Sitting of 22 July 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
London Electric Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lanark County Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
North Killingholme Pier Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

BISHOP'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Bishop's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]

LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of General Rules for the Management of the Renfrew District Asylum, Dykebar [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 22nd August, 1911; Mr. Brady]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF WOLVERHAMPTON).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Wolverhampton redividing the parish of Coseley into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4,919, 4,923, and 4,951 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 17, 1912).
Copy presented of Treaty of Commerce between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Bolivia. Signed at La Paz, 1st August, 1911 (Ratifications exchanged at London, 5th July, 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC SERVICES (CONDITIONS OF ENTRY) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 9, 1912).
Copy presented of Return showing the Conditions of Entry into the Austro-Hungarian, German, Italian, and Russian Diplomatic Services and Foreign Offices, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
Copy presented of Twenty-first General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 283 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-first Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1911–12. Part I. Administration of the Poor Law; the Unemployed Workmen Act; and the Old Age Pensions Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1910–11. Part V. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Official Representations by the British Medical Association regarding the Administration of Medical Benefit and the reply of the Joint Committee thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13).
Estimate presented of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 269.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Manchuria and Mongolia.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received information of the signing of a Treaty or Agreement between Japan and Russia relating to Manchuria and Mongolia; and, if so, whether he can make any statement regarding its contents?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no information to give on this subject; the question is one that could only be answered by the two Governments concerned.
  Sir H. NORMAN: Is my hon. Friend not aware there have been many weighty statements in the foreign Press during the last few days and may we not hope the Foreign Office will have something to tell us about it?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will communicate my hon. Friend's desire to the Secretary of State.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether in this Agreement British interests in Tibet will be taken into consideration?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Agreement is between Russia and Japan, and I do not think the question of British interests in Tibet will come in there.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Mr. HERBERTasked whether, in view of Great Britain's traditional friendship with Italy and of her good relations with and interests in the Ottoman Empire, and in view of the changed situation in Turkey, His Majesty's Government will consider the immediate advisability of offering its good offices to both belligerents in order that the war between Italy and Turkey may be terminated?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government are, and have always been, ready to co-operate with other Powers in anything that is likely to facilitate a settlement between Italy and Turkey. Good offices are only useful when offered on an intimation that they will be acceptable to both parties.
  Mr. HERBERT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the abrogation of the Capitulations or part of the Capitulations would not serve as a basis for negotiations?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put that question on the Paper.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that during August, September, and October, hundreds of thousands of sheep and lambs are purchased for the feeding districts of England at sales in the auction marts of Hawick, Saint Boswells,

  775
  Newcastleton, and other places in the county of Roxburgh and the adjoining Lowland counties in ordinary years, but that the restrictions recently imposed to stop the movement of stock out of the county, except for slaughter, are interfering with this part of agricultural trade by stopping the coming of buyers; and whether, in localities where there is a clean bill of health, he can see his way to abolishing or modifying the restrictive Orders so as to promote buying and selling at the marts between Scottish breeder and English feeder farmers?
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether foot-and-mouth disease had been completely stamped out in Scotland, and if the time has arrived for abolishing the present restrictions upon the movements of cattle, etc., in that country as well as into England; and whether he was aware that at this season special sales of lambs take place in the south of Scotland, and that under existing restrictions it would be impossible for English buyers to attend these sales and remove the stock purchased to England, thus causing loss to the farmers of Scotland?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): None of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Scotland, and, so far as the Orders of the Board are concerned, animals may be moved quite freely from Scotland into England with the exception, of course, of those scheduled areas into which movement is entirely prohibited. Some misapprehension appears to have arisen on the subject, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of correcting it.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether any fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred anywhere in Great Britain during the last three days; whether, in the case of the outbreaks in Surrey and Leicestershire, which were not traceable directly or indirectly to Ireland, the origin has been discovered or is suspected; and whether any foodstuffs or litter from the Continent have been found on any of the infected premises?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On Thursday last two outbreaks of the disease occurred, one at Dewsbury, in the West Riding scheduled area, and another at Great
  776
  Bowden, Leicestershire, amongst animals in a field adjacent to one of the fields in which the disease was discovered on the 14th instant. On Saturday, the animals on a third farm at Great Bowden were discovered to be affected. Both the Leicestershire outbreaks are, of course, in the scheduled area. The total number of outbreaks is now forty-nine. The reply to the other inquiries of the hon. Member is in the negative.

  International North Sea Investigation Committee.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the date and the terms of reference submitted to the International North Sea Investigation Committee; what investigations have been undertaken by the other Powers party to the international arrangement, and if there are any Reports and translations of such proceedings and if such Reports have been duly considered by his Department; whether the International North Sea Investigation Committee have made any Report on illegal trawling in inshore waters and consequent destruction of spawning beds, and if the committee has made any practical suggestions for international preservation of fishing-grounds and the prevention of the wholesale destruction of immature fish; and if he can approximately set forth the cost to the United Kingdom of the proceedings of the International North Sea Investigation Committee and also the cost borne by other countries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The first meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea took place in July, 1902. No formal reference was made to the council, which determines its own programme of work. It would not be possible, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, to give an account of the investigations undertaken, severally or in co-operation, by the Powers which are represented on the council. A general account of the work will be found in the Reports of the British delegates, the last of which was published in the year 1910 (Cd. 5032). The council publish periodically reports of their proceedings, and special bulletins in English and German. I am considering the desirability of publishing a short bibliography of the work of the council for the information of persons interested. The Board's staff keep themselves closely informed of the researches conducted by other countries. The answer to the third

  777
  part of the question is in the negative; but the council have this year undertaken investigations with regard to the possible destruction of immature fish by the modern method of trawling for herring. The sums voted by Parliament for the international investigations during the current financial year amount to £14,486. It is not possible to give similar information as to the expenditure incurred in other countries.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether the investigation of the Scotch branch of this committee are taken separately or in conjunction with the English branch?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not give an answer without notice, but I believe they have been acting in collaboration.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the next Report is due?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will communicate with the International Committee, but they make their Report in their own way.

  Taxation of Land.
  Mr. SANDERSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (9) whether his attention has been called to the advocacy at by-elections by certain Members of this House of the imposition of further burdens on land; and whether the Board is prepared to sanction further expenditure by county councils on the purchase of land for small holdings, in view of the depreciation in the value of their security that would be caused were such policy carried out; and (10) whether the Board will warn county councils of the danger of further advances under Clause 19 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, in view of the risk of depreciation in land which would be caused were the policy advocated by certain Members of this House at recent by-elections to be carried into effect?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what speeches the hon. Member refers to, but I see no necessity whatever for the issue of any such warning as he suggests to county councils or to make any change in the practice of the Board with regard to expenditure by county councils on the purchase of land for small holdings.
  Mr. SANDERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of the question is what is colloquially termed "mere eyewash"?

  Scottish Agriculture (Leaflets).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that it was not deemed expedient to hand over to the Scottish Board of Agriculture certain important matters dealing with agriculture, he will distribute to the county councils of Scotland for distribution such leaflets as may be published by the Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Arrangements have been made by which copies of the Board's leaflets will be supplied to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for distribution in that country.

  Higher Agricultural Education (Wiltshire).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, is situate less than two miles from the boundary of Wiltshire, and that it is a journey of several hours from most parts of the latter county into Berkshire, and of less than half an hour from its western part to Bristol University, he will refrain from making Reading the collegiate centre for the purposes of higher agricultural education in Wiltshire?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to meet and confer with representatives of Wiltshire at Bristol on Thursday, the 25th instant, with a view to ascertain their wishes in the matter.

  British Museum (Works Contract).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will now state the reasons which influenced the Office of Works to permit the contractors for the marble work in connection with the British Museum to sublet part of the contract abroad?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): In sanctioning the subletting of a small portion of the marble work at the British Museum Extension, the Office of Works were influenced principally by the facts that such subletting is customary in the trade, and that the work in question can be executed more conveniently abroad.

  Government Building Contracts.
  Mr. POINTERasked whether, in view of the fact that the maintenance and repair work on the various Government buildings is more or less of a regular character, and that in many cases the same workmen have performed the work for years although contracts have changed hands, further consideration will be given to the advisability of employing these workmen direct and thus save the profits of contractors?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Long and earnest consideration has already been given to the question of the advisability of employing direct the workmen referred to in the question. Where it is found desirable, workmen are employed direct by the Department, but generally it is found that the employment of workmen through contractors under the present system is more efficient and economical.

  Admiralty Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. BARNESasked the result of the inquiry into the complaints laid against Messrs. Bow and M'Lauchlan, Paisley, with respect to their treatment of trade unionists?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th June, the inquiries which have been made failed to disclose any breach of the Fair-Wages Clause in the matter of overtime, and the rates paid for overtime.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the result of the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair-Wages Clause by the North British Rubber Company and the Victoria Rubber Company?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The inquiry is still proceeding. We are in communication both with the firms and with the trade union secretaries concerned. I may add that part of the work referred to appears to be for Army and not for Navy supplies.

  Rosyth Dock Works.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the number of men at present employed on the Government works at Rosyth docks; and what are the arrangements as to hospital accommodation in case of accident?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr Lambert): The number of workmen at present employed on the Rosyth works is as follows:—

  Contractors' men (day shift)

  1,596

  Contractors' men (night shift)

  863

  Admiralty workmen, employed departmentally (day shift only)

  233

  2,692

  It would be difficult, within the limits of an oral answer, to give the information asked for in the second part of the question; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see me, I will explain to him the hospital arrangements in vogue for dealing with accidents at these works.
  Mr. REMNANT: Have the Government a local resident surgeon at these works?
  Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir, but the contractors have.
  Mr. REMNANT: Has not the Secretary to the Admiralty stated on more than one occasion that they were appointing a surgeon to represent the Admiralty?

  Employment of Retired Admiralty Officials.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any regulations are in force, and, if so, what regulations, regarding the acceptance of directorships or other posts in warship building and armament manufacturing firms by officers leaving confidential positions in the naval service; whether such officers are permitted to enter into negotiations for such posts while still occupying such positions; whether such officers receive naval pensions while filling such posts; if so, what is the pension of Sir Charles Ottley, recently secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, now managing director of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company; and if he will furnish a list of naval officers of high rank who have joined warship building and armament manufacturing companies during the last ten years, showing their rank, what companies they have joined, and the amount of their pensions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In reply to the first part of the question, there are no regulations. The reply to the second and third parts is in the affirmative. The reply to the fourth part is £500 a year retired pay. With regard to the last part of the question, the Admiralty has no official cognizance of the matters referred to.

  Devonport Dockyard (Shipwrights).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a large number of shipwrights have left Devonport Dockyard during the last two months; and can he give the number, and say for what reason the men have left?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Since the 13th May, twenty-one shipwrights have left Devonport Dockyard for the following reasons:—Fourteen at their own request, two have been pensioned, two invalided, one transferred to Pembroke, one discharged en account of being a deserter, one discharged for losing time. Further, three shipwrights have died during the period in question. The total number of shipwrights engaged in the yard during the two months is, on an average, about 2,300.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently an advertisement was issued by the Labour Exchange for shipwrights for the dockyard?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It may be so; there is a good deal of demand for shipwrights in private yards as well?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Member aware these shipwrights left because the dockyard wages were so low?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said fourteen had left at their own request. I was not asked the reason why. No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity to raise this question later on.
  Sir KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the reason?

  Trades Boards Acts (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the minimum wage for men and women in the tailoring trade under the Trades Boards Act will be enforced in Ireland; whether a Trade Board for Ireland has yet been organised; and whether there are any reasons for enforcing against manufacturers in Great Britain Regulations which are not brought into force against their competitors in Ireland?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): As I indicated on 19th March, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Limerick City, the formation of a Board for the tailoring
  782
  trade in Ireland was delayed pending a decision on the question of extending the scope of the Tailoring Board in Great Britain as it appeared desirable that the scope of the Irish Board should be similar. New Regulations as to the constitution of the Irish Tailoring Board were signed on 3rd July, and have been laid before Parliament. Arrangements are now being made for the election of the representative members of the Board.

  Pilotage Charges (Great Britain and France).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex? 1. [Mr. Rupert Gwynne,—Pilotage Charges (Great Britain and France),—Return showing the amounts paid by French vessels entering ports in Great Britain and Ireland during the years 1900 to 1910, respectively; also the amounts paid by English vessels entering French ports during the same period.]
  Mr. BUXTON: The compilation of such a return would be laborious, and I do not know whether the latter part is obtainable. In these circumstances I do not think its preparation could be justified.

  London Port Authority (Dockyard Workers' Wages).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the lowest wage guaranteed to a dockyard worker of the ordinary labourer class employed by the Port Authority of London, and what amount can the same labourer earn per week under the system of plus?
  Mr. BUXTON: The guaranteed pay of an ordinary dock labourer is 7d. per hour between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., and 9d. per hour between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. No man is paid off with less than four hours' day or night pay. If a labourer did a full week's work without overtime, his earnings would be 28s. This amount can be considerably increased on piecework, but no statistics exist as to the possible earnings of men so employed.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ordinary labourers in Government dockyards are paid 21s. a week?
  Mr. BUXTON: They are not under the Board of Trade.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: They are not.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Did the right hon. Gentleman get his information from the Port of London Authority?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I should have said that I applied to the Port of London Authority for it.

  Loss of Steamship "Oceana" (Owners' Liability).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether, in view of the findings on the inquiry into the loss of the "Oceana" of gross negligence on the part of some of the officers, the Government will take steps to alter the law by removing the limitation of the liability of owners in such cases, so that the pecuniary responsibility may add an additional spur to the moral responsibility of the owners to improve the system adopted for the prevention of accidents and the saving of life if accident occurs?
  Mr. BUXTON: The statutory limitation of the liability of the owner of a British ship extends only to loss or damage happening without his actual fault or privity. As at present advised, I am not proposing to introduce legislation in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.

  Crown Lands (Contracts for Sale).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct that in future all provisional contracts for the sale of Crown Lands under the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 and 1833, shall be laid upon the Table of the House before the issue of a warrant?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I shall be glad to consider any special case which the hon. Member may have in mind. I am not aware of any sufficient reason for the change suggested.

  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the only agricultural land in Ireland in respect of which the fixed charges are already known is the land sold under the Land Purchase Acts, comprising rather less than one-half of the whole; and whether, in view of this fact, it will be possible for the Commissioner of Valuation to ascertain the assessable site value and total value of agricultural land without an issue of Form IV. to owners of such hereditaments?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, in cases where fixed charges have not been deducted in arriving at assessable site value and total value the valuations can be corrected on the owner pointing out the need for such correction within sixty days of the issue of the provisional valuation.
  Mr. NEWMAN: In that case, is it the duty of the owner to give the information?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The duty of the owner, if he thinks the provisional valuation is not a fair valuation, is to appeal against it.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Is he not going to have Form IV.; will he get the provisional valuation without Form IV.?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In some eases Form IV. has been served; in other cases it has not been necessary.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Is it in the cases of Nationalists that it has not been considered necessary?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No; it is mainly a question between town and country.
  Mr. NEWMANasked, in respect of towns and all land in rural districts in Ireland, as well as agricultural land, how the total and assessable site values can be set out as prescribed by statute unless the existence or non-existence of fixed charges has been previously ascertained and, where they exist, their amounts; and how this information can be obtained unless by the issue and receipt of Form IV.?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The only agricultural land in respect of which there is official information as to fixed charges is that sold or being sold under the Land Purchase Acts. In the case of other land information as to fixed charges could be obtained from the landlord in the manner indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's last question.

  Land Law Reform.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister the relationship of the Committee appointed by the Welsh parliamentary party to the Committee of Inquiry over which Mr. Arthur Acland is presiding; and whether it is proposed to set up a committee to deal with Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have no knowledge of this Committee nor of their relationship, if any, to the

  785
  Committee of Inquiry referred to. I am not aware of any proposal to set up a Committee to deal with Scotland.

  Government Stock (Great Britain and Germany).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering the depression in the market value of the Government stock of Great Britain and Germany, the two principal commercial Powers in Europe, and further considering that such stock is of lower value than that of other European Powers of inferior wealth, he would be prepared to propose to the German Government a joint commission to investigate the causes and to suggest remedies with a view to common action in placing the respective national securities on a sounder footing?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such a proposal.

  Putamayo District, Peru (Rubber Collectors).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister why the Blue Book containing a description of the cruelty to British coloured subjects and native Indians employed in the collection of rubber in the Putmayo district was not published until after the discussion on the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office Votes; and whether he will now give the House the opportunity of discussing the whole question of indentured British labour?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will refer to the communications with the United States Government, published in the Blue Book, he will see why it was undesirable to publish it sooner. The matter referred to in the second paragraph can be discussed, if desired, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  Representation of North-West Manchester.
  Viscount WOLMERhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. Member for North-West Manchester has applied for the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or any similar position; and whether the appointment has been made and, if not, when it will be made?
  I beg leave to postpone this question.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer it at once. The answer is in the negative.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    COMMITTEE ON IRISH FINANCE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister (51) whether he has received the further memorial signed by Members of this House asking him to approach those witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance for their consent to the publication of that portion of the evidence in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was made or is now insisted upon; (52) whether he will inform the House how many signatures of Members of this House were attached to the first memorial asking him to approach those witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance for their consent to the publication of that portion of the evidence in respect of which no pledge of secrecy was made or is now insisted upon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have received the additional memorial. To the first memorial 161 signatures were attached.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What course does the Prime Minister propose to take in regard to the request embodied in the second memorial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The conditions I laid down have not yet been satisfied.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many signatures he will require?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say the precise number, but such as indicates a general desire on the part of the House.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over fifty Members on his own side of the House signed the second memorial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I dare say that is so, but it does not affect my answer at all.

    Port of London (Strike).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked what steps the Government intend taking to bring to a speedy conclusion the present dispute in the transport industry of the Port London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have during the last ten days done what we could to bring about the first step towards a settlement, namely, the meeting of persons who could speak for both parties to the dispute. We understand that interviews have followed which up to the present have not led to any definite result.

    787
    There appears to be no further step which at the moment the Government can usefully take.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Has the Board of Trade issued any instructions to its representatives upon the Port Authority to protest against the casualising of labour and the congestion in the Port, and to insist upon a meeting between the men on strike and the Port Authority?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That ought to be addressed to the Board of Trade. I know nothing of that.
    Mr. O'GRADY: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the Prime Minister aware that the re-export trade of the Port of London is being lost; that the re-exports went down £3,000,000 last month; that this class of trade, once it is lost, is not easily regained; and, in view of these facts, will he direct the attention of the Port Authority to the grave responsibility they are undertaking in refusing to meet the men?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully alive to all the aspects, and they are very grave, of this dispute. I can do no more than I have done.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Ben Tillett on 10th July in Southwark Park that arrangements would be made for the dock strikers to be provided with revolvers; and if he proposes to take any steps to prevent further incendiary speeches by this person?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have seen no shorthand report of the speech referred to, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the statement made by Mr. Ben Tillett was not as given by the hon. Member, and no action on my part appears to be called for in respect of it.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to an assault in Gravel Lane, on 1st July, by a number of dock strike pickets on a labourer, partially blind, who had obtained a job after a long period of unemploy-
    788
    ment; if he can state whether there were any circumstances justifying this attack on a man working to keep his family from starvation; and if he will take steps to increase the police available in the district for the protection of men desiring to work?
    Mr. McKENNA: Nothing is known of any assault in Gravel Lane on 1st July. On the evening of the 3rd, however, a man complained to the police that he had been attacked by four men, whom he could not identify, struck on the eye and kicked. Had he raised an alarm when he was attacked, the assailants would probably have been caught. He was escorted on his way by police, and was ultimately treated at the London Hospital as an out-patient for contused eye and shock. Ample police arrangements are made in this neighbourhood, and assistance is promptly rendered whenever and wherever it is called for.

