in this country have unquestionably an overwhelming preponderance not only with regard to one other country, but to every Navy abroad. Even the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, with all his
    712
    great knowledge of the sea and seafaring matters, used an expression this evening that this was a most unfortunate moment to enter upon the construction of so many of these vast vessels. Everyone knows now that they are rapidly becoming obsolete, and to embark, to invest so many millions sterling on what have been called "floating machines" which seem to be out of date so quickly is not what a commercial man who had any respect for his own affairs would think of doing. It would not be done if he were buying engines or machinery. Therefore we find ourselves here, on 14th July, unquestionably in a position of unrivalled superiority. I will not pursue that subject. The magnitude of the sum before us I have already dealt with. That we are proceeding at an accelerated pace down hill I have already mentioned. I will not dwell here and now upon the fact that we upon these benches, we of the Liberal party—I speak now as a Member of that party—feel gravely concerned in this matter. I quite agree that taunts from the opposite benches are not easy to answer. When before my Constituency in 1900, 1906, and 1910. I promised, seeing that I was alarmed at the increasing expenditure, that I would do my best in this House to stop that increase. Therefore I feel it my bounden duty to those who actively supported me to discharge that obligation. I also do so because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the millions turned into this unproductive channel—this channel of destructive engines of war—is taken from objects which are dear to everyone of us. We all like to profess ourselves in favour of reform, but I will not labour that point. The Prime Minister himself has over and over again used the very strongest language in connection with this matter, and I shall never forget hearing him use those words that this expenditure was devastating and sterilising. These were very serious words coming from the Prime Minister of this country. This expenditure is devastating and sterilising inasmuch as it turns the golden stream from objects which lie at the heart of every one of us, such as the promotion of social and moral reform, helpful and uplifting in the eyes of the people. This enormous expense on armaments does not, as some Members say, tend towards peace. It rather tends to provoke a spirit abroad which we must all deplore. That grates upon me most. The Prime Minister, in very strong language, at the end of his speech the

    713
    other night on a Bill that was before the House, when he was referring to the action of certain hysterical and misguided people and the mischief they were doing to their cause by the employment of certain means used these words: "Those who take the sword shall perish with the sword"—words not often uttered in this House. I suppose it must be acknowledged, and I am one of those who acknowledge it reluctantly, that resort to force must be on occasions regarded as necessary whether it be in individuals or in the States and nations. Our nature has made us so. But surely it will be admitted by everyone that the greatest triumph of civilisation is the limitation and narrowing of that application of force. States are beginning to realise the advantage of the substitution of the process of ordinary law for the arbitrament of force.
    We all know that much progress is making in that direction in international affairs. There is growing up most happily between nations a strong feeling of that kind. At the present moment what I venture to call one of the greatest law suits is going on between this country and the United States of America. What would formerly have led to war in a single month has in this instance been submitted to the arbitraments of the ordinary processes of law. That is a process and procedure which we hope will develop and be made world-wide. At all events, we hope for its adoption within the continent of Europe. But above and beyond that there is the growing feeling in favour of peaceful methods, in the solidarity of the people of the civilised world. There are signs in very nation in the increasing communication and visits between the representatives of the various elements in different nations, and these are multiplying and growing. Nations are gowing more and more dependent upon one another; they are feeding one another; they are clothing one another; they are financing one another; they are exchanging projects and ideas with one another. That is the direction I venture to say in which our minds on this occasion should turn. It is because I believe that great naval armaments such as we have in these Estimates, and because I believe the direction in which the Government are going militate against what I have indicated, namely, the growing solidarity of nations and the tendency to submit differences to arbitration—in a word that they will not promote peace but militate against it—
    714
    that I most unhesitatingly, though with a certain amount of sadness of heart, give my vote in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. LEE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has at least the courage of his convictions, and we respect him on that account. He told us that he is not only going to work for the reduction of the Navy Estimates upon this occasion, but that he has done so before, and that although it was used against him in his election he none the less takes the full responsibility. We always respect anyone who has the courage of his convictions, and evidently the right hon. Gentleman's constituency are very indulgent with him. They have not only forgiven him for having voted for a reduction of the Naval Estimates, but they have absolutely, in spite of the fact that he has proclaimed himself in favour of the old Liberal watchwords of Economy and Retrenchment, returned him to support the present Government. I congratulate him upon his constituents. Before I proceed to the subject-matter of the Debate I feel bound to say one or two words in regard to an attack, or rather a complaint, made against me by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Barnes). He seems to regard a certain statement in a speech I made a year ago much as Mr. Dick used to regard King Charles' head. He complained that I had not replied to a certain charge he made against me. The trouble is that when one does reply the hon. Gentleman is always out of his place. Despite the fact that he says he was in his place three months ago, I find to my horror that I occupied two columns of the OFFICIAL REPORTS replying minutely to the very point that he says I did not reply to, and I do not think, having given that very full explanation, which he will find if he wishes in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 16th March, page 410, it would be right for me to take up the time of the Committee again by going over the same ground. He may not be satisfied with my explanation, but it is the best I can give and it is the only one I can give. I would not wish him to think I was guilty of any discourtesy to him in ignoring any complaint he might make against me.
    This Debate, I think everyone will agree, has taken a somewhat unusual course. The attack upon the Estimates has proceeded not mainly from the natural opponents of the Government, who are in favour of a stronger Navy, but almost entirely from

    715
    the natural supporters of the Government, who wish to see the Navy reduced. Whilst the three divisions of the Coalition, if I may so describe it, has been engaged in smiting the Government from behind, from the flank, and even in front from below the Gangway, of course, we on this side are waiting to see if they really mean business, and, if so, to what extent. If they really mean war against the Government in this matter it will again be the duty of the Opposition, as it has been so often in the past, to defend the Navy against the attacks of certain sections of the Liberal, Labour, and Irish parties. I feel inclined to ask why is this attack so belated? Why did not we have this matter pressed to its extremities in March last, when the Government made disclosures with regard to keeping up the naval strength of this country. Why was not the attack pressed then, when the Government first laid their proposals before the House? I suppose the only reason must be that the Coalition was then engaged in the congenial task of attempting to pull down something else. Now that a period of enforced idleness has come upon them "Satan must find some mischief yet for idle hands to do," and they must be pulling down something, and they are selecting the British Navy as the corpus vile for their experiments. I wish to refer, with all the respect I can, to the point of view put forward this afternoon by speakers on the other side of the House, and notably by the Leader of the Labour party, the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and others who are banded together in this movement for a reduction in the Navy Estimates. I am quite ready to believe that they are perfectly sincere in their belief that the British Navy is too strong, and that it is desirable to reduce it. Whilst I do not deny for a moment that their motives may be patriotic, I do venture to contend that their judgment is astray. I go further and say that they and those who think with them have been more responsible than any one else for the great increase and the great spurt in shipbuilding which has taken place in Continental countries, because they have created the idea that the traditional British determination to maintain our naval supremacy is weakening or was weakening until a short time ago, and that there was an opportunity for other
    716
    nations to catch us up, if only they developed their resources and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.
    The point to which I wish particularly to draw attention is that these gentlemen who sincerely believe they are doing a national service in trying to reduce the Navy seem to be influenced principally by the idea, and, as I think, the perfectly absurd and perverse belief, that if you make adequate provision for the national defences you cannot make adequate provision for social reform. It was put very well by a speaker in the Debate on the Budget:—
    "You have got to choose between the Navy and social reform."
    That seems to me to be a strange delusion. Yet I do not blame some Gentlemen for holding that belief, because it is one which has been sedulously and unscrupulously fostered by many who know better, or ought to know better. It is a vicious and cruel argument. It is the sort of argument which was used in a leading article in the "Daily News" the other day. On 7th July the "Daily News" said:—
    "Were it not for the enormous increase this year, the country would have been equipped with most admirable systems of insurance against unemployment, sickness, and invalidity."
    It is infamous to tantalise the poor and more ignorant of the classes of this country by preaching to them this false and cruel doctrine. It is practically saying to them, "Burn down your house and see what a magnificent roast pig you will get." Undoubtedly, if you neglect the proper provision for the defence of this country, then you are burning down your national house, you are destroying the very separate existence of this country in which we all have to live, and I say it is an infamous argument to use when seeking the votes of the working classes. I am thankful to say there are some Members of the working classes, and some leaders of the Socialist party who are honest and wise enough to recognise and tell the truth about the matter. We have seen a notable illustration of that in the last few days, in a letter that appeared from Mr. Hyndman, who, I think, even Members of the Socialist party will admit has done as much for the workmen as anyone in it to-day. Mr. Hyndman has written a letter to the "Morning Post" within the last few days, in which he has combated that view as strongly and, as I think, as wisely as it is possible for any man to do. There have been other prominent members of

    717
    the Socialist party who have done the same. What is the result? They are at once repudiated and they are driven out of their party, a party which, whatever else it will do, will not tolerate freedom of thought or speech or independence of character. Whatever gentlemen below the Gangway may say, we have not got to choose between the defence of this country and social reform. We have got to have both, and we have got to pay for both whatever expense is necessary.
    Mr. SHACKLETON: It was your party who objected to pay.
    Mr. LEE: I think the hon. Gentleman has lost himself for a moment in catchwords from the last General Election. He has forgotten we are not being asked to pay the greater portion of these Naval Estimates until long afterwards. At any rate, whether we are willing to pay for them or not, we have got to pay for them, and we have got to have both national defence and social reform. It is perfectly clear that without the safety which a supreme Navy alone can give, any great schemes of social reform are a mere mockery and delusion. That fact was admitted by the Prime Minister this afternoon in an impressive passage of his speech, when he said:—
    "National security is the basis of all social reform."
    That being the fact, I cannot understand why responsible people should try and create the idea in the minds of the poorest of the classes of this country that they have got to choose between one and the other.
    10.0 P.M.
    After all, what will be the real position of this country in the event of our losing, even for a moment, our control of the sea—not merely if we lost our supremacy, but if it were effectively challenged, for the result would be in that case almost equally disastrous? In the first place, if it became possible for any nation to effectively challenge our supremacy on the sea there would be an immediate collapse of our national prestige, and in the event of any international question arising we should either be ignored or have to submit. The next effect would undoubtedly be, as was clearly stated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his remarkable speech last March. I think every Member of this House will remember the language used by the right hon. Baronet. He said that if we fell out of the competition we
    718
    should cease to count for anything, and in many things we should be lucky if our liberty were left. I believe no truer words were ever spoken. And, lastly, it is perfectly obvious the effect in case of war would be that the first brunt of the misery of the war would inevitably fall on the masses to whom hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway principally address their arguments. They would starve directly the pressure of the war came upon them. That fact has been admitted in categorical terms by the present Lord Chancellor, in a speech he made in the House of Lords in 1906. We have got to pay for adequate national defence and for social reform. When the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said he was not afraid of the Budget running up to £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 sterling, he was, apparently, only thinking of spending the whole of that money upon social reforms; but surely he is too sensible a man not to realise that such a Budget would argue enormous national wealth, and he must also realise that to be rich and unarmed is to invite aggression, humiliation, and disaster. Apart from that general question, and without touching for the moment on the more technical points which are raised upon this particular Vote, I contend that whatever opinions may be held as to the exact number of ships we have got, or are likely to have by a certain date, the country and the Empire are entitled to have an ample margin against all contingencies in this matter of naval defence. At the worst, even if the point pressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite is correct, that, as a result of these Estimates, we shall have a greater number of ships than is absolutely necessary, even then we shall have been only a little extravagant. I think we have been over-economical; but even if we have been a little extravagant, the result will not be without benefit to the nation. I am one of those who are not so obsessed with the catchwords of political economists as to believe that shipbuilding in the Navy can be classed as absolutely unproductive expenditure. I do not believe that for a moment. One might just as well say that money spent on insurance is unproductive expenditure. Is it possible to say that one of the greatest of our national industries, which provides almost a higher percentage of employment than any other branch of industry, is, in itself, necessarily unproductive expenditure? I assert it is nothing of the kind, and if it be, in the strict sense of political economy,

    719
    all I can say is that the phrase "unproductive expenditure" is as futile as are most of the catchwords of political economists. There is a favourite argument which has been frequently advanced by the hon. Member for the Tyneside Division (Mr. J. M. Robertson) that if only we were to give up the right of capture of private property at sea we should cease to be faced with this tremendous competition with Germany and other countries. I believe that to be an absolute delusion. Certainly, in the case of Germany, it is based on an entire misapprehension that that German Fleet has been built up primarily, and is intended for the protection of commerce. I believe that is not either entertained or advanced for a moment by any responsible German authority.
    Mr. THOMAS HARVEY: Yes, by the President of the German Navy League.
    Mr. LEE: It may have been advanced in one of those speeches which cause one's hair to stand on end like the quills of the fretful porcupine, but I confess I do not regard the president of any Navy League as necessarily a high official authority. It has never been denied by any responsible German authority, and I would remind the House of the speech made by the German Emperor himself on 3rd July, 1900, when he declared that the ocean was indispensable to German rights, and that in the future no great decision must be consummated without Germany and the German Emperor. That is practically the position the Prime Minister took up this afternoon when he said it was the national ambition of the German people to play a great part in the world, and they thought it necessary to build up a Navy to enable them to maintain that position. Their fleet is not primarily intended for the defence of commerce as is proved by the preamble of their Navy Act of 1900. This was admitted not only by the Prime Minister of that day, but it has been stated today by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc). I cannot imagine what would have been said had that hon. Member's speech proceeded from any one on this side of the House. Germany, I firmly believe, has no desire to go to war with this country or, indeed, with any other country, but we who depend absolutely for our national existence on a supreme Navy have got to take cognisance of certain facts which cannot be
    720
    denied. In the first place, there is the enormous expansion of the German Fleet which has necessitated the doubling of the German Naval Estimates even during the short period the present Government has been in office. Then there is the immense increase in the shipbuilding capacity of Germany, and also the fact that the proposals put forward in this country for an agreement as to some reduction of armaments have been refused even consideration by the German Government. Those are the hard facts of the situation which we have to consider. They are facts which are undisputed. No hon. Gentleman has been able to disprove one single statement made by the Government last year.
    It is quite true the Government itself is apparently divided into two sections on this matter. There is one section—I am thankful to believe the stronger—which believes in the case put forward by the Government to-day and is prepared to stand by it. There is another section which ridicules the danger and decries any additional expenditure on the Navy. During my short political career I have never listened to such speeches as those which have been delivered during this and the last Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister responsible for the national expenditure and, therefore, for the Navy Estimates—speeches in which he has made no pretence of loyalty to his colleagues in this matter of naval policy; speeches in which he has sneered at the expenditure for which he is responsible. He talks about "futile expenditure on armaments," "building navies against nightmares," "mythical armadas," and "navy scares." If he believes that those are epithets which can properly be applied to the policy of his colleagues why does not he refuse the money? He is the guardian of the nation's purse. Why does he not either refuse the money or, if he cannot do that, resign? He is occupying a peculiarly ignoble position in taking up the attitude merely of vilifying expenditure which he dare not refuse, although it is his duty to do so if he thinks that expenditure is not justified. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean by saying that the German programme of shipbuilding will drop by 50 per cent. in 1912? How does he know it will drop by 50 per cent.? In any case, even supposing there is no amendment of the German Navy Bill as there has been so many times in the past, does he not know that the reduction only applies, in any case, to battleships, and

    721
    that there is no reduction in the number of cruisers, destroyers, submarines, additions to the personnel, additions to the docks, and everything else which goes to make up the German Navy Bill I Battleships are not everything. Yet the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has established a case for a reduction of our expenditure when he tells us the German programme of battleship building is going to drop by 50 per cent. two years hence! I do not know what the Germans are going to do two years hence. Past experience has shown that this Navy Bill is not only capable of almost indefinite amendment and extension, but that it has been almost indefinitely extended and amended when the time has arrived. I am not yet convinced that the Germans, having established this enormous building capacity, having placed themselves in the position of possessing one firm alone, the firm of Krupps, being able to supply the component parts of eight battleships per annum—I am not convinced they are going to drop their programme of having all their dockyards turning out two battleships only per annum two years hence; that they are going to allow this plant, which has been acquired with gigantic sacrifice, to fall into decay solely from disuse.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I said Krupps can turn out the component parts for eight battleships yearly.
    Mr. LEE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that almost his exact words were that anyone would be tempted to ridicule the statement that Krupps were in a position to turn out the component parts of eight battleships in one year and that yet that is to-day an accomplished fact.
    Mr. McKENNA: What I said was not yearly but in one year. That is quite a different thing, as I will explain later on.
    Mr. LEE: I have known for some time that the right hon. Gentleman is a past master in the art of hair-splitting, but on this occasion he has surpassed himself. We on this side contend that our only safe course is to maintain the two-Power standard in the fullest possible sense. Whilst the Prime Minister gave us some qualms last year in a celebrated speech in regard to his interpretation of the two-Power standard, we hope, from the language he has used to-day, that he has once more
    722
    placed that standard upon an intelligible basis. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about our not having merely to consider this or that Power, but having to take the Power x. If he takes the Power x for dealing with one Power, I hope he will take the Power x plus y when computing the two-Power standard. That is the only rational and safe way in which that standard can be interpreted. The two-Power standard is the only rational standard we have got, just as the German Navy Bill is the German national policy. The Preamble of that Bill expressly challenges the two-Power standard, because it lays down that the probabilities are this country will not be able to be in a position to fight any two Powers at one and the same time with any chance of success. Therefore we have arrived at a situation where the maintenance of the two-Power standard is more vital than ever. If anything else is needed to show that, it is afforded by the situation in the Mediterranean, where we have a sudden accession of naval power threatened by a country with which we are on friendly terms, but which is allied in the greatest possible way with Germany in the North Sea.
    We have to consider that fact, and, under the circumstances, in view of the extra strain which has been thrown on us in the next few years it is difficult to understand why the Government should have seen fit to procrastinate in laying down the five ships of this year's programme. Here we have a situation of admitted urgency, and yet the Government are wilfully putting off the laying down of those five ships of this year's programme, of which they have approved, until the latest possible moment, and as the hon. Member for Portsmouth said, those five ships cease to be in this year's programme at all, and are forced into the programme of the year that follows. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this did not mean that the ships were not to be commenced at an early date, but it was owing to some difficulty about book-keeping. I should be very glad if he will explain why it is that it should not be possible to pass through the books of the Admiralty a greater sum than about one-fifth of the cost of one ship in pressing on the construction of these five "Dreadnoughts." He cannot suggest that it is not physically possible to lay down these ships at an early date. In the case of the two great building yards, Portsmouth and Devonport, two of the building ships will be vacant before the

    723
    end of August this year, as I think the launch of the "Orion" and the "Lion" have been fixed for the 20th of August or thereabouts. Therefore these slips will be ready to lay down these ships upon before the end of September. Why should not the Admiralty fill these slips, and why should they allow them to remain vacant until we arrive at the new year? If they choose to lay clown the ships, as they could before the end of September, they would be able to get in at least six months' work upon them before the end of the financial year, and in that way advance us to a point where the position—I will not say of peril, but the position which the Prime Minister disclosed in his speech to-day when towards the end of 1912 we might have only twenty "Dreadnoughts" to the German seventeen might be mitigated. I think we are justified in pressing upon the Government that they should take action in that direction. By way of conclusion I will only say this, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway taunt us with being scaremongers and having created scares. I pass by the point which has been made with justice that if there was any scare it was in the first case started by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am not in the least ashamed of the taunt that we have been in any way instrumental in arousing the country to their position. At any rate, if we have been scaremongers, we have produced some results.
    Mr. DILLON: Twelve million pounds a year.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. Member prefers to measure these matters in money. I prefer to measure them in ships and naval strength. At least, by our agitation we have done much to strengthen the Navy. In the four years which preceded that agitation the average programme of the Government was three battleships, two cruisers, and seven destroyers per annum. Since the agitation that average has risen to seven to eight battleships, five to six cruisers, and twenty destroyers per annum. Whilst it is quite true that we are not carrying on any very active agitation at present on the matter it is simply because we are getting results, and we shall be quite ready, if the occasion arises again and the Government is backward in doing its duty, to resume our agitation. One thing that is clear in our minds is
    724
    that we cannot afford to take risks in this matter of Naval defence. I do not belong to the dashing and young school, which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely). He likes taking risks, and he thinks it is somewhat chicken-hearted on our part to insist on having a great superiority of strength. Only a short time ago he said:—
    "A man who now fears the safety of his country must have forgotten that we are a people who have again and again in the glorious past shown that we can fight even in a numerical inferiority."
    The right hon. Gentleman belongs to a dashing and gallant school to which I have no pretensions whatever, but we have no right to put the people of this country, still less the unfortunate men of the Fleet, in a position where they may have to fight in a position of numerical inferiority, and our first duty is to see that under all circumstances, under all possible combinations which can be brought against us, we equip them with the means of bringing
    the fight to a successful conclusion. The risk which the right hon. Gentleman thinks so attractive and glorious is a thing which invites war, and war, if it comes or even if it is threatened. means untold misery for the masses of our population even if we are victorious, and if we are not victorious, if we lose the command of the sea even for a day, we have lost it forever. It will not be then a Government drawn from this or that side of the House which will decide under what form of Constitution we are going to live or what our particular variety of fiscal system will be. It will be the foreign conqueror who will decide that, and it is because we on this side are not willing to take any risks if we can avoid it that we are going to oppose the Amendment and support the Government in this Motion, not because we think their naval policy is above reproach, but because, at any rate, they are better than the company which they keep.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have listened to practically the whole of this Debate except during the brief intervals when I have had to get some refreshment. I think I have heard everything that has been said. Although the Admiralty has been criticised on both sides of the House, I should like to say at once that for my part I do not think we have anything whatever to complain of. The criticism, so far as I have been able to judge, has been extremely fair and, in my opinion, extremely natural. There is a predilection on the other side of the House for