    Light Railways Bill.
    Mr. MUNROasked the Prime Minister whether, looking to the fact that the Light Railways Bill was reported to this House on 15th May, and that its early passage into law is urgently desired, he will provide facilities for the further stages of the Bill before the Autumn Adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the desirability of the early passage into law of the Bill referred to, but I am not sure whether it can be taken before the Autumn Adjournment.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not at least one, railway in the North of Scotland, which has the support of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture, being delayed by the non-passing of this Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of that. I am very anxious that the Bill should pass.

    Stationery Printing Office (Cardiff).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a Government stationery printing office in Cardiff on the same lines as those in Edinburgh and Dublin?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are branch offices of the Stationery Office in Edinburgh and Dublin, but no Government printing office, as Government printing is done by contract. I am not aware that there is any need for a branch of the Stationery Office in Cardiff.

    Popular Lectures (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the great success attending the lectures at the Royal Museum, Edinburgh, he can see his way to arrange for a series of popular lectures at the National Picture Gallery during the summer evenings or on Saturday afternoons, with a view to increasing the public knowledge of and interest in art?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am in communication with the board of trustees of the National Galleries for Scotland with reference to the suggestion of my hon. Friend. There is, of course, considerable difference between the lectures at the Royal Museum, which were given on winter evenings, and those which are suggested for the National Gallery on summer evenings or Saturday afternoons.

    St. Andrew's, Anstruther and Pittenweem Harbours.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the results of the applications for Grants from the Development Commissioners for the Harbours of St. Andrew's, Anstruther, and Pittenweem?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The report of the engineer who was asked to visit these harbours on behalf of the Government is expected very shortly. Until it is received I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to St. Andrews?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I cannot say until I get the Report.

    Custodian of the Rolls (Scotland).
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked if any person has been yet appointed as Custodian of the Rolls to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland; and, if so, what is his name and profession, and has he ever held any party political position; and, if so, what?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Presumably the appointment referred to by the Noble Lord is that of Mr. Duncan MacTavish, who has been appointed to a clerkship by the Land Court, with the special duty of keeping the Rolls of the Court. I am in-
    790
    formed by the Land Court, who are responsible for the appointment, that Mr. MacTavish had a legal training and possesses considerable agricultural knowledge. I understand that he was Chairman of the Inverness-shire Liberal Association.

    Notification of Births.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the names of the authorities that have adopted the Notification of Births Act; and if he can state the general result of the adoption of the Act?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Act is now in operation in 295 sanitary areas, in addition to those within the County of London, and applies to a population of 18,430,191, or more than half of the total population of England and Wales. The reports of medical officers of health who have had experience of the operation of the Act indicate that it has led to a better knowledge and wider adoption of proper rules in regard to infant and child hygiene. I will send the hon. Member a list giving the names of the several authorities who have adopted the Act.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the time has not arrived when this Act might be made compulsory on sanitary authorities?
    Mr. BURNS: We are considering that.

    London Street Traffic (Motor-Horns).
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the use of motor-horns in London, especially by taxi-cabs; and, seeing that in consequence of the number of horns sounded safety to life and limb is thereby endangered, rather than protected, owing to the confusion of sounds, whether he will take steps, by issuing recommendations to owners and drivers of taxi-cabs that motor-horns should only be used when necessary, to mitigate the public nuisance and the menace to public safety?
    Mr. BURNS: The Commissioner of Police has recently issued a circular notice on this subject, which has been widely distributed, calling upon all owners and drivers of motor vehicles to do all in their power to reduce the annoyance caused by the excessive use of motor-horns and other noisy devices.
    Captain MURRAY: Would not the case be met by giving facilities for the Bill standing in my name?
    Mr. BURNS: I will consider that.

    Measles (School Children, North London).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a prosecution in North London, before Mr. Hedderwick, by which it appears that it is usual to insist on children who had had measles returning to school in spite of the fact that other children in the same house were still ill of that disease; and, seeing that this must prove a common cause of epidemic, whether he will consider what steps he can take to remedy the evil without delay?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): My attention has been called to the prosecution referred to. I am advised that there is no ground for believing that the practice of requiring the attendance at school of children who have had measles and come from houses where there are other children suffering from the disease is a common cause of the spread of infection. Though the exclusion of such children may be desirable as an additional precaution in exceptional cases of serious epidemic, I am advised that it is not necessary in ordinary cases.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the whole subject?
    Mr. PEASE: We had the full facts before us in connection with this matter.

    Sanatoria (Wiltshire).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what will be the difference in Wiltshire between the amount for capital expenditure on sanatoria on the basis of population recommended by the Astor Report and the amount that will actually be available for that purpose?
    Mr. BURNS: If sanatorium provision were made for Wiltshire on the basis recommended in the Astor Report of one bed for every 5,000 inhabitants, it would amount to fifty-seven or fifty-eight beds. Adopting the estimate of cost of £150 per bed, which is suggested in the Astor Report, the total cost would amount to about £8,600; and, if a Grant of three-fifths of
    792
    this sum were given, it would amount to £5,160. The actual Grant which may be made must depend upon various circumstances: amongst others, the capital expenditure required for other parts of a complete scheme, namely, the provision of dispensaries, hospitals, and separate institutions for children.

    Vaccination (Hackney Union).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the guardians of the Hackney Union instructed their clerk to send a letter, dated the 21st May last, to the public vaccinators of that union with regard to the transmission of certificates of successful vaccination of children born in other districts; whether it is the duty of a vaccination officer for the district where a child is vaccinated to transmit a copy of the certificate to the vaccination officer for the district where the child was born; if so, what action does he propose to take with regard to the letter of the 21st May; whether, in consequence of the letter sent by the Local Government Board to the guardians of the Hackney Union on the 8th February last, the National Vaccination Officers' Association wrote to the Local Government Board on the 28th February; whether, on the 26th June, the Local Government Board informed that association that they cannot undertake to discuss with them the matter to which they referred; and, if so, what action the Local Government Board are taking, or intend to take, in the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: I have no knowledge of the letter addressed by the guardians to their public vaccinators on the 21st May. The Vaccination Acts make it the duty of a public vaccinator to send the certificate of any successful vaccination he has performed to the vaccination officer of the district in which the birth was registered, or, if such district is not known to him, to the vaccination officer within whose district the operation was performed. It is the duty of a vaccination officer, on receiving a certificate of successful vaccination of a child whose birth was registered in another district, to transmit a copy of the certificate to the vaccination officer of the district where the birth was registered. I gather that in the case to which the hon. Member refers the certificate was properly sent to the vaccination officer of the district where the birth was registered, but was sent by him to the vaccination officer

    793
    of the district where the vaccination was performed in order that copies might be transmitted to him by the latter officer. There is nothing in the Vaccination Acts and Orders to authorise such procedure. The facts as to the correspondence with the National Vaccination Officers' Assocciation are as stated, and I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 1st instant.

    Workhouse Administration (Mothers and Children).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the, attempted sucide of Julia Neil, because she was parted from her children and sent to a different workhouse; whether it is against the regulations that mothers should be parted from their children when driven by hunger into the workhouse; and why the regulation is not carried out at Renfrew Road workhouse?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has not been called to this case, but I am causing inquiries to be made with regard to it.

    South African Mails.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Postmaster-General if he can state whether new arrangements have been made for the conveyance of mails to South Africa after the termination of the present contract on 30th September; and if he can state the principal changes, if any, which have been made?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The negotiations relating to the new contract for the Anglo South African mail service are still not complete, but I hope that a settlement will be reached very shortly. Its terms will be announced as soon as possible.

    Telephone Service (Cardiff).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delay and inconvenience caused by the telephone department in the city of Cardiff; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Some temporary inconvenience may have been occasioned in Cardiff by the recent transfer of subscribers from the old Post Office Exchange to a new exchange, but this transfer will result in a permanent improvement
    794
    in the service. Faults unfortunately occurred a few days ago in two cables in the city, which caused a temporary interruption to a number of subscribers' lines; but these faults were quickly remedied. In other respects I believe the service in Cardiff to be satisfactory.

    Land Courts (Arrears).
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Attorney-General if he will state how many special, common, and non-jury cases, respectively, have been tried in the High Court in London on the Common Law side since 1st July last; what chance, if any, there is of the arrears in the King's Bench Division being overtaken before the long vacation; and how it is proposed in future to provide suitors with a reasonably prompt trial?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Eight special jury and twelve common jury cases have been tried in the King's Bench Division between the 1st and the 18th of the present month. No cases from the non-jury list have been hoard during that period, but ten cases have been disposed of in the Commercial Court and five under Order XIV., Rule 8. There is no chance of the arrears in the King's Bench Division being overtaken before the long vacation. As the Prime Minister has already stated, the delay in the trial of King's Bench actions has been and is under the consideration of the Government. The Prime Minister will make an announcement on the subject before the adjournment for the Recess.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have not the figures at the moment, but I have already given them some weeks back.

    Tristan d'Acunha.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the latest information from the island of Tristan d'Acunha, and the date of that information?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): So far as I am aware, the latest communication from the island was received on 31st March by the clergyman who spent, several years there, being dated 26th February. It stated that all the people at Tristan are well at present.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether a resident magistrate has been appointed there?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I could not do that.

    British West Africa (Coinage).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Bank of British West Africa have a monopoly of the importation of silver coinage into any, and, if so, what Crown Colonies on the West Coast; and how long the monopoly has still to run?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The agreement under which the bank undertook the responsibility of importing silver coin was terminated some months ago. A temporary arrangement is now in force, pending consideration of the Report of the West African Currency Committee.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any coinage is issued from our Mint for that region, and, if so, whether it is issued in its usual unsatisfactory state?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I understand coinage is issued from our Mint. I have no knowledge as to the latter part of the question.

    Nigeria (Coinage).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked when the Committee on the Coinage of Silver for Nigeria is expected to report; and when it is contemplated that the profits of this coinage will be available for the Nigerian revenues?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The report of the Committee is now complete, and will, I hope, be shortly presented. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

    Sir Percy Girouard.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked if Sir Percy Girouard will be entitled to a pension after his retirement from the public service to join the Board of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Company; and, if so, what will be the amount of this pension?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Sir Percy Girouard will not be entitled to any pension.

    Indentured Labour.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if the Government are taking any steps to carry
    796
    out the recommendations of Lord Sanderson's Committee on Indentured Labour?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I ask what communications have passed on the subject?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have been perfectly straightforward in answering the question. I will give the hon. Gentleman very fully any information he wishes.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received from the All-Indian Moslem League a resolution passed last March, in winch the league, speaking on behalf of the Mahomedan population of India, urged upon the Government the necessity of stopping indentured labour; and if the Government intend to carry this resolution into effect?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have not received the resolution, but I am aware that on 3rd March such a resolution was passed by the All-Indian Moslem League's meeting at Calcutta, which claimed to represent the Mahomedan population of India. The reasons for which the Government of India decline to stop the system of indentured emigration, and thereby to inflict very serious injury on Crown Colonies, and at the same time to debar British Indian subjects from employment overseas under careful provision for their welfare, were fully explained in the Debate in the Indian Legislative Council on 4th March. I may add that the recent Interdepartmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Sanderson, recommended that the system should be allowed to continue, subject to the adoption of certain recommendations which they made with regard to particular Colonies. These recommendations are under discussion.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it a fact that the Committee recommended indentured labour as equally good for India and for the Colonies to which the natives went?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Indentured labour has ceased in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States. It only goes to the West Indies and Fiji, and the Interdepartmental Committee which considered the question recommended that there was no necessity for stopping it.

    Land (Annual Income).
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if any Treasury estimate has been made of the annual income from land in the United Kingdom, as distinguished from the value of improvements; and, if so, if he will state what it amounts to?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am informed that no estimate of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friend has been made.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: If the right hon. Gentleman does have an estimate made, will he differentiate between urban and agricultural land?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

    Customs Officers.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in reply to a deputation of Customs assistants in May last, he stated that the grievances of the Customs second officers will be referred to a special committee; whether he is aware that the committee does not intend considering the question; and whether any steps will be taken to review the case of the seven second officers who were affected by an order of the Board of Customs and Excise in November, 1910, whereby considerable sacrifices were made by the officers concerned for an annual allowance of £10 as second officer, and which allowance has since been withdrawn retrospectively from the date of their appointment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on this subject on the 9th instant and 20th May last. It cannot be admitted that these officers have any ground for complaint. What I intended to convey to the deputation on the 3rd May last was that the case of these officers would be specially considered. This has been done.

    Union Defence League, Hackney.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that late on the night of 17th July the window of a shop at Lower Clapton Road, Hackney, used by the Union Defence League for the exhibition of photographs and original documents showing the real conditions of life in Ireland, was broken by a piece of steel; whether he is aware that earlier in the evening an individual called at the
    798
    shop and threatened the representatives. of the Union Defence League with what the United Irish League would do that night; whether any arrests have been made in connection with this offence; and whether he can undertake to afford protection in the future to the property of the Union Defence League and to their representatives in their shop?
    Mr. McKENNA: The window of the shop in question was broken about midnight on the 17th July, it is believed, by a missile thrown from a passing tramcar. The offender has not been traced. It is understood that threatening communications had been received before this, but they had not been brought to the notice of the police. The property, which was temporarily rented, has now been vacated by the Union Defence League.

    Attempted Arson by Women.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to certain cases of attempted arson which appear to have been simultaneously undertaken by women engaged in a certain political agitation; and what action he has taken or proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have heard of the cases referred to. No action on my part is called for. It is for the police to endeavour to find the offenders; and, if they are found and identified, the ordinary procedure of the Criminal Law is available.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ESTATE WORKMEN.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether a man who is an estate joiner engaged in building for half the year and an estate fencer for half the year will, under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, Part II., be considered a fencer or a joiner when unemployed; (35) whether an estate mason who quarries stone for a building part of the week and builds the house for the other part comes under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and under which category does the same man come if he builds a dry dyke round the garden of the house with the building rubble? (36) Whether a man who is employed day about as a joiner on building operations and as an estate fencer during the same week is to be considered a carpenter or a fencer for the purposes of Part II. of the National Insurance Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I will deal with this and the other two questions of the Noble Lord together. The difficulty raised in the first question is an imaginary one, for a workman who has contributions to his credit is entitled when out of work to unemployment benefit within the limits laid down in the Act, whatever be the nature of his last employment. The first part of the second question is covered by the statement which I made in the House on Friday last. The last part of the question is one which should be referred to the Umpire. As regards the last question, if, as I understand, the workman referred to is regularly employed for at least half his time on building work he should, I think, be insured.

    SEAMEN'S NATIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.
    Mr. MUNROasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any member of the Committee of Management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society is a Scotchman or has special knowledge of the Scottish fishing industry; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of adding a member who possesses these qualifications?
    Mr. BUXTON: There is no direct representative of the Scottish fishing industry on the Committee of Management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society, but I understand that at least two members of the Committee are Scotchmen. The constitution of the Committee cannot now be varied.

    HOUSE or COMMONS WAITRESSES.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the waitresses on the Terrace of the House of Commons are to be compulsorily insured, they being only employed here for ten weeks in the year, and in most cases not dependent on such earnings for a living; and, if they are to be insured, who is to pay the 6d. per week for the remaining forty-two weeks?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any waitress who can show that she has an income or pension of at least £26 a year not dependent on her personal exertions, or that she is ordinarily and mainly dependent for her livelihood on some one else, may apply to the Commissioners for a certificate of exemption, which, when granted, will relieve her, but not her employer, from the
    800
    payment of contributions. In the absence of such certificate she will be insured as an employed contributor. During the forty-two weeks in the year in which she is not employed at the House of Commons, her employer for the time being will be responsible for the payment of contributions; or if she is unemployed she will be able, if she chooses, to pay the contribution herself, in order to avoid falling into arrears.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Am I to understand that these waitresses, many of whom do nothing for the remainder of the year, must insure themselves during the time they are employed and are not to be insured for the rest of the year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If they do not wish to be insured they can obtain a certificate of exemption, but you will have to pay the employer's contribution.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself are quite unable to persuade these young ladies to insure, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will receive a deputation.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Member will bring the deputation I shall be pleased to receive it.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not clear that as these waitresses are only employed ten weeks in the year they must be wholly or mainly dependent on some other means of livelihood, and therefore can get an exemption certificate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have said they can if the facts are as stated.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: What becomes of the contribution of the employer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That will be allocated to what purposes the Commissioners may determine?
    Mr. W. REDMONDHave not some of these ladies been instigated to take this action by titled ladies who are acting in conjunction with the "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I may be able to answer that question after I have seen the deputation.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Are they not exempt as servants in a Royal palace?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not thought of the matter from that point of view.