    725
    what I cannot help regarding as exaggerated armaments, and they find the programme of the year insufficient. There is a predilection on my own side of the House—a predilection which I share—for sober armaments, and I am equally not in the least surprised that some of my hon. Friends are under the impression that the Admiralty has made greater demands upon them than the occasion warrants. I will endeavour to reply to the arguments on both sides, although I fear that in doing so I am very likely to be misunderstood, as I was misunderstood in March of last year. But before I come to the general arguments I should like to say a word as to the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Lee). He is a good party man, and he has a perfectly natural desire to drive a wedge into the solidarity of the Government. He has unfortunately found it necessary to assert that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been fair to his colleagues in some of his assertions about the Navy. Let me say at once that for my part I sympathise entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will explain why. He came into office as Chancellor of the Exchequer a little over two years ago, and he was almost immediately confronted with a large demand for an increase in the Navy Estimates, a demand which he did not anticipate. That is a kind of demand which no Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whatever party he belongs, likes to have to meet. It is not a pleasing thing for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to be confronted year after year with an increase in the Navy Estimates, and so far from complaining against my right hon. Friend, I think, on the contrary, that the hon. Gentleman opposite ought to recognise the patriotism with which he has acted by imposing the necessary additional taxation in order to meet this demand. The hon. Gentleman asked me why the laying down of the ships of this year's programme was to be so long delayed. Well, we lay down ships in order that we may have them ready and completed for war at such a time as will give us a superiority—the necessary superiority—over the ships of foreign Powers. We do not lay down ships merely for the sake of laying them down, and if we defer this year's programme and lay down our ships in January and March it is because we do not think it necessary to have them completed at the earliest till January and March, 1913, and I may say at once that if in January and March, 1913, they were
    726
    not necessary then equally it would not be necessary to hurry on the construction of these ships. Then the critics of the Admiralty desire us to lay down so many ships every year in regular routine, regardless of our requirements for the ships. We lay down the ships which we think necessary. My hon. Friends may consider that we lay down more than are really necessary. But I can assure them that we only lay down because we believe them to be necessary and not in order to fufil any general idea of carrying out an average programme per annum. We shall have in the spring of 1912 twenty battleships, large armoured cruisers of the most modern type. That programme, that construction, was described by the hon. Member for East Mayo as monstrous; and he further said that the proposal to add to that number by an additional five, power to build which we are taking by the present Vote, also was monstrous. Now, if my hon Friend the Member for East Mayo holds the view that it is not the business of the Admiralty to build superior, and considerably superior, to any other Power at sea in new construction, then I join issue with him at once. If he thinks that we ought to take the risk, that we ought not to have a superiority, or that we ought to have just a bare superiority—
    Mr. DILLON: I never said that.
    Mr. McKENNA: I only put it as a hypothesis. If my hon. Friend takes that view I join issue with him at once, and there is no possible meeting-ground between us. But on this exceptional question, as far as he and I are concerned—because in most other respects I believe we on most questions see almost eye to eye, and for many years I do not remember an occasion on which he and I went into different Lobbies—I only say that if he held that view with regard to new naval construction I should have to part company with him. But I understand he does not. He takes it as axiomatic as I do, that we should have not merely a bare superiority but a considerable superiority—I do not speak of two to one; nothing of the sort—but that we should have a considerable superiority over any other Power in new construction. Do not let the hon. Member go off on to another point. I am dealing with one point at a time. He agrees with me upon that, that we ought to have a fair superiority over any other Power in new construction. Very well. Let us examine the facts. We

    727
    have got, as the Prime Minister has stated already, of this new type of ship ten at this moment, ready when required, and another Power has five. In addition to those ten ships, including two to be launched next month, which I think ought to be treated as launched, we have got six launched, and the same Power of which I have spoken has got five launched. We have got four more on the slips, and that Power has got three more on the slips; and that Power has given the orders to four contracting firms—I have the semiofficial account here—for four other ships, the orders for which were given last April. We have ordered nothing more at this moment, but I am asking for sanction to order. I ask my hon. Friend at what moment would he say to me in respect of what class of ship I have got an exaggerated superiority? I have got ten against five actual; I have got six against five launched; I have got four against three on the slips, and I have got none ordered at the present moment against four. After all, the Admiralty is responsible for the safety of the country. At what point would he say to me, "You ought not to give any more orders"? He says now that I am to give no more orders this year. Mark the consequences. How do we stand? If I do not give an order, as he would wish, for these five, under the German law—I name Germany because it has been so often mentioned—the Germans are entitled for acceleration, merely on the procedure of this year, to give an order for another four large armoured ships next April. I cannot get permission from Parliament until next April to lay down any more. They would have seven on the slips against our four, and four more in order. Does my hon. Friend think that in those circumstances I should be doing my duty in not asking power from Parliament to build an additional five? Surely he would not say to me that was an adequate number—ten built against five built; six launched against five launched—then it would be three on the slips as against seven on the slips, and none ordered against four ordered. These would be the actual conditions if the Admiralty took no steps to lay down any ships this year, and unless we take powers to lay them down now. We only propose to give the orders in the month of October or November next. We do not lay them down until January or March, and unless we take power what
    728
    would be our position face to face with this other Power. I think it is agreed between us that in new construction we are not seeking for equality, nor for bare superiority, but for safe superiority, and I challenge my hon. Friend to go into the Lobby against me. If he had stood in my position, if he had been responsible, as the Government are responsible, for the safety of the country. I am sure that he would have asked Parliament for the same sanction which I am asking for at this moment. It must not be forgotten that it takes time to build ships, and unless we lay them down in sufficient time we cannot catch up.
    I have said this upon the general question, and I hope I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friends that we have had no exaggerated ideas. I have spoken only of the general question, but I would not like to pass away from the subject and come to the detailed criticism without saying something about the animadversions—I will not say charges—with regard to the speeches of last March. The House of Commons is always a very fair body, and I am sure I shall not appeal in vain to the House when I ask hon. Members to take account of the fact that on the question of the Navy Estimates I have always to have regard to the two sides at the same time. I have never concealed anything from the House. I have never attempted to disguise or explain away the real position. I have endeavoured always to state absolutely what I know, neither more nor less; but I stand in the position that, while my words are very liable to be understood on one side of the House in one sense hostile to me, on the other side of the House they are liable to be understood in another sense hostile to the view I have taken. I distinguish between the two views. With regard to what was said last March, two quotations have been made to-day from the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo made a charge against me, and his observation was received with considerable applause in one quarter of the House. He read some words of mine. I apologise to the House having to read a speech of mine. The words which he quoted were:—
    "The difficulty in which the Government finds itself placed at this moment is that we do not know, as we thought we did, the rate at which German construction is taking place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1909, col. 934.]
    There my hon. Friend stopped. In the next sentence I went on to explain the meaning of those words; what it was we

    729
    did not know, and the explanation that I gave immediately does away with any argument which could be adduced from that one sentence by itself. I went on to say:—
    "We know that the Germans have a law which, when all the ships under it are completed, will give them a Navy more powerful than any at present in existence. We do not know the rate at which the provisions of this law are to be carried into execution. We anticipated that work on the 1908–9 programme would begin on four ships in August, 1908. The preparation and collection of materials began some months earlier. We now expect those ships to be completed, not in February, 1911, but in the autumn of 1910. I am informed, moreover, that the collection of materials and the manufacture of armament, guns, and mountings have already begun, for four more ships, which, according to the Navy Law, belong to the programme of 1909–10"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1909. col. 934.]
    There I stated exactly what it was we had not known, and exactly what the facts were. Those facts are true, they have never been denied. What we did not know was a matter which was not ground for giving rise to a scare. What would have given rise to a scare would be if we had made exaggerated estimates as the result of our want of information. Did we give exaggerated Estimates?
    Mr. DILLON: Yes.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend says we did. I have shown what the state of construction is at the present time, what it is at this moment. It was stated by the Prime Minister, and I have repeated what the state of construction is. I say we gave no exaggerated Estimates, and I will tell my hon. Friend why. He says the Estimates were exaggerated because it has been asserted on behalf of the German Government that the German ships are not completed in three years, thirty-six months when the ships are given out to contractors, and forty months when in the Government dockyards. I am quoting the official statement. I should be the last person to contradict any official statement or to deny that anything which is asserted on the part of the German Government is not absolutely correct, but we have got to take into account, not the time between the giving of the order and the commissioning of the ship, the point which is always taken by the right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), the time when the ship joins the high-sea fleet; but we have got to take account of the time between the laying down of the vessel and its readiness for war. It is entirely within the discretion of the Government when a ship is ready
    730
    for commission and when it is commissioned for the high-sea fleet, but it is ready for war all the time, and has got its crew all the time.
    Mr. LOUGH: I only asked that you should take the same standard.
    Mr. McKENNA: We have not the same system. A very long time elapses after a ship is completed before it joins the high-sea fleet, which alone is reckoned as the time for the completion of the vessel. We have to take the time when it is ready for war, and I think the hon. Gentleman, who is a very fair controversialist, will admit that that is the right time for us to take.
    Mr. DILLON: I never alluded to that before; I was not sufficient of an expert. What I referred to was the declaration of the German Government, repeated over and over again to our Foreign Minister, that they would have only thirteen ships in the late autumn of 1912.
    Mr. McKENNA: Thirteen ships in the high-sea fleet.
    Mr. DILLON: That was never mentioned.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is what is understood by the words. When the Prime Minister said they had five ships ready, my right hon. Friend interrupted him and said they had only two. That is perfectly true in the sense of being in the high sea fleet, but the whole five are ready and could be fought to-morrow. Therefore, we are differing only as to words in this controversy. Those who are responsible have to deal with the facts. We cannot run risks; therefore we have regard to the state of construction of the ships, not to the time when they join the high sea fleet.
    Mr. DILLON: Not one word of that explanation was given by the Foreign Secretary when speaking on 29th March last year; and I venture to say that every Member of the House understood him to mean that there would be only thirteen ships ready.
    Mr. McKENNA: I must take all the blame for that; it was my fault for not having made it clear that there is a great distinction between the completion of building and joining the high sea Fleet. The first commissioning is for trials; then a long period elapses before the ship is finally commissioned. But the ship is ready when it is commissioned for trials.

    731
    These are the facts we have to take into account, and the Board of Admiralty, with no desire to spend the taxpayers' money unnecessarily, have not been able to satisfy themselves that any less Vote than is now asked for would be sufficient to give us security. Our motto is to he safe, and to be sober. If we asked the House of Commons for less than we are asking now we could not be sure of being safe; but I am certain that if we asked for more, we should not be sober. I, therefore, in the strongest terms I can, recommend my hon. Friends to accept the programme which is now presented. It is quite true, as stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that every programme that you accept in one year necessarily involves you in expenditure in the two succeeding years. These ships take at least two years to build, and their cost runs over three separate Estimates. Therefore, I readily admit that in accepting these five ships the Committee will inevitably commit itself to expenditure—necessarily large expenditure—in the ensuing two years. But, on the other hand, if the Committee were to refuse these ships now, I am sure that before this financial year had elapsed the House of Commons would be confronted with a demand far in excess of what I am asking now. The figures could be worked up to show a more exaggerated need—the element of insobriety would have its chance. I would ask the Committee to accept these sober figures, and to accept also the assurance that I give them that I am asking them for no more than may be reasonably demanded in the name of safety.
    Let me pass from the general topic to some of the points of detail that have been put forward. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Evesham Division (Mr. Eyres-Monsell), if he will allow me to say so, has so engaging a manner that however one may disagree from him one would not wish to fall out with him. He raised the very important matter of the protection of our trade routes, and upon that argument he based a demand for a considerable increase in the number of our cruisers. In view of the fact that I have only ten minutes in front of me, I cannot follow him through the whole of his argument. I would only address to him two warnings. He speaks of the possibility of merchantmen bringing out their guns, receiving a commission at sea, hoisting a foreign ensign, and becoming armed commerce destroyers. I would remind him
    732
    that before a ship can do that it has to have guns and ammunition on board.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The Germans have got them.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it has.
    Mr. HUNT: You do not know.
    Mr. McKENNA: Well, whatever the hon. Gentleman's opinion may be of my knowledge or that of the Admiralty on the subject, I think he will pay some respect to the knowledge of Lloyds—
    Mr. HUNT: Lawyers: I do not believe in them. [Laughter.]
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say lawyers, I said Lloyds, the great insurance office. The hon. Gentleman should know that these great merchantmen are all insured. Their insurance would be invalid if they carried ammunition. They would have to declare it. They cannot even store it in foreign warehouses as is so often supposed, for the very same reason, that warehouses do not take the ammunition. This notion that ships can in a moment suddenly blossom out into men-of-war, with all the apparatus of men-of-war, is at the present time a delusion. I am not saying what may happen in the future. Nobody can tell. We may see new conditions. We may see merchantmen that are not insured at Lloyds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly, I admit anything as to the future. I do not know. But I do know what happens now. I do know that at this time the notion that these great merchantmen could be turned into armoured vessels of war is a mistake. The conditions do not exist under which they could. They do not carry the guns or the ammunition. Therefore, whatever may be the prospects for future years, at the present time there is no ground for the Admiralty altering their policy on that particular point.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say on 16th March, 1909, "Our commerce, if unprotected in war in remote seas, would be open to attack by foreign armed merchant vessels specially commissioned for the purpose as ships of war."
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not disputed that. I have stated distinctly I was not referring to what might happen in the future. I said a few minutes ago we cannot answer for what might happen in

    733
    the future when the conditions are different, but certainly upon the particular trade route mentioned by the hon. Member, between the Argentine and the Cape Verde Islands, the conditions which he supposes could not exist. Therefore there is no ground at the present moment for any change in the Admiralty policy in that regard.
    Perhaps the Committee will allow me to mention the fact that the work at Rosyth Dockyard has now reached such a stage that it will be soon become necessary to order the second dock, which was always part of the plan of the original scheme. I mention this to the Committee because it would not be proper, when I had an opportunity of mentioning it, that I should withhold from them this important fact. No work will, in fact, be begun at the present time, but the moment is approaching when it will be necessary in the present construction to have regard to the fact that a second dock will be requisite at Rosyth. I will only refer further to one statement made by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. He recited an incident within his own experience when he was Commander of eight battleships, that, owing to some
    accident, six were laid up at the same time.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: No; four were laid up owing to accident and two were undergoing repair.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. That is an experience we must always guard against, and it is because equality or bare superiority would not suffice that I entirely agree with the arguments he used that there might be a contingency owing to accident of that sort when bare superiority would vanish. But the Noble Lord must not himself forget that these accidents happen to both parties. While we require superiority that will guarantee us against accident, we do not need always to regard that as a contingency that will necessarily happen to us alone. May I ask the Committee, as the Prime Minister undertook an opportunity for a Division should be given, to allow the Vote to be taken now?
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,444,100, be Granted to His Majesty for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 298.

    Division No. 100.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Dowd, John

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John Plus

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Malley, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hazelton, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, P. J.

    Hodge, John

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hogan, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Reddy, Michael

    Cameron, Robert

    Jowett, F. W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clough, William

    Keating, M.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kelly, Edward

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Seddon, J.

    Dillon, John

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Shackleton, David James

    Doris, W.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Snowden, P.

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Twist, Henry

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Callum, John M.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Molloy, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland Burke.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Hackett, J.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    NOES.

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

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Barnston, H.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bagot, Captain J.

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baird, J. L.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Anderson, A.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Arbuthnot, G. A.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

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

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Armitage, R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bird, A.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Barclay, Sir T.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Boyton, J.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Brassey, H. L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Brigg, Sir John

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Pearce, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Butcher, J. G. (York)

    Hayward, Evan

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

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

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

    Hillier, Dr. A. P.

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Hindle, F. G.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Proby, Colonel Douglas James

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hohler, G. F.

    Radford, G. H.

    Cator, John

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rice, Hon. W.

    Chapple, W. A.

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Ridley, Samuel Fordo

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clay, Captain H. Spender

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Coates, Major E. F.

    Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

    Robinson, S.

    Colefax, H. A.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Keswick, William

    Rutherford, Watson

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Knott, James

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lambert, George

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Lawson, Hon. Harry

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Schwann, Sir C. E.

    Crossley, Sir W. J.

    Leach, Charles

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Dixon, C. H.

    Llewelyn, Major Venables

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Starkey, John R.

    Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Duke, H. E.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Stewart, Gersham (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Strauss, A.

    Elverston, H.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Summers, James Woolley

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sykes, Alan John

    Falconer, J.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Falle, B. G.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fell, Arthur

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Fisher, W. Hayes

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Terrell, H (Gloucester)

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    M'Laren Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Marks, G. Croydon

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

    Forster, Henry William

    Mason, J. F.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Furness, Stephen

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Mitchell, William Foot

    Verney, F. W.

    Gibson, James P.

    Mond, Sir Alfred

    Verrall, George Henry

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Grant, J. A.

    Morrison, Captain J. A.

    Waring, Walter

    Greenwood, G. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Gretton, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Muspratt, M.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E.

    Neilson, Francis

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    736

    737

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

    Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Yerburgh, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Question put and agreed to.

    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."
Objection taken.
Mr. PATRICK J. BRADY: I would appeal to the House not to prevent this Bill passing. It merely assimilates the law in Dublin to that prevailing in London.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

HIGHWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS, 1888 AND 1894, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1889 AND 1894.
So much of Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—[Master of Elibank.]

ARMY AND NAVY GRANTS.
Resolved, "That this House do tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the surpluses and deficits for the Army and Navy Grants for 1908–9, and the application of surpluses to meet expenditure not provided for in regard to that year, and that the Appropriation Accounts for the Army and Navy Departments respectively of 22nd and 23rd February last, be referred to the Committee."—[Master of Elibank.]

ADJOURNMENT.
MASTER of ELIBANK: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Mr. BYLES: Ought we to take business which is not on the Paper?
MASTER of ELIBANK: It is a formal notice.
Mr. BYLES: Is it not irregular?
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Allocation of Duties on Land Values.
  Allocation of Duties on Land Values.
  Stamp Duty on Property Purchases.
  Stamp Duty on Property Purchases.
  Spirit Used in Medicine.
  Spirit Used in Medicine.
  Finance Act (Licence Duties, Ireland).
  Finance Act (Licence Duties, Ireland).
  Insurance against Unemployment.
  Insurance against Unemployment.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland),
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland),
  Sir F. J. Hort's Estate, County Kildare.
  Sir F. J. Hort's Estate, County Kildare.
  Mr. M. E. Dobbs' Estate, County Kildare.
  Mr. M. E. Dobbs' Estate, County Kildare.
  Colonel Lopdell's Estate, Cappamore.
  Colonel Lopdell's Estate, Cappamore.
  Blake Forster Estate, Kinvarra, County Galway.
  Blake Forster Estate, Kinvarra, County Galway.
  Royal Irish Constabulary (District-Inspector Price).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (District-Inspector Price).
  Untenanted Land, County Cork.
  Untenanted Land, County Cork.
  Local Government Officers (Ireland).
  Local Government Officers (Ireland).
  Sheerness Batteries (Damage by Gun Fire).
  Sheerness Batteries (Damage by Gun Fire).
  Carbine Buckets.
  Carbine Buckets.
  Pay of Adjutants.
  Pay of Adjutants.
  Pay while in Camp.
  Pay while in Camp.
  Army Council and County Associations.
  Army Council and County Associations.
  Alienation of Tribal Lands.
  Alienation of Tribal Lands.
  World's Congress for the Deaf.
  World's Congress for the Deaf.
  Repayments of School Buildings Loans.
  Repayments of School Buildings Loans.
  Salvation Army (Meat Supply).
  Salvation Army (Meat Supply).
  Flour Bleaching.
  Flour Bleaching.
  Measles and Whooping Cough (Metropolitan Asylums District).
  Measles and Whooping Cough (Metropolitan Asylums District).
  Tea Imported into United Kingdom.
  Tea Imported into United Kingdom.
  Bankruptcy Law.
  Bankruptcy Law.
  Officials of Labour Exchanges.
  Officials of Labour Exchanges.
  Jury Service.
  Jury Service.
  Post Office Work (Wales).
  Post Office Work (Wales).
  Missing Letters.
  Missing Letters.

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No.3).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No.5).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.1).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.2).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.3).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.
London County Council (Money).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW GAS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
WEMYSS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DUFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Milnrow Urban District Council Tramways Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.3) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Rowley Regis and Blackheath Gas Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 22nd of June and Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. (No.81.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL. (No. 82.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2) BILL. (No.83.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.3) BILL. (No.84.)
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No.85.)
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

WEMYSS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee. (No.86.)
SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition against; of the Parish Council of the Parish of Cathcart; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition against; of the Corporation of Paddington; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for physical training in Elementary, Secondary, and Continuation Schools—Was presented by the Viscount Hill; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a, on Thursday the 14 th instant (No. 87.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No.6) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No.2) BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, it will not, I think, be necessary to occupy much of your Lordships' time over this little Bill, which your Lordships will see at once is as simple as it is necessary. It deals with and seeks to make less hideous the traffic in decrepit horses. The Board of Agriculture classifies these horses under two heads—as of £5 and under, and as of £10 and under—and the tables show that while Belgium and Holland import from this country some 40,000 between them, by far the greater number of the ten-pounders go to Belgium while by far the greater number of the five-pounders go to Holland. This at once stamps the traffic with Belgium as being far more vicious than that with Holland, because whereas the five-pounders—in fact, all those which go to Holland—are used entirely for food and are under police supervision from the moment of arrival until they are slaughtered, those which are landed at Antwerp are walked four miles to the Government stables to be examined
1046
for glanders and other diseases, and then either the last ounce of work is dragged out of the poor brutes in country labour, or they are consigned to the butcher, which often entails a further march of suffering.
This Bill seeks to ensure the compulsory examination by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Board of Agriculture for that purpose of every single horse on arrival at the dock, and to forbid the captain or master of any vessel accepting any horse for exportation unless a certificate from the veterinary surgeon is produced to the effect that the animal is capable of being conveyed to its destination without suffering, not only during the intended voyage but after being disembarked. In 1898, as a result of a deputation from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Exportation of Horses Order was issued, by the Board of Agriculture, and so far as it affects the horses when once on board ship, it has greatly tended to improve their condition. But the contention of the promoters of this. Bill—and I hope to amply prove it to your Lordships—is that unfit horses are actually shipped, and that the Order which says it shall not be lawful to convey in a vessel from any port in Great Britain any horse which, owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, or any other reason, cannot be so conveyed without cruelty during the intended passage and on landing, is a dead letter.
In proof of this, I would draw attention, first, to the fact that since 1902 the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has obtained 700 convictions against persons for travelling lame and decrepit horses on the road to the docks for shipment abroad, and I would suggest that these simple folk—the horse dealers—would not incur the trouble and expense of driving those horses from long distances to the port of exportation if they did not think there was a good chance of getting them on board. And, secondly, I would draw attention to the evidence of Mr. Smart, M.R.C.V.S., Superintending Veterinary Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, which he gave at the monthly meeting of the Veterinary Society on April 7 last. With your Lordships' permission I will read it. Mr. Smart said—
"It had occurred to him that the society might like some clear indication from a veterinary

1047
surgeon who was somewhat intimately acquainted with the traffic as to the conditions under which it had been carried out, and was now carried out….In February, 1909, he received instructions from the Assistant Secretary of the Board to visit all the ports to see exactly what the local authorities were doing as to administering the Exportation of Horses Order of 1898, and to report to the Board. The Exportation of Horses Order, 1898, provided for the proper treatment of horses en route, and left the duty of carrying out the provisions to the various local authorities. When that Order was first passed, it was assumed by the Board that the local authorities would place the inspection of the horses in the hands of veterinary surgeons, presumably their local inspectors. When he went to the various ports he found there was no uniformity in the way in which the order was being administered. At a few ports the veterinary inspector of the local authority was inspecting horses before shipment; at some of the other ports they were inspected on behalf of the shipping companies by a veterinary surgeon in the employment of the company; in other cases there was a comic opera sort of arrangement, by which the veterinary surgeon was paid a fee for inspecting the horses he passed fit for shipment but was not paid any fee for the horses he rejected as unfit for shipment; and at some other ports a perfunctory inspection was made by the police."
So far then, my Lords, we have dealt with the decrepit horse on this side of the water, and attempted to make certain that it shall not leave this country in a state of suffering. A further clause in the Bill provides that every ship engaged in this traffic shall carry a proper and humane killing instrument, and gives the master of the ship power to order its use to end the sufferings of any of his equine passengers without making himself pecuniarily liable. Again I will quote the evidence of Mr. Smart before the Veterinary Society. He said—
"The Board had received reports from time to time from their lay inspectors, who for several years past had occasionally made voyages on the ships with the object of seeing that the fittings of the ship were in order and that the animals were properly fed and watered on the voyage. These inspectors were allotted certain stations, where they remained for some years, and it was quite likely they became known to the persons engaged in the trade, and that during the particular voyage they were on board the horses were better attended to than at other times."
This is borne out by the evidence of the secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who with a Daily Mail correspondent travelled on one of these ships to Antwerp last February, and reported as follows:—
"No food or water was, so I was informed, to be given to the old horses unless desired. I took care to inquire on arrival if such a wish had been expressed by the dealers, and was told that
1048
none of these poor old animals had been either fed or watered on the passage."
Bearing those words in mind your Lordships will, perhaps, not be surprised to hear the following facts: 16,373 horses were exported to Antwerp between January, 1909, and January, 1910. Of these, 317 had to be removed on arrival in wagons; nine had to be killed at once; and forty-one arrived dead. When I remember a voyage which I made with the King's Dragoon Guards in 1879, taking many weeks, and that at the end of it the King's Dragoon Guards and 17th Lancers landed their horses practically intact at Durban and shortly after marched up country, I can only come to the conclusion that such casualties as I have read to your Lordships in the little voyage to Antwerp must mean that a large percentage of those horses would never have been shipped had they been subjected to a proper veterinary examination, and that, if shipped, many would have been destroyed on the voyage to avoid suffering but for the Belgian law of 1895, which loses to the consignor the value of an animal killed en route.
Once more I must draw on Mr. Smart. He said—
"The Board also received information that horses not in a fit condition to endure the voyage were shipped from time to time, and some rather disquieting information as to the treatment of horses on the other side was also brought to the notice of the Board."
Disquieting information, indeed, my Lords, because the Secretary of the Society who, with the Daily Mail correspondent, went to Antwerp, reports as follows—
"We saw horses with such deformities and diseases that it was gross cruelty to have allowed them to undergo the sufferings entailed by the journey—horses which were so lame that on arrival they could hardly hobble along the dock side, and had to be conveyed to the Government stables in wagons, or were so weak that they had to be sandwiched between two less decrepit animals so that they might receive their support during the painful walk of four and a-half miles to the Government stables."
Your Lordships may say, with so much cruelty on foot, Why are these horses not either killed before embarkation or the traffic stopped altogether? The first of those is not possible, because Belgium and Holland do not allow dead meat across their borders; and the second is an unattainable ideal, not practicable because a large amount of money is involved in this trade and the supply in this country

1049
meets the demand of Holland and Belgium. Therefore I feel that we must be content with the provisions of this little Bill. It has come from another place practically with unanimous approval, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not think there are any of your Lordships who will not be in general agreement with the principle of this Bill. Certainly I am myself, and nothing that I shall say and no Amendment that I shall move can be taken as being against the principle as a whole. But it seems to me that the Bill is too general in its application. We admit at once that there are abuses, but this seems like employing a steam hammer to crack a nut. In trying to stop admitted abuses you are going to interfere with the legitimate horse trade of the United Kingdom. We want to stop the abuses of which the noble Lord has spoken, but I think he will agree that we should do nothing to stop the legitimate horse traffic between this country and the Continent. Naturally I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but there are one or two Amendments which I shall move in Committee, and which I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept.
I will take, in the first place, Clause 1, in which appear the words—
"Except in such cases as may be prescribed by Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
Great as is my admiration for that Board and its President, I would infinitely prefer to have the powers which the Board are to exercise more clearly defined in the Bill. We then come to the words—
"From any port in Great Britain to any place outside Great Britain."
I do not think the noble Lord would wish that the restrictions which he rightly desires to impose in the case of the traffic between England and Holland and Belgium should be imposed in the same way in the case of the trade between England and Ireland. The two are on different footings, and restrictions which would rightly apply to the one ought not to apply to the other. I shall, therefore, when the Bill reaches Committee, move to leave out the words "Great Britain" and to insert "British Isles." Next there is the word "immediately" ["unless immediately before shipment
1050
the horse has been examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Board"]. This seems to me far too indefinite, and I should like to propose, when the time comes, that instead of the word "immediately" there should be substituted the words "within forty-eight hours." Clause 2 I confess I do not understand at all, but we shall probably get some information upon it in Committee. When we come to Clause 3, there is a much more serious restriction on the exportation and importation of horses. In the first place, I should propose to leave out the words "during the voyage" and to substitute the words "while on board," because it might be very difficult to prove that a horse was injured during the voyage, whereas it would be perfectly easy to prove that it was injured "while on board."
But the biggest controversy I have with this Bill is that every class of horse is included. I propose, by a new clause which I will place on the Paper, to exclude that class of horse with which, perhaps, I am more intimately concerned than with any other—the racehorse. The rule that applies in the case of a decrepit horse ought not to apply in the case of a racehorse. Let me give your Lordships one instance. It would be prefectly easy for a racehorse or brood mare going abroad to split a pastern on board. The master of the vessel has no veterinary knowledge, but he sees that the animal is quite lame and has apparently broken a limb. Under this Bill he could destroy that animal at once, without any compensation to the owner. An animal which had split a pastern, although not so valuable for racing purposes, is quite as valuable for breeding purposes. Therefore I should propose to exclude entirely from the provisions of this Bill any horse sent abroad bona fide for racing purposes, or any horse that may come from abroad to England and return after racing. I should exclude also all brood mares going abroad, requiring in each instance that there should be given to them a certificate on behalf of the ruling authority of the turf—the Jockey Club—to the effect that they were going abroad for genuine racing purposes or purposes connected with racing. If the noble Lord can see his way to insert such provisions as I have mentioned in the Bill, from the point of view of racehorse owners I see no objection to it, and I should be prepared to give the Bill otherwise my most hearty support.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord opposite on the introduction of this Bill, the effect of which, in my opinion, will be entirely to stop this traffic in decrepit horses, of which we have read so much lately in the newspapers. This traffic is a disgrace, and it is positively cruel. If the Belgian and Dutch people want horse flesh to eat, we can provide them with that food, but it need not entail any cruelty whatever on this or on the other side of the water. As the noble Lord said, Dutchmen eat these decrepit horses at once. I mean that they are slaughtered at the port of entry. The Belgians, on the other hand, if there is any work left in these old and decrepit animals, take them into the interior of the country and work them as long as they can last. That, in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of your Lordships generally, is excessively cruel.
It is dreadful to reflect that this country is responsible for all this. We are responsible for every bit of this traffic that has been going on for many years now, and for every bit of suffering that these old horses have had inflicted upon them, because there has not been stringent legislation to stop their being sent in this disgraceful state to the Continent. The only people who will not rejoice at the passing of this Bill are those callous ruffians who drive the halt and the lame of the horse world to our ports and ship them abroad. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals must be delighted at the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons without any word of opposition. The Society, I may say, have had no difficulty with regard to this traffic at the Port of London, because London magistrates have dealt in the most stringent manner with offenders. Let me give one instance. A butcher from abroad—he came from Antwerp, I think—was caught driving one of these horses through the London streets. The horse was in such a condition that it was slaughtered at once. The man was summoned, and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. I read the account in The Times, and it was stated that he wept on being sentenced and said his wife and children would suffer because he would not be able to carry on this traffic. I should like to know, if the old and miserable horse could have spoken, like Balam's ass did, what he would have
1052
said. In other ports magistrates who have had to deal with this question have not been so stringent as the London magistrates. The consequence is that the traffic has gone on, and is going on at this moment.
The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, when I had the honour of speaking to your Lordships before on this subject, announced the appointment of a veterinary inspector, but it is quite impossible that one single inspector can deal with all the ports in Great Britain. What is more, this traffic is carried on in what I may call a sneaking sort of way. That is to say, on dark winter nights these horses are collected together and driven along the roads and put on board ship without anybody finding it out, and they arrive at their destination in a condition which is really a disgrace and a shame to this country. In my opinion the great point in the Bill is contained in Clause 1. I refer to the prohibition of the exportation of unfit horses and the appointment of veterinary surgeons to examine them, and the further provision that the expenses are to be borne by the owners of the horses. I think that is an excellent provision, and I am sure your Lordships will pass it without any amendment. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has always said that there is difficulty with regard to funds, but here it is provided that the people who choose to export these wretched horses shall themselves pay for the veterinary inspection, and that will, I am sure, have a very deterrent effect upon these ruffians. I need not say anything with regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, because I am perfectly certain that a certificate from the Jockey Club would be quite sufficient to prove that the horse was a racehorse sent abroad for purposes connected with racing; and with regard to brood mares and any accident that might happen to them while on board, there would be no difficulty, I think, in introducing an Amendment on that subject to prevent confusion. I congratulate the noble Lord again on the introduction of this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTH: My Lords, I do not know whether any members of your Lordships' House have had the painful experience which I happen to have had of seeing the embarkation of some of these

1053
horses to the Continent. A public duty took me to Hull two years ago. I had just landed from the steamboat and was walking along the docks when I witnessed the most shocking sight I ever saw in my life. A number of these horses were being put on board ship. One was in a terrible state, so bad that I can scarcely describe it to your Lordships. Among other things I may mention that one of its forelegs was enormously enlarged and was about the size of its neck. This horse, I was told, and the other horses were being put on board for the purpose of being transported across the North Sea to a port in Belgium or Holland, I forget which, to provide food for some of our neighbours across the water. I do not know what the authorities had been doing, but any person of authority at Hull, seeing what I saw, certainly ought to have been armed with powers to prevent embarkation. I congratulate my noble friend on having brought this Bill forward, and I am quite sure, whatever Amendments it may need, that the House will unanimously wish that it should be passed into law.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself entirely with the expressions of sympathy with decrepit horses which have just been uttered by the noble Lord, and I should like to assure noble Lords opposite, with great respect, that if they showed the same sympathy to the victims of cattle-driving in Ireland they would receive an equal measure of gratitude. I do not know what line it is that undertakes this very unscrupulous traffic in dumb animals which are in such a deplorable condition, but it seems to me that responsibility lies at that door almost as much as it does with the perhaps thoughtless and ignorant people who are responsible for the shipment of horses in the first instance. A good many horses go from the part of the world where I come from to be eaten by the Belgians. Therefore I shall certainly support this Bill and do the best I can to make it a success. I have always ventured to think that the right, legitimate, and honourable end of a horse was to be eaten by the hounds. Still, if the Belgians prefer to eat the horses that we cannot finish up, we certainly ought to see that no cruelty is experienced in shipping them to that country.
I have a suggestion to make. It has been abundantly proved that there is a considerable
1054
traffic in horses which are not fit to stand the journey, and upon which the infliction of the journey involves very great cruelty. It is therefore proposed to put an end to this by having veterinary inspection of these horses at the port of embarkation. If you are going to have veterinary inspection there, that presupposes the idea, which is perfectly well founded, that somebody or other will yield to the temptation to send to the port horses that are not in a fit state. I therefore suggest that between now and the Committee stage some machinery should be devised by the noble Lord whereby the onus of producing the certificate should be placed upon the owner of the horse in his own home, so that the animal should not be put to the pain of the journey from, say, Birmingham to Liverpool, or from any other place inland to the port from which it is going to be shipped. If you were to stop this traffic at its source you would absolutely shut down the possibility of any unfit horse having to undergo a journey on the road from its home to the port of embarkation. I venture with every respect to make this suggestion to the noble Lord.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, with the object of the Bill now before the House I need hardly say that the Government entirely agree, and it is very satisfactory to the Government to see the great interest that is taken on both sides of the House in this question. I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Derby, that there should be no interference at all with the legitimate horse trade of this country or with the traffic between England and Ireland. I also entirely agree that the rule applying to decrepit horses should not apply to racehorses. It would be, of course, a want of common sense to inspect and to vet Lemberg when he was going over to run for the Grand Prix, and to put a permit round the neck of a horse of that description. The noble Earl was quite right when he pointed out that it might be possible, as the Bill now stands, for an ignorant and stupid captain to destroy a valuable brood mare, racehorse, or carriage horse that was being taken abroad, because some trifling accident had happened. Such a valuable animal could very well be put in slings. I agree that that is a point that has been overlooked, but I do not think it would be very difficult to find words of some sort to meet this.

1055
The noble Earl, Lord Mayo, has taken great interest in this subject; everybody ought to be obliged to him for the good work he has done in this matter, and I think he must be very satisfied to see his efforts so near completion. As regards the experience—the horrible experience—of my noble friend behind me, Lord Shuttleworth, I hope that under the Order which is at present in force, as well as under this Bill, which I hope will become law, it will never be repeated. The House knows that the traffic in these decrepit horses is confined to certain ports. In Scotland the traffic is from Grangemouth and Leith, and in England it is from Newcastle, Hull, Goole, Grimsby, London, and a few from King's Lynn. Forty thousand horses are sent to Belgium and Holland annually. The port of Harwich does not export horses intended for slaughter, and I think from Harwich itself 5,000 horses are annually exported. In answer to Lord Willoughby de Broke, I think I ought, in common fairness, to say that we have reason to be grateful to the shipping companies, because they have always fallen in at once with any conditions that the Board of Agriculture have thought fit to impose upon them, and it is generally admitted by the public Press, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and on all sides that of late years there has been very little to complain of as to the way in which horses are carried at sea.
The Government quite approve of the object of the Bill, but as it stands there are some administrative difficulties, though they are not serious, which could be removed by Amendments which I hope my noble friend behind me will see his way to accept. I am also glad to be able to say that this Bill on the whole runs on all fours with our Order of April 16 last, which I hope and believe has given general satisfaction. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that after the adoption of practical Amendments it will prove a satisfactory and final stoppage of this traffic, which I need hardly say has created great indignation in the public mind, and to deal with which very strong measures were needed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have only risen to say that I am very glad the noble Lord has introduced this Bill, because although the Orders of the Board of Agriculture to a considerable extent cover the ground, the Acts under which
1056
those Orders were issued were not designed to stop this particular sort of traffic. I think the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will agree with me that there are powers which the Board would be glad to use but which they cannot exercise because the general Act does not give them power to issue Orders in that direction. The country is indebted to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture for the steps which he has taken in that direction so far as his powers admitted, but I do not think they went far enough, and I therefore welcome this Bill because I believe it will be more efficacious than any Order of the Board of Agriculture.
It has been suggested that the procedure is not quite the right one which ought to have been adopted, and that, instead of an inspector of the Board of Agriculture being made responsible for the fitness of the animal for shipment, the examination ought to be made, I think my noble friend Lord Willoughby said, at the source—namely, upon the premises of the person shipping the horse. I suppose I am prejudiced from having had the honour of at one time occupying the position now filled by the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, but I venture to think there is much greater safeguard against abuse of this kind by entrusting these powers to an inspector of the Board of Agriculture than to an ordinary veterinary surgeon. Therefore I think the provisions of the Bill are preferable to the suggestion which fell from Lord Willoughby.
I quite agree with the noble Earl that the great shipping companies have done all they could to mitigate the suffering which might be inflicted on these animals when they have found them consigned to their care, but I do not think that that is quite all that has to be done. I confess that I should like to have seen a clause in the Bill which would have imposed a penalty not only on the person who shipped the horse, but also on the carriers. That has proved most efficacious in the case of the Aliens Act in America. If a pauper alien taken on board a ship and conveyed to America is not allowed to land, and if he has been shipped under conditions under which he ought not to have been shipped, it is the shipping company which has to bear the expense, and I do not think it would be a bad thing if some penalty were imposed on the shipping company for any breach of this Bill. At any rate I welcome the Bill as a step in the right