    EMPLOYERS' SOCIETIES.
    Mr. BARNESasked whether the National Commissioners have received a complaint regarding the firm of Ashton Brothers and Company, of Hyde, in bringing pressure to bear on their employés to choose the firm's shop club as their approved society; whether one of a series of questions put to the employés on a form was whether the employé was prepared to join the shop club, and that upon some of the employés answering this in the negative the form was sent back to them with a demand for further information; and what action the Commissioners propose to take in this particular case and to stop the general intimidation that is being exercised by the employers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on 17th July. I have been in communication with the firm in question, and understand that they were considering the formation of an approved society in connection with the firm and desired to ascertain how many would be likely to join such a society. They assert that they had no intention of contravening the provisions of the Insurance Act, and that the putting of any pressure upon their employés to join an employer's society is altogether outside their intention and traditions.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the Associated Cement Company, which is a similar case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will make inquiries in any case if any hon. Gentleman brings the facts to my notice.
    55 and 58. Mr. CLYNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury (55) whether his attention has been drawn to the circular issued by the firm of Tozer, Kemsley, and Fisher to their employés in which they state that they will pay their own and their employés' contributions under the National Insurance Act on condition that the employés join an approved society to the satisfaction of the firm; and what action he proposes to take to secure to these employés the free choice of an approved society; (58) whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal of the Palmer Tyre Company, that the company will pay the wages of their employés during the first six weeks of illness on condition that the employés pay the whole of the contributions under the National Insurance Act applicable to such cases,
    802
    and what action he proposes taking to ensure that this firm's contributions are not imposed upon the employé?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners are in communication with these firms.
    Mr. CLYNESasked whether the firm of Comtelburo, Limited, London, have issued a form to their employés on which they ask for the name of the employé's approved society; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will have a leaflet issued to insured persons pointing out that it is no business of employers to question their employés respecting their approved societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will communicate with the firm. If a sufficient number of substantiated cases of employers asking what society their employés are joining are brought to my notice, I will consider the question of issuing a leaflet such as that suggested.
    Mr. BARNESasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to the rules of the new society set up by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, membership of which is to be made a condition of membership of the approved society also set up by the company for the purposes of the National Insurance Act; is he aware that there are, under the rules in question, certain benefits and refunds provided for of a preferential character, and therefore that the dual conditions set up are contrary to the spirit of individual option of the workmen; and, if so, will the Commissioners take some steps to prevent the society being registered?
    Mr. CLANCYasked with reference to the action of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland in the matter of the Great Southern and Western Railway Sick Fund, whether the company's proposal is to divide the society into two sections, one outside the National Insurance Act, the other a section for the purposes of that Act, and that one of the rules is that no person can be a member of the first section without also becoming a member of the second; if this is so, whether, in the opinion of the Irish Insurance Commissioners, the action of the company conduces to the exercise of the freedom of choice of an insurance society by their employés; and, if not, whether they will discountenance all such attempts to pervert the National Insurance Act to the company's purposes?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Application has been made to the Commission for the approval for the purposes of the Act of a new society called the Great Southern and Western Railway Employés' Benefit Society, and the question of approval is still under consideration. The proposed rules provide that no person shall be allowed to contribute for benefits independently of the Act unless he is a member of the society for the purposes of the Act. So far as the information before the Commissioners enable them to form an opinion, it does not appear that the railway company are in any way connected with this new society, and as the restriction referred to does not relate to the business of the society under the Act the Commissioners would not appear to have any power to interfere in the matter. The Great Southern and Western Railway Sick Fund seems to be independent of and altogether distinct from the new society.
    Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manager of the Great Southern and Western Railway has taken a personal part in the framing of these rules, and is the part he has taken not directly intended to destroy the trade union?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge on that subject. The society is not yet approved. I shall be glad to have any information which my hon. Friend can give me.
    Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion, and will he not express this opinion to the Insurance Commissioners, that they ought to inquire into this question and see whether or not the manager of the Great Southern and Western has personally interfered in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am certainly prepared to convey the expression of opinion by the hon. Gentleman to the Insurance Commissioners.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether a share fisherman is an employed contributor under the National Insurance Act where no special order has been made by the Insurance Commissioners under Schedule 1, Part II. (k)?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the share fishermen are employed under contract of service the answer is in the affirmative.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: what if they are not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Then I should think the answer would be in the negative.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether it is intended by special Order to exempt the share fishermen of the Port of Lowestoft; if not, who is responsible for the employer's contributions in the case of drift men, who, if the voyage is a failure earn nothing, and in the case of trawl fishermen who, although they draw a fixed sum weekly, are sometimes found to be overdrawn at the end of a voyage; what contributions have to be paid and by whom in each of such cases; and, where the voyage lasts some twelve or fifteen weeks, at what dates are the stamps to be affixed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As at present advised the Insurance Commissioners do not consider that a case exists for the issue of a special Order excluding the share fishermen of the Port of Lowestoft from insurance under the Act. In the cases put, the ordinary contributions are payable by the employer who is required to pay contributions which are due before any money payment is made. If no money payment is made, the contribution is due from the employer on the first day of employment in each week, or in the case of the employer's absence at sea as soon as is reasonably possible after that date. The question whether, if no money payment is due to a member of the crew of a fishing vessel at the end of a particular voyage, there is any right to deduct from a payment made or a settlement for a subsequent voyage must depend on the terms of his contract of service.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Who is the employer when the fisherman sails by share?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not give any general answer. I should require a special case.
    Mr. WILLIAMSON: Is it a contract of service or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should not like to give an answer to that off hand.

    APPROVAL OF TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether trade unions having members in different parts of the United Kingdom are and have been handicapped by reason of the delay being met with at the hands of the Joint

    805
    Commission in seeking to become approved under the National Insurance Act; and the reasons for this delay?
    Mr. MASTERNAN: I am informed that of seventy-two trade unions which have applied for approval by the Joint Committee, fifty-six have been approved. In thirteen of the remaining sixteen cases, the Commissioners have sent criticisms of their proposed rules and are now awaiting replies from the unions. In the remaining three cases, in which the rules proposed by the unions are now being examined, formal application was not received until this month.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Have not a number of trade unions been handicapped in consequence of not being able to get State insurance cards?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that every trade union that becomes an approved society has received as many cards as it desired. If there is any difficulty in obtaining cards I hope my hon. Friends will communicate with me.
    Mr. W. THORNE: One union was held up for two days.

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MIDWIVES.
    Mr. CLYNESasked whether the National Association of Midwives is being asked to nominate representatives for the insurance committees; if not, will he state the reason; and whether a deputation from the association was informed last year that the association would have the opportunity of being represented?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir; the association referred to in the question is not regarded as sufficiently representative of the midwives' profession over the whole of England to be asked to nominate the mid-wives' representatives for the insurance committees. No promise was given to the association that it would be asked to nominate these representatives; but, as a matter of fact, some of its members have been appointed on the committees.

    MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FEE.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the names of any well-known friendly societies operating in country districts who pay 4s. per head for medical attendance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Usual payment by the friendly societies is something like
    806
    4s. a head. Of the two largest friendly societies I am informed that in the majority of cases country lodges of the Manchester Unity of Odd fellows pay 4s. a head for medical attendance and medicine in country districts, and that this is also a common figure for similar work in the case of the branches of the Ancient Order of Foresters. I believe that most of the other great affiliated orders pay a similar amount per member.

    DOCTORS ON INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked how many doctors in England and Wales have become members of provisional insurance committees, and how many have undertaken the examination of patients for sanatorium benefits; and what is the estimated number necessary to perform these duties adequately?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The number of doctors who are at present members of the insurance committees as provisionally constituted in England and Wales is 100. The examination of patients for sanatorium benefit will be effected by the patient's ordinary medical attendant, for which he will offer a fee, or by such officer as the local insurance committee may arrange with the local authority to perform this work. I can give no estimate as to the number required to perform these duties, as this will depend entirely on the number of applications received and the nature of the scheme adopted by the local insurance committees.

    CHARGEMEN OF TRADES.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether chargemen of trades in the Royal dockyards, being established persons employed on supervising duties, come under the provisions of the National Insurance Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Established chargemen of trades are insurable under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, but not under Part II.

    PEA-STICK CUTTERS.
    Captain CLIVEasked whether men engaged in their own time in the woods in cutting pea-sticks at so much per dozen bundles, etc., are liable to be insured under the National Insurance Act, Part I.; if so, whose duty it is to ascertain the weeks in which they work and the weeks in which they do not; and whether, if in any week they earn less than 15s. at this

    807
    work, the employer has to pay more than 3d., though they may have earned more than 15s. in other ways of which he has no knowledge?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the men are free to do the work in their own time and in their own way they are probably not employed under contract of service, and in that case are not liable to compulsory insurance. On the information given, however, it would be impossible for me to give a certain answer to this question. Procedure is established by the Act under Section 66 for dealing with these and similar questions, and any of the parties concerned can apply to the Commission for a judicial decision through the local officer of Customs and Excise.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under Circular A.S. 29, Table F, Alternative 2, a man of sixty-seven years of age will receive the sum of 9s. a year, payable in quarterly instalments, in return for compulsory contribution of 17s. 4d. a year, if he is continuously employed; whether this will operate to his advantage in a case where such a man has been a contributor for forty years to a club which has dissolved in consequence of the passing of the National Insurance Act; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent men over sixty-five years of age being deprived of all sickness benefit in consequence of the passing of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under the table referred to in the question a man of sixty-seven years of age will receive a sum of 9s. a year for life in return for a contribution of 4d. a week payable until he reaches the age of seventy, which cannot in any case exceed three years. If a man of this age is not insured for sickness benefit, whether in consequence of the dissolution of his society or because he has never been a member of a society, he will probably consider that alternative No. 2 or Table F is not adapted to his circumstances and will join an approved society offering alternative No. 1, which provides (after the six months' waiting period) payment in sickness at the rate of 6s. a week from the fourth day for the first thirteen weeks, and 5s. a week for the second thirteen weeks. This is additional to the sick pay his own society would give him if it continued in existence, or to what he would be able to purchase with his
    808
    share of the divided funds if it dissolves. The National Insurance Act does not require clubs to dissolve; on the contrary, its normal effect is to improve their solvency.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any approved societies have adopted Alternative No. 1 in Table F of Circular A.S. 29, issued by the National Health Insurance Commission and, if so, which; if so, whether 6s. a week for thirteen weeks and 5s. a week for thirteen weeks compare favourably with the average sickness benefit hitherto paid by small societies and clubs, now dissolved, and of which many men now between sixty-five and seventy years of age have been members; and, if not, how he intends to prevent the passage of the National Insurance Act depriving these old men of the adequate provision for sickness at the age when they require it most, for which they had made unaided provision?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Practically all approved societies have provided by their rules for the adopting of one of the alternative tables in Circular A.S. 29, but information is not yet available as to which intend to adopt alternatives 1 and 2 respectively. The benefits under Table F are fully supported by the contributions receivable in respect of persons aged between sixty-five and seventy, to which the insured persons contribute only 4d. out of every 9d. It is impossible to ascertain the average sickness benefits hitherto paid by small societies and clubs now dissolved. If, however, any of the dissolved societies to which the hon. Member refers were unsound financially, they were not in a position to pay their benefits whatever they may have been, and any such comparison as is suggested by the question could only be in favour of the benefits secured by the operation of the Act. If they were financially sound they have presumably shared out, and their members will have received the full money value to which they were entitled and will receive in addition, if insured persons under the Act, the benefits stated above.

    PERFORATION OF STAMPS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked why the intended permission to employers to perforate insurance stamps before use as in the case of postage stamps in order to prevent pilfering has been abandoned; and, if perforation is not permitted in

    809
    order to prevent identification of the employer of any workman, whether the power to obtain a new card on change of employment is sufficient protection to the workman?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has throughout been the object of the Government to avoid creating a system under which the contribution card could be used as a record of the employment of the contributor. The power given to the contributor to obtain a new card on changing his employment was only intended for use in very exceptional cases where some such measure might be desirable in the interests of the contributor, and its general exercise would lead to a good deal of confusion and inconvenience. If however, the hon. Member can suggest any means by which employers can identify their stamps which is not open to the objection stated above, I should be happy to consider it in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is also concerned in the matter.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has it not been stated that permission would be given for the usual perforation of stamps?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think so. I think it was stated that at present permission could not be given owing to the fact that an employed contributor should not have reported on his card who his last employer was.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has he not power to get a new card?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have stated already we only designed that for use in exceptional cases.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not also possible that that might apply to the case of perforated stamps?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It might be applicable to that, but we do not suppose it will be a universal practice for men who leave one employment to go to another to ask for a new card.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETY SCHEMES.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now give a reply to the requests made by friendly societies for a Grant towards the expense involved in schemes required under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A special Grant to friendly societies is proposed in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates circulated on Saturday, for the work which the Act requires these societies to undertake under Section 72. It is intended that the Grant should be distributed by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in proportion to the estimated cost of the schemes, and that it should not exceed one guinea for each separate valuation plus 1d. for each member affected.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Under what Section of the Act is that Grant permitted, or by what other authority do the Government propose to make it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It will be made first of all by the authority of the Supplementary Estimates, and then the Appropriation Act.

    DEMANDS OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will restate the six principal demands that were made by the Medical Association; how far the Government have been able to meet them; and if the only outstanding question is that of 8s. 6d. as against 6s.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The six principal demands formulated by the British Medical Association while the Insurance Bill was before Parliament were added to at a meeting of the Association in February last. The complete demands were communicated by the Association to the Joint Committee of Insurance Commissioners in a letter dated 29th February and a reply was sent by the Joint Committee on 26th June. These letters will be presented to-day as a Parliamentary Paper. The reply of the Joint Committee is now receiving the consideration of the Association, and pending such consideration it is impossible to say what points are outstanding. As regards remuneration it will be seen on reference to the letter of 29th February that the demand of the Association is not for 8s. 6d. as compared with the 6s. assumed in the original actuarial estimates, but for 8s. 6d., plus whatever sum may be found necessary for the provision of drugs, and also for extra medical services, the cost of which cannot precisely be estimated.

    HEALTH INSURANCE APPOINTMENTS (LLANELLY).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the names, ages, former residence,

    811
    qualifications, and past experience of the gentlemen selected for the senior positions of the health insurance office at Llanelly; whether he is aware that amongst the applicants were three officers from Llanelly Post Office, with services ranging from nine to eighteen years, who, in response to an invitation from the Insurance Health Commissioner, had made application; and will he say why these trained men of experience were passed over when the appointments were being made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend is misinformed. The Welsh Insurance Commissioners have no offices except at Cardiff, and no appointments have been made to any positions at Llanelly. The applications for the position of inspectors and health insurance officers, which amounted to over 4,000, and included a number from Civil servants, are being carefully examined by the Commissioners.

    POST OFFICE WORK.
    Major WHITEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now received any representations from Post Office officials with regard to overwork caused by the operation of the National Insurance Act; and whether he is prepared to consider the granting of a bonus to postmasters and others who have had exceptional stress in connection therewith?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative, except that inquiries have been received from some sub-postmasters as to the remuneration which will be paid to them for the additional work. As I have already stated, remuneration will be given to them, but the basis on which it will be calculated has not yet been settled and cannot well be decided until some experience has been gathered of the amount of work involved. The payment ultimately decided upon will of course date back.

    YORK PEOVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked why, in appointing members of the provisional insurance committee for the county borough of York, no representative was appointed either of the Grand United Order of Oddfellows, which has about 3,000 members within the county borough, or of the National Independent Order of Oddfellows, which has over 1,100 members within the county borough; and whether, in view of the numbers of these two
    812
    friendly societies as compared with the probable total number of insured persons within the county borough of York, the absence of representation of these two friendly societies on the provisional insurance committee is considered proper or desirable?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The representatives of the large friendly societies on the committee were selected by the National Conference of Friendly Societies, on which both the Grand United Order of Oddfellows and the National Independent Order of Oddfellows are represented. When the number of insured persons has been ascertained, steps will be taken to constitute insurance committees in precise accordance with the terms of Section 59 of the National Insurance Act, and the regulations with respect to future appointments of representatives of insured persons will provide for conferring on the approved societies which have members resident in the committee's area the power of appointing the representatives of such members.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that two of the persons appointed to serve on the York provisional insurance Committee are resident in the West Riding of Yorkshire at a distance from the city of York; whether he will state by whom such persons were nominated or selected, and the reasons for their appointment; and by whom the other persons named in Part III. of the Schedule to the National Health Insurance (County Borough of York Insurance Committee) Order, 1912, were nominated or selected?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The two persons referred to were selected by the National Conference of Friendly Societies, and, in accordance with the undertaking given to the central bodies who were invited to make selections, the Commissioners accepted the names forwarded to them by those central bodies. The persons named in Part III. of the Schedule to the Order were all selected by the central bodies of the Friendly Societies, Trade Unions, and Industrial Assurance Offices, except those who were selected by the committee itself at its preliminary meeting.
    Mr. BUTCHER: What is the reason for appointing these persons outside the area?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know the names of these persons, but I should suppose it was because they represented societies with members inside the area of York. These were the names submitted to us by the friendly societies themselves.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked for how long the York Provisional Insurance Committee will remain in office; and how soon that committee will be superseded by a committee properly appointed under Section 59 of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Order constituting the committee provides that the persons who by virtue of the Order are members of the committee shall hold office up to the date on which it is declared by the Insurance Commissions that an insurance committee has been duly constituted for the county borough in accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the Act, or until 15th July, 1913, whichever date is the earlier.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the time will arrive for the supersession of the provisional committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In any case it cannot be later than 15th July, 1913. In the majority of cases it will be before that date.
    Mr. CLANCY: In reference to Ireland, are the people there right in understanding that the appointing authorities may at any time prior to 15th July next year proceed to appoint a permanent committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. It is the desire of the Irish Commissioners to get a permanent body appointed as speedily as possible.

    INSURANCE STAMPS (PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE).
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can see his way to allow local postmasters to accept cheques in payment for Insurance stamps if a sufficient interval is allowed before delivering the stamps to permit the cheques to be cleared?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already decided to make the arrangement suggested by the Noble Lord, an interval of four days being allowed for the purpose indicated in the question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if lie can make any statement with regard to business?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, we shall take Committee of Supply—Scottish Estimates.
On Wednesday, continuation of the Navy Vote.
On Thursday, Committee of Supply—Vote for Committee of Imperial Defence.
On Friday, Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition that Vote 8 is to be taken on Wednesday, may I ask whether that would preclude our discussing that Vote on the Supplementary Estimate to-night?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not for me to decide. It is a question for the Chairman when he takes the Chair in Committee.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (SALARY).
Mr. PIRIE: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to ask your ruling on a point of Order in view of the fact that the Scottish Estimates are going to be taken to-morrow. On the Scottish Estimates there are twelve Departments to be discussed. The Secretary for Scotland is responsible for these Departments, but under the existing Rules of the House his salary cannot be discussed on the Vote of any one of these Departments, and under the circumstances I would ask whether more latitude cannot be allowed so that the salary of the Minister responsible for the Department could be discussed?
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I point out, Sir, that it would be a very agreeable arrangement for this side of the House if it could be made, because on the Votes which we are to discuss, the Education Vote and others, we really could not get at the Secretary for Scotland's salary at all?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not wish in any way to trench upon the privileges and duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think that if both sides of the

815
House come to an agreement, with his assent, to use one Vote for the purpose of a general discussion ranging over all the Scotch Votes, then there could be no objection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees with regard to it.