1057
direction and I think the noble Lord is to be congratulated on the general consensus of approval which his Bill has met with on all sides of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, two things, I think, have emerged from this conversation. One is that the Bill has the general approval of the House so far as its principles—principles which must commend themselves to all humane persons—are concerned. The other, I think, is that the machinery of the Bill requires very careful examination before we can think of passing it into law as it stands. I rise merely for the purpose of expressing the hope that one suggestion which I shall venture to lay before the noble Lord opposite may be considered before the Bill is dealt with in Committee. I gather from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that this traffic in disabled horses is carried on at certain ports and at certain ports only.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If that is so, will it not be simpler and better that the Board over which the noble Earl presides should lay down regulations which can be made applicable to those particular ports at which the abuse is known to take place, rather than, as under the Bill, that the stringent procedure of Clause I should be made universally applicable to all ports and then that special exception should be made by the Board of Agriculture, in regard to certain places? I suggest that for the noble Earl's consideration. If that suggestion were to be adopted it would then be comparatively easy to appoint a veterinary surgeon at the particular ports from which these broken-down horses are shipped, and you would get over some of the difficulties which, I think, may arise in deputing Veterinary surgeons ad hoc for every particular case where a horse is moved. I hope the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will confer with the Department of Agriculture, and that we may have these matters considered before we are asked to proceed further with the Bill.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, with regard to the observations of Lord Derby, I may say that if the noble Earl can frame an Amendment that will protect racehorses and brood mares while not jeopardising the case of the horses for whose benefit
1058
this Bill has been devised, I have no doubt the Amendment will be accepted. As to the Amendments foreshadowed by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, he has not vouchsafed what they are, but I am generally in accord with him, and I expect his Amendments will be such as can be accepted by the promoters of the Bill. I will certainly adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture upon the point to which the noble Marquess referred.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER rose to move to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion of which I have given notice I must admit that the question with which it deals is one of the most important which could be brought before the House, especially as regards local government, and that it has been for the last few years surrounded with difficulties. In those circumstances I confess I feel that it would have been of greater advantage if some member of this House of greater authority than myself could have brought forward this Motion. But the reason I have ventured to put it on the Paper is that I have been requested by the unanimous resolution of the County Councils Association to bring forward this question in your Lordships' House without delay. They feel that it is of such extreme importance that an attempted solution of it ought not to be deferred to any later period.
I have no wish to take up the time of the House at any length, but I think it is due to your Lordships that I should attempt,

1059
as concisely and as clearly as I can, to point out what the present position with regard to these financial adjustments is and to make some case for the remedy which I propose. Going back to 1888, when the measure of local government was carried which effected a revolution in county government, it may be remembered that there were necessary provisions in that Act dealing with the financial arrangements arising out of the change brought about by the Act itself. Section 32 of that Act applied to adjustments of urban and rural districts, and it also applied to adjustments between county councils and county boroughs. This section, I think it must be recognised, was inserted for the purpose of providing that neither a county nor a borough should be placed in a worse financial position by reason of the clauses of the Act. That section specially set out that an equitable adjustment with regard to the matters referred to and also with regard to other financial arrangements should be come to, either by agreement or by the Commissioners appointed for the purpose. The section appointed Commissioners for this particular purpose, and gave them the widest possible powers with regard to the settlement and determination of such questions as should be referred to them. The section went on to say that this settlement and determination should be on such terms and in such manner as the Commissioners, in their absolute discretion, might think just and fit with regard to any matters referred to them, and also with regard to such other matters as in their judgment were incident thereto. It it impossible to conceive much wider powers than were given to the Commissioners by that section, and I think it is clear that the Act laid down that these matters should be settled by an equitable adjustment.
It will probably be within the remembrance of most members of this House that the late Lord Derby was appointed President of that Commission, and, acting under the powers that were given them, the Commission proceeded to adjudicate in all the questions between the county boroughs and the counties. For that purpose they had cases argued before them, and gave their decisions. I am very conversant with the matters which were referred to this Commission because it so happened that, owing to a change of officials in my county, I was the person in the county who
1060
knew, perhaps, more about the council's financial affairs than anyone else, and it fell to my lot to argue one of the first cases before the Commission with regard to the adjustment of the finances between my county and a county borough within the county. I may mention that the noble Lord whom I saw in his place a few minutes ago, Lord Eversley, sat as Chairman of the Commission on that day. I do not wish to enter into any details with regard to that; but let me say that those decisions which were given by the Commission not only settled matters between the counties and county boroughs for the time, but for a large number of years afterwards they were accepted unchallenged as the authoritative decisions with regard to the difficult financial matters which were laid before that Commission.
But in 1907 this state of things was rudely disturbed. What was called the Hartlepool case, which was decided by the House of Lords, on appeal, entirely upset the decisions which for something like eighteen years had been accepted as recognised interpretations of the financial clauses of the Act of 1888. In the Hartlepool case it was held that when a new county borough is created by the separation of the borough from the county, the financial adjustment between the borough and the county does not include compensation for the loss of the contributing area. The decision rested, no doubt, on the wording of the Local Government Act. I understand that the expression "compensation" does not appear in those sections, and that the decision of the House of Lords, which overruled the previous decisions, turned on that point. It was held that an adjustment does not necessarily mean compensation, and that if the Legislature had intended it, it would have put it in perfectly clear language. I have not the slightest intention either of discussing, or in any way criticising, the Judicial decision of the House of Lords. Certainly this would not be the place to do it even if I so desired; but it is not at all necessary for my purpose.
What I want to point out is that the effect of that decision was to absolutely upset all the interpretations of the law that had been accepted for this large number of years, and that while it upset the law as it stood, it put nothing in its place on which anybody could rely. From

1061
that moment, therefore, the question of the financial arrangements between the counties and county boroughs was almost in a state of chaos. The state of the case was this. These decisions having been set aside, there was no power of getting an authoritative decision on this subject. The only way, in cases of extension of boroughs, in which a decision could be obtained was by bringing the matter before a Private Bill Committee, with the knowledge that the decision given by that Committee must be an uncertain one, and that the decision so given would settle nothing for the future. The result was that you had a state of things which made it imperative on every county authority whose county was being attacked by a borough wishing to make an extension to contest that case.
Within a very short time there were some important applications for extensions of borough boundaries. In 1908 the county borough of Manchester, the county borough of Blackburn, and the county borough of Burnley promoted Bills for the extension of their areas. There was a rather interesting discussion in the other House of Parliament with regard to one of those Bills—I think it was the Blackburn Bill—and in the course of that discussion it was proved that a serious state of things had arisen with regard to these financial arrangements between the counties and the county boroughs. It was shown that in many cases the decisions given by Committees were totally different in one case from another. I think with regard to those three Bills, which were before Parliament at the same moment, different decisions had been given concerning them; and in this House it was arranged that compensation on certain terms should be given in those three cases, the result being that the Bills were subsequently withdrawn. Is it possible to conceive any more unsatisfactory position for these large local bodies to be placed in than to be forced to spend a large sum of money in contesting cases; to have no chance of being able to rely that the decisions given, even if they were fair, would stand; and to feel that when the next Bill came forward a totally different decision would very likely be given?
Let me quote the remarks of a gentleman who was in a position which enabled him to speak without being supposed to be a partisan on either side. Mr. Emmott, Chairman of Ways and Means, said that—
1062
"In his opinion the question was so difficult that he thought the Local Government Board ought to give a lead to the House in this matter. If new legislation was required to settle the difficulty, it was for them to introduce it. If it could be settled in some way without legislation they should consider the question most carefully, so that when some other opportunity arose they would be prepared to advise the House upon it."
Then he went on to say—
"There was one other reason why the matter should be settled. Since the decision of the House of Lords every administrative county council must, of necessity, oppose every extension of boroughs or urban districts, and surely it was desirable in the highest degree that such a cause of friction should be removed from our local government."
Those remarks were made two years ago, and precisely the same state of things exists at the present moment, although, perhaps, the position is a still more acute one from the fact that there are more important Bills being brought forward this year. I do not for a moment mean to say that last year was a year in which it would have been possible for the Government or anybody else to have got a solution of this question. The whole time of both Houses was occupied with the most important financial and constitutional matters, and the atmosphere of either House probably did not lend itself to the settlement of a difficult question like this on reasonable lines. But this year, again, there are three boroughs—Birmingham, Bath, and Reading—one of them one of the largest in the United Kingdom, proposing to enlarge their boundaries, and it seems that it is time that some steps should be taken to try and arrive at a solution of this question on reasonable and equitable lines, and on lines which might be acceptable as trying to do equity and fairness both to the boroughs and to the counties.
It was in those circumstances that I placed this Motion on the Paper some days ago, and I should like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which I was asked to move it. No doubt there is considerable excitement about some of the important Bills that are before the other House, especially the Birmingham Bill, and it has been suggested in the newspapers that in moving this Resolution I and other members of the County Councils Association were trying to use our influence on one side—namely, against the Birmingham extension. Let me say that, as far as this Motion goes, it is moved in an absolutely non-contentious spirit. It was entirely

1063
in that spirit that the County Councils Association asked me to move it. I will explain the origin of the Motion. The County Councils Association had a very important meeting some weeks ago with regard to these questions—not only the extension question, but also the question of financial adjustments, which has reached such an acute stage. That meeting was attended by gentlemen and officials who probably knew more than any men in the country the past history of this matter, and who were thoroughly imbued with the necessity of its being settled on reasonable lines as soon as possible. After a very interesting discussion, a unanimous resolution was come to by the County Councils Association asking myself and another member of the association in the other House of Parliament to put this Motion on the Paper at once, in order that it might not be allowed to go over until it was too late, and until these other Bills might have reached a stage when it would be impossible to deal with this question.
That was the history of the Motion which I placed on the Paper in the first instance. It afterwards came before the Executive of the County Councils Association. The Executive confirmed the resolution, and especially asked that this Motion should not be mixed up in any way with any of the schemes before Parliament with regard to extension, but should be treated in an entirely non-contentious spirit with a desire to arrive at a solution which would be fair and equitable to all parties. I have ventured to explain that because I think it is important that it should be made clear that, whatever negotiations may have been going on between the parties to these Bills, neither I nor anybody concerned with this Motion have had anything to do with them whatever. I have probably said enough to make out a case for the appointment of a Joint Committee to see whether they cannot arrive at some authoritative decision with regard to the future of this difficult financial question. Let me say, with regard to my Motion, that our object was to make the reference as wide as possible and to include in it not only counties and county boroughs, not only urban and rural districts, but also any authorities which might, owing to the circumstances and the enlargement of their areas, be changing the status of local government. For instance, an urban district might be changed into a borough.
I have specially avoided referring to particular cases which might come before this Committee, because it seems to me that if one refers to a case as an important one which must come before such a Committee for their decision, it might then be taken that there are not other cases of equal importance. Therefore it is much better to leave the Resolution in the terms in which it stands, referring to all financial adjustments. If the few remarks I have made commend themselves to the House as making out a case for this inquiry, I hope you will accept the Motion. But, more than all, I trust that I may hope to receive the support of the Government, without whose assistance such an important matter as this is not likely to be able to be brought to a satisfactory solution. It is my hope that whatever Committee should be appointed should be a strong Committee, not only for the purpose of dealing in the way suggested in the Motion with the difficult matters before them, but also, when they have come to a decision, to enable them to commend that decision to both Houses of Parliament; and if, by bringing forward this Motion in the imperfect manner I have done, I am able to make a first step, at all events, towards a settlement of this question, which has given rise to such serious difficulties with regard to local government, I shall be only too amply rewarded; and I am sure those who are interested in local government would be greatly satisfied if we could get this Joint Committee. I beg to move the. Motion which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable.—(Lord Belper.)
LORD NEWLANDS*LORD NEWLANDS rose to move, as am Amendment to Lord BELPER'S Motion, after "1894" to insert "and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly say that my Amendment is is no way hostile to the Motion of my noble

1065
friend, and I have reason to believe that my noble friend will gladly accept the Amendment. Its only object is to enlarge the scope of the proposed inquiry by the Joint Committee so as to include Scotland. Exactly the same difficulties have occurred in Scotland, and it is at the unanimous request of the County Council of Lanarkshire, a large division of which I represented in the House of Commons for twenty years, that I urge the inclusion of Scotland within the scope of the Joint Committee's inquiry. The facts of the situation have been so well and so clearly put before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Belper that I need not recapitulate them. I will only add that, as far as I am concerned and as far as Lanarkshire is concerned, we are taking action not because of any specific case, but on the broadest of broad grounds—because of the general situation, which has become absolutely intolerable. I have reason to know that, at any rate in Scotland, both burgh authorities and county authorities would prefer almost any really definite principle, even if they did not absolutely approve of it, rather than the present condition of uncertainty, which gives rise to an enormous amount of absolutely useless but very expensive litigation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After ("1894") to insert ("and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894")—(Lord Newlands.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to express the hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which has been moved by Lord Belper, as well as to the Amendment of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The fact of the matter is, as I think the noble Lord in introducing the Motion to your Lordships mentioned, that a great change has come over the spirit of affairs owing to the Judicial decisions of your Lordships' House. When the Act of 1888 was passed it was thought that the word "adjustment" between county councils and boroughs, where the latter sought to extend their boundaries, meant compensation for loss of rateable value. The opposite view, however, was held by noble and learned Lords, not only in the case which has been referred to by my noble friend, the Hartlepool case, but also in an earlier case, the Godstone case. Although one of those cases was under Section 32 and the other under Section 62 of the Act of 1888, the principle
1066
was the same. It was decided—the judgment was delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that the word "adjustment" would apply only to existing income, to some source of revenue which existed at the time of the extension of the boundary of the borough and not to any future or problematic increase. The result of that has been that, whenever a borough has come to Parliament to extend its boundaries, it has invariably been met by opposition on the part of the county council, and by a claim for compensation.
In the case of the three Bills to which my noble friend referred—the Burnley, Blackburn and Manchester Bills—a Committee of the House of Commons inserted a clause in the Blackburn Bill providing for compensation, whereas other Committees of the House of Commons refused to insert such a clause in the Manchester and Burnley Bills. The consequence was that when the Blackburn Bill came under the discussion of the Whole House a Motion was made to expunge this clause so as to bring the three Bills into line and under similar conditions. The three Bills then came up to your Lordships' House, and were referred to a Committee under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, and that Committee decided that it was right and just to insert a clause giving compensation in each of these three cases. What happened? The promotors said: "Oh, this is not what we want at all. We will drop our Bill, and come to Parliament next year, or the year after, when perhaps we shall find somebody with a tenderer heart than Lord Donoughmore." The result is that the thing has become a sort of gamble. These great corporations come to Parliament for one purpose or another, and they put in a clause extending their boundary in the hope that Parliament will not insert a compensation clause. If Parliament does put in a compensation clause, they drop the matter and introduce it again in a successive session.
The real hardship is upon the adjoining areas, who must oppose these Bills under existing circumstances. Up to the time of the Judicial decision of your Lordships' House it was customary to have a friendly conference between the two authorities, and in nine cases out of ten a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at. In the present Parliament, in the case of a Bill

1067
for the extension of the borough of Eastbourne, rather than enter into a bitter contest the borough of Eastbourne consented to the insertion of certain clauses which have entirely satisfied the surrounding district and the county of Sussex. I entirely approve of the suggestion made by my noble friend that a Joint Committee should be appointed, and that some guiding principles should be laid down so as not to leave the matter to the arbitrary decision of this or that Committee of your Lordships' House.
I also welcome the remarks which I understood the noble Lord to make in moving the Motion. I did not follow him, I am afraid, quite as closely as. I should have wished, but I welcome the observation which I think he made that the Motion was not conceived in view of the Bills which have been brought before Parliament in the present session. There are some very important Bills. The Birmingham Bill has been mentioned. Perhaps that is the most important one of all, and I must say I should not like to see any of these measures, upon which considerable sums of money have been spent and to which much Parliamentary time will be devoted—I should not like to think that all that money and time would be wasted because a Motion might be made that the Bills should be postponed until this Joint Committee has reported and some legislation has taken place upon that Report. Therefore I hope, if His Majesty's Government agree to the appointment of this Joint Committee, that it will be on the understanding that it is not to interfere with the measures which are before Parliament in the present session. They may go on and be considered on their merits, and, of course, it will be open for Parliament hereafter to say, if they choose, that any general legislation which may be passed in a subsequent session shall be retrospective and embrace the measures which were before Parliament in the year 1910. If these are the principles on which my noble friend proposes the Resolution they have my hearty support.
LORD BELPER: I think I ought to explain that there was no intention of mixing up the case of Birmingham in this Motion. The reason the Motion was brought forward at as early a date as possible was that we felt, if such important Bills were to be brought forward this session with regard to the extension of boundaries, that any general law which was agreed
1068
upon deciding upon a principle with regard to adjustments ought to refer to those Bills as well as to others that will be passed hereafter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, several noble Lords who have intervened in this debate having referred to the small part I have taken in this question, I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships to be patient with me for two or three minutes while I supplement what has been said with reference to what happened in the case of the Manchester, Burnley, and Blackburn Bills two years ago. As the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees reminded your Lordships, we were fortunate in having all these three Bills before us, and, as the result of very exhaustive inquiry, we came to the conclusion—I confess with some little hesitation on my part at the time, though as the result of subsequent inquiry I am now satisfied that our decision was correct, but with no hesitation whatever on the part of the other four members of the Committee—to insert a clause which restored the position of affairs to that which obtained before the decision of your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, in the year 1907, a decision which I desire to speak of with the greatest respect, though I confess that from the point of view of justice it inspires very little respect. We did feel that the case, on the merits, was conclusively made out, and that where a borough takes out the cream of a county as far as rateable value is concerned and at the same time practically takes away none or few of the liabilities which still remain on the county rates, compensation should be given to the county.
All that I need do in this connection is to mention two cases—the case of one of the Bills that came before us, and a case that was quoted before my Committee. The difficulty arises mainly, I think, over the upkeep of roads, which, in a county like Lancashire certainly, are almost entirely used for traffic between the boroughs, and towards the upkeep of which the boroughs make no contribution. Had the Manchester Bill been passed in the form in which it came to us, six per cent of the rateable value would have been taken away from the Hundred concerned, and only one per cent of the roads. But a much more extreme instance might have arisen in the case of Blackpool if the decision of your Lordships' House had been given a good many years before it was

1069
given. In the case of Blackpool forty-five per cent of the rateable value was taken away, but only two per cent of the roads; and it is obvious that very great injustice would have been done if compensation had not been paid in the peculiar circumstances of that case. I therefore desire to support the Motion of my noble friend below the Gangway. It is obviously desirable that some general rule should be reached which should act automatically in all cases of borough extension, of which we have many every session, and which I have no doubt will not diminish in number. In fact, if the Joint Committee should be successful in drafting a model clause which could be embodied in the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, I am sure that decision would be very warmly received by everybody concerned, for it would lighten the work in the Committee-rooms upstairs and result in doing justice to many parties who at present feel very great doubt as to whether they will receive justice in cases in which they are interested.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I regret that owing to indisposition my noble friend who takes charge of local government business in this House is not able to be here to-day, but I am not sorry to have an opportunity of saying a word on this question, because I entirely realise the far-reaching importance which attaches to it, as was explained by my noble friend who introduced this Motion. Perhaps he will allow me to congratulate him upon having abstained altogether from importing any kind of prejudice into his argument. The subject is one which has aroused, as we all know, a great deal of feeling; and I am glad to have observed that in the debate generally the same note which was set by my noble friend opposite has been maintained. This question as to whether, when an alteration takes place in a local government area under the Acts, compensation should be payable for loss of rateable value, is, of course, in the strictest sense a vexed question, and the decisions which have been given by your Lordships sitting judicially upon it have undoubtedly caused a state of confusion in the Committee-rooms, to which attention was called by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, and on those grounds it certainly is desirable that we should attempt to arrive at some fair and authoritative opinion on the subject.
1070
The case, as has been pointed out in debate, is somewhat complicated by the existence in Parliament of the three important Bills to which allusion has been made—those dealing with Birmingham, Bath, and Reading; and I was particularly glad to observe, both from the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and also from the speech of the Lord Chairman, that there exists a distinct unwillingness to interfere with those Bills, although there is a desire that they should in their ultimate result be made subject to any general principle which is evolved. I was very glad to hear that, because, of course, it might have seemed to be a plausible argument to say that if a Joint Committee is going to sit to consider this whole question these Bills ought to be shelved. It is an argument of the kind which we often hear used, and in some cases with great plausibility. I am very glad, therefore, that it is agreed that a course of that kind would involve real hardship and unfairness to the parties, and that it is not desired that the progress of those Bills should be interfered with. I understand from my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board that the authorities of those three city and borough councils are quite willing that a clause should be inserted in their Bills, if they pass, to the effect that if the outcome of the inquiry by the Joint Committee should be to hold that compensation of this kind should be payable, their arrangements should then be subject to such a provision. I think your Lordships wilt agree that this seems fairly to meet the case, and that in agreeing to this proposal the great local authorities involved are showing a reasonable spirit.
His Majesty's Government have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing to the Motion of my noble friend opposite. And particularly in view of what I have just said about the existing Bills it is extremely important that the Joint Committee should be as strong a one as possible, and also that it should be—and I think it is a subject on which an ideal might be attained—of as far as possible an impartial character. It would be very undesirable that this should degenerate into a sort of tug-of-war between urban and county council interests, and therefore in suggesting the composition of the Joint Committee I am quite sure my right hon. friend will be fully alive to that aspect of the question, and will endeavour to make it as powerful

1071
and representative a Committee as possible. I understand that my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland is quite willing to agree to the inclusion of Scotland in the Motion, on the general understanding to which I have already alluded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, will you allow me to take this opportunity, for which I have been waiting for some time, to say a few words, not with regard to this particular difficulty, but by way of pointing a moral. The difficulty arose out of a decision of this House in 1907, and, however imperfect that decision may have been, it followed the decision of the House in the year 1904, which left us no alternative but to rule as we did. The point to which I wish to draw attention for a moment is this. The ground upon which I founded my opinion was that no other coherent interpretation of the language used could possibly be put upon it except that which was put upon it in 1904 and again in 1907. Although I do not say it was a fact, I strongly suspect that when the two parties who were quarrelling in this business came to settle the words in Parliament they were both content to accept ambiguous language in the hope that it would turn out to be interpreted in their favour. I am sorry to be obliged to inform your Lordships that this is not an isolated discovery. What is done is this. Each side think that they have a wiser and more skilful draftsman, and when they put up language which will bear one, or the other, or, indeed, no meaning—I am speaking seriously, for sometimes a coherent meaning is very difficult—then they come to the Courts of law and say that His Majesty's Judges and then this House sitting judicially are to find some path of escape. I hope that if a Joint Committee is appointed they will endeavour to select words which will be perfectly plain, so that they may be intelligible to the ordinary person, instead of being the subject of conundrums that are almost insoluble to the piercing intellects of His Majesty's Judges and to the more obtuse intellects that are to be discovered here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to and the Resolution as amended also agreed to: Ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11:
Age of appointment and transfer.
11.—(1) The word "thirty" occurring in subsection (2) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "forty-five" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Provided that the said subsection shall not apply to the case of a person transferred or appointed to the post of chief constable.
(2) The words "Great Britain" occurring in subsection (4) of section four and subsection (6) of section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "the United Kingdom "shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
(3) In lieu of subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the principal Act, the following provision shall apply:—
"The limit of age of a person not serving in a police force on appointment to the office of chief constable shall not exceed forty-five years. In the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in the police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force, the limit of age shall not exceed fifty-five years."
LORD REAY LORD REAY moved seven Amendments which he had on the Paper, with the object of making the clause read—
11.—(1) The word "thirty" occurring in subsection (2) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "forty-five" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Provided that the said subsection shall not apply to the case of a person transferred or appointed to the post of chief constable.
(2) The words "Great Britain" occurring in subsection (4) of section four and in subsection (6) of section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "the United Kingdom "shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
(3) Subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall no longer have effect, and in lieu thereof the following provision shall be inserted:—
"The limit of age of a person not serving in a police force on appointment to the post of chief constable shall be forty-five years. In the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in a police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force, the limit of age shall be fifty-five years."
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 4, line 33, after ("and") insert ("in") Clause 11, page 4, line 36, leave out ("In lieu of") Clause 11, page 4, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("shall no longer have effect, and in lieu thereof" and leave out ("apply") and insert ("be inserted")
Clause 11, page 4, line 39, leave out ("office" and insert ("post")
Clause 11, page 4, line 40, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be")
Clause 11, page 5, line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("a") Clause 11, page 5, line 3, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be")— (Lord Reay.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE INCOME TAX.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether persons made subject to the payment of Income Tax by the Finance Act, 1909–10 are still chargeable at the rate of ninepence only on the earned portion of their income when the total income is below £2,000, and, if so, what opportunity has been afforded to such persons for claiming relief since the Finance Bill became law, and why they have been informed that it is too late to claim to be charged at ninepence.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a few days ago the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees raised a discussion in this House on the question of the Super-Tax return, with which I may say incidentally I am still struggling, somewhat assisted by a correspondence which has passed between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of that debate I ventured to put to my noble friend Lord Denman a question on another aspect of the Income Tax, which he very properly said he could not answer without notice. I have, therefore, put it on your Lordships' Paper for to-night. It refers to the payment of Income Tax at the lower rate of 9d. That rate, I believe, is still payable on the earned income of persons whose total income is below £2,000, and the question which I put was what opportunity had been afforded to such persons of claiming the relief to pay the 9d. Income Tax rate since the Finance Act, 1909–10, became law. I suggested then that, so far as I could discover, the date before which they had to claim was September 30, 1909. That was a date at which the Finance Bill had not left the House of Commons, and a date six months anterior to that when it became law. I have not since discovered that they have had any opportunity of making this claim since the liability was imposed upon them by the passing of the Finance Act. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Chancellor of the
1074
Exchequer, and I would ask the noble Lord what is the answer to the Question on the Paper.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for postponing his Question until this afternoon. As he is aware, a similar question was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place last week, but as the noble Earl has somewhat developed his case perhaps I may be allowed to go a little more into detail in the matter. The complaint of the noble Earl, as I understand it, is that although the Finance Act of 1909–10 did not become law until April of this year, people with earned incomes of under £2,000 were obliged to put in a claim for relief before September 30 of last year, or, if they failed to put in a claim by that time, the relief was refused by the Inland Revenue. On the face of it, that may seem a hardship upon certain individuals, but I submit to your Lordships that as a matter of practice, with the possible exception of isolated cases, no real hardship has in fact occurred, because everybody knew last year that the Income Tax would be imposed sooner or later. Whatever happened to the other taxes or to the Budget itself, it was perfectly certain that sooner or later the Income Tax would be collected, and it was well known that the same relief would be granted as in previous years. As early as May of last year Form No.12, which provides space for inserting a claim for this relief, was issued to all those persons who were likely to be entitled to claim relief. They received that form, filled it up, and returned it as usual to the Inland Revenue by the specified date. There may have been cases where people did not receive that form. But I would suggest that the great majority of these professional gentlemen were well aware of the practice of the last few years, and I think it is very improbable that all those who have failed to make a claim have failed to do so because of the Budget not becoming law last year. I am informed by the Inland Revenue that ever since this arrangement has been in force—namely, since 1907—there have been a small number of applications for relief made each year after September 30, but in these cases relief has always been refused, and the Inland Revenue see no reason why, in the very few cases that have occurred this year, they should depart from the ordinary practice in the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions on the statement he has just made. It appears, as I understand his answer, in the first place that I am correct in stating that although the liability was not imposed by law until April, 1910, the claims for relief should have been made before September 30, 1909. That incidentally seems to me a very strange constitutional doctrine to lay down. I do not know what the noble Lord means by talking about people being well acquainted with this practice, which only came into force in 1907. What does the noble Lord mean by saying "people are well aware"? Is it considered to be the business of the taxpayer to study, not the Statutes which impose taxation, but the debates in Parliament and discussions in the political arena, and to keep himself informed of what is said to be likely to come to pass? I have taken the opportunity of searching through the debates to see what statement at any time was made to the House of Commons that the persons entitled to pay at the 9d. rate would have to make their claims before the Finance Bill became law. I have been unable to find that any such public notice was given at any stage of the Bill in the other House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore I think people were legitimately entitled to assume that they could well wait until some legal obligation was imposed upon them before attending to the forms. At the time the forms were sent there was no statutory obligation to fill them up. I understand that these persons are to be penalised because they did not take the Budget as introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the law of the land. I suggest that it is a novel doctrine to lay down that the taxpayer must take the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the law. It is farcical to say that under a Statute passed in April, 1910, relief must be claimed in September, 1909. I am unwilling to believe that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer really wishes to penalise people with small incomes, and instead of 9d. in the £ to make them pay 1s. 2d. on their earned incomes. The Treasury should have regard to the peculiar circumstances of last year and to the extreme hardship of this case. I hope that a more reasonable view will be taken of this matter, that these people will be given the same opportunity as has been extended to those entitled to the shilling
1076
scale—namely, opportunity up to July 31 of this year to make their claim—and that they will not be deprived of this relief by a not very creditable trick.
LORD WELBY: My Lords, I wish it were possible for His Majesty's Government to pay attention to the remarks of my noble friend. The situation this year was a very remarkable one, and I think there is a good deal of reason for the arguments which my noble friend has addressed to the House. I quite agree from my experience in these matters with Lord Denman that in ordinary years probably little hardship occurs from the practice of the Department, but considering the very unusual condition of affairs last year I think there is some ground for asking the Treasury to exercise clemency in the matter. I only say this in the very peculiar circumstances of last year.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think it is an extraordinary thing to say that a return claiming a rebate must be made by a date long before the Government have any power to enforce payment of the tax, and I consider that this is a very dangerous precedent to set up. I trust that the Treasury will reconsider the matter and show some clemency, because, after all there are only a few persons who will not get the benefit of this rebate.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I wish to take exception to the doctrine which appears to be laid down that it is the duty of the public to find out beforehand from discussions in the other House what are likely to be the taxes imposed for the year. It has always been understood that as soon as a Bill became law the debates in the House of Commons and the promises made by Ministers were null and void, and that the only thing which lawyers could recognise was the enacting sections and not even the preamble to the Act. Therefore I do think it is rather hard in the case which the noble Earl has brought forward that these persons should have to suffer. I agree with Lord Welby that this is a matter in which the Treasury might act leniently, especially as the cases are so very few, and at any rate conform to what is generally known as the rule of law.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord

1077
Denman will convey to the Treasury the views which have been expressed by noble Lords in this discussion, but I am bound to say, although the noble Earl who introduced the subject pleaded his case with his usual skill, I cannot remain otherwise than unconvinced, and for this reason. Noble Lords who have spoken have seemed to imply that some obligation was placed upon these Income Tax payers to do something which they would not wish to do, almost, indeed, as though they had had to make some payment in the month of September although the payment might never fall due. But what they were asked to do by September last was to exercise a privilege, and whether the Budget passed or not it would do them no harm to have exercised that privilege. I should have thought that it was the most obvious course for any man to send in his form in the usual manner without reference to the political situation. My noble friend behind me has been accused of laying stress upon
1078
the reading of Parliamentary debates. It seems to me that the case is precisely the opposite. If these gentlemen, instead of wasting their time in studying the debates and attempting to prophecy the political situation, had attended to their own affairs and taken the ordinary step which they would have taken in any other year, and sent in their claim for relief, they would not have fallen into their present trouble. I am very sorry indeed that any people should suffer, even through their own fault. I believe, as my noble friend says, it is the fact, though it seems strange, that every year people of moderate income do not claim the rebate, and although I have no doubt my noble friend will make the proper representations to the Treasury I cannot feel that the case is quite so strong as some of my noble friends behind me seem to think.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord HILLSBOROUGH (M. Downshire) —Took the Oath.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DRIFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Monday next.
FLYDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS(No.1.) BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed 3 the House that the opposition to the Gorseinon Electric Lighting Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Tuesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MIDWIVES (No. 2.) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Midwives Act, 1902 —Was presented by the Lord President (E. Beauchamp); read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 104.)

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. (1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HILL: My Lords, the Bill which stands in my name, and to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, is one which I think will commend itself to your Lordships. It is a non-contentious Bill, and I am thankful to say it is a non-Party Bill. As is set out in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, its object is to secure continuous physical training for the youth of both sexes up to the age of sixteen years, in order, as far as possible, to ensure for each young person the possession of sound and healthy vital organs, a. deep mobile chest, and the development of an evenly-balanced muscular and nervous system, and thus to arrest the deplorable physical degeneration disclosed by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration.
Before I attempt to touch upon any of the clauses, I should like to make a few

167
remarks upon the general question. Physical training is no new idea, nor is it promoted by faddists, as some people imagine. It is backed by the whole of the medical profession throughout the civilised world. Sweden has had physical training for over a century, and we in England have to a certain extent introduced it in our Army and Navy and in our colleges in recent years, and two years. ago I congratulated His Majesty's Government upon introducing it into the education curriculum of our elementary and secondary schools. The only objection to the Government's scheme, to my mind, was that it did not go far enough. It only takes the education of our children up to the age of fourteen, at which age they leave school. The Bill that I am asking your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon takes children up to the age of sixteen, and I think we are all agreed that the ages between fourteen and sixteen, and even up to eighteen, constitute the most critical time in a child's life as far as his health and physical culture are concerned.
I have for many years taken a great interest in the health of the children of the masses of this country, and I have personally studied the various systems of physical training throughout the world; and having carefully studied the subject, when this Bill was shown to me last year by the promoters—the National Hygienic League —I had no hesitation in informing them that it would give me great pleasure to introduce it in your Lordships' House. The information which I have acquired from personal experience of physical training shows that the children as a whole are not gaining or improving under the present system. The chief reason that I could find for that is that the teachers themselves do not possess that practical knowledge which they should have in order to impart this instruction to their pupils. For that reason the physical culture as it is at present given in our schools is practically useless as far as the health and future physique of the children are concerned. The object of this Bill is not to produce athletes or acrobats. That is not our object. Our object is to ensure for each young person good physical health in the future; and in order to do that it is absolutely necessary that the teachers themselves should have practical experience and knowledge of this physical training before they impart it to the children.
168
I have quite recently been inspecting several of our schools throughout the country where this so-called physical culture is given under the Board of Education. What do I find? It is given in a very mechanical way. The teachers have a book laying down what they are to do, which way a child's arms are to be held, and how a child is to stand, and that is about all they know. They say it by heart, and that satisfies the inspectors. But that is practically no good for the child's health or his future physical culture. Ninety-five per cent. of the children would not be able to say why they were doing this drill, or what good it was going to do them in the future. That is exactly how physical culture is being taught in our schools at the present time. What I want to bring about by this Bill is an improvement in the physique and the health of the children of this country, and in order to do that we must have the teachers instructed upon a sound basis. The system which we propose in this Bill is based on the fact that time teachers should have an accurate theoretical and practical knowledge of the physiological effect of each exercise, which effect is pre-determined and specially localised. If we do this, the children will receive benefit from it.
The physical welfare of the boys and girls of this country should be the first consideration, not only of the State, but of time whole Empire, and it must be very noticeable to any one who is constantly going through our large towns and cities that, almost every minute of the day you see children of all sizes and all grades with humped backs and congested and flat chests, half of them walking about with their mouths wide open—a regular death trap, for they inhale every microbe. That alone should help to convince us of the necessity of devising some machinery by which our children can obtain proper physical exercise and be taught how to carry themselves in their every-day life. We know that the youths of this country have greatly deteriorated. In the time of Cromwell our race was known as the finest in the world, but I doubt very much if we can make that statement to-day. The average height of the Englishman to-day is about 5ft. 7in., and that of an Englishwoman 5ft. 5in., and I am given to understand by those who have obtained information on the point that in America and

169
Sweden the average is 1½in. higher. We know that in recruiting for the British Army we have found great difficulty in obtaining men of the proper standard. I have figures here which show that out of 77,000 youths who offered themselves for enlistment over 29,000 were rejected as physically unfit. I claim that that would not have been the case if we had had a system of physical training in force such as is suggested in this Bill. And we remember what a great difficulty there was in the late South African war in finding men of physique and stamina to go to the Front.
It is true that there are many gymnasia scattered all over the country, and in most schools physical training in some form or other is being taught; but in these cases how many of the children know what they are being taught this drill for? I regret to say that in many instances the teachers use these drills as a punishment for the children whom they are unable to manage in the classes. The consequence is that the child hates the drill and it is most distasteful to him. Under the provisions of this Bill I hope to make physical training a pleasure to the child. Violent exercises are not necessary. What is needed is careful instruction as to the child's proper way of standing and above all the proper way of breathing, which is really the base of the whole matter. If our children were taught how to breathe properly and how to stand, we should overcome a great many of the difficulties which we now experience. These flat-chested children in time develop lung and other diseases, but by a proper system of breathing and by physical exercises such as we propose in this Bill they would to a certain extent be able to fight against them.
As I have said, ninety-five per cent. of the children in the schools to-day are quite unaware of the benefit receivable from physical culture; but if the children were properly taught I have not the slightest doubt that we should be able to bring the standard of our future generations up to what it ought to be. In order that we may have this physical training properly given, it will be necessary to set up some machinery by which either the present teachers in the schools may be so instructed that they will be able to impart the knowledge in a proper and efficient way to the children, or special teachers will have to be appointed to visit certain districts. This need not be a drill
170
which will be distasteful to the children. After they have been properly instructed as to the benefit they are to receive, they will take a pleasure in their drill, and there will be no occasion to use the compulsory clauses of which we have a few in the: Bill.
I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have read the Report of Lord George Hamilton's Commission on the Poor Law, in an Appendix to which Mr. Sidney Jackson alludes to physical training and shows very clearly the great necessity there is for it in this country. Sweden introduced physical training in the year 1839, and to-day it forms part and parcel of their every-day life. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is doing physical training constantly in Sweden, with the result that they have good physique and are in a healthy condition; and in that country we do not see about the streets those poked heads, narrow chests, and humped backs which are so common in this country. In America of recent years they have also brought physical training greatly into effect. What can be done in other countries surely we can do in England.
No doubt I shall be told by noble Lords opposite that one of the great difficulties is the expense. I do not intend to go into the financial side of the question, but I should like to say that already there is a large expenditure upon the physical training at present carried out in our schools, and I am told by experts that the extra physical training which I am asking for in this Bill will not be of such great cost that it need be specially mentioned in a Second Reading debate. From what I can understand, there is a very good scheme prepared by the National Hygienic League, which if taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, would enable this Bill to be put into operation very easily. There are several clauses in the Bill which I fully expect will be criticised. I hope that the criticisms will be many, because it will enable us to put the Bill into better shape. I think I can assume that the principle of the Bill will be accepted by all your Lordships, but no doubt the machinery which has been devised to carry it out may receive rather severe criticism. I have heard that there are to be some criticisms upon certain clauses, but not knowing what those criticisms will be I cannot anticipate them.
I believe there are some difficulties with regard to making arrangements with the

171
Board of Education for carrying out the training of the teachers. Probably that will be one criticism. There will be another criticism upon the continuation of these classes after the child has left school, but I do not see any reason why there should be. We already have evening classes, at which the attendance is very good. The boys are being taught trades of all kinds, and the girls domestic economy. I think if we were to add a good physical training we should then have some of the most perfect schools in the world. If a child attended these physical drills twice or three times a week, it would be sufficient, once he understood what he was to do and what benefit he was to receive by it, to enable him to carry on the physical culture himself in his own home. I am perfectly certain that it would be done with the greatest pleasure by all children, and that there would be no difficulty as far as that is concerned. Neither would there be any objections raised by parents, for since this Bill has been in circulation I have received communications from all parts of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, not from teachers and experts, but from parents themselves, welcoming the Bill and expressing the hope that it will become law. I do not think I need go into particulars of the clauses, because I should like to hear the criticisms of those who will speak after me. But before sitting down I would say that the criticisms might be met to a certain extent by our meeting together and consulting on the matter, and probably if the Bill reaches another stage they could be met by the insertion of Amendments. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I trust that it will meet with a favourable reception at your hands and at the hands of His Majesty's Government, and that we shall in the near future see it passed into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Hill.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with sympathy to the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount. At the same time the noble Viscount seems to be in ignorance of the fact that physical exercises have been carried out in the schools of this country for a great deal longer than two years. It is now twenty-one years since I myself introduced a Bill into this House. I re-introduced the Bill twenty years ago. It was rejected at the time, as most novel
172
measures are in Parliament, but the third year it was introduced it was accepted practically en bloc by the Liberal Government of the day. I went to the Minister who was responsible for education at the time, and who had just come into office, and asked him if he was going to oppose my proposal like his predecessor had done. He said, "No, I do not think there is any reason for it. I think I can incorporate your Bill in my Code." That was done; and ever since those days physical exercises have been carried on in the schools of this country.
I cannot say that I agree with all the noble Viscount has said about the small effect which those physical exercises have had upon the children. I am not here to defend His Majesty's Government. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves, and we shall hear what their spokesman has to say later. But my experience, and it is a large experience, is not that of the noble Viscount. I am continually going round visiting schools, not only in my neighbourhood but in others, in connection with another matter, and I have never yet found a school where there is no actual practical drill. I have found that as a general rule really excellent work is being done. I do not think the noble Viscount is aware—at all events he has not mentioned it—that these physical exercises are done under regulation and organisation. After the Government of the day accepted the Bill which I brought in and included it in their Code, a Committee, on which I had the honour of sitting, was appointed by the War Office and the Education Department, and a gentleman named Colonel Fox was put at the head of it. A syllabus was drawn up. That syllabus has, no doubt, been altered since those days, and what I thought was a very useful part of it—the military part—has been to a large extent eliminated. But at all events the syllabus is there. I hold in my hand the last syllabus of physical exercises for public elementary schools issued by the Board of Education in l909, and if the noble Viscount reads that syllabus lie will see that Sir Robert Morant and those who work with him have gone very thoroughly into the question. They have considered very carefully all that is absolutely necessary for the health of the children, and although there are parts of the syllabus with which I do not agree—especially, as I have said, the one