INDEX TITLES TO BILLS.
Mr. LYNCH: I desire, Sir, to ask your ruling with reference to a practice which is well illustrated by a Bill which has been under discussion in Committee upstairs. The title of the Act will eventually be the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1912, but in the copies of the Bill presented to us appear the words "Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill." Some Members of the Committee objected to those words on the ground that they conveyed a false impression as to the scope of the Bill, and savour less of the gravity of Parliament than of the catchwords of the new journalism. I ask, Sir, what control can Parliament exercise over those titles?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered this matter since the hon. Member spoke to me with regard to it, and I would point out that the authorities of the Public Bill Office, the Clerks at the Table, and myself have no control over the short index titles which hon. Members choose to put to their Bills. A Bill, as the hon. Member is aware, is either presented at the Table, or leave is asked to introduce, it, before the contents are known, and therefore there is no opportunity of checking the index title with the contents. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has given notice of a new Standing Order with regard to this matter. I think it will hardly be necessary to trouble the House to make a new Standing Order with regard to it, but what I would propose—and I believe the House will assent to the proposal I am going to make—is that in the event of any complaint being made to me that the index title of a Bill does not properly set out the contents of the Bill, or misrepresents in some way the contents of the Bill, I will investigate it in conjunction with the Public Bill Office, and I will then take upon myself the duty of correcting it and bringing the Bill into accord with the long and short title.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. O'GRADY: As a result of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister in connection with the Port of London strike, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Board of Trade through its representatives to bring pressure to bear on the Port Authority to carry out its obligations under the Port of London Act, which has resulted in the growing congestion of traffic of the Port, and the casualisation of labour.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I regret that I am not able to accept the Motion of the hon. Member. The Port of London is an Authority set up by Parliament and quite independent of the Board of Trade. I have looked through the Act which set up the Authority, and I can only find some three Sections which introduce the Board of Trade at all as a controlling authority. Those Sections deal with audits if required, with the question of increases of duties, and with complaints about warehousing. As far as I can ascertain, those are the only Sections in the Bill which give the Board of Trade any power whatever, or any control over the Port Authority. That being so, it is clear that the Board of Trade have no such control as the hon. Gentleman would wish to imply in his Motion.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask you, Sir, whether you have considered Section 27 of the Act and its Sub-section? The whole of that Section and its Sub-sections do-refer to certain action which the Board of Trade can take. My point in asking to move the Adjournment of the House is that the Board of Trade have not done anything in the matter. My second point is that the Board of Trade have two direct representatives upon the Port Authority, and they have given no instructions to those representatives either in the matter of the casualisation of labour, the congestion of the Port, or the necessity of the Port Authority to meet the representatives of the men on strike. On those two grounds I submit that my Motion would, perhaps, meet your view.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is true that the Board of Trade have certain representatives on the Port Authority, but they have no controlling power through those representa-

  817
  tives. With regard to Section 27, that is one of the Sections which I have specially considered. It appears to me to relate entirely to any complaints "by reason of the mode in which the Port Authority carry on their dock or warehousing business," including charges made in respect of such business, and so forth. It all seems to me to relate entirely to complaints as to warehousing, improper charges, the Port hours, and things of that sort.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Arising out of that Section, is it not a fact that the docks are congested, and that the merchants are unable to move their goods? Does not that bring the Port Authority into default, and make it imperative on the Board of Trade to take action to remove the block which at present exists?
  Mr. SPEAKER: But a considerable number of preliminary steps have to be taken first.
  Mr. LANSBURY: They are taking none.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If preliminary steps are taken, and the Board of Trade then decline to act, then I think the hon. Member might have a case to present.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The point that I raise is whether the Board of Trade did give any instructions to their representatives on the Port Authority, and I submit that if they have not given those instructions they are therefore to blame for the present state of things.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether they have given instructions or not, but it seems to me that even if they have given instructions they have no control, and they cannot compel the independent Authority to take a particular line.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    CORRUPT PRACTICES (RESTRICTION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS) BILL.
    "To amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1895." Presented by Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS; supported by Mr. Allen Baker, Sir Henry Havelock-Allan, Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Silvester Home, Mr. Hughes, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Whitehouse; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]
  SUPPLY.— [SEVENTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF MEN AND BOYS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, a "That an additional number of men and boys, not exceeding 1,500, be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    The CHAIRMANcalled upon
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill),who rose.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"; and of the reason for my doing that hon. Members will be quite well aware.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot do that.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I am surely perfectly entitled to do that. It is a matter for this House to report Progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! order."] "Order!" what for? As a matter of fact, it is far more important than the Navy Estimates. When are we going to consider the case of the 400,000 people who are starving in the East End while you are talking about navies?
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I protest against any business being done until the Government takes steps, as they can, to bring this dispute to an end. We have heard a state-
    836
    ment to-day from the Prime Minister to the effect that they do not intend to take steps. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. O'GRADY: On a point of Order. You have not answered my point of Order, whether a Member is entitled to move that you Report progress, and ask leave to sit again?
    The CHAIRMAN: He is entitled to ask to make that Motion when I call upon him, but whether I accept it is another question. I have called upon the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. O'GRADY: This Motion is, I understand, expressly—
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member putting a point of Order to me?
    Mr. O'GRADY: Yes; I understand that the Rules of the House permit an hon. Member to move to Report progress, and that that Motion takes precedence over every other point. I have seen it done repeatedly before.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. It does not take precedence over other questions. If an hon. Member catches my eye, he is entitled to ask for leave to move to Report progress.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I am not going to sit here and allow this question to be discussed when there are 400,000 people starving in the East End. For present practical purposes a Debate on a question of that kind is far more important than even an important Debate on the Navy, though I do not want to question the importance of that Debate, but I do want to say this—
    The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN rose—
    Mr. O'GRADY: I am not going to sit here while the people are being starved, and while a wretched creature like Lord Devonport is carrying on his murderous practices to keep the people starved down there and keeping the Port of London Authority under his thumb. That is my point. I want to discuss that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
    Mr. W. CROOKS: They are starving people.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must raise such a question in the House and not in Committee.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I want to say, and tell you very frankly, that I cannot sit here and hear this thing going on. I am going to insist that there shall be no business done until this question is discussed. I want to appeal to the House to consider this question as far more important than even the Navy Estimates. I repeat again that people are being done to death in the East End of London, and lives of children are being blotted out as if they were no more importance in God's creation than flies. That is being done while the House is sitting here doing nothing.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member to submit his point of Order, but I would point out again that he is not entitled to raise this question in Committee, where we are met for a specific purpose. I call on the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. O'GRADY: [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] For eight weeks I have been negotiating. I have been persuading and working in favour of conciliation while nothing whatever is done and nothing will be done until this House says it will be done. I want to point out that this House be Resolution—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will understand it is not in my power to allow him to proceed. I am here with the authority of the House in Committee, which is met to consider specific business. The hon. Member will quite understand it is not within my power to allow him to make a speech on another subject. He should take his opportunity in the House and not in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. O'GRADY: It is a damned scandal that this thing is going on.
    Mr. W. THORNE: You allowed the hon. Baronet the Member for the City to move to report Progress when we were in Committee of Ways and Means, I think one day last week.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have frequently allowed hon. Members who have caught my eye and been called upon to move to report Progress, and in no case except when they have been called upon.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The direct cause of the Supplementary Estimates which I am now going to submit to the House is to be found in the new German Navy Law. The scope and character of this law has not yet been explained by anyone from this
    838
    Bench, nor has it yet been appreciated by the public—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: On a point of Order, and simply for the convenience of the Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, already gone outside the limited scope of the Vote, may I ask whether we will be allowed to have a general discussion on any point which he raises in the course of this Debate?
    The CHAIRMAN: Whatever the right, hon. Gentleman raises may be followed by other hon. Members. I have considered the position of this Supplementary Vote, which is rather an unusual one, and I have to say, in the first place, that the Supplementary Vote for Vote A will, of course, be governed by the same rule as the original Vote A—that is to say, the discussion of it may travel over other items in the Supplementary Vote. In the second place, the Supplementary Vote is of such magnitude that it seems to me inevitably to raise the question of the adequacy of the original Vote, and therefore the discussion must be a wide one. I think hon. Members ought, however, to avoid in the discussion of the Supplementary Vote questions which are properly pertinent to the original Vote itself.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if first of all this afternoon I proceed to examine in detail the scope and character of the new German Navy Law. The main feature of that law is not the increase in the new construction of capital ships, though that is an important feature. The main feature is the increase in the striking force of ships of all classes which will be available, immediately available, at all seasons of the year. A Third Squadron of eight battleships will be created and maintained in full commission as part of the active battle fleet. Whereas, according to the un-amended law, the active battle fleet consisted of seventeen battleships, four battle or large armoured cruisers, and twelve small cruisers, in the near future that active fleet will consist of twenty-five battleships, eight battle or large armoured cruisers, and eighteen small cruisers; and whereas at present, owing to the system of recruitment which prevails in Germany, the German fleet is less fully mobile during the winter than during the summer months, it will, through the operation of this law, not only be increased in, strength, but rendered much more readily

    839
    available. Ninety-nine destroyers, torpedo-boat destroyers—or torpedo-boats, as they are called in Germany—instead of sixty-six, will be maintained in full commission out of the total of 144. Three-quarters of a million pounds had already been taken in the general estimate for the year for the building of submarines. The new law adds a quarter of a million to this, and that is a provision which, so far as we can judge from a study of the finances, would appear to be repeated in subsequent years. Seventy-two new submarines will be built within the currency of the law, and of those it is apparently proposed to maintain fifty-four with full permanent crews.
    Taking a general view, the effect of the law will be that nearly four-fifths of the entire German navy will be maintained in full permanent commission—that is to say, instantly and constantly ready for war. Such a proportion is remarkable, and, so far as I am aware, finds no example in the previous practice of modern naval Powers. So great a change and development in the German fleet involves, of course, important additions to their personnel. In 1898 the officers and men of the German navy amounted to 25,000. To-day that figure has reached 66,000. Under the previous Navy Laws, and various amendments which have preceded this one, the Germans have been working up to a total in 1920, according to our calculations, of 86,500 officers and men, and they have been approaching that total by increments of, approximately, an addition of 3,500 a year. The new law adds a total of 15,000 officers and men, and makes the total in 1920 of 101,500. The new average annual addition is calculated to be 1,680 of all ranks, but for the next three years by special provision 500 extra are to be added. From 1912 to 1914, 500 are to be added, and in the last three years of the currency of the law 500 less will be taken. This makes a total rate of increase of the German Navy personnel about 5,700 men a year. The new construction under the law prescribes for the building of three additional battleships—one to be begun next year, one in 1916, and two small cruisers of which the date has not yet been fixed. The date of the third battleship has not been fixed. It has been presumed to be later than the six years which we have in view. The cost of these increases in men and in material during the next six years is estimated as £10,500,000 above the previous
    840
    estimates spread over that period. I should like to point out to the Committee that this is a cumulative increase which follows upon other increases of a very important character. The law of 1898 was practically doubled by the law of 1900, and if the expenditure contemplated by the law of 1900 had been followed the German estimates of to-day would be about £11,000,000. But owing to the amendments of 1906 and 1908, and now of 1912, that expenditure is very nearly £23,000,000. The actual figures of the expenditure have been given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a recent occasion in Committee of Supply. But the fact that personnel plays such a large part in this new amendment and that personnel is more cheaply obtained in Germany than in this country makes the money go further there than it would do over here.
    The ultimate scale of the new German fleet, as contemplated by the latest Navy Law, will be forty-one battleships, twenty battle or large armoured cruisers, and forty small cruisers, besides a proper proportion—an ample proportion—of flotillas of torpedo-boat destroyers and submarines. [An HON. MEMBER: "By what year?"] By 1920. That is not on paper a great advance on the figures prescribed by the previous law, which gave thirty-eight battleships, twenty battle or large armoured cruisers, and thirty-eight small cruisers. That is not a great advance on the total scale. In fact, however, there is a remarkable expansion of strength and efficiency, and particularly of strength and efficiency as they contribute to striking power. The number of battleships and large armoured cruisers alone which will be kept constantly ready and in full commission will be raised by the law from twenty-one, the present figure, to thirty-three—tliat is to say, an addition of twelve, or an increase of about 57 per cent. The new fleet will in the beginning include about twenty battleships and large cruisers of the older type, but, gradually as new-vessels are built, the fighting power of the fleet will rise until in the end it will consist completely of modern vessels. This new scale of the German fleet—organised in five battle squadrons, each attended by a battle or armoured cruiser squadron, complete with small cruisers and auxiliaries of all kinds, and accompanied by numerous flotillas of destrovers and submarines, more than three-fourths,

    841
    nearly four-fifths, maintained in full permanent commission—the aspect and scale of this fleet is, I say, extremely formidable. Such a fleet will be about as numerous to look at as the fleet which was gathered at Spithead for the recent Parliamentary visit, but, of course, when completed it will be far superior in actual strength. This full development will only be realised step by step. But already in 1914 two squadrons will, so far as we can ascertain, be entirely composed of "Dreadnoughts," or what are called "Dreadnoughts," and the third will be made up of good ships like the "Deutschlands" and the "Braunschweigs," together with five "Dreadnought" battle-cruisers. It remains to be noted that this new law is the fifth in fourteen years of the large successive increases made in German naval strength, that it encountered no effective opposition in its passage through the Reichstag, and that, though it has been severely criticised in Germany since its passage, the criticisms have been directed towards its inadequacy.
    Before I come to the measures which will be necessary on our part, perhaps the Committee will permit me to make a general observation. There are two points with regard to navies and naval war which differentiate them from armies and land war. The first is the awful suddenness with which naval warfare can reach its decisive phase. We see on the continent of Europe immense military establishments possessed by nations dwelling on opposite sides of political frontier lines; yet they dwell and have dwelt for a whole generation in peace and tranquillity. But between those armies and any decisive collision there intervenes an inevitable period of delay that acts as a great buffer, a cushion of security. I mean the vast process of mobilisation, the very first signs of which must be noticed, and which, once it begins, lays idle the industry of both countries and dominates the whole course of national life. So it is that through all these years nations are able to dwell side by side with their tremendous military establishments without being a prey to undue anxiety as to immediate attack. But none of these considerations apply to fleets. The Fleet which was assembled for the manœuvres the other day was fully capable of going into action as soon as the ammunition could be brought up and put by the side of the guns. And that is true of all the great highly efficient navies of the world.
    842
    I am bound to say, looking far ahead, and farther than the purposes of this Vote, at the aspect which Europe and the world will present when the power of States, which has been hitherto estimated in terms of armies, will be estimated very largely in naval strength, and when we have a number of Great Powers all possessed of very powerful navies, the state of Europe and of the world would seem to contain many more germs of danger than the period through which we have been passing in our lifetime.
    The second general point to which I would direct the attention of the Committee is the extreme slowness with which naval preparations can be made. Small ships take eighteen to twenty months to build; large ships take from two to three years, sometimes four years. Docks take more than four years to build. Seamen take from two to three years to train; artificers take much longer; officers take between six and seven years. The efficiency which, comes from the harmonious combination of these elements is a plant of very slow growth indeed. Cool, steady, methodical preparation, prolonged over a succession of years, can alone raise the margin of naval power. It is no use flinging millions of money about on the impulse of the moment, by a gesture of impatience, or in a mood of panic. Such a course only reveals your weakness and impotence. Those who clamour for sensational expenditure, who think that the kind of danger with which we are faced needs to be warded off or can be warded off in that way, are either ignorant themselves of naval conditions or take advantage of the ignorance of others. The strain we have to bear will be long and slow, and no relief will be obtained by impulsive or erratic action. We ought to learn from our German neighbours, whose policy marches unswervingly towards its goal across the lifetime of a whole generation. The two general principles which I would deduce from these observations, and which will guide my remarks this afternoon, are, first, that we must have an ample margin of strength instantly ready; and, secondly, that there must be a steady and systematic development of our naval forces untiringly pursued over a number of years.
    Now I come to the finance of the Supplementary Estimate. The sum of £990,000 is asked for, in addition to the annual Vote granted by the House. I have seen this criticism in the organs of public opinion which I studied. It is said that less than

    843
    a million is taken back by the Admiralty out of the £1,500,000 to be surrendered to the Exchequer through the underspending of last year. That, if I may say so, rests on an entire misconception both of the financial facts and of the financial processes. The figures which I gave the Committee on 18th March were made up earlier in the month, and before the end of the financial year the coal strike intervened. The effect of the coal strike was to increase the underspending in the year 1911–12 by £600,000 and to throw the whole of that burden on to the year 1913–14. [An HON. MEMBER: "1912–13."] No; the effect of underspending is hardly ever manifested in the next year, but always in the next year but one. It is quite easy to see why. These ships for the most part lap over into three financial years. The middle year is practically always a year of full construction for each particular ship, and any delay which occurs affects not the middle year of construction, but the last year of its completion. That is why we are not much affected this year by the underspending of 1911–12. But that will fall on 1913–14. The effect of the coal strike is that I shall hand back to my right hon. Friend, not £1,400,000 or £1,500,000, but something like £2,000,000 when the accounts are finally completed. The whole of this liability is transferred to future years. A little falls on this year, and was provided for in the Estimates of the year; some falls on 1914–15; but the great bulk, over £1,600,000, will fall on the Estimates of next year, and will artificially increase those Estimates by that amount. Every penny of the underspending which will be surrendered to the Exchequer will have to be revoted by the House in order to discharge liabilities which Parliament has already authorised, but which will not mature until a later period than was expected.
    The Supplementary Estimate before us this afternoon has nothing whatever to do with that underspending. It is for specific purposes quite apart from the objects on which the underspending occurred, and is additional to them. A sum of £990,000 is asked for, because the items in the Estimate are needed now, ought to be begun now, and because it is believed that the money can be usefully spent within the currency of the year. Therefore I hope that the Committee will not be led into confusing in any way two quite different and separate matters. I now turn to the
    844
    steps which will be necessary on our part. The Supplementary Estimate is, of course, only the first and smallest instalment of extra expenditure which the new law will entail upon us. So far as new construction is concerned, the number of ships we shall have to build in the next five years to maintain the 60 per cent, standard will have to be raised from the figures at which we had hoped it might stand, namely, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3 to 5, 4, 4, 4, 4. That does not affect us this afternoon. It will affect us next year. The new construction in the Supplementary Estimate is not extensive. There is a small increase in submarines of £160,000. That is all we can expect to spend within the currency of the year. The Germans are spending about one million this year and in future years on submarines, and we cannot allow our lead to be diminished in this class of vessel. Sixty thousand pounds is taken in the Supplementary Estimate for aircraft. Under the new German law £100,000 is provided.
    Our £60,000 for aircraft is only the forerunner of other and larger instalments in future years. We also find it convenient to accelerate the construction of eight light armoured cruisers, which form an important part of our minor programme of the year and which are urgently needed for attendance on the main Fleets. We propose to make a somewhat earlier provision of the full totals of the reserves of armaments and ammunition under Vote 9 than has been proposed. These two items of £230,000 and of £200,000, respectively, will relieve the 1914–15 Estimate to some extent, and tend to increase the permanent liabilities to which the Committee is asked to assent on account of the Admiralty. There is only one item in the Supplementary Estimates which has nothing to do with naval developments at all. The sum of £35,000 has been inserted to provide for certain improvements in the wages which are paid to the workmen in the dockyards. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has devoted an immense amount of time, sympathy, and special knowledge to hearing the petitions of dockyard workmen and studying the questions which concern them. The Admiralty has always been anxious to maintain, and has generally been successful in maintaining good relations with their employés. We think that the new rates of wages which have been considered justified after very careful examination and discussion ought to come