173
from which military drill has been eliminated—still I must say I think that, as far as it goes, it is an excellent system.
I would also point out to the noble Viscount that this system has been founded in a great measure upon the very one which he has been pressing—the Swedish system. I know that that system was introduced, because I was chairman of a voluntary association which gave £400 to bring over from Sweden one of the first teachers who gave instruction to the teachers in London in the Swedish system. No doubt there have been alterations from the actual pure Swedish system, but I do not think there are any alterations with which the noble Viscount or any one else can find fault. Therefore I am glad to be able to say that I do not agree with the noble Viscount in his statement that the exercises, as far as they have gone, have not been of use. I have judged on four different occasions the exercises of the children attending the London elementary schools, and I can tell the noble Viscount that if he would go to one of those exhibitions and see the exercises performed he would be more than pleased. It is wonderful what the children do, and their work is a source of great delight and pleasure to any one who feels, as we all do, that this matter is one of very great importance to the nation at large. The noble Viscount speaks about acrobats. I have never seen any acrobatic performances of any kind or description in connection with elementary schools. The performances that I have seen are almost entirely Swedish—pthat is to say, without apparatus. Of course, it is absolutely wrong that this drill should be given as a punishment, but I have never known it so given. If it is done, I should hope that after the debate to-night such a thing will be stopped. As a matter of fact, the drills that I have seen are enjoyed by the children. I do not know whether, if you were to ask every child whether he is aware of the purport of the drill, he would be able to give you an answer, but I do not think it very much matters whether he knows what the drill is for or not, as long as the drill is improving his physical condition.
I regret very much that the noble Viscount has put into his Bill a clause directly eliminating military drill. I think that is a most fatal thing for the Legislature of this country to do. The trend of
174
public opinion, whatever some of us may think, is in the direction of military drill for the young. Our Colonies are showing us the way to do it, and we shall have to come to it some day whether we like it or not; and it appears to me a fatal and retrograde measure to put a clause into a Bill saying that under no circumstances whatever shall military drill be carried out in the schools of this country. I hope that that clause, at all events, will be deleted. I do not suppose for one moment that the noble Viscount really desires the elimination of military drill. We know there are people in this country who believe that military drill is very wicked. How they can arrive at that conclusion I, for one, am absolutely at a loss to understand. But I suppose the noble Viscount thought it was wise and expedient to put in such a clause in order that the Bill might pass.
Personally, I do not see any necessity for the Bill except in regard to the raising of the age, and in that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. At present we only have physical exercises up to the age of 14, and I, for one, should be delighted to support any Bill which would make it compulsory upon every child to go through physical exercises up to the age of sixteen, and I would even say longer. In Sweden the age is eighteen, and no difficulty has been found with regard to it there. I would also give one warning to the noble Viscount. I have had a good deal of experience in regard to physical exercises. I have been myself at the head of one of the teachers' associations for physical exercises. The noble Viscount must remember that there are a great number of systems of physical exercises in this country. They all want to have the knife in each other, and he must be very careful that he does not run a Bill for the express purpose of one particular class of teacher. We have to keep quite clear of that in a national work. In conclusion, I repeat that, while sympathising with the noble Viscount in the general purport of his Bill, I must say that in the particular subjects to which I have alluded I entirely disagree with him.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, with the objects of the Bill as set forth in the Memorandum on the first page I am in entire sympathy. I cannot say that I entirely approve of the methods which it is proposed to adopt, but I shall confine my criticism to one single point. The Bill contains a most extraordinary pro-

175
vision, a provision so extraordinary, and, as it seems to me, so uncalled-for, that it has given rise to a suspicion that the objects of the promoters as set forth in the Memorandum are not their whole objects and that they have some ulterior object. The provision I refer to is that contained in Clause 4, subsection (2), which runs—
"Provided always that no child or young person shall, in the course of any physical training by this Act provided, be allowed to use, or be taught the use of, any war weapon of any kind whatsoever."
Why has this provision been inserted? With what object? At whose instigation? The noble Viscount was silent on the matter; but from what I know of him myself I find it very difficult to believe that he can be in sympathy with it. On the contrary, I should be very much surprised if he were not glad to see it eliminated.
This provision is directly contrary to the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee, upon which the Bill professes to be based. I imagine that this provision has been put in to appease those who are known as Little Englanders. But why should we seek to appease them? Why should the noble Viscount pander to these people, with whom I know he has no sympathy whatever? It is difficult to understand the attitude of those who object to the principle of universal military service, but it is impossible to understand the attitude of mind of those who would hinder and discourage that voluntary system of military service on which we depend at the present time. Surely there is some strange inconsistency about those who object to compulsion on principle, and yet who would apply this very principle of compulsion in this drastic form for the purpose of giving physical training. I say if you are going to extend the principle of compulsion which forms part of all our legislation, and more particularly of all the laws which have to do with education and the training of the young, then why should not the State get all the advantage it possibly can from that compulsion? Why should the State impose on itself this restriction which is contained in the particular section of the Bill which I have read? Why should it fetter the discretion of the local authorities? What becomes of those principles of local self-government and trust in the people with which we are all so ready to profess our sympathy and our belief?
176
I take it that no one will disagree that the first necessity of the State, indeed of any State, is that of self-protection, of defence, and I think it is also pretty clear that if you have healthy and vigorous citizens they are better capable of taking part in the defence of the State than those who are weak and degenerate and of the description to which the noble Viscount referred. But if that be so, why should the State pay for this additional physical training and then deliberately and of its own will forego the greatest advantage which might result from it? I go a step further. Why should you deprive your physical training of that one element which would be more likely than any other to make it effective? We all know that brain and muscle depend and interact on one another. Very little advantage can be derived from muscular exercises unless there is sonic mental stimulus. We all know that an interesting and exciting game does a great deal more good than mere exercises with dumbbells or Indian clubs. If you want the whole population to improve their physique and to do so with heartiness and goodwill—and that was one of the points on which the noble Viscount particularly dwelt, and I may say that it impressed me that he felt undue confidence in his system in that very respect—you must give them some motive which appeals to the imagination, and it must be a motive which affects the nation as a whole.
The noble Viscount told us that most of the children who go through the present-day physical exercises do not know what the drill is for, and he was eager to admit that this was a disadvantage and marred the value of those very physical exercises. Surely that is a point to which lie ought to have given attention. He ought to have supplied this mental stimulus. He ought to have provided a motive which appeals to the nation as a whole. What higher and better motive is there than that of patriotism? If you make the object of your physical exercises one which has direct reference to patriotism, you will give that stimulus, and one which will be understood by all, even by the youngest child; and I defy any one to name any other motive which could take the place of such a one. And in this respect I should like to ask, Why are the patriotic to pay for their own physical training when it is a matter of Cadet Corps, Church Lads

177
Brigade, and so forth, while the unpatriotic are to get it at the public expense? That seems to me to be an inconsistency which requires some explanation.
We all want to improve the physique of the nation—I take it we are all thoroughly alive to the unsatisfactory condition of the national physique at the present time—and I do not hesitate to say that I am one of those who believe firmly that the proper method of doing so is that of universal military service. That is a method which is known to be successful. We have the example of other countries. We have the example of our own country in the past. The noble Viscount himself admitted it. He told us that in the days of Cromwell the physique of our nation was better than that of any other. But to those who do not care for the teachings of history, or for the example of foreign nations, I would point to the great success which attends military form of exercises at the present time. By what method can you do more good to poor, weedy lads from the slums of great cities than by giving them a spell of military training in a seaside camp or elsewhere, and by giving them some of the advantages which the rich obtain anyhow, and which are out of the reach of the poor? With those examples before us, why should we go and deliberately say that the military method of physical training is to be barred?
You object to militarism, whatever militarism might mean. You are not going to check militarism by keeping the people ignorant of the use of the weapons of war. If you want to check militarism you must keep soldiers out of their sight. You must never let them see a soldier or heat anything about the Army. But if you think that there is so much latent and potential military ardour in the nation that the mere fact that they are taught to shoot with the rifle will make them all burn with a desire to go into the Army, how can you consistently say that the nation as a whole will never accept universal military service? Again, you profess to be democratic, and I presume it is considered to be democratic to give in a measure of this kind to the poor advantages at the public expense which are at present only within the reach of the well-to-do. If that be your principle, why withhold from them the healthy and admittedly beneficial exercise of practice with military
178
arms and particularly of rifle shooting? I said at the outset that I was going to confine my criticism to this one point, and I will do so. I feel very strongly upon it, and if the Bill gets to a further stage I shall certainly ask your Lordships to omit subsection (2) of Clause 4.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, with the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down I entirely concur. I should be exceedingly glad to see a measure for universal military training passed into law. The provision which the noble Viscount has inserted in the Bill apparently in order to make it easier to pass has been used as an argument against the whole Bill. But whatever may be said with regard to the earlier part of the Bill, there is one clause in it—I refer to Clause 5—which makes me hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. It is in entire accord with the recommendations of the important Commission which sat upon the relief of distress that something should be done to keep a hold upon those boys who leave school at the age of fourteen, and Clause 5 constitutes a great step forward in dealing with those who form the large class of "unemployables." I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, although I trust that in Committee the clause which has been so severely criticised by the noble Lord who has just sat down will be deleted.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of general approval of the principle which underlies this Bill, and the desire that there should be a complete system of physical training in this country. But having expressed so much approval of the principle of the Bill, the noble Viscount probably knows enough about the general practice in debates in this House to expect that I shall now venture to explain to him various reasons why the Bill as it stands is not acceptable to His Majesty's Government. It was with regret that I heard the noble Viscount express disapproval of the present physical education which is given in the schools of this country. 1 would venture to ask him, however, in what way this Bill will improve that physical education. It leaves it in the hands of the same authorities as have the control of it at the present time, and I think it will be necessary for him to

179
include in his Bill sonic assured method of getting the physical education more in accordance with what he wishes it to be.
I think it only fair to point out, on behalf of the Board of Education, that the work of physical training in the schools has lately been reorganised. It is only since January that the work has been so reorganised, and I am sure the noble Viscount would be one of the first to acknowledge that work of this kind cannot be remedied all at once. The thing is to train the teachers, and I can assure him that that work is already in hand. It was only last night that the President of the Board of Education made a general statement upon the work of his Department, and I shall venture to quote to your Lordships the passages which especially refer to physical education. My right hon. friend said—
"On another side of their physical condition I have to report that great developments have taken place in the matter of physical exercises. Two years ago some members of my Board embarked on devising a general physical exercise syllabus, largely on the Swedish system. That syllabus has met with great acceptance, and 92,000 copies of it have been sold. It would be impossible to carry on the physical exercise work in all the schools under the local education authorities unless the teachers were prepared to play a part in it, and in the training colleges no fewer than 4,700 students have passed the examination in physical exercise since Christmas of last year. That means that;those teachers who go up from the training colleges will not be specialised physical exercise teachers, but it will be part of their ordinary work."
My right hon. friend went on to make a reference to military service which I am afraid will not commend itself to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. Speaking of the difference between military service and physical training and emphasising the advantage that is given to children especially from physical training, he said—
"Military service can only benefit selected men—"
LORD NEWTON: We are dealing with children, not with men.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is true; but I do not think there is any harm in quoting a passage from a general statement made by my right hon. friend comparing generally physical training and military service. Mr. Runciman said—
"Military service can only benefit selected men. Those who are least physically fit, those who most require physical exercises, would be debarred from
180
the very training and opportunity that would be provided under a military system, and, moreover, military service does not include women and girls, and can be in no way a substitute for physical exercise. And it can only include those who are comparatively grown-up. What we want to-day is to get hold of the children as early as possible and enable them not only to develop their muscles when grown-up, but to grow up well."
I think every member of your Lordships' House will agree that whatever we may think as to the benefits of military training, it ought to be preceded by some system of physical training.
Perhaps I might now turn to some of the criticisms that were offered by Lord Ampthill. I should like, in the first place, to offer one humble word of defence for the clause which he so much dislikes—the clause which prohibits the use of war weapons. I believe it is so at the present time that recruits before joining the Army are generally trained by a system of Swedish drill. They are not trained, that is to say, with the help of war weapons; and I would venture to ask noble Lords who wish war weapons to be used in this way, what kind of war weapon they would wish in order to assist physical training? In order to develop the muscles generally there is no weapon of war in general use which can effectively be used with a system of Swedish drill. Scientific physical training is far more likely to develop the muscles and physique of children than any exercises with rifles or even with larger implements of war. I might even quote the noble Lord (Lord Ampthill) himself as an example. We are apt, I think, many of us to point to the noble Lord as perhaps the most. splendid specimen of physique in this House. May I put it to him that that splendid result was not attained by the use of the rifle, but more, I think, by the oar, with which he obtained so many successes at Henley in years gone by. I think, in these circumstances, it is not unfair to say that the use of. weapons of war is probably not the best method of obtaining a good physical result.
I now turn to one or two of the detailed criticisms upon some of the clauses of the Bill. The curriculum of the elementary school is already so full that we should very strongly object to that clause in the Bill which requires that as much as two hours a week should be devoted to this system of physical training. I think it is only fair to say, too, that that period which is devoted

181
to what is definitely called physical training at the present time does not comprehend he whole of the time which is spent in improving the physique of the children. In their play very often, also in the way in which they are made to stand and breathe while reading, and in matters of that kind, a great deal is done by the teachers to improve the physique of the children. although it is not given under the heading of physical training. Then I come to the examining Board. I think that that could hardly be undertaken by the Board of Education except at considerable expense. That is a subject to which I shall refer in a moment, but one which, after the debate we had yesterday in this House, I think ought to attract special attention from noble Lords, especially-in view of the somewhat airy way in which it was dealt with by the noble Viscount. We do not feel, either, that there is any need to create a special ad hoc committee for physical training under each local education authority in the way the noble Viscount suggests. There would not be very much work for such a committee to do, and we should very much object to an officer of the authority being an ex-officio member of such a committee. It would be much more to the point and bring a better result about if the larger local education authorities were to appoint paid organisers for the teaching of physical training within their area.
The other clause to which I think strong objection would be taken throughout the country is Clause 5, which certainly at the present time I do not think the country would adopt. By that clause all young people until they reach the age of sixteen years are to attend continuation schools for physical training at least two evenings in the week. Just think for one moment what the expense would be of bringing that about. You would have to hire rooms, you would require teachers, you would have to have lighting, you would require inspectors, and in an infinity of ways very large further expense would be thrown on the rates. The improvement which has taken place, or is, we hope, going to take place rapidly in the near future, in physical exercises will, we trust, go a very long way towards meeting what is the real object of this Bill. The Board hope to make examination in physical training compulsory upon all non-collegiate students.
The special question of expense, I think, bears not only with regard to these young
182
persons up to the age of sixteen, but also upon the further matter of the examination' of the various teachers. The Board, by the Bill of the noble Viscount, is expected to undertake the examination in physical training of the students in training colleges and also of non-collegiate students. In addition to that, of course, there are all the teachers who are now working in the schools. Of those there are 135,000, in addition to whom there are a large number of supplementary and unqualified teachers. Therefore it is not unreasonable to say that the Board would have to make arrangements for the examination in this matter of 150,000 teachers. I do not pretend that all those would wish or be able to undertake the work of physical training, but no doubt a large number of them would wish to get the additional qualification, and also the additional salary, which would be a further charge on the rates, and which is suggested by the noble Viscount in Clause 2, subsection (4). The general examination suggested by this Bill in order to be effective would naturally have to be somewhat thorough. An examination in practice could not take much less than ten minutes in connection with each individual, and with such a large number as the noble Viscount contemplates would pass through this examination, not only in point of time but also of numbers considerable expense must be incurred.
I have stated the objections to the Bill in its present form. It is impossible for me to advise your Lordships to give it a Second Reading on this occasion. I think what I have been able to say to the noble Viscount and what has been said by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) proves sufficiently that the Board of Education are fully alive to the importance of this matter. They have taken a new start, and have already organised a much better system of physical training; and I venture to hope and to think that if the noble Viscount will suspend his judgment until there has been time to see the result of the very important new steps and new departures which have been taken by the Board, your Lordships will on a future occasion be better able and better qualified to deal with the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, every one who listened to the speech of the noble Viscount behind me must have realised that his heart is in his

183
work, and that he desires to arrest the deplorable physical degeneration disclosed by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. With the object which my noble friend has in view I feel sure every one in your Lordships' House will agree. Speaking as one who has been at the head of the Board of Education, I do not hesitate to say that I view a great deal that is in this Bill with hearty sympathy. The noble Viscount expressed the hope that the Bill would be considered non-controversial and non-political. It is in that sense that I propose to deal with it in the few remarks that I shall make to-night. And the noble Viscount also invited criticisms in order that by that means he might realise the shortcomings in his Bill, and he enabled, by amending the Bill, to carry through some of its principles with which we all agree.
At the root of the whole matter is the question how far we can improve the present system of what used to be called when I was at the Board of Education physical exercises, but now termed physical training. My noble friend seems to think that if we could have a perfect system of physical training we might be able to improve the physique of those unfortunate children who abound in our great cities, and restore them to that state of vigour which we should all like to see. But I am afraid a good deal more than physical exercises would be required to bring about this happy state of affairs. I think the children to whom the noble Viscount alluded undoubtedly owe their unhealthy condition to other circumstances than the absence of physical exercises. They owe their condition perhaps to overcrowding, perhaps to want of proper nourishment, and perhaps also to the fact that the ordinary laws of health are not properly observed by their parents. Therefore if we are to effect this change which we all wish to see in the physique of the childen of this country, it can only be done by the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Board of Education, and the various local authorities in all parts of the country acting together, and endeavouring, by combination, to cope with this state of affairs. While, therefore, I cordially sympathise with the object my noble friend has in view, I hardly think that physical exercises alone would have the effect which he desires.
There are one or two provisions in the Bill as it stands which I think it would be some-
184
what difficult to carry out. My noble friend proposes to make physical drill compulsory in all elementary schools. There is a certain amount of difficulty about that. The Board of Education naturally are, in the first instance, responsible for the subjects which are taught in schools—of course to a certain extent in conjunction with the local authorities; but those subjects are always put before the country in the shape of the Code which is published annually. It seems to me that it would be an entire innovation to select one subject, and one subject only, and make that a matter of legislative enactment, leaving all the other subjects as they are now- at the disposal of the Board of Education through their Code. I mention that because I think that an innovation of that kind ought to be seriously considered before it is passed into law. If once a question is made the subject of legislative enactment away from the Code, it is impossible to say how many other questions might not be brought forward for similar treatment. I remember that when' I was President of the Board of Education I received important deputations on the subject of hygiene. It might be said that hygiene ought to be dealt with by legislative enactment if you so deal with the question of physical exercises. Therefore on these grounds I think it would be dangerous to carry this Bill as it stands, making such a radical change in the system which up to now has worked very satisfactorily.
There is certainly a good deal to be said in favour of a system of physical training. I confess I heard with a certain amount of regret the criticisms of the noble Viscount with regard to the physical training given at the present moment in the elementary schools. If the Board of Education had disregarded the subject. of physical exercises, then there would have been a good deal of justification for the arguments he put forward. But I venture to say that the Board of Education have never disregarded this question. The subject of physical training was brought very prominently forward by a Commission appointed by the late Duke of Devonshire to consider the whole question of physical deterioration, and it was shortly after that Commission reported that I had the honour of being Minister of Education. I can certainly say that no Minister ever went to the Board of Education more keenly alive than I was to the advantages to be derived from physical exercises. In my own schools in

185
thickly-populated districts I have always taken a great interest in this subject, and therefore it came to me as a labour of love when I assumed office.
As the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Meath, has informed your Lordships, we took the matter in hand at. once. The Government felt very strongly on the question. and the War Office rendered us great assistance in placing at. our disposal Colonel (now. I am glad to say, Sir Malcolm) Fox, an expert in teaching the whole system of physical exercises. I realised when I went to the Board of Education that what the teachers required was to be themselves taught how to give this instruction. I visited many schools after I was at the Board of Education, and saw that the teachers did not themselves know how to teach. I saw, too, how the children suffered in consequence. But on visiting those schools at. the termination of my tenure of office I observed a great difference; and my noble friend Lord Meath has stated that he, too, saw the same satisfactory results. Therefore I felt a little hurt when the noble Viscount. stated that the teachers could not teach, and that as a result the condition of the children was very unsatisfactory in this regard. am not in a position to express any opinion as to how the system is carried on at the present time, but I gather from the Reports that the Board of Education are carrying on physical training with the same vigour that obtained when I was Minister for Education. Indeed, I understand they have done more. In those days this movement was in its infancy and we had only one inspector. I understand that there are now four inspectors who go about the country carrying out the policy which was inaugurated by Colonel Fox—that of instructing the teachers how to give physical training.; and I understand that in the training colleges physical training is compulsory. Although physical training is not legally compulsory at the present moment in the elementary schools, still under the policy carried out by us and continued by the present Government it is being given and has achieved good results.
My noble friend behind me also desires that there should be compulsory physical training at the continuation classes. I think myself that if that were possible to be done, it would have a very excellent effect. I have been told by young soldiers that in the three years or so between leaving the
186
elementary schools and joining their regiments as recruits they have lost all the knowledge obtained while at the elementary school. Therefore it does seem to me an unfortunate state of affairs, seeing that we spend millions a year on the education of the children in the elementary schools, that the benefit of that education should be entirely lost in many cases in those intervening years. Now arises the question as to how that difficulty is to be met. My noble friend's proposal goes a long way towards meeting it. At the same time we have to consider the difficulty of those who feel that they require the services of these boys or young men in the employment in which they are engaged. Still, I think we ought to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion not to allow the wastage of this vast sum of money owing to the lack of educational training of some sort during these particular years of a boy's life. But if this Bill is read a second time, my noble friend will have to insert in the second part of it some carefully worded exemptions. At the present time there are a great number of boys who have left school but who would be unable to take advantage of these particular physical exercises.
We recently formed the Boy Scouts, a most admirable organisation, calculated to do a great work in the future, and these boys, in addition to receiving discipline, are given very healthy recreation. There are other similar organisations, and in connection with all these bodies there are gymnasia. You have also many athletic organisations, and I should be sorry, by compelling these boys to attend continuation schools for this training, to do anything to injure these organisations. We must remember that a good many of these boys when they go to work have not much time for recreation, and to take a boy whose heart is in the Roy Scouts or in athletics and compel him for two nights in the week to attend compulsory physical training would not do that boy any good, for his heart would be away from this work and lie would look with disfavour upon it; it would not do him that good which it would do if he had no other means of exercise. That is a point which my noble friend ought to carefully consider.
But I do think something ought to be done to prevent boys from the age of fourteen to eighteen losing the advantages they have derived at the elementary school. I

187
hope that in what I have said my noble friend will not think I have thrown any cold water on his scheme. The principle of his Bill has my hearty sympathy; but I did think it was my duty, having had the advantage of being Minister for Education for four years, to bring forward, I hope in a modest manner, the experience I derived during that time. In all the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will see your way to give the Bill a Second Reading, on the understanding that considerable alterations will be made in it when it reaches the Committee stage.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, this Bill embodies one principle which has not been referred to in the course of the debate, and which, I think, deserves the consideration of your Lordships before the Question is put whether the Bill should be read a second time. The right rev. Prelate opposite stated that if for only one reason—namely, the provisions in Clause 5—he is prepared to support this Bill. It is the provision in subsection (2) of that clause which raises great doubt. in my mind whether the Bill should be read a second time. If the Bill were to pass in its present form, every naughty boy or naughty girl who did not attend the compulsory training on two evenings a week would practically be liable to be treated more or less as a. criminal and haled before a Court of summary jurisdiction and fined; and not only the young person, but even the parent, and, perhaps, the employer, might be involved in a like liability. The tendency to create offences of this kind at the present day requires very serious consideration, and unless my noble friend who has introduced the Bill can give me some assurance that this provision in it will be reconsidered at a future stage I shall feel bound to vote against it, for, as I have said, I am entirely opposed to provisions which create new criminal offences without serious cause.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, may I most respectfully, as one who came down to the House to listen to the discussion and to vote upon the merits, ask my noble friend to consider the advisability of postponing the Bill. I find myself in an extremely difficult position. I am entirely in favour, as I think all your Lordships are, of the general principles of the Bill, but I have been so much impressed by the criticisms from both sides of the House that I think the noble Viscount would be
188
wise to postpone its further consideration. I think the publicity which he has given to the question to-day, and the general approval he has obtained of the principles which he desires to see carried out, are a great advance on which he may congratulate himself, and if he were to take back the Bill for reconsideration on the points raised he would not lose anything, because obviously exigencies of time make it exceedingly improbable that the Bill can be carried into law this year, and lie might, at an early period next session, reintroduce the Bill with the criticisms met to some degree.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I rise to say a word in support of the appeal which has just been addressed to the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill. The object of the Bill is, of course, as has so often been said, one with which we entirely sympathise, and I need not say that we should not think of dividing the House against the Second Reading. But., at the same time, when the Bill is analysed, as it has been partly analysed this afternoon, there appear to be such a number of disputable points in it and it seems to raise so many difficulties of administration that I confess I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in believing that Lord Hill, if he were to press the Second Reading to-day, might rather retard than advance the object he has in view. I quite agree with what was said by Lord Ridley that the ventilation which the subject has received in this debate is of advantage, and if the noble Viscount would agree to be content with this I think it would be the most satisfactory solution of this debate.
VISCOUNT HILL: My Lords, after the appeal which has been made to me by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and by my noble friend Lord Ridley, and after the many criticisms which have been passed upon this Bill, I will accept the suggestion and withdraw it. At the same time I think I can congratulate myself on having procured so many useful criticisms upon the Bill, for I foresaw that great difficulties would arise in certain cases with regard to administration and so forth. I ask leave to withdraw my Bill for the present, in order that these criticisms may be examined and carefully considered and

189
the Bill put into a shape in which it will, on some future occasion. be more favourably received by your Lordships.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn:
The Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL. CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have a little Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. It is a Bill which I do not think will take up much of your Lordships' time, and on which I hope and believe you will be practically unanimous. It provides compensation for tenants on whom notice to quit is served with a view to the use of their land for the provision of small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act which your Lordships were pleased to pass in 1908. This Bill is unopposed and has been agreed to by the Commons House of Parliament. As a matter of fact, it is a consequential Bill.
The result of the Act of 1908 up to date has been that 80,000 acres, or 125 square miles, of land have been secured for holdings for 0,000 applicants, 4,000 of whom are already on the ground. In the vast majority of eases I ant glad to be able to assure your Lordships that the land has been secured without any hardship being imposed on the sitting tenants, but I do not disguise the fact that there may have been a few cases in which loss, or at any rate inconvenience, may have been incurred, and this Bill provides, I hope, a practical remedy by granting compensation in such cases. This we propose to do without placing any charge whatever on the rates or on the landlords. The Bill is a simple one, and well drawn. There is no reference to any other legislation, and any man who runs can read it, and, what. is more, can understand it.
The first clause, which is perfectly intelligible, runs—
"Where a council, or a landlord at the request of a council, terminates a tenancy of land by notice to quit, with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the council for the provision of
190
small holdings, the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the council compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land."
It is also provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits. Under the Land Tenure Act the tenant has to give notice of his intention to claim within two months after the receipt of the notice to quit. Under this Bill the tenant whose land is required is better treated. Your Lordships will also see that differences are to be settled, in default of agreement, by a single arbitrator. That is following the lines of Section 13 of the Consolidated Lands Acts.
Clause 1 also gives the procedure that we recommend. The county council is to pay the compensation to the tenants but is repaid by the Board of Agriculture, and the money is found out of the Small Holdings Fund. I have no doubt that we shall get a good many applications for compensation. When there is money going about it is very natural that many people should try to get what they can. I remember that some years ago, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Balaclava Charge, a dinner was given to the survivors of the gallant Six Hundred, and between 400 and 500, military gentlemen were found under the hallucination that they had been at that memorable battle. They had to be weeded out, and I hope that we shall also be able to weed out any of those gentlemen connected with the agricultural industry who may be under the hallucination that they have been unfairly treated. I venture to think, and I hope, that cases of hardship, will really be few and far between.
There is a proviso in Clause 2 that no compensation shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before September 1, 1910. To-day is July 14. That would leave only six weeks, and the Bill is not through yet. Therefore I think your Lordships will probably be of opinion. that the time given is rather short, and I shall be prepared—and I think it would be only right to do so, as we want to act perfectly fairly and justly to agriculturists—to give a longer time than that now stated.

191
in the Bill. Clause 2 also makes the Bill retrospective. In such cases compensation will be paid direct by the Board of Agriculture, not through the county councils, and the amount is left, as I think your Lordships will agree it should be, to the discretion of the Board. It would be absolutely useless to try and hold an arbitration on a tenancy that had expired a year or eighteen months ago. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree that the proposal that the matter should be left to be decided by those who have the public duty to pay this compensation out of the public funds is a wise one. It is very easy to be liberal with other people's money, and I think the matter ought to be dealt with by those who are responsible to Parliament, so that if they make any mistakes they can be called over the coals.
I may be asked the very natural question why no provision is made in the Bill for compensation where tenancies are brought to an end under compulsory orders. The county councils have been obliged to use their compulsory powers in connection with something like 1,200 acres. I may be asked why, in these circumstances, the same indulgence is not to be given to those tenant farmers on whom compulsory orders have been issued. The answer to that is that in those cases the tenant can obtain full compensation under the Lands Clauses Acts, and therefore there is no reason to protect him in this Bill. That is all I have to say as regards this little Bill. I hope your Lordships will look as favourably upon it as the House of Commons did. It may be a very small Bill, but it perfects a work which will not only add to the social, moral, and physical welfare of the people at large, but will redound to the credit of the Parliament which passed it into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a2014;(l Carrington)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think there would have been some disappointment among the members of your Lordships' House, at any rate on this side, if we had not heard from the noble Earl opposite to-night a reiteration of the remarkable figures he has quoted on previous occasions of
192
the extension of small holdings in this country. But I rise for the purpose of congratulating the noble Earl on having brought in this Bill, because, as he is perfectly well aware, for it has been pointed out both in this House and in the other, there has been a great feeling of soreness left in the minds of tenant farmers in the country on account of land being taken away from them compulsorily, great damage being done to the remainder of their holding, and no provision being made for compensating them for the damage done. The noble Earl has now remedied that, and he has done it out of the source which I venture to think is the right and proper one — namely, the Imperial Exchequer—and not the rates which are levied by county councils.
I was very glad to hear that the noble Earl had been impressed by the representations made to him that September 1 is rather short notice for those who may wish to proffer a claim where land has been taken from them before the commencement of the Act. I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention also to another point in connection with that clause, and that is that the "claim" must be sent in. I believe that by "claim" is meant the whole of the details of what the dispossessed tenant may consider to be the amount which ought to be paid to him as compensation, and I should like the noble Earl to consider, if he will, whether it would not be possible to substitute for the word "claim" the words "notice of claim." Whatever date may be fixed it should not be the claim that should be sent in by that time, but notice should be given to the Board of Agriculture that the dispossessed tenant intends to make the claim, and then a time should be stated in which the claim should be sent in.
I have only one other observation to make, and that is to congratulate the noble Earl on making Clause 2 retrospective. I venture to hope that it will not be without some effect on the noble Earl himself, because we remember that some time ago the noble Earl entertained the House by telling us how he went down to a farmers' ordinary and made the observation to them, which was common property at the time, that a General Election was pending, and he added that he did not wish that they should go to that General Election

193
with a bad taste in their mouth. So the noble Earl produced a fifty pound note out of his pocket, which, with that generosity which always characterises him, he gave to the unfortunate tenant farmer concerned. As this Bill is to be retrospective, I hope that the noble Earl will make some representation to that gentleman and get his fifty pound note back, because it is clear that the tenant will get the £50 out of His Majesty's Government, and the end of it will be, if the noble Earl does not get his money back, that this man will have the £50 from the Treasury and also the £50 from the noble Earl. I congratulate the noble Earl on the introduction of this Bill, and sincerely hope that your Lordships will pass it into law without further delay.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on. Tuesday next.

VATERSAY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board—
Appendix X., page 8.
Vatersay.
1. "Net general expenditure" £1,188 7s. 2d. Of what items this sum is composed.
2. "Loss on sheep stock, &c." £3,403 11s. 1d. How much of this was loss on sheep stock.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the condition of the western islands of Scotland is serious, and is becoming more serious every year, indeed I may say almost every month, and it may be necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the whole subject at no distant date. But in the meantime, and as a preliminary, I think it is very desirable that we should understand the accounts which have been presented to us in the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board. There are several items which I have been unable to understand, and there are other noble Lords who have encountered the same difficulty. Therefore I propose, in the first place, to take the case of the Island of Vatersay and the Report which has been made upon it.
Appendix X, page 8, gives the amounts which have been expended. There is one item, that of "Net general expenditure," which I do not understand. Apparently the land was purchased for £6,000 or a little more; but why has it been necessary to incur a general expenditure of £1,188 upon it? By the aid of this and other expenditure the rent of Vatersay is reduced from £350, which it paid as a farm, to £180 which the noble Lord proposes it should be rented at by the crofters in future. In the second place, there is an item, which your Lordships will see is called "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," of £3,403 11s. ld. I hope that the "etcetera" is a very large sum and that it is larger than the loss on sheep stock, because the number of sheep which were taken over was not really large, and if £3,403, or anything approaching that sum, was lost upon sheep stock, then I do not think this country will be able to go on sheep farming at the same ratio. It is quite clear that you could not lose such a sum as £3,403 on a comparatively insignificant number of sheep, and therefore there must be some item or items of a considerable amount of which the word "etcetera" does not give us a very clear understanding. I wish to ask these two Questions.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, the details of the sum of £1,188 7s. 2d. under the heading of "Net general expenditure" are as follow: Law charges and clerk to the reference, £594 19s. 6d.; arbiters' fees, £188 17s. 6d.; stipend and Income Tax, £20 12s. 5d.; expenses in connection with keeping and the sale of the sheep stock, £372 6s. 0d.; sundry small items, £11 11s. 9d., making a total of £1,188 7s. 2d. The noble Earl next asks for information in regard to the "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," which is put at a sum of £3,403 11s. ld. The loss attributable to sheep stock is approximately £1,800, of which sum, however, from information before me, I think £175 represents the half year's rent from Whitsunday, 1908, making the sum attributable to loss from sheep stock, £1,625.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Lord stated that some portion of this "net general expenditure" was in connection with sheep stock. Why should anything which refers to sheep

195
be put down as "net general expenditure?"
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl, I think, is confusing his two Questions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, I was taking your answer. I understood you, in giving the items, to say that in one of the items there was a sum in connection with sheep.
LORD PENTLAND: The item which I gave as part of the total sum mentioned in the first of the noble Earl's Questions was the item of £372 6s. 0d., which represents expenses in connection with the sale of the sheep stock and therefore not attributable correctly to loss on sheep stock. They were expenses connected with the sale.
LORD SALTOUN: Of the £3,403 loss on sheep stock, & c., the noble Lord has accounted for £1,800, £175 of which represents rent, but he has not given any statement of what has been done with the rest.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl, in his Question, asked how much of this sum was loss on sheep stock, and I thought it better and simpler to give the exact information asked for. If any other information is required, I will willingly give it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN then rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland the second series of Questions standing in his name—viz.:

1. How many sheep were paid for by the Congested Districts Board as being on Vatersay Farm at Whitsunday, 1908; and what sum was paid for them.

2. How many sheep have since been sold; and what sum has been received for them.

3. Have the sheep on the Island of Sandray been sold, or agreed to be sold, to the Vatersay crofters; and, if so, on what terms.

4. Does the Congested District Board now own any sheep on the Old Vatersay Farm.

5. "What has been the total loss of the Board in connection with sheep in Vatersay, including the costs of the arbitration, all sums paid to the late tenant, and the legal and other costs incurred by the Board.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland no specific account is given of what has happened owing to this experiment in sheep farming, and therefore I have put down these Questions, which speak for themselves. The Report itself covers the period up to March 31. It is stated in the Report that the Island of Sandray has been assigned as grazing to the townships mentioned. It certainly was not assigned in the period embraced by the Report. I naturally concluded, from reading the Report, that the arrangements had been made and completed with the cottars; but as a matter of fact there was, I understand, a dispute between the Board and the crofters with regard to these sheep. The crofters wished to take them over, but the Board did not wish to give them over, and unless 1 am misinformed the dispute had not terminated by the first week in May, when the island was still in possession of the Board, and I do not know whether it is over now. I presume it is, and therefore I wish to ask whether the sheep on that island have been sold or agreed to be sold to the Vatersay crofters, and, if so, on what terms.
LORD PENTLAND: The answer to Question 1 is 2,333, and the sum paid fur them was £3,158 14s. 5d. The answer to Question 2 is 2,378, including lambs, and the sum received for them was £1,863 10s. 3d. The reply to Question 3 is, Yes, to the crofters. They have been sold approximately at market prices, one-third of the price being paid down and the remainder in instalments of £1 per share per annum. The answer to Question 4 is, No. As to Question 5, it is difficult to separate the cost of arbitration in connection with sheep from that referable to other heads, but with that qualification I am able to say that the loss on dealings in sheep, as stated in reply to the former Questions, is approximately £1,800, including the half year's rent I mentioned, while the cost of arbiters and other legal charges amounts to £495.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I hold in my hand a copy of the former account between the Board and the tenant, and while I agree with the noble Lord with regard to the figure of £3,158, yet in my account the sheep paid for were only 1,302.
LORD PENTLAND: I shall be glad to look into that. This is the information that has been supplied to me, and I am inclined to think it is correct. But I will not contradict the noble Lord without further information.

KILMUIR.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the Congested District Board's Report—
Appendix X., page 9.
Kilmuir.

1. How much of the item. £27,628 7s. 2d. represents sheep stock.

2. Has the stock been sold to the settlers, and at what price.

3. Can the loss on stock be calculated now.

4. How much of the item £31,123 17s. 8d. represents arrears of rent.

5. Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d. Does the increase over last year represent a normal expenditure on repairs.

6. Rents received, £46,187. How much of this sum represents rents and how much sinking fund. Is any repayment for sheep stock included.