    845
    into operation with the least possible delay. The details are very complicated, and I myself certainly am not prepared to deal with them, but my right hon. Friend who has the figures will, if desired, give any explanation in detail during the course of discussion.
    As I stated, the main feature of the new German law is the increased fighting power which their fleet will possess. That involves a considerable reorganisation of the British Fleet in order that we may maintain the necessary margin of safety in full-commissioned ships. I outlined to some extent this new organisation when I last addressed the House on the subject. Before the law was passed the disposition of the British Fleets was as follows:—We had in home waters sixteen battleships in full commission, six more were in the Atlantic Fleet at Gibraltar, about 3½ days' distant, and one day's coaling. We are shortly to be confronted with twenty-five German battleships in the active battle fleet in full commission, the whole of which will often be concentrated within a few hours' steaming of our shores. It therefore became imperatively necessary to increase largely and swiftly the numbers of full-commissioned battleships constantly available. I speak of battleships, because it is complicated enough dealing with naval strategy in terms of battle squadrons. Of course these arguments apply also to the other classes of vessels which go to make up the strength and the military efficiency of a sea-going fleet. The following measures have been, are being, and will be taken:—The six battleships of the Atlantic Fleet at Gibraltar and two battleships from the Mediterranean have been brought home and placed in reserve. With the crews of these vessels, eight "King Edwards," which are much more powerful ships, have been brought from or prevented from going into the reserve, and placed in full commission constituting the Third Battle Squadron. This squadron is all ready in every respect, except that it requires a fleet of repairing ships to execute minor repairs. For that we have taken £160,000 in the Supplementary Estimates now before the Committee. The four remaining Mediterranean battleships have been stationed at Gibraltar to take the place of the old Atlantic Fleet.
    This Fourth Squadron which is stationed at Gibraltar will be raised to a total of eight ships during the next two years, and will receive early next year the accession
    846
    of two powerful vessels. It will be provided with a subsidiary base at Malta to enable it to operate in the Mediterranean, if necessary. But as I told the Committee when I last addressed them, the movements of the Gibraltar Squadron will be regulated by the main situation. Its existence and position, however, must not be overlooked when I come to deal, as I shall later, with our arrangements in the Mediterranean. We have by this disposition raised the force of full - commissioned battleships available in home waters from sixteen to twenty-four, or, including the Gibraltar ships in both cases from twenty-two to twenty-eight. But the gain, however, in war power is greater than the gain in numbers, because, instead of having two ships like the "Swiftsure" and the "Triumph" which are more like slow, heavily - armoured cruisers than battleships, and six "Formidables" at Gibraltar, we now have eight much stronger "King Edwards" in our first line. So much for what has actually been done. That is clearly not sufficient, and we propose, as quickly as our manning resources render possible, to raise the number of battleships in full commission from twenty-eight to thirty-three, thus constituting as our first line four battle squadrons and a Fleet flagship of full commission ships. This increase will be practically completed—all but completed—during 1913; it will be fully completed in 1914, before which time the third German squadron is not—so far as our information goes—expected to be fully ready. In addition to battleships in full commission there are those which are kept in what is called full nucleus crews. Of these we have eight "Formidables," six from Gibraltar and two others, formed into the Fifth Battle Squadron, a homogeneous squadron, maintained on a Second Fleet basis. I hope the Committee appreciates the status on which the ships in the Second Fleet are maintained, because it is essential to a proper comprehension of the whole of this problem.
    These ships have rather more than half of their crews on board, including a high proportion of specialist ratings. That is quite enough to enable them to go for short cruises, to sea, and to carry out their gunnery and sea training during the year. The rest of the crews are living in barracks on shore at Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport, and are going through qualifying and requalifying courses in gunnery, torpedo work, signalling and other important matters which

    847
    are essential to the efficient training of the Navy. Of course, this organisation is an indispensable part of our naval system, because it not only enables the men to be properly trained in the schools in succession, but it gives a certain relief of shore service to the incessant strain of life in the full-commission squadrons of the Home Fleet. This system of full-nucleus crews is not adopted for the purpose of economy, or because of any scarcity of men. It costs just as much money and it requires just as many men as if the ships were kept in full commission. When these ships are required for manœuvres or for any other special service no mobilisation of reserves in civil life is necessary. They are completely manned with active-service ratings of trained seamen and stokers, and they do not require the addition of a single officer or man not in regular and permanent service. The use of the expression "mobilisation" about the ships of the Second Fleet tends to create a confusion, people thinking that this process of putting them on a war footing may be compared to the mobilising process by which armies are raised to war conditions, and which, of course, is a process we ourselves have adopted in the First Fleet; that is to say, to summon large reserves who have left the Service and are living in civil life to return to the Navy under the pressure of a Royal Proclamation in a serious emergency. The Second Fleet of ships can be placed on war service without any calling out of reserves, and can proceed to sea as soon as steam is raised in their boilers—with one exception: there is only one respect in which these ships are at a disadvantage compared with the fully commissioned ships, and that is that if a sudden call were made upon them when they were away cruising with their half-crews from home ports, where the rest of the complements are living, there might be a few days', or at any rate some hours', delay in raising them to full war strength. But that is their one defect, but we consider that the squadrons of the Second Fleet are a most valuable and vital factor in our naval organisation. To underrate them is to be ignorant of the Navy; to depreciate them is to render it an ill service. We have upon this basis at present eight battleships apart from cruisers, and this number will be increased as new and better ships come down from squadrons above, until it has been raised,
    848
    and of course men become available until it has been raised, to a total of sixteen. That, however, will not be possible for some years to come, and I speak this afternoon of the Second Fleet as if it only contained eight battleships. Thus we shall have available during 1914 and onwards five battle squadrons comprising forty-one battleships of which four squadrons will be in full commission, and one on the basis I have described and all of which will be manned by trained active service ratings without calling upon the Reserves, and we shall endeavour to arrange matters so that four out of these five will always be available at short notice.
    Very often in the ordinary course of events, and at any time when there is anxiety, the whole five will be available. It is necessary, however, to notice that that besides her twenty-five battleships in full commission the Germans have four parent ships of their reserve division which are fully manned with active service ratings, and on an emergency these might conceivably be employed. Thus we shall have at the end of 1914 a minimum of thirty-three and a maximum of forty-one battleships fully manned and in full commission against which the comparable German figure is twenty-nine. Thirty-three to twenty-nine does not perhaps sound a very satisfactory proportion, and it certainly is not an excessive proportion, but it is impossible to settle this question merely on numbers. The quality of the ships and of the squadrons must be measured, and it is after a full and minute examination of the qualities of the ships and the squadrons that the Admiralty are able to announce that they are satisfied with the margins proposed so-far as the next two or two and a half years are concerned. I hope I shall not be pressed to enter into any process of comparison of the individual ships and squadrons of this country with those of any foreign Power. Such comparison would be irritating and invidious to others, and it is very likely that by revealing our own views they might prove injurious to us; nor do I wish, unless I am compelled to do so, to justify the Government to the House of Commons, nor do I wish even to dwell in detail upon the character and quality of our ships in the various squadrons as they will be in the years 1914 and 1915. I hope it will be sufficient for me to say that the arrangements proposed will, in the opinion of the Admiralty, be adequate for the needs of 1914 and 1915. I ought to

    849
    mention before I leave the Fleet organisation and come to personnel, that in addition to the five battle squadrons described, we have two battle squadrons of eight ships, each in reserve in the Third Fleet. These are the Seventh and Eighth Battle Squadrons. They consist entirely of ships mounting four 12-inch guns at least, and we believe them to be fully equal to, if not superior to, any serve squadrons in any other country.
    The first of these, the Seventh Battle Squadron, is manned partly by active service ratings and partly by men of the new immediate Reserve. This formation, I announced earlier in the year, and it has developed very well. Already 2,000 immediate Reserve men have responded, including a large part of the flower of the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Seventh Battle Squadron is a complete tactical unit, and has played a useful and important, and I might also say heroic, part in the manœuvres which have just closed. We expect during next year this new class of Reserve will rise to 5,000 men, and as they have to undergo twenty-eight days' sea training in each year, instead of coining up for a week to be trained in the depot, and as they are liable to be called out independently of a general mobilisation at any time when the Admiralty consider that there is an emergency, it may be hoped that this Seventh Squadron will attain the much higher efficiency and still more a higher degree of readiness than has hitherto been possessed by any of our Reserve formations. The increases in the Fleet which will be accommodated in home ports make it necessary to take full advantage of all existing berthing facilities, and we propose, therefore, to base one cruiser squadron on the Third Fleet upon Haulbowline and probably another at Pembroke.
    I now come to the manning of the Fleet. There have been a great many ill-informed statements during the last few weeks about the shortage of men. I have seen it asserted that it was not possible to man the manœuvre Fleet without resorting to all sorts of expedients. Statements have been made which would appear to indicate that we would not be in a position to man all our Fleets on the outbreak of war. The manœuvre Fleet contained a large number of vessels which depend for their complements in war upon a regular compulsory mobilisation of the Naval Reserve, and in war such a mobilisation would bring to the naval forces many thousand more men than there would be room for
    850
    on all the ships of all classes fit to put to sea; but in peace, when we are not drawing to any real extent upon our Reserves, and when, nevertheless, we are mobilising, a large number of ships dependent upon Reserve, the Admiralty were confronted with a task quite different from, and much more difficult than the regular war mobilisation. In the whole of the manœuvre Fleet only 3,000 Reservists and Volunteers of all kinds were employed, and less than half the Coastguards, but if we were mobilising for war we could have claimed the services of 20,000 men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, 19,000 of the Royal Naval Reserve, 7,000 of the Pensionable Reserves, 4,000 men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, about 4,000 recruits, seamen, stokers and Marines under training, who would have passed the emergency test, the whole of the Coastguards, amounting to 3,000, of whom only 1,400 were employed in the manœuvre Fleet, a total of nearly 60,000 men, less than 4,000 of whom were required to complete the manning of the manœuvre Fleet now at sea.
    The problem we have to face is not the supply of men for the mobilisation of the Fleet when war is imminent or has actually broken out. The problem is to increase the numbers of actual service ratings permanently employed in maintaining the margin of fully-commissioned ships necessary for security in what we hope will be the long years of peace. We have to develop a new and large organisation of the Fleet; we have further to provide for the two extra destroyer flotillas in full commission, one this year and one the year after next, and to do this and to man the increasing fully-commissioned Fleets of 1915, 1916, and 1917 it is necessary to add steadily and continuously to the active service numbers of the Navy. The House has already agreed to increase Vote (A) this year by 2,000 men, that is an average figure. It is an average maintained during the year, and, as you begin from below the level, it means that we can makeup any shortage which exists and then rise by 3,000 more. That has already been assented to by the House. We are now asking a Supplementary Estimate for increase of 1,500 additional to Vote (A), which means that we shall be able to add rather over 5,000 men in this year to the strength of the Navy, besides making up the shortage which existed at the beginning of the year. No time has been lost since the German Navy Law was published in increasing our recruiting service, because I thought it proper to recruit up to

    851
    the full limit allowed me by the House during the first period of the year, and to come and ask for a Supplementary Vote in time to cover the latter portion of the year. We have therefore been practically recruiting as for an increase of 5,000 men ever since April. We started, however, 2,000 short, And it would take us all our time, and probably involve special measures to reach the necessary figure at the end of the year. It will be necessary to make a further large addition to the personnel of the Navy every year for the next four years in order to reach by 1920 the total of officers and men required to man the war Fleets which we shall possess at that date. I do not think it necessary—I would do so if I were pressed—to state the actual figure up to which we are working, but an increase at least as large as we are proposing this year will have to be made next year, and one slightly smaller the year after. There is another aspect of the manning problem to which I must refer. There is no lack of good and healthy boys and youths in these islands to man the Navy. The excellent training and education which the Navy provides, which enables them to earn good wages and secure regular employment when they leave the Service, with varying and extensive prospects which the Navy offers to intelligence and industry, and the larger portion of pensions which are earned by regular long-service men, must never be underrated by the House, and are not underrated, as our recruiting returns show, among the people of the country.
    5.0 P.M.
    At the same time we must not forget that the strain of the Naval Service is steadily increasing, and we are demanding year by year a higher order of service and intelligence from our seamen and stokers. We must remember also that the cost of living has risen greatly in the last ten years, and that has inflicted a real hardship on married men, of whom there are a large proportion, and of whom there, ought to be a large proportion, because they are the most healthy men our race produces at the present time. We must also remember that the increase in the proportion of home service renders the life of the sailor more expensive than when a large proportion of his time was passed in foreign countries; and, lastly, we must remember that the wages and conditions of soldiers, postmen, policemen, firemen, dockyard employés, and
    852
    other State servants have been sensibly improved in recent years. It is our duty to see that the seamen and stokers and others, on whose courage and conduct in peace and war the whole fortunes' of the State depend, are not left behind, or overlooked, or neglected. It would ill become this House to vote year after year unexampled millions for the grim machinery of modern Naval war, and then to grudge the officers and men of the Fleet—without whose devotion these prodigious engines would only be worthless metal—the rewards which are their due, and which are necessary for their comfort and their contentment. This is not a question which should be the subject of a long and dilatory inquiry, because all the facts necessary for a decision are already well known at the Admiralty. It only remains to choose the method of applying the means at our disposal so as to give the greatest amount of relief and satisfaction therefrom. I am not yet ready with definite proposals, but I hope to be so, and to bring them before the House when we meet again in the autumn. That is all I have to say on that point at the present moment.
    There are two other matters which affect the personnel. There is a scheme of giving a proportion of commissions to the lower deck, and this has been completed, and the first batch of future officers is now being selected and will be published shortly. In the second place, the Committee which has been sitting under the Presidency of Rear-Admiral Brock on the system of punishment prevailing in the Fleet has sent in its report. I have read the report and the minutes of evidence, and though very voluminous they are deeply interesting. All ranks and men of all ratings have been freely consulted, and as witnesses they have expressed their views with a great deal of sagacity and thought, and with a proper recognition even of men actually undergoing punishment on the needs of Naval discipline. Action will be taken shortly to improve the system of punishment which exists in the Navy, and also to regulate the conditions of petty officers with regard to disciplinary matters. There are three other Committees I may be permitted to refer to with regard to the personnel and the manning of the Fleet, and other points I have touched upon which have been set up. First of all there is Sir George Murray's Committee on the organisation of the Comptroller's Depart-

    853
    ment. This Committee has already reported. I have considered the report and decided upon the action to be taken. The new Table of the distribution of Admiralty business has been prepared and will be published in a few days. All the interior arrangements have been settled, and the new system will come into force immediately. Secondly, there is Admiral distance s Committee on the education and training of young officers, which has issued two interim reports on which action has already been taken, and the final report will not be long delayed. The object which is being pursued is to make the chain in the education of these young men less ambitious, more simple, more practical, more thorough, and more directly centred on their fitness for specific duties as naval officers. Thirdly, a Royal Commission is about to be appointed to inquire into the question of liquid fuel and its application to warships. There is nothing sensational about this. The inquiry will be a very long business, but it will not obstruct Admiralty action in the meanwhile, and it portends no sudden or extensive changes in the methods of Navy construction. But the subject is one of very high importance and requires comprehensive and exhaustive study. Lord Fisher has, at my request, consented to take charge of this inquiry.
    I turn now from these Naval domestic topics further abroad to the waters of the Mediterranean. What is the present position in the Mediterranean? We have to provide a force in that sea capable of maintaining in peace or, if necessary, in war, the great and enduring interests we have so long established there. The naval position in the Mediterranean is about to undergo a series of very important changes. At present neither Austria nor Italy have any "Dreadnought" vessels actually commissioned, but in a few weeks, and possibly sooner, the first Italian "Dreadnought" will be ready, and thereafter both Powers at short intervals will continue to be reinforced by powerful modern units, until towards the end of 1915 Austria will be able to dispose of four, and Italy of five, perhaps six, "Dreadnought" vessels. Sir, we demur altogether to the assumption that these two Powers, whose past history has not been free from differences with each other, and who have never had any quarrel with us, and with whom we have long been, and are, upon the most cordial and most friendly terms, are likely to combine together in making an unprovoked
    854
    attack upon British ships and British Possessions. We demur also to the suggestion which is put forward in certain quarters that we ought to maintain, apart from our general sea supremacy, apart from our superior margin in the home waters, a local superiority in the Mediterranean over the combined fleets of those two Powers. To do that would be to set up not a two-Power standard nor even a three-Power standard, nor even a three and a-half-Power standard, but it would be a three-Power standard with 60 per cent, preponderance additional over the strongest naval Power. Such a policy would impose extravagant burdens on our people.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Sixty per cent, preponderance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I am assuming 60 per cent, preponderance. It would be a three-and-a-half-Power standard on the general margin I have outlined. Such a policy would impose extravagant burdens upon our people which would not be justified by any of the vital and fundamental needs of the State. It rests further, we venture to think, upon an entire misconception of sea power, and upon an ignorance of the principles by which it is animated and governed. The command of the Mediterranean cannot be treated as if it were something isolated or wholly separated from the general command of the sea, and any attempt to confine our naval supremacy to particular waters and particular seas is actuated not only by false strategy but by bad politics. We have to provide for the Mediterranean a force adequate to maintain our interest there in time of peace, and a force which is well suited to the special duties which it would have to perform in time of war. I decline altogether on behalf of the Admiralty to be led into a narrow discussion of the relative strengths of the various Mediterranean Powers or into minute comparisons such as I have indulged in in regard to Home waters between such Powers and the British force which may be assigned to the Mediterranean station,, nor do I propose to give any indication of the Naval dispositions we should adopt to meet the various contingencies which might arise. Every hon. Member, wherever he sits in this House, and everybody in this country or out of it, is at liberty to form his own opinion on that. It is clear, however, that the force least well suited to warlike service in the Mediterranean would be a squadron of comparatively old battleships,

    855
    slow enough to be brought to action by newer vessels, and not strong enough to maintain themselves in the line of battle. Such a squadron would expose us to the maximum of expense in time of peace, and it would lead us into the waste of using full complements upon vessels whose inferior quality should relegate them to the reserve, and would prevent our bringing into full commission vessels whose superior quality justified their being placed in our First Line; and in time of war such a force would only prove a cheap and easy prey to the navy of any Power which possessed a few powerful modern ships. In fact, we should have been preparing what may be called a naval Nicholson's Nek if we had allowed the four "Duncans" and the two "Swiftsures," which have in recent years constituted the Mediterranean Fleet, to remain at Malta after their usefulness had, owing to the development I have indicated, become completely exhausted.
    The right way to maintain interests in the Mediterranean is to employ the smallest possible number of modern ships which are good enough for the work they will have to do. We have, therefore, determined to withdraw the six old battleships from Malta and to replace them with four battle cruisers of the "Invincible" type. These vessels will go out in the winter, and in the interval there will be a powerful battle squadron available which will be able to cruise in the Mediterranean, filling in the gap before these vessels can be fitted for service there and the arrangements made for their reception by the Fleet. We intend further to strengthen the quality of the armoured cruiser squadron based on Malta by substituting four much more powerfully armed vessels for the four ships that are now there. All these vessels will be based on Malta. These two squadrons are, of course, enormously superior in gun power to the vessels they have replaced. They are by themselves and in themselves a most formidable naval force even without the aid of the Gibraltar battle squadron. The battle cruiser squadron, which alone will command a broadside of thirty-two 12-inch guns, will in speed be unapproachable by any vessels of equal power built, building, or projected in the Mediterranean, and a combination of speed and gun power offers us, I am informed, tactical advantages of the very highest quality. Such a force is specially
    856
    adapted to trade protection. In conjunction with the Navy of France, it would, of course, make a combined force superior to all possible combinations, and these vessels can be spared from our force at home because of our great strength and preponderance in powerful armoured cruisers over the next stongest naval Power. I should like also on this point to tell the House that we have since I have been responsible for the Admiralty practically added two battle cruisers to our available resources, because the New Zealand Government have, with their usual patriotism and public spirit, placed their fine cruiser at our disposal for the general Imperial Service, and the "Indomitable," which was to have gone to China, has been retained for service at home. Therefore, we are not of opinion there will be any difficulty in sparing these vessels at the present time.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what these vessels will be?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There will be the "Shannon," two "Duke of Edinburghs," I am not sure what the fourth will be, and they are amongst the most powerful cruisers we possess. It will also be necessary for us to add to the submarine and destroyer flotillas at Malta and to establish a new torpedo station at Alexandria. All these measures, which do not require to be elaborated in too great detail, will be taken promptly. I do not propose to deal now, or at any time during the Debate, with the tactical arguments by which these dispositions can be justified. That would make it necessary to scrutinise narrowly the strategical and political conditions of the various naval Powers in the Mediterranean; to scrutinise the character and quality of the ships which they possess, and the kind of enterprises they might be anxious to undertake in war. The discussion of such topics could not fail to do harm both to our diplomatic and military interests, and I am content to say, basing myself, as I must do, in these matters upon the advice and opinion of the naval authorities on whom the Government rely, that we consider the arrangements described, not only the best possible in the circumstances, but satisfactory in themselves so far as the next two or two and a half years are concerned. The time has not yet come to provide for the latter part of the financial year 1915–16. It is not unlikely that the Mediterranean.

    857
    Squadron will require to be reinforced towards the end of that year, and, if so, the proper steps, whether by acceleration or by increase, which it would now be premature to settle, will be taken in due time. I am bound to add, however, the information which has reached the Admiralty seems to indicate that one of the Mediterranean Powers I have mentioned is contemplating another considerable naval programme. We do not need in these matters to act on surmise or by anticipation. It will be sufficient for me to say, if this information should prove to be correct, it would constitute a new fact requiring prompt attention, and not included in any of the forecasts I have given of future naval construction.
    I have one thing more to say before I sit down. I have endeavoured to place, as frankly and as fully as I can, the naval situation before the Committee, and it has been, I can assure the Committee, a source of comfort and of encouragement during these last weeks to have had by our side the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Dominion of Canada. It has been like the touch of the hand of a strong friend when serious business has to be done. The task of maintaining the naval power of the Empire under existing conditions is a heavy one. All the world is arming as it has never armed before. We have to face the simultaneous building by many nations of great modern ships of war. We have to protect from all danger or alarms Dominions and territories scattered over every Continent and across every ocean. Well do we understand the truth of Mr. Borden's words—
    "The day of peril is too late for preparation."
    There is an earnest disposition on the part of the self-governing Dominions to assist in the common defence of the Empire. The time has now come to make that disposition effective. Apart altogether from material aid, the moral effect of the arrival upon blue water of these new nations of the British Empire cannot be measured. The unity of the British Empire carries with it the safety of its component parts, and the safety of the British Empire probably carries with it the peace of the world. If we are told that the beginnings of co-operation in defence must carry with them the beginnings of association in policy, then I say that both in measures of defence and in the direction of policy the co-operation of the Dominions with the United Kingdom will be of estimable benefit to the strength
    858
    of the Empire and to the general cause of peace. It is our duty to acknowledge the important aid already given. The progress of the Australian Fleet unit is continuous, and as it develops it facilitates the new Fleet organisation by releasing the numbers of men whom we have hitherto maintained in those waters for service nearer home. I have already referred to the action of the Government of New Zealand. Now Canada has come forward. We have had repeated conferences at the Admiralty and a conference of the Committee of Imperial Defence with Mr. Borden and his colleagues. They are now in possession of all the facts, and we have discussed, with the utmost freedom and confidence, the action which should be taken and the way of surmounting the difficulties which obstruct such action. So far as the Admiralty are concerned, I can assure the Committee there will be no difficulties which shall not be surmounted. There is, however, a strong distinction between measures which deal with the requirements of the immediate future and the elaboration of a permanent naval policy. The latter will require longer consideration and much fuller discussion than have been possible during the short time our visitors have been amongus. Mr. Borden and his colleagues authorise me to say they share this view, and that any special action which the immediate future may require of them will not be delayed pending the settlement of a final and permanent naval arrangement. They wish that the aid of Canada shall be an addition to the existing British programme, and that any step which Canada may take may directly strengthen the naval forces of the Empire and the margin available for its security. And they tell me that the action of the Dominion will not be unworthy of the dignity and power of Canada. More than this I do not propose, and I am not entitled to say. The decision of the Canadian Government will not, of course, be announced until the Ministers now in London have returned to Canada and have had an opportunity of laying before their colleagues the results of their conferences with us. Meanwhile, I will venture respectfully to suggest the less the question is speculated on the greater the public convenience will be.
    I have now finished—I am afraid I have trespassed a great deal upon the indulgence of the Committee—the statement with which I desire to commend this Supplementary Estimate to their attention.

    859
    It always happens that these occasions of naval discussions are preceded by a crop of lively rumours and contradictory forecasts, and some of those who appear to have specially close and detailed information of Cabinet and Admiralty secrets delight to depict from day to day the varying fortunes of the Imperialist and economist sections of the Cabinet, who are represented as waging a savage and perpetual warfare, only suspended from time to time by unsatisfactory and unnatural compromises. These ingenious speculations indeed, if I may say so with respect, betray a great lack of understanding, The kind of questions with which we have been dealing this afternoon are not matters into which compromise can easily enter. They are not suitable subjects for hagglings and bargainings. The Minister who for the time being is responsible for Admiralty business to the House is brought directly face to face with very serious and very definite facts. It is quite easy for the House to change a Minister; it is quite easy for a party to change a spokesman; but changing a Minister or changing a spokesman docs not change the facts. There they are, and they march towards you, and some one or other, somehow or other, has got to deal with them, however unpleasant they may be and however unpleasant their consequences may be. The policy which I have submitted to the Committee this afternoon is the policy of the Admiralty, which we ourselves have steadily developed and pursued, and in which we have confidence. On behalf of the Admiralty I shall ask for nothing that is not necessary, and I have asked for nothing that I have not got.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The Vote now before us is, in appearance, a comparatively unimportant one. The sum involved, by comparison with the colossal expenditure which we are compelled in ever increasing measure to undertake, is a small one, but I think all will agree with me that never has an issue so great as this raised to-day been raised upon, as it were, so small a foundation. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for some 1,500 men and some relatively small increase in construction, but he has taken the occasion, and for my own part I am glad he has done so, to make a survey of our general situation, which touched not merely the issues of peace and war as they are commonly raised on our Naval and Military Estimates, but which brings before the
    860
    House, in almost menacing guise, the increasing difficulties of the European situation, the ever darkening clouds threatening us from the European side, but balanced, may I say even more than balanced, by what he stated at the end of his speech, namely, that our great Dominions, especially Canada, are realising to the full, as Now Zealand and other Dominions have already realised, the changing situation of the Empire and the responsibilities that a changing situation inevitably throw upon every component element of the Empire. If we have, as we have undoubtedly after the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen, to contemplate a situation of the utmost gravity in Europe, if we have to look forward, as we must look forward, to no relief in the burden of armaments and no diminution in the number of men we draw from the general population in order to defend the country; if, on the contrary, in all these respects we can look forward to nothing but an increase, an annual increase on a very large scale, en the other hand we feel that the resources of the Empire are more and more becoming available to the needs of the Empire, and we, who I hope and believe, have ever stood for the world's peace, will not stand alone in these two Islands, but shall have behind us the whole strength of the Empire of which we are part.
    The right hon. Gentleman showed, I think, a wise reticence in all that he said on the subject. Evidently he and his Government, and I should gather the same thing from the public utterances of eminent Canadian statesmen, contemplate that with the increasing support which the Dominions are giving to this country there will come, as in my opinion there ought to come, and must come, some increasing share in the responsibility for guiding the destinies of that Empire. I do not know whether it can be found in the very elastic constitution of the Defence Committee, but there will, at all events, be machinery for an interim, I will not say a permanent, an interim arrangement on the subject. I at all events have always hoped, and in some of my many speeches, have indicated my hope that it would prove to supply machinery which would help us in this particular kind of difficulty. I rejoice that the Prime Minister has summoned, certainly not for the first time—I rejoice that he has summoned in the last few weeks, the representatives of the Canadian Government now in London;

    861
    and has taken them into the full confidence of the Government on all these great problems in which the interests of Canada are as closely bound up as the interests of this country. I could not help, when the right hon. Gentleman was explaining, which he did with a brevity and conciseness that greatly added to its force when he was explaining the German Navy Law, I could not help feeling how prodigiously the whole situation has altered even since the present Government came into office.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that spasmodic efforts wore not the kind of effort required at this time. The Germans were moving steadily and remorselessly, they were adding year by year to the number of men, to the number of ships, and to the readiness of those ships and those men for instantaneous action, and he said, and he said rightly, in my opinion, there is one way and but one way to meet a menace of that kind, and that is to imitate the policy of your neighbour, and neither to lapse into panic nor what is even more important not to relax for one instant your efforts for the augmentation of your strength, so that no possible revolution of fortune will ever put you at the mercy of some naval or military accident. That, general maxim—whether the Government are carrying it out adequately I cannot say—I, for one, heartily agree with, and I am glad the Government have come round to that opinion. I do not propose, indeed it would not be dignified to indulge in recriminations or reminiscences, but I must honestly say there were some years in which the present Government were in power in which they did not realise the true value of the maxim which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down as the basis of their present policy, and it may be that had they been wise a few years earlier, as they are wise now, we might have been spared some of the cost and some of the anxiety which it is impossible now, as far as I can see, to wholly avoid. I did not get up, on an occasion like this, to survey in detail, or indeed to survey at all, the particular proposals laid before us by the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to have time to consider them. I suppose this may be taken as only the first of what will be in reality a two nights Debate. Unless I am mistaken, the Government desire to devote Thursday to the Defence Committee. But as I understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it was based upon
    862
    broad issues which the Defence Committee has more particularly to deal with and which cannot be excluded, and ought not to be excluded, from Thursday's Debate. When Thursday comes we shall have had time to discuss among ourselves the special points which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us.
    I may, however, perhaps be permitted to remind the House how great the change is in the naval problem, as compared with the naval problem which used to confront our fathers at the time of the wars of the eighteenth century and of those of the early part of the nineteenth century. We have heard in the public Press and from right hon. Gentlemen, we have heard from supporters and critics of the Government, a great deal, for example, about the Mediterranean problem. We sometimes, allow ourselves to think that the Mediterranean problem in 1912 has some resemblance to the Mediterranean problem at the time of, let us say, the Seven Years' War. But it has no resemblance. It is totally distinct. In the eighteenth century there was no naval Power worth counting in the Mediterranean east of Toulon; practically our one great naval opponent was France; that was our one great naval opponent both on the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. France sometimes had an alliance with Spain and sometimes had not, but, broadly speaking, France was that opponent, and the very fact that our opponent in those days was geographically situated where France is situated, made the whole difference in the problem, because we had only to consider practically the fleet of France. It might be in the Mediterranean at Toulon, or it might be at Brest, but wherever it was it was our business to be there also—to be within reach also—in case of war. If they increased their power in the Mediterranean by hypothesis they diminished their power in the Atlantic and the Channel, and you could diminish your power in the Atlantic and Channel, and so leave the balance perfectly unaffected. You cannot do that any more. The power that menaces your Fleet in the North Sea is not a Mediterranean power, and she is not going to keep a single ship in the Mediterranean whatever your necessity may be. Moreover there are two naval Powers in the Mediterranean now, in addition to Spain, France, and ourselves, which did not exist as naval Powers till quite recent years. Austria, with only 300 miles of coast, and with no oversea possessions, is now in process of becoming one of the fore-

    863
    most Naval Powers of the world. I know not exactly under what inspiration. It is a fact, an easy and simple fact, which is open to us all, that in dealing with the Mediterranean it is not open to us, and cannot be open to us. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated, and I think he rightly did so, any minute examination of the tactical problem here or elsewhere. Such minute examination could do nothing but instruct your possible or conceivable opponents; it certainly cannot aid your friends; it certainly cannot aid international amity at all; it cannot help that upon which I still hope and believe the peace of the world may, under circumstances which I will discuss presently, be more or less dependent. Therefore I follow the example set by the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not touch upon the details of those problems. I understand from him that at all events up to the time when the present Austrian and Italian programme will be completed his official advisers are content with the new increase and the reorganised force in the Mediterranean. I understand that the Government have greatly added to their Mediterranean force.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BALFOUR: And that the new arrangement is much more formidable than the old.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Much more.
    Mr. BALFOUR: And that irrespective of the Atlantic Squadron, which has to do the double duty of helping in the North Sea or in the Mediterranean, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the ships based on Malta are a far more formidable force than we have for many years, or, perhaps ever, based upon that military port, and in the opinion of his naval advisers that is sufficient for the present. I think I inferred from something which fell from him in his speech that he quite admits that he cannot look beyond the next two years or two years and a half.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Two years and a half.
    Mr. BALFOUR: And that there may be developments which will require a great change even in his Mediterranean arrangements?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: About three years from now.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I gather also that the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is safe in not making up his mind as to what new construction he will make until next year.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Is he not running it rather fine? He has already told us how the coal strike has thrown expenditure, I think, over two years. I do not unduly press the point, but I ask him whether he does not think that he may not be losing precious months, and that it may not be well to announce even now, or at all events in the course of the next few weeks or months to make up his mind as to what additional construction will be necessary. But I presume that must have been under the consideration of the Government, and before the Debate closes the right hon. Gentleman, or one of his Friends, will be able to explain why it is that he comes down in the middle of July and makes a speech which I think causes more grave thought on the situation of this country than any speech delivered in this House—not excluding the famous speech made by the Foreign Secretary three years ago—and which has caused probably more grave anxiety than any speech delivered in this House. He has made that speech. He has told us of our dangers. I think he will admit he has told us very little of how he means to meet the dangers. He may be right. It may be enough for the Government to show, as undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman has done, that he knows how serious is the menace, that he knows that that menace can only be met by unwearied exertions and unceasing sacrifices until this insanity of foreign construction is brought to an end. He told us in solemn accents of these perils, mentioning even their dates, and then he says, "You must give me a few months—six months, I suppose—to consider what is being done in foreign dockyards, and how we should arrange our construction best to meet it."
    If that is his view, I, at all events, do not feel myself in a position to severely criticise him. If the Government cannot be trusted to deal sufficiently, honestly, and fairly by the House when they make clear how great is the peril in which we stand, if they cannot be trusted to bring forward Estimates for the construction which they think may be necessary at the right time, they are certainly not fit for their office, and the right hon. Gentleman and his naval advisers are not fit for their places; and the sooner other naval experts

    865
    are chosen in their places the better. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt honestly in this matter. He has been so absolutely candid as to the magnitude of the crisis that has to be dealt with, that it would be folly and a petty and ineffectual meanness to defer until next February—it would be unduly and improperly deferring—what ought to be done in this July. I think everybody will own that the prospect before Europe is not an agreeable one. We perhaps on this side of the Committee have been better prophets than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But however that may be, I take it that all who have listened to the speech just delivered by the First Lord must now be of one opinion, that there is no use haggling over details, that there is no use talking about dropping your shipbuilding because if you go on with it it may provoke this or that Power. The days for that—if those days ever existed—must, in the opinion of every sane man who listens to me, be long past. I hope and believe that if this country does its duty we shall maintain peace. Though I cannot disguise from myself that modern peace is almost as expensive as ancient war, yet it is much cheaper than a modern war, and my hope of maintaining it is based upon the fact that modern war, especially an all embracing war, would be so horrible and appalling a calamity, it would not be merely so frightfully destructive of accumulated wealth and of human life, but it would so profoundly disorganise the industries upon which, in an increasing measure, every great and civilised country is more and more dependent, that even the most reckless statesman, when he sees it before him, will shrink back horrified at the prospect. I, therefore, though it may seem strange, attach value and importance to the way in which the great Powers of Europe are now, as it were, crystallising. I do not see why that should increase, in any respect, international bitterness of feeling. I rather think it may produce ultimately a different result; but this result, at all events, I think we may hope it will produce. I cannot conceive—I do not know the details, and I do not even know whether the Foreign Secretary knows them—that the Powers of Europe, or that any Power of Europe, is so insane as to make alliances involving itself in an offensive war in a cause in which it has no quarrel at all. I assume that sufficient sanity is still left among mankind to
    866
    ensure that this organisation of Powers is on a defensive basis. If that is so, and if it works out in practice—we all know there is sometimes a difference between the theory and the practice in these matters—what will be the result? The result will be that any single Power indulging in reckless and offensive acts of aggression will find itself isolated from its friends, but in conflict with an overwhelming enemy—in conflict, I mean, with the other organisations which, by hypothesis, are the subject of this gratuitous attack. On the other hand, if the central Powers of Europe and the other Powers of Europe are organised in one sense against one another, yet, as I hope, not necessarily against one another, if the war spreads at all it will involve the whole of Europe, broadly speaking, and in nearly all the great countries every able-bodied man may have to come out. The prodigious and appalling cost of mobilisation, direct and indirect, is one which will have to be endured by France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia, and we shall have to endure something, not precisely of the same kind, but certainly only a little less onerous in its character. That alone is surely a guarantee of peace, even if it be a costly peace, which you could not have if there was no organisation at all in these two camps. At any rate, in my sanguine moments, I believe that the very fact that the organisation will make war impossible unless it is universal is a reason why war cannot take place. It is too appalling.
    6.0 P.M.
    If we are to contemplate the horrible, and, as I hope, the impossible—if there is to be this universal Armageddon, then, looking at it from a naval point of view, it seems to me that the fleets of the Triple entente are not inadequate now, and are not going to be inadequate, to any strain that is going to be placed upon them. If we can conceive, if we are driven to conceive, if we are obliged to conceive this condition of universal warfare, then I do not say that the fleets with which our interests are concerned can be regarded is inadequate, in any theatre of operations, to the strain which will be thrown upon them. I decline to believe it possible that we alone should be concerned with all the navies of the world except those, let us say, of France and Russia, who remain neutral in their ports. I hope and believe we should not be unequal even to that strain, but it is a strain which is surely not probable. Surely, if we are to draw these dreadful pictures of international

    867
    disaster, and if that is a necessity forced upon us, we need hardly suppose that our evil fate, or even the most imbecile diplomacy, would force us into conflict with three nations with whom we have no cause of quarrel, with whom we have been—at all events as regards the Mediterranean Powers—on the most friendly terms within the memory of man, and who, I can hardly believe, will be driven to attack us, and attack us alone in anybody else's quarrel. We must prepare even for that danger, but I think it most improbable. In any case, if I understand the policy of the Government aright, it will be the most perilous adventure that any State could in future engage in to drag Europe into war. It would be perilous for itself, it would be perilous for the world, it would be perilous for its commercial interests, for its military interests, for its social order, for everything that makes civilised life desirable or bearable. Therefore, though we may groan under the magnitude of this expenditure, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Government and of future Governments must look forward with little less than dismay to a burden which has increased by how many millions since we left office?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): About twelve.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is now twelve millions more than when the present Government came into office.
    Mr. LOUGH: You left it at thirty-five millions.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I will not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman over a few hundreds of thousands, or even millions of pounds. The eleven or twelve millions by which the Estimates now exceed the Estimates of 1905 are going largely to increase, whatever Government is in power, and must increase as long as the insane competition in shipbuilding goes on elsewhere. We, at all events, have this consolation. We do not build for ambition, we build for peace and security, and so long as we build for peace and security, so long shall we have behind us the opinion of those great Dominions to which I referred earlier in my speech, and so long shall we have behind us the opinion of all the smaller States in Europe, and so long shall we have behind us the enlightened approval of mankind. If we can secure peace, even at this sacrifice,
    868
    we shall have done great things in our generation; and I am perfectly positive, that short of the sacrifices which the Government are asking from us, and which their successors or themselves will have to ask in even greater measure, you will never secure that peace which nothing but this sort of preparation will ensure. If war occurs, and finds you unprepared—if it finds the defensive Powers of Europe without your support, and your adequate, instantaneous and immediate support—you and all of us who are dragged into your responsibilities will be guilty of the gravest crime against peace and humanity of which this country or any country has ever yet been guilty.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not rise, I need hardly say, in any polemical spirit, nor do I propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the very interesting observations he made towards the close of his speech in regard to the effect of what I would call the present international grouping of Powers, except to say, which I do with full conviction and with some considerable experience of the actual working of the situation, that I entirely share his views that it makes for peace. We shall have a further opportunity on Thursday, when I shall hope to make a statement reviewing in a more general way that part of our policy which falls within the scope of the Committee of Defence. For the moment I should like to reiterate in the most emphatic way, speaking on behalf of the Government, and, I believe, of all parties in the House, the general principle which the right hon. Gentleman laid down, at the close of his speech. We are most reluctant competitors in this naval rivalry. It has not been provoked by us. We have entered into it, so far as we have entered into it, at enormous cost to the taxpayers of this country, not as free agents, but under the compulsion of circumstances. The Estimates have increased enormously, and I cannot, I am sorry to say—I wish I could—dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's prediction as to their possible further increase in the future. We justify that expenditure, much as we regret it, heavy as are the burdens which it imposes on the country, for two reasons and for two reasons only—the increase in the number of our ships and the personnel of our Fleet, and its superior equipment, and the expenditure which all these needs entail—in the first place to maintain the security of our shores, our Dominions, and our commerce; and in the next place to

    869
    insure the peace of the world. These are the two governing and guiding objects of British naval policy, and I speak the sentiment, I am certain, of the whole House when I say they are objects which we shall always pursue whatever party may be in power, and whatever may be the change in the grouping of Powers.
    I would only say two or three words in regard to the Vote now under discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms upon it. My right hon. Friend, as he has acknowledged, has spoken to the House with the utmost frankness in regard both to the present and the future. I deprecate anything in the nature of panic or scare. I do not think there is the least occasion for it—but it is of the utmost importance that we should see clearly what is likely to happen, and that we should provide in time for our own part in the discharge of our own responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman rather suggested that there had been, or at any rate there might have been, a time in the history of the present administration when that duty was not adequately performed. I do not agree with him, and if this were a fit occasion for doing so, which I do not think it is, because it relates now to a past and an almost past, I should be quite prepared to justify it. There never has been a moment, and there is not now, when we have not been overwhelmingly superior in naval force against any combination which could reasonably be anticipated. But I entirely agree. We must maintain that position and maintain it to the full. As far as the Mediterranean is concerned, there has been no change of policy, but there has been a change, that has been going on now for many years, in what I may call the strategical equilibrium. It began when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in office. In old days we used to maintain our much largest and our most powerful fleet in the Mediterranean, but the centre of naval gravity has shifted, and it became necessary for us to alter, as that centre shifted, the distribution of our force, and when we came into office the process was already in full operation, and instead of the Mediterranean being, as it had been for a generation past, the principal seat and centre of our preponderating naval force, home waters have taken its place. That does not mean that in the opinion of our predecessors, any more than in our own, there were not and are not vital British interests to safeguard in the Mediterranean. Anyone who knows the
    870
    course of our trade, the sources from which it proceeds and the lines which it follows, knows perfectly well that we cannot under any conditions treat the Mediterranean as if it were a theatre in which we had no direct interests of our own, or which we could leave to be safeguarded and looked after by someone else. That is an inconceivable position for any British statesman to take up. Then it becomes a question when you have to estimate what is the actual force that you shall maintain there, and it becomes a question what are the conditions.
    The conditions, I agree, are in many respects new by which the size of that force ought to be determined. I certainly shall not not make the assumption which I think would be politically, and from every other point of view, an absurd assumption, that we are likely to have to meet the combined forces of Austria and Italy in the Mediterranean. That is an assumption that is totally unnecessary. But we must be in a position in the Mediterranean to maintain our interests, and to make those interests secure against all the hazards which they may reasonably be expected to be exposed to. At this moment I believe that is the case. But there is a great change going on. The Government do not think we should be honestly discharging our duty to the country if we were not to alter the character and composition of our Mediterranean force. We have for many years past had what used to be called the Atlantic Fleet based upon Gibraltar—what is called a Pivotal Fleet, able to turn its attention either to home waters or to the Mediterranean, as the case may be. We have maintained at Malta a comparatively small force of battleships, not, according to modern ideas, of the first class. Now we propose, in view of the new situation which is about to be created, without forecasting in the least degree enmity from this quarter or from that, to substitute for what, under the existing conditions, we believe to be a force not adequate for possible emergencies and dangers, a force much stronger in its character and composition—four battle cruisers with double the gun power of any force that has been in the Mediterranean for many years past, and to supplement it by armoured cruisers of a very superior type to those of the "County" class and others which are at present to be found based on Malta. That new force will be based on Malta, and it is the opinion of

    871
    our naval advisers—an opinion arrived at after the most careful investigation of all the facts of the case—that during the time for which it is our business in this Session to provide, looking forward from now to the next three years, a force so constituted and composed and based will be amply sufficient to safeguard all British interests in that possible theatre of operations.
    The right hon. Gentleman said, Are you not, in regard to the future, running it rather fine? I do not think we are. If we thought we were, we should be taking a grave responsibility, and one which I certainly would never for a moment dream of taking. For three years from now, in the opinion of our advisers, that is an amply sufficient force. We do not know—we shall be in a much better position to know six months hence than we are now—what events are likely to bring forth. Programmes, as everyone acquainted with the history of naval shipbuilding is aware, exist on paper which are often not performed in fact. They are, moreover, constantly modified from their original shape into a different shape, and I have always held, and I have maintained the opinion in this House and elsewhere, that it is a very great mistake in such a shifting art as naval shipbuilding—and no one has had a more conspicuous illustration than we have of the extent to which that art of shipbuilding has developed in the course of the last ten years—to make your provisions too far in advance, or you may find you are left with ships which are obsolete, out of date, and which are not really fit for the growing requirements and exigencies of naval warfare, in which case you will have lost your money and will have to spend it over again in having to provide substitutes. There are many illustrations of that in our past naval history, and I should be sorry that we should repeat that experiment. But the House may feel assured that when we produce our Estimates next year, with the added knowledge and fresh light acquired in the interval, and with the prospective requirements of the situation in our outlook, we shall not fall short of anything our advisers think necessary to fully and adequately safeguard British interests in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
    I would like to add one word with reference to the visit of our Canadian colleagues and the co-operation which has already begun in council, and which I believe will before long fructify in action. I desire on behalf of His Majesty's Govern-
    872
    ment to tender our most grateful acknowledgments to Mr. Borden and his colleagues, not only for the spirit in which they have entered into these deliberations, but the contribution they have already made to our knowledge of the matter. I am sure the House will agree with them that their first duty is to their own constituents and colleagues in Canada, and that any announcement they may be in a position to make after our conferences are completed will be more appropriately made there than here, but whatever it may be, and I am perfectly certain it will be adequate to the dignity and the patriotic spirit of the great Canadian community, we shall receive it here with the utmost gratitude as an acknowledgment that we are true co-partners in this great Empire, that its burdens and responsibilities are shared by the Mother-country and the Dominions, and that we cannot in peace or war isolate ourselves from one another. I will add—although I will not make any detailed statement upon that point at this moment—that side by side with this growing participation in the active burdens of the Empire, on the part of our Dominions there rests with us undoubtedly the duty of making such response as we can to their obviously reasonable appeal that they should be entitled to be heard in the determination of the policy and in the direction of Imperial affairs. I do not say it would be wrong to state—of course Mr. Borden and his colleagues would be the first to disclaim any desire for any such declaration—but I do not say in what shape or by what machinery that great purpose is to be obtained. Arrangements like that cannot be made in a day. They must be the result of mature deliberation and thought; they will probably have to develop from time to time; but without committing ourselves in any degree to particular forms in the matter, we share, with our great Dominions the feeling which has become more and more conscious and articulate as years have gone on throughout the Empire, that we have a common heritage and interests, and that in the enjoyment of that heritage, and in the discharge of the duties which those interests involve, we ought more and more to be conscious partners with one another.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The Vote now proposed is, comparatively speaking, small, but the speech in which the First Lord of the Admiralty moved it is one of the most portentous this House has ever

    873
    listened to. I am not going to criticise the details of the programme, or the details of the speech itself: I am not in a position to do so. Very few Members of the House can have followed in detail the various statements the First Lord has made, and very few are in a position to say whether his conclusions are justified or not. All that this House can do is to put itself in the hands of experts, and it can only judge whether these experts at the present moment are advising us wisely or otherwise by what these experts have said in years gone by. If we have found these experts coming before us year after year, and, speaking through the mouths of First Lords, giving us doleful tales of menace, and telling us of the enormous shipbuilding programmes which other countries were embarking upon—if we have heard the Prime Minister himself in the most doleful accents tell us, as he did, a few years ago, that certain things which were most portentous were about to happen—and if we find that neither the forecasts of the experts nor of the Prime Minister occurred, then I think we are entitled to regard the statement we have heard this afternoon with a good deal of suspicion, and we should not be asked to put ourselves into the hands of Admiralty experts in this matter. There is one thing we cannot forget. The events of last summer and autumn undoubtedly had their influence upon the shipbuilding programmes of European countries. It is all very well to come before this House and say that we are building for peace. I believe that is the intention, but our diplomacy has not always been peace diplomacy. There is not a single Member of this House who has been accustomed to go to Germany, and who knows German public opinion in the last twelve months, and more particularly since last September, who does not know perfectly well that the events of last summer have coloured public opinion there, and that the temperament of the Germain mind has been altered on account of these events. These things must be taken into account as well as the German shipbuilding programmes. I think we would all feel far more secure in the hands of the First Lord and his permanent advisers if our diplomacy and the speeches made outside and inside the House were less provocative than they have been in the last twelve months. If the First Lord goes to a great commercial centre and says that while we build from necessity the German navy is to them in the nature of
    874
    a luxury, I say that is not the sort of speech to induce Germans to believe in the pious opinions expressed in this House when we ask new Votes for naval building. The First Lord has told us quite truly that we can change Ministers and parties, but that we cannot change facts. Beyond the events of last summer and autumn are facts which cannot be changed now by any pious expressions of the part of the right hon. Gentlemen who are largely responsible for their creation.
    As to points raised of a more general nature, I should be the very last to say anything or do anything that would seem to detract from the generous statement of opinion made this afternoon as to what our Dominions who have come to our assistance have done. But, after all, we must remember that in taking these steps the Dominions are only doing their duty. The Dominions have inherited with us common dangers and common interests, and it would have been preposterous for them—they would never have thought of it—to have assumed that the Mother-country was going to go on for ever bearing the whole cost of naval and Imperial defence. We must also remember that it has been foreshadowed that the moment the Dominions take their fair share in Imperial defence, then they are going to insist upon getting a fair share in the shaping of Imperial policy. Representation on the Defence Committee will not satisfy Canada or Australia. If those Dominions are going to put their iiects—fleets created and maintained by them—at our disposal in the event of a European war, then these Dominions will have to have something to say in regard to the events leading up to war. The sooner we begin to understand that this enormous shipbuilding programme, which is compelling us to call on the Dominions for aid for the purpose of Imperial defence, is a revolution in the government of the Empire, and in the determination of Imperial policy, the better it will be for us. That is what is happening to-day. This country will be no longer able to have the sole and decisive voice on all the great questions of Imperial policy—not only as to the policy that affects the whole world, but as to the policy which is going to affect our relations with European countries.
    One of the most melancholy and doleful parts of the First Lord's speech was his reference to the Mediterranean. What did that reference amount to? To-day we will say that it was impossible to conceive of Italy and Austria as our joint enemies, but

    875
    hon. Members must have noticed while that declaration was being made it was dissented from by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite who are the nucleus of a dissent that is going to grow into a majority. In these things there is no half-way house. We have an essential line of communication beginning at the northern end of the Suez Canal and ending at the Straits of Gibraltar. Everybody who has been to India or Australia knows the importance of that line of communication. On its path is Malta, a naval base, and the theory is that we have got to put ships in Malta of sufficient importance, strength, and menace, to meet our requirements. We can say today that there is no chance of raising a scare against Italy and Austria, although there was a chance a year or two ago of raising a scare against Austria when it was referred to as a reason for submitting inflated shipbuilding programmes. To-day we may say—although the newspapers have not worked it up, some have been doing their best—that Italy and Austria will never unite against us. But it does not require much of the gift of prophecy to say that the assumption of Italy and Austria uniting against us is going to be made the basis of our naval strength in the Mediterranean. That is one of the most doleful and terrible prospects with respect to our armaments during peace. As a beginning, we are told to-day that Alexandria is going to be made a sort of base for smaller craft—torpedo-boat destroyers, and, I suppose, submarines, and so on. That means that we are going to have another naval base m the Mediterranean. From the strategical point of view, I dare say one can see its necessity, always on the assumption that we are going to equip the Mediterranean in precisely the same way as we are now going to equip the North Sea.
    All these beginnings evolve themselves in accordance with a law of their own being. It is not the Admiralty experts who are going to settle that; it is not the Front Bench, Liberal or Tory; it is the state of mind into which we are led by going on this way year after year that is going to work itself out. I do not care who is in office or who is at the Admiralty, or what sort of expert you are going to have there; you are going to build in panic; you are going to assume the worst, and by assuming the worst you are creating precisely those suspicions which make the worst become still worse as the years go on and as the shipbuilding programme
    876
    gets larger and larger and its cost to the country more and more oppressive. The statement about Germany is a case in point. As I have said already, we have had so many stories about German shipbuilding; we have had the Admiralty experts frightening us so frequently—first of all as to the navy shipbuilding law. Even there we are asked to be a bit cautious and not to jump straightaway. It would have been still more important not to have jumped to-day, and arouse once more all the old suspicions, enmity, and what is much more important and dangerous, all the old German conviction that this country is not building for peace, but building for war. My hon. Friend (Mr. Chiozza Money) has recently become a very considerable naval expert in these matters. He will not deny that the events of September completely changed the state of the public mind in Germany. If my hon. Friend has got the least acquaintance with German opinion, as I know he has—
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does my hon. Friend suggest that the events of last September called into existence the Naval Law of 1900, or the Amendment of 1906, or the further Amendment of 1908?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Surely my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that he is on quite safe ground when he suggests that the events of September, 1911, did not create the events of 1900. I should have assumed that he would put a higher value on the intelligence of his colleagues in this House than to have even suggested that; but apparently he and I disagree on that particular point. What I do assert is that the events of September did call into existence the naval law that followed those events. I do assert that if you are going back to a time when the previous naval laws and the amendments of the laws in existence were promulgated you will find reason after reason why Germany should be suspicious of our building; and suspicion and shipbuilding, shipbuilding and suspicion, and suspicion and shipbuilding again—it has simply been a series of psychological states in political programmes and policies during the last ten or twelve years, as far as Germany is concerned. I simply want to make my protest. The German situation has always been created by speeches such as we have had to-night, and then made worse by shipbuilding, and then made still worse by speeches following the shipbuilding programme. I do not want to blame Ministers

    877
    or individuals, but what I do say—and I am sure that this House will agree with me—is that this system is a system of progress down and down in obedience to a momentum that somebody must stop somehow, and at some time. Otherwise we are going to have war whether we like it or not. It is no use talking about arming ourselves for peace and saying that the cost of peace arms to-day is worse than the cost of war in old days, but that the only thing we can say in excuse for our policy is that the cost of peace arms is less than the cost and the deplorable character of modern war. As a matter of fact, we are not avoiding modern war by what we are doing. It is bound to come; we are not going to go on year after year, and Germany is not going to go on year after year building, building, building, increasing our Estimates by millions and millions every year. Neither Germany nor ourselves can stand this sort of thing, and whilst we are dragged in this vicious circle we are bound at some period and at some time to make our protest.
    It is perfectly true that the First Lord has come up to-day with his statement about Germany building, and then he says that we have got to build likewise. Our building likewise is going to be read tomorrow in Germany, and all our policies and all our intentions are going to be twisted and twined in precisely the same way that we twist and twine the policy of Germany. From one point of view we are bound to agree with the First Lord. I am not going to do anything or to say anything which would deliberately at any given moment, in 1912 say, so diminish our power of self-defence that we would be unequal to any struggle which might be put upon us. I am not going to say that; I have never said it and I never will say it. But these policies are not policies that are limited by one year's naval programme. They are policies that are fulfilling themselves, that are carrying out, as I expressed it a minute ago, a law of their own being, and these policies are the things that must be stopped. So far as we are concerned, we are going to try to stop them on every conceivable occasion, as we are going to do on this occasion. We co-operate in this respect with colleagues who sit in those foreign Parliaments who never voted for the increase in their own naval laws, who have never supported them, who have not supported in Germany, for instance, the increase of 1911. And the peace of Europe depends far more upon demonstrations such as these
    878
    international demonstrations undertaken by sections in the various nations' Parliaments. Your shipbuilding Votes will be reduced, and your peaceful diplomacy will be encouraged far more by our Labour party in this House joining in the demontrations with its German Socialist friends, and declaring that so far as we are concerned we shall not aid Governments to get those Votes, and we shall not enable Governments to go on in this happy-go-lucky way of competition in armaments, which is always grievious and grievously heavy, but which ultimately must bring the countries concerned in it to war. We will not accept any responsibility whatever for making it easy for Admiralties to go on increasing our naval forces. We believe that the diplomacy of the Government is largely responsible for what has taken place, and we shall take our stand with the men in Germany who are opposed to increases in the Navy there, and we shall do so to-night.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member who has just spoken would like to have done with regard to our Navy this year. Does he wish to have a Navy at all? If he does, he must have a Navy that is equal to its needs, and should be big enough to preserve what everybody wants in this House—the peace of the world. The Navy is not to declare war; it is to preserve peace. The hon. Gentleman complained of the continual competition between us and Germany. I agree with him in that; but that competition could have been stopped in the year 1909 if we had laid down in that year a sufficient programme to show Germany that competition was impossible. Are we going to keep command of the sea or are we not? According to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he does not want us to keep command of the sea. I can perfectly understand any hon. Member who says he does not want to have a Navy at all, but I cannot understand an hon. Member that will vote for a Naval Estimate that does not provide a Navy strong enough to support the Empire. I have been in this House on and off since the year 1874, and never in my life have I heard such an extraordinary Debate as that of to-night. Everyone who has spoken has realised the immense gravity of the position. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a very clear speech, showed how grave the position was, but he has not told us in any way whatever how he is

    879
    going to meet it. If the position is as grave as he says, immediate action ought to be taken, not with regard to talking about Germany, but talking about Europe and the fleets of Europe, and what we should have to meet in those fleets if war were declared. I do not suppose that there is anyone in this House who thinks that we are going to have strained relations with Germany and not strained relations with Austria and Italy. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) below me, in a speech at which I was amazed, as good as told the Government that they were doing everything that was right, and that there would be no possibility of war because of groups. The possibility of war on account of groups depends entirely on which is the strongest, and although I agree entirely with him about the horrors of war, and as to how any war between us and Germany, or between the entente and the Triple Alliance would put back the whole civilisation of the world by centuries, I do not agree with him at all that such a combination is not possible as Austria and Germany and Italy.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I did not say that. I will not repeat my argument. My Noble Friend completely misunderstood the whole position. I never said anything of the sort.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I certainly understood my right hon. Friend to say that the question of groups makes more for peace than for war.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think that is so.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is all I stated. I cannot agree with that at all. What is to prevent the almighty power of Germany, although Italy and Austria are our friends, putting such compulsion upon them that they would attack our flag in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I never denied that. My Noble Friend has quite mistaken my point. What I said was that it was extremely improbable that we as a solitary Power should be engaged against the Triple Alliance. If Europe is organised as it is now, a war is a general war, and in a general war I believe that the fleets of the entente would be equal to the occasion.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: In that I most entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend. I quite see his point. I would not be bold enough to try to upset him on great questions of policy, but on the
    880
    strength of the Fleet I might be bold enough. The Russian fleet cannot possibly be ready for several years. Our immediate danger is in the next two or three years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite gave it as three and a half years. I make it much less. I think it is two years. With all our affection for the French nation, their navy would not be a very great support to us. It has never got over its morale being destroyed by M. Pelletan. Therefore, to some extent, to a very large extent, if a disturbance did occur within the next two years, it would be certainly upon our shoulders that the brunt would fall. That is my point, and that is why I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because my Friends all around were all equally astonished. What he did recognise was the gravity, but he did not say that it would be taken up immediately. He rather praised the First Lord of the Admiralty for saying that he has not told us what he was going to do.
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the Noble Lord wishes to reply to me he should understand me. He said that the date was coming in 1914. No new building there will help.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: No building would help? But a different allocation of the Fleet would help. I wish to turn to the question of the men. If it is so serious a matter as the First Lord of the Admiralty says, then we are, by his own showing, in a more serious position than I even had suggested. There is a great number of things we could do. We could build a great number more torpedo vessels. We could construct a great number more mines, and we could build a number more submarines-though I do not count on them too much—but the right hon. Gentleman is not doing this at all. He is doing nothing whatever to meet the gravity of the situation. He is an exceedingly clever Minister, and he makes out what he calls, a Supplementary Estimate which has nothing to do with the £1,600,000 we spent last year. We should have been in a very much better position now if we had spent that money. If it were necessary to spend £1,600,000 last year before there was anything said about the new German Naval Law, why is it only necessary to spend £990,000 now? I cannot follow that; there may be something beguiling in it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The objects for this £1,400,000 expenditure are being carried out as fast as they can be carried out.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Where did you get the money?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are working as hard as possible to earn the money allocated for the objects during this year, and next year we shall have to ask an extra sum in order to complete them. We are working at those objects, and they will be finished to a larger extent in another financial year than they would otherwise be.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: You put it off till next year, and hon. Members will have the right to complain why you do not do it now.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are doing it now. We are building the ships and carrying out the different works with the greatest possible rapidity.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Why do you not lay down more ships now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is another question.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman said in this House that this Estimate was to meet the new German Navy Law. It is nothing of the sort. It is to meet our deficiencies now, and he has not told us anything about what he intends to do with regard to the meeting of the new German Navy Law. It is going on the principle of the Front Bench opposite, that we are to wait and see whether something happens. That is what I object to in Navy policy. We ought to look ahead and see what other nations are doing, and be prepared to be better than they are long before they finish their ships. That you have not done up to to-day. You should have had a Supplementary Estimate in 1906; you should have had another Supplementary Estimate in 1908; and you ought to have done something in 1909, in order to meet the crisis which you were told would happen in 1912–13. The right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench pointed out that there would be a crisis in 1912–13. He was held up to ridicule by hon. Members opposite and by the whole Radical Press; they said he knew nothing about the matter. The crisis is here, or else the right hon. Gentleman has not meant what he said. He could not have been more plain; I defy anybody to have been more plain with respect to what he told us to-night in regard to the future naval defence of this country. He told us about the comparison of British and German vessels. I always deplore bringing
    882
    in the name of Germany at all. We can perfectly well arrange our own Imperial Navy without bringing in any other country. There was one very bright spot in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that was his reference to our great Dominions coming to our aid. I believe that help will be substantial; I believe it is possible that it may help to pull us through.
    But I regard the question in a more serious manner than does the right hon. Gentleman. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman had to wait until the Prime Ministers went back to their own countries, from what he says. I think the help, which our cousins and relations beyond the seas are going to give us comes at a very grave and critical crisis, and, if they do-render that help, I agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) that they certainly should have something to say in regard to the policy that dictates peace or war. The First Lord of the Admiralty is extremely clever. I wish I had half his ability. He has dealt upon those grave questions, but he skidded over them very lightly, like an aeroplane. Let me ask him how it is we have got into our present position? What is our present position in the Mediterranean? He is just as well aware as I am that our exports and imports over our trade routes are £326,000,000 a year. He is perfectly aware that 60 per cent, of our food supplies come through the Mediterranean. He knows the importance of the road to India, to the East, to Australia, and all those great Dominions beyond the seas. He also knows that at this moment there are warlike operations in the Meditteranean. Yet he told us that he has left at this moment one single cruiser, "The Good Hope," with the Admiral's flag flying, as the only British warship in the Mediterranean. The "Lanchester" is in dock; the "Suffolk" and "Hampshire" have been brought home, and I want to ask any commonsense and business person whether it was right to leave the Mediterranean with only one single cruiser, particularly at a time when warlike operations are going on there? The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose influenced by the Foreign Secretary, has made a right about face.
    Mr. CHURCHILLdissented.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but what he said on the 8th March was that he was going to abandon the Mediterranean.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I never said that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman did not say it in words, but he has performed the act, which is very much more to the point; he did abandon the Mediterranean. Is not the Mediterranean abandoned now, when we have only one cruiser there?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that very frequently vessels have been brought from the Mediterranean to take part in the manœuvres here. It is nothing new.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is a very clever remark. But there were no warlike operations going on in those days which might threaten the food supply, and our food supply was threatened in the present warlike operations going on in the Mediterranean. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that British prestige in the East is of some value? Does he think that he is going to maintain our prestige in the East by leaving the Mediterranean with one single ship, as at the present moment? The point really is this—I suppose it was the War Staff which had something to do with bringing the vessels to home waters. The real point is this, that on the First Lord's own showing we cannot have the force necessary in the Mediterranean without weakening our home defence. Why did they bring those ships home? It was all very well to say that the Mediterranean was not abandoned, and that we do bring out ships occasionally, but we have never brought them home; we have brought them as close as the Straits of Gibraltar to take part in the manœuvres when our other ships got there, but we have never brought them home.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not so.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that we have brought them home?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Where?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We brought them to the West Coast of Scotland.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Scotland? When?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Three years ago.
    7.0 P.M.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go and get a copy of the book. We certainly have never left the Mediterranean as it is now, and I am
    884
    certainly right in saying that it would have been most unusual, and I do not believe that it would ever have occurred to the Admiralty then to bring the Mediterranean Fleet home when warlike operations were going on there. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Austria and Italy as being our friends, and that they will not attack us. Austria and Italy will have considerable fleets of "Dreadnoughts" in the Mediterranean directly, and the right hon. Gentleman gave us an intimation as to what he is going to lay down almost immediately. But why is he going to wait? This side has always been pointed out as scaremongers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." He had better wait. Who created the scare in 1909? Was it this side of the House? It is of no use pointing to these benches. It was done by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the present Home Secretary. Now we have another scare. Who is making it? The right hon. Gentleman is going to have an enormous naval Estimate next year—probably over £50,000,000. Will he get it by holding up Germany again, by making another scare, in order to get the support of his followers behind him? Another point on which I wish to ask a question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to increase the garrisons in the naval bases? When I was commander-in-chief there was a Committee, called the Owen Committee, composed of some very young officers and one old general. They went out to decrease the garrison and to dismount certain of the guns at Malta. Sir Mansfield Clarke, Commander-in-Chief; the Commander-in-Chief at Gibraltar (Sir G. Forestier-Walker), and myself, Commander-in-Chief, expressed the hope that these garrisons would not be reduced. All we got from the Admiralty was, "Oh, yes; they are going to be reduced for economy, but the naval support we consider will be quite enough for their strength." Now they have taken the naval support away. I had eight battleships at that time and several cruisers. Before that there were fourteen battleships and several cruisers. And even then the commander-in-chief thought that these garrisons were not strong enough. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us by and by if he is going to increase the garrisons. It is a very important point. There is another very important point that has been called attention to by those papers that support

    885
    the right hon. Gentleman. I say it is a complete reversal of policy. He may not have meant it when he said it, but we understood him to say that he was going to leave the Mediterranean. The Foreign Secretary made a speech the other day in which he spoke of a respectable Fleet. I am a, very old seaman, and I never heard the term respectable Fleet, and I do not know what a respectable Fleet means. What I would suggest is that the Fleet which he suggests, whether it be respectable or not, is not the Fleet that he ought to send out, but that he ought to send out a Fleet. With regard to the change of policy, a paper called "The Nation," which I do not often read, says: "With regard to the change of policy, if we were safe last March under Churchill strategy we do not court death and damnation by adhering to it in July." I agree with the editor of "The Nation" that there has been a change. I am not going to recriminate, but I think you were wrong to leave the Admiralty with only one ship under circumstances which are occurring in those seas. If you abandon the sovereignty of the Mediterranean, it is the main link in the defence of the Empire. I do not say for one moment that it is not wise strategy for the right hon. Gentleman to have the Fleet in home waters, but I do say that the Government ought to see to it that we have a building programme. You may say anything you like on that bench, but so far as naval policy is concerned, I would never believe anything you say. You will have to build a new Fleet for the Mediterranean. Why do you not come out like men and tell the truth instead of going round and round prevaricating? I think that is in order. I could say much stronger things, but they would not be Parliamentary. Why do not you do that instead of prevaricating as you have done, and saying for so many years, "The Navy is efficient, and sufficient, and we have got plenty of men." None of those things were true; they have been proved not to be true by your subsequent action. Next year you will have to set to work to build a Fleet for the Mediterranean. May you not be too late. Supposing you had war come suddenly on you last September, you stood a very good chance of being beaten last September if there had been a sudden war. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the Fleet was divided and that they were not equal to the German High Fleet at Sea.
    The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The Prime Minister does not agree to that; I cannot help that; but it is a positive fact, for our Fleet was divided—he will acknowledge that some at Cromarty, some at Berehaven, some at Portland; and there were other little things, serious things, which I do not think it wise to mention in public. I wrote myself to the Prime Minister a letter in which I pointed out a number of little things, that there were no sentries for the magazines and no sentries for the dock gates, and the Fleet was divided, and if we had been suddenly attacked we should have been at such a tremendous disadvantage that we should probably have been beaten. It was all very well to scoff. It did not occur, but had it occurred, and it might have occurred, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have been on that bench. He would probably have been hanging on a tree in Hyde Park. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be taken in by the value of submarines. They are entirely theoretical. It has been put about that submarines can do the work of battleships and cruisers. They cannot. They are entirely theoretical. What beats a, seaman at any time is when he is in a fog. The submarine is always in a fog, though I quite agree with them for defence: for offence I am sure they are a mistake. I saw some mention of submarines being used to convoy merchant ships. It was certainly in the Radical Press. I desire now to speak about the question of men. I must point out Admiralty methods, and it does not matter much which Admiralty is in power; they have always got those deplorable methods. Here is a case. On 2nd June I asked for two Returns showing the officers and men to be issued on the 25th of every month. The First Lord of the Admiralty replied that it was not in the public interest to give it. Does he still think so as to the Return I asked for with regard to the men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it would be in the public interest to publish that information every single month of the year.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It is a very curious thing. I put exactly the same question in a different way and I got all the information I wanted. That is the Admiralty method. In the case of the First

    887
    Lord I was not to get it, as it was not in the public interest; but in the case of the Second I did.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Not every month.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I got what I asked for. I want to point out to the Committee the mistakes that are often made with regard to statements made in the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us he was 240 men short last year. I knew he was a great deal more, and by this Return he was 1,205 short. I say he had no right to tell the House one thing that is not a fact. He ought to find out exactly how many men he is short. Why should not the House know exactly the condition of the manning of those ships that were turned out for inspection? I asked for a Return to know where the men came from, and who filled nucleus and skeleton crews. That is in the public interest. The First Lord of the Admiralty, to my astonishment, got up a short time ago and said that the whole of the ships that the Members of the House saw were in fighting action. That is absolutely incorrect. It may be a civilian's point of view, but you cannot fight an action properly with those ships under two months, no matter what your advisers tell you, and we do not know always what the advisers tell them. Whenever they get into a hole they say their advisers told them.
    Mr. CHURCHILL and Dr. MACNAMARAindicated dissent.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It has been done very often. It was done in my day; I would not accept it, and I resigned my seat at the Admiralty.
    Mr. J. WARD: I would like the Noble Lord to tell the House why they could not fight.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: To have a fighting ship in these days you require the greatest discipline and confidence of the men in the officers and the knowledge of the men by the officers. You do not know these men or where they came from, and they never worked together. I said in this House in 1876 that if I had to fight an action in a battleship I would march a battery of garrison Artillery on board to fire the guns rather than take men who had never been together before, because the men in the battery would know each
    888
    other and their officers, and it is knowledge of that that helps you when you are fighting an action. Do not ever go to the country and tell them you can fight with any men. You cannot fight a ship filled with a nucleus and skeleton crew with credit or safety to the officers and men under two months. That is my deliberate statement, and you have no right to make a great show and say that you can fight an action when you could not do it. Take the question, for instance, of turning circles. The captain does not even know the quartermaster, and you might have the ships two cables apart and they might ram, the quartermaster may put about too much in one direction, and he does not know the lieutenants' names.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: All the ships of the Second Fleet and the ships of the Third Fleet have been manœuvring at full speed during the last week.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I was talking of the 233 vessels. Your Third Fleet is only eight and the Second Fleet seven, I think.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole of the ships have been manœuvring under war conditions with lights out at night during the last week.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is a statement. I saw that there were very nearly some very serious collisions. But supposing they had been manœuvring like that?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They were.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It is not fighting an action. That is my point. It is perfectly right to have the manœuvring like that, but on the face of it is it likely that ships, suddenly manned with officers and men raked from every portion of the country, can be as efficient as ships that have been together eight months. The right hon. Gentleman is very clever to get up and make that sort of statement. The right hon. Gentleman says they are not short of men. The whole of the policy of the Admiralty for some years was to reduce the men. In 1904 there were 4,100, and in 1905 the Manning Committee stated they would like from 8,000 to 10,000 men join for future requirements. In 1905 they were reduced by 2,500 men, and in 1906 the men were so short that 25 per cent, of the fighting force of the fleet was put under nucleus crews because there were not men to man them. The scrapping policy was not done because of the ships being too old. They were not too old. It

    889
    was all done to reduce the personnel. We are short of men now, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is going to join 3,500 is incorrect. Twelve hundred of those are to fill up the men who did not join last year because you did not get them.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman say, "No"; I say, Yes. Was he twelve hundred short last year or not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We hope to increase the number of the Navy in the year by over 1,500.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman really knows that he was more than 1,200 short.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then why not say so?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the Noble Lord will not doubt my remark. I have already stated that we had to make up a shortage of 2,000 men. The manning question is very complicated, and I will explain it at a later stage. But I have not prevaricated. I have stated the facts of the case. We are endeavouring to deal with it as rapidly as possible.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not think I have said anything discourteous. If I have I am very sorry. I do not adopt that method of argument as a rule. I merely say that we were over 1,200 men short, and that the men who are joined extra are to fill up the shortage of last year. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do, and what I understood him to say he would do, is to join 5,000 over and above the wastage. I do not think he can join more than that. I should be glad if he could join 10,000, but he cannot. If he will join 5,000 right up as far as he can, I shall be satisfied. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that at last they are going to look into the question of pay and kit. That is a very different reply from the one I got from his predecessor. The Secretary to the Admiralty will always get my warmest thanks for the way he has looked into the question of the men and their comforts and necessities. I have received nothing but courtesy from him. I am afraid I have bothered him very often, but he has always been most courteous about it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not at all. Please do not pay me compliments.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I am not paying you any compliments; I am only giving you your due. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he had been rude to me, I should have been much ruder to him; otherwise I should not be an Irishman and a seaman. Without joking, the right hon. Gentleman has always been very courteous. But there was a time when I wrote a letter about the pay and kit, and the Admiralty said they could not think of adding such a large sum to the public expenditure. The first necessity of any Fleet or Army is to have the officers and men happy, comfortable and justly treated. I maintain that for years the pay in the Navy has not been what it should be, looking to the fact that the whole of the other employés of the Government, including the Army, have obtained extra pay. I do not find fault with the Army. I do not think they are paid enough yet; certainly the officers are not. But the Navy is not paid in proportion to what other people receive, or in proportion to the high price that provisions have reached, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let us know as soon as possible what he intends to do on this question. I am perfectly certain that the House will pay whatever they are asked for by authority, in order to put the men on a proper footing. You may have your engines and your guns and all the rest of it, but without the human element you cannot win. It is your business to see that those who serve you and fight your battles in your ships are properly treated. With regard to the Fleet which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to send out to Malta, I understood him to say that he has four "Invincibles" and six of the "Natal" class.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Four.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Eight altogether, and for a year or two you are to have four battleships based on Gibraltar.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Early next year there will be six.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: They are to be based there, as the light hon. Gentleman expressed it on the 18th March, to proceed to the East if there is a combination—and there can be only one combination—or to proceed to the North if they are wanted as reinforcements. If that is the case, they ought to be at home. Why do I object to these heavy battleships going to the Mediterranean? A great point was made of speed. What is the use of

    891
    speed for the Mediterranean? By the time they got up speed, if they went North or South they would be ashore. Anyway, their speed is of no use in the Mediterranean except to clear out. Then there would be the immense difficulty of berthing at Malta. Another point is that they are so big and powerful. Where would you be if one or two were laid up or even under repair? It would make an enormous difference to your force if you had one out of three or four laid up—far greater than if you had two out of eight battleships. I am not at all sure that they could refit well at Malta. Moreover, the Mediterranean is a narrow sea. These ships are of immense length and have an immense area under water.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is plenty of room to turn round.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Yes, but that is not my point. My point is that, owing to their length and the area under water, they are particularly liable to be hit by mines or torpedoes. These ships represent more than an army corps to an army. The Mediterranean is not a suitable place for them to go. The idea that a ship by its speed can choose its range is very silly. It does not matter what your speed is. If the enemy is armed with the same gun as you are, no matter what your speed is, when you can hit them they can hit you. The speed has nothing to do with it. But the reason why more than anything else I object to their going there is that their practical use with a big fleet is something immense. It is a great mistake, looking at the narrow margin you have, to send these ships to the Mediterranean. They would be invaluable to an admiral if he was fighting another fleet. He could fight another fleet with a smaller number of battleships if he had these cruisers than he could without them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his idea. I do not suppose he will at all; but anyway he is making a great mistake in sending these cruisers out. From six to eight battleships sent out into the Mediterranean would be infinitely more useful for fighting purposes than sending these four cruisers. They are a great loss to the fleet at home.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What battleships?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I would rather send out three of the "Dreadnoughts" than these. But the right hon. Gentleman
    892
    appears to have made up his mind, and I suppose