7. Is any interest chargeable and paid upon the capital expended.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions I have on the Paper are somewhat similar to those asked by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, but they refer to the Kilmuir estate. There are certain items with regard to sheep that I am anxious to inquire about. The first item I wish to draw attention to is that of £27,628 7s. 2d. I want to know how much of that item represents sheep stock. It is certain that there has been a loss, and I should like to know the amount. In connection with almost every other estate the loss is shown, but there is no indication of the loss here. It is lumped in with other sums. The payments profess to be the net payments, and probably the price received for the sheep when sold may in this figure be deducted from the amount which the sheep cost. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me what the price given for the sheep was and what they were sold for, so that. we may calculate the loss.
The figure of £31,123 17s. 8d. in my Question appears to be an increase of £4,000 since the last account. I ask in
198
my Question how much of this item represents arrears of rent. I have since found out that the figure is given in the account. It appears that in March, 1910, the arrears on this estate were £3,447, and if the noble Lord has the information with him I should be glad if he would let us know on what rental those arrears have arisen. In this particular Report. there is nothing to show what the rental of that estate is, but by going back to the Report of the year before last I see it stated that the rental of the estate is £1,577. If that figure is correct, it appears that although this estate has only been in possession of the Board for some four or five years the arrears have now accumulated to a sum equal to two years rental. That is, of course, a serious state of things, and I know that the Board regard the whole question of arrears in the western islands as a serious one, because they state in their Reports for the last two years—
"In a scheme of State-aided creation of new holdings it is manifestly of the highest importance that the settlers should make punctual payment of the sums due by them. We regret to say that in the case of several estates the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We thought it our duty to intimate that unless there was an immediate improvement in this respect, steps would be taken to enforce payment or to foreclose. The result of this notice has not been satisfactory, and we have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters who we have reason to believe could have met their obligations in a more satisfactory manner than thay have done."
That statement appears word for word in both Reports, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could give information as to what the effect of taking proceedings against these selected defaulters has been, and whether, if they have not been successful, further steps are proposed to be taken.
The next item, "Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d.," represents an increase of £4,000 over last year. I see in Appendix XI of the Report that the works carried out on this estate have amounted during the last year to £1,200, which leaves a balance of £2,800 for repairs, & c. I ask the noble Lord whether that represents a normal expenditure on repairs. The cost of the repairs is about one and a-half years rental, and if that is to be the normal expenditure on repairs and upkeep it seems a very large one. An item on the credit side of the Report to which I wish to call attention is a sum of £46,187, which is entered as a deduction from the total

199
expenditure. That includes "rents, & c." The word "etcetera" appears in almost every entry in this Report. I should like to know what it includes besides rent. It possibly includes some repayment for sheep stock, although that would probably come in better as a deduction from the sum stated as the valuation of the stock. It may include interest on the expenditure, and it may also include annuities and repayment of loans if anything has been paid towards that purpose.
But what I really complain of is that annual income and possibly capital income should be all lumped together and used as a set off towards the total expenditure on the estate. The expenditure consists of the purchase price of the Kilmuir estate, this sum for sheep stock, of which we have spoken, and various other things. These other items may be loans, or they may be ordinary upkeep, or possible free gifts; but what I want to bring before the noble Lord's notice is that if these are free gifts, as I anticipate a good many of them are, it is surely misleading to infer that they are paid off, because there can be very little necessity to pay off free gifts at all. If, on the other hand, they are loans, then it seems to me it is improper accounting to suggest that these loans are being repaid by sums which really are entirely on account of income. I suppose it is obvious that all payments on account of capital, other, of course, than free gifts, do require to show something in the way either of rent if it is a purchase price, or interest if it is a loan, before any part of the revenue can be allocated for capital purposes; and it seems to me really incorrect that you should make it appear in your accounts that your capital liabilities are being annually reduced by large sums when in reality a large portion of your receipts are obviously receipts on account of income, and ought not to be paid in reduction of capital. I think the system adopted might be made more clear to the ordinary observer.
I believe an alteration in this method of accounting would be very easy, and I ask the noble Lord to consider whether he cannot take into his consideration whether some other method cannot be adopted to make these accounts more clear. A large number of people are interested in this large experiment in the State management and State ownership of land. It is obvious
200
that in the western islands we are up against a problem which is of an entirely uneconomic nature. At the same time I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that we should be put into possession of facts so that we can see how uneconomic that problem has become, and be able to judge whether the vast expenditure now going on there does leave behind it benefits to the district and the crofters anything like commensurate with this large outlay of money.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord may rest assured that the Government are perfectly willing and ready to afford all the information in their possession with regard to these matters. I have to make two observations before I answer the Questions. But I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me if, having been told by the noble Earl who put the first series of Questions that it is his intention to raise this subject as a whole for discussion in your Lordships' House at an early date, I reserve any discussion of the subject, so far as I am concerned, till I know exactly the purposes and wishes of noble Lords in regard to it. It seems to me very desirable that we should first get at the facts, and having got at the facts impartially and without controversy perhaps we shall be more able to discuss them.
As the noble Lord has said, the system of keeping these accounts may possibly be peculiar. I am not prepared to say that I have not found considerable difficulty, in the wording of the noble Lord's Questions, at arriving at his meaning, so that possibly he may, in the same way, have found some difficulty in understanding the figures which are put before him. These Questions were put down on Thursday or Friday of last week. Therefore I have had considerable notice, and I have made every effort to obtain the information which the noble Lord desires. But at this time of the year the staff of the Board is employed in different parts of Scotland, and I have not yet got the full information for which the noble Lord asks under some of these heads. I can only say that I shall be very glad to add to it at his instance if he so desires. I ought also to make this general observation, that this estate of Kilmuir can hardly be judged by the ordinary canons. It was not purchased as a w hole and then handed over to tenants as a whole. It was purchased by the

201
Government of the day, I think in the year 1901 or 1902.
LORD BALFOUR OF HURLER: No; I was not responsible.
LORD PENTLAND: I forget the year; but it was purchased by the Government some time ago, and the condition of the estate, which was one of some congestion and in parts one of considerable confusion, required a thorough rearrangement of the razing belonging to the different tenants on the estate. It consisted of farms and of crofter townships. Same of these farms have been broken up to make new settlements of crofters, and a wholesale rearrangement of the pasture and the common grazing of these townships, which could only be carried out gradually and slowly, was necessary. Thus it is that we cannot give totals of some of the items in which the noble Lord is interested.
The answer to Question 1 is £24,773 Os. 2½ d. The answer to Question 2 is that most of the stock was sold at public sales. As to these, particulars are, I believe, obtainable, but I have nut got them before me to-day. In respect of such stock as was sold to the tenants I have this information: 1.630 sheep have been sold at a value of £1,529 to tenants. There is also a further number—a smaller number—of which I have not got the details and in regard to which the arrangements for sale ate not yet completed. It follows that the answer to Question 3 is that I am unable at the present moment to give the total loss on sheep stock, for it cannot be calculated. As to Question 4, the information which I have in regard to the arrears is contained in the published Report. I have no further information with regard to those arrears. I had thought that what the noble Lord wished to know was what arrears there were on the estate when it was purchased—that is to say, what debt we took over when we purchased the estate. That figure is£1773
LORD CLINTON: Is that included in the item of £31,123?
LORD PENTLAND: Part of it only. Part of it has been written off, I think, owing to arrangements made between the different townships. But I should not like to be positive on that point. In regard to arrears, the noble Lord will see there is a able of figures which shows the position of
202
the arrears at the present time. Steps are being taken in accordance with the statement contained in the Report, and I shall be very glad, on a future occasion, to state how the matter stands. In reply to Question 5, on my present information the increase over last year does represent a normal expenditure on repairs. The noble Earl made a reference to the Appendix in the Report. The heading there is "Works" and therefore when I give the noble Lord the figure of the repairs for which he asks in his Question, which is £350, it does not clash necessarily with the information he has taken out of the Report. I think light can be thrown on that by my further answers.
In Question 6 the noble Lord asks how much of the sum mentioned represents rents and how much sinking fund. There is no sinking fund included, but the sum does include rents and sheep stock. At this moment I am not able to give the figures for each of those two separate heads, Finally, the noble Lord asks whether any interest is chargeable and paid upon the capital expended. Loans for buildings, for which the noble Lord will see a sum of £190 included in the Appendix, have recently been given, but the fixed time for the beginning of the repayment has not yet arrived. When it does arrive interest will be payable on those loans in regard to roads and fencing, which are made for the general improvement of the estate; and this, I think, comes under the criticism of free gifts which the noble Lord mentioned. On outlay for those purposes no interest is charged to the tenants, and in regard to the purchase price it also ought to be noted that the rents are crofting rents; the tenants are crofters, and therefore no element of interest, as I understand it, arises. I have given the noble Lord all the in formation I have at the present moment; but, as I have said, I shall be very glad to supplement it later at the noble Lord's instance.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Lord a question with regard to his answer to Question 6? The noble Lord is asked how much of the sum of £46,187 represents rents and how much sinking fund. He says rents are included, but he cannot say how much of that sum is repayment for sheep stock. This is rather unfortunate, because we do not know how to divide the two sums. Observe this, that whatever has been paid in the

203
form of rent is deducted from the capital outlay as if it were a repayment of capital. Surely that. is bad accounting. You have spent a sum of £140,000, you say, and you receive, we will say, £5,000 in rent. Then you put down that as if it is repayment of capital, but surely there ought to be some interest in the form of rent on an expenditure of £140,000. At this rate you have merely to go on receiving rent long enough to extinguish your capital. Surley that, on the face of it, must be wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise only in order to express my hope that the Secretary for Scotland will endeavour to arrange that these accounts, if further accounts of the same kind are to be presented, shall be presented to us in a somewhat more intelligible form than that. which they assume in this Blue-book. I quite admit the intricacy and difficulty of the subject, but I do venture to say that if in some cases, at all events, it had been desired to obscure the real significance of the figures that operation could not have been more successfully achieved. The grouping is an unusual grouping—a grouping with which, I venture to say, no one who is in the habit of studying State accounts is at all familiar. and the constant addition of that comprehensive little symbol "& c." renders them more confusing still. You have in the Return relating to Vatersay a heading "Net general expenditure," which, as the noble Lord admitted, contains a considerable sum on account of loss on sheep stock, although the very next item is a separate one for loss on sheep stock. I venture to think that if your Lordships were to fill up some of those Returns which many of us are receiving from the Somerset House authorities at this time in an equally perplexing and ambiguous manner, we should be emphatically reminded that we were not performing the duties of citizenship as they should be performed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to make one suggestion. Unlike some of my noble friends on this side of the House, I have been through the mill of making this very Report in earlier days when it was not so large and comprehensive, and the suggestion I want to make touches the real point of whether these experiments are going to be successful or not. I was responsible for the purchase and for the divisions of three only of the groups of holdings mentioned in this Report—Syre,
204
Barra, and Sollas and Grenitote. I should like to know how they are going on at the present time. Are the arrears accumulating? Because that is, to my mind, the crucial point in judging whether this policy is going to be successful or not.
On such items as sheep valuation, those connected with Scotland knowing the difficulties must expect that there will he a less on taking over sheep stock and re-selling it in these days. There must be capital expenditure on new buildings; there must be grants for roads and bridges, and so on. What I think is of importance is that we should know, first of all, what the amounts of those are in the case of each of the estates, and we must regard that as sunk money for the purpose of giving the experiment a fair chance. I am most anxious to see the schedule of payments by those who are now holding. They enter into obligations to pay so much in rent, so much in sinking fund, and so much for return on their buildings, and I would like to see how these people are getting on. Are they year by year accumulating arrears, or are they, taking one year with another, meeting their obligations? There is no information in these documents which on a comprehensive scale shows what these tenants are doing.
Take the case of Syre, the individual holdings of which are larger than any other. It is in one of the most favourable districts. It was an estate bought from the Duke of Sutherland, and it was distributed into somewhat larger holdings than the others. That has been going on now for ten or eleven years, and it would be useful if we could see a schedule for each year of what these individual tenants have done. The difficulty of the circumstance is this, that there may be some successful and some may fail. There may be difficulties with regard to individuals which have to be carefully considered. I never would be desirous of pressing a man unduly if there had been disease in his stock, or if he had had a bad year through any particular cause. But if it be the case that over all the estates, one year with another, the practice has grown up of arrears accumulating and no steps being taken, you are going on a course which cannot be justified from public policy, for the essential thing is that these people should be taught that if they enter into obligations they must be made to pay or to suffer. If you do not do that, you put a premium on recalcitrancy, and you eventually sap the

205
independence of these people and the possibility of the experiment being successful. Therefore I should like to see an amended account taking a few of the older estates, and I think we ought to have a progressive account with individual names, or at any rate individual holdings ought to be capable of being identified, to see what proportion of these people are meeting their obligations and what proportion are not.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I frankly say that I agree entirely with what has fallen from the noble Lord. What. he has said correctly describes the policy of the Board in regard, not only to the tenants who have arrears, but to the much larger majority of the tenants who have no arrears. I have not got the details of the various estates with me on this occasion, or I would willingly give the information. There are 500 tenants on one estate, and there are ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty on other estates. I did not know the information would be sought for, and if t here had been a hint in the Questions on the Paper that a general discussion was invited I should have endeavoured to be ready to meet it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: There has been no general discussion.
LORD PENTLAND: No; the noble Earl prefers that a general discussion should be avoided. It is true that this settlement does require mercy, and the consideration which Lord Balfour suggests should be shown to enable these people to get over the first difficulties of bringing ground under cultivation in some cases and of making a home for themselves. But after that, in the case of men who arc really not doing their best to meet their obligations, your Lordships may be sure that the policy of the Board is not to allow to occur what the noble Lord fears—namely, a leniency which would sap that independence and self-reliance which the Government should encourage in these men.
May I say one word in respectful protest of the intervention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this matter? He has lent the weight of his great authority to practically a censure on my Department. He has complained of the form in which the accounts have been presented to Parliament, and he has, as I say, lent the
206
weight of his authority to criticisms which, with the greatest respect, I think have really not been deserved. These accounts, as the noble Marquess will see if he examines the Return, do not profess to be complete accounts. They are simply a brief summary of expenditure under each property which is administered by the Board. They have never professed to be complete accounts and to put before Parliament the 'details of management, profit and loss, capital and current account, and so forth. The form of the accounts has not been altered by me since I have been responsible for the Department. It has remained the same from the inception, and has not been questioned, I think, until to-day. I venture mildly to protest against the criticism of the noble Marquess for this further reason, that he seemed to imply that I wished to shelter—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think I did.
LORD PENTLAND: I am quite sure it is the last thing the noble Marquess meant, but he suggested that I was not willing to give the fullest information to your Lordships in this matter. He suggested that the form of the accounts was not calculated to make obvious all the information which it was desirable that Parliament should have. I can assure him that any representations which come from any quarter of this House desiring an amendment of the form of the accounts or fuller information concerning them will be welcomed. It is all to the good that your Lordships should take an interest, if I may say so, in what is going on in Scotland in this matter, and there will be no one more ready than myself to meet criticism, however severe.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only wish to say that I had no idea of censuring the Department presided over by the noble Lord, and I do not think I used the particular expression which lie attributed to me. My friends behind me confirm that view. But, as a matter of fact, these accounts did come before the House in a shape which fairly puzzled some extremely businesslike and acute critics who sit behind me, and I ventured to express my regret that they should not be presented in a form more intelligible. That was the beginning and end of my criticism.

THE BREEDING OF LIGHT HORSES.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the amount of the grant that may be expected from the Development Fund for the purpose of encouraging the breeding of light horses. I hardly expect that the noble Earl will be able to give this information, but I wish to bring the matter forward as I consider it one of urgency. Towards the end of last year the Hunters Improvement Society—this society and the Hackney Society are the two most influential societies which interest themselves in horse-breeding in this country—appointed a very strong committee, who spent a lot of time and went very carefully into the question of horse-breeding with a view of bringing out some scheme. In the late spring or early summer of this year they presented a report to the council, who ordered if to be printed, and I think a copy of that report was sent to each of your Lordships. I do not intend now to go into the merits of that scheme, beyond saying that I believe it is accepted on all hands as being an excellent and practical one. The noble Earl has told us that he also has a scheme ready, and I can only hope that his scheme, if not identical in detail with that of the Hunters Improvement Society, is at all events on the same lines. But whatever scheme is going to be put into operation, unless something is done very soon the whole of a valuable year will be wasted. Any scheme which includes the registration and examination of stallions, the registration and possible purchase of brood mares, in addition also to the appointment of committees, will take a long time to bring into operation, and it is essential, if it is to be brought into operation this year, that something should be done without delay. The noble Earl will probably tell me that he can do nothing himself, and that he is entirely in the hands of the Development Commissioners. I believe the Development Commissioners, who were appointed in April last, have not yet held a meeting. I do not know if the reason for this is that the Vice-Chairman, Sir Francis Hopwood, cannot be spared from his duties at the Colonial Office. However that may be, I am anxious to point out the necessity of getting some scheme into operation unless another year is to be wasted. I trust that if the noble Earl cannot answer my Question he will at least be able to
208
inform your Lordships that something is going to be done in this matter at an early date, and I hope he will use his influence in that direction.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I need hardly assure the noble Lord opposite that the Board of Agriculture are quite as anxious to bring this matter to a head as he is himself. I am also pleased to think that the able recommendation of the Hunters Improvement Society runs very much on all fours with the scheme that the Board of Agriculture have in view, and which I had the honour some time ago of explaining to your Lordships. I think we can congratulate ourselves that we have the entire sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There never was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in my recollection who was more sympathetic with the claims of agriculture. He has for the first time given us a grant of a quarter of a million towards the claims of the industry that I have the honour to represent. The Board are in close communication with the Development Commissioners, and I hope that it will not be very long before we shall come to some practical and satisfactory result. At the same time 1 think the noble Lord opposite will agree with me that it would be hardly fair on the Treasury or on the Development Commissioners that I should state at this moment what the exact sum is that I have asked the Development Commissioners for. I hope he will be satisfied with this answer, and with the assurance that nothing will be left undone so far as my Department is concerned to bring the horse supply of the country to a satisfactory position.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, we have always recognised the anxiety of the noble Earl to do something in this important matter, but I think we really have shown the patience of saints and it is time we began to ask for a little more definite progress. The noble Earl will, I am sure, remember that this matter crystallised at a meeting which he called at the Board of Agriculture at the beginning of 1906, when we were definitely asked to produce a scheme for the Government to see. That scheme has been produced, and the Government told us last year that they, too, had a scheme. I cannot help expressing my disappointment that the noble Earl the President of the Board

209
has not been able to answer the Question of my noble friend behind me, because, after all, this matter is urgent, and obviously it is desirable that some start should be made this summer. We who know the details of the Hunters Improvement Society's scheme know it to be an excellent one. The noble Earl tells us that in principle his scheme agrees with the scheme of the Hunters Improvement Society. I confess 1 should not have thought it unreasonable to ask that we should know at once the definite sum the Government propose to give to this definite service. If the noble Earl says he cannot give it, we cannot press for it; but I do seriously hope that progress may be made in the very early future, not progress in obtaining the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which we know we have got, but progress in seeing the colour of his money. I hope that at any rate before the adjournment for the recess the noble Earl may be able to tell us what sum may be expected for this import ant service.

SANDRAY.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether all the transactions referred to in the Report of the Congested Districts Board as completed were completed within the period covered by the Report, viz., before 31st March, 1910. I may say that I refer specially to the Island of Sandray.
LORD PENTLAND: So far as I am aware, that is so. I am sorry I did not know that the noble Lord referred specially to the Island of Sandray. If I had known that, I would have inquired and made certain on that point.. But so far as I am aware the Report carries the narrative down to March 31.
LORD SALTOUN: Perhaps the noble Lord will look into the point as regards the Island of Sandray.
LORD PENTLAND: I will.

THE TERRITORIAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE THE EARL OF STRADBROKE rose to ask the Under-Secretary for War "whether be can give the date at which guns will be supplied to the Territorial Field Artillery to complete their proper number; also, if the guns for the Territorial Field Artillery will be supplied with dial sights
210
in place of the wooden arc sights, and, if so, when."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper in the hope that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity of telling us when the guns still required for the Territorial Artillery will be delivered. The howitzer brigades have only received about half the full number of guns. Naturally these brigades are becoming somewhat disheartened, as this will be the third training they have been called upon to carry through with only half their number of guns. The Territorial Artillery has come in for a good deal of criticism, and I, for one, do not regret it at all, because I feel that these criticisms are all made with a view to improving the present state of affairs. But I think the first thing to be done is to provide the Territorial Artillery with the necessary guns to make up their full complement. Those who had experience of the Volunteer Artillery will not dare to hope that the Territorial Artillery will be armed with any more modern guns than the latest cast off from the Regulars. The howitzer brigades are now waiting for the guns to be discarded by the Regulars. That brings out this other point, that while all the Territorial howitzer brigades are short of guns, a corresponding number of Regular batteries are armed with guns which in military circles are considered obsolete. Why there has been this long delay in supplying the howitzer guns I do not know, unless it is that the orders for the new howitzers for the Regulars have only recently been given, or that the guns cannot be turned out in a reasonable time.
I hope the noble Lord will also be able to say that the Territorial Artillery will be provided with dial sights in place of the old wooden arc sights, which are inconvenient and tend to make practice in artillery very slow. There is truth in the criticism that the Territorial Artillery are slow. The officers do not have the opportunities that officers in the Regulars have of observation of gun practice, and the horses they have to handle are practically unbroken for the work they have to do. Those are big difficulties that have to be faced. The matter of providing dial sights for the Artillery is not a large item, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a favourable answer to that part of my Question and also to the former part.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the unfortunate delay in issuing the full number of guns to the Territorial howitzer batteries is due to the fact that they are waiting for the guns which are at present in use by the Regular Artillery, and which are about to be replaced by the new howitzers. The issue of the new howitzers to the Regular Artillery will begin next month, and as those guns are issued the Regulars will give up their present guns and they will be sent without delay to the Territorial batteries. I am glad to say that there is no Territorial battery with less than two guns, and four batteries have their full complement of four guns. To the same cause is due the fact that the dial sights have not been issued to the Territorial Field Artillery. We intend to issue proper dial sights to them, and the wooden ones they are at present using are only intended to be used until we can issue to them the dial sights at present being used by the Regulars. I hope that before very long the Regular Artillery will be provided with new dial sights, and as soon as that is accomplished the dial sights which they are now using will be handed over to the Territorials. There is always an amount of uncertainty in connection with the manufacture of fine and exceedingly complicated mechanism, and I cannot give the noble Earl any answer as to the actual date when these sights will be delivered. But I can assure him that there will be no delay which can possibly be avoided in equipping the Territorial Artillery in this direction.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in making the Motion which stands in my name I am sure I shall be expressing the feeling of all your Lordships in stating the
212
regret which I feel that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has been ordered, under medical advice, to go abroad before the end of the session. We all hope he will return entirely restored to carry on his important and arduous duties. In the meantime we shall all be pleased to think that those duties are entrusted to one so competent and so experienced as the noble Lord who sits opposite.
Moved, That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of this session in the absence of the Earl of Onslow; that the Lord Balfour do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Balfour do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Clydebank and District Water —Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 105.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Three o'clock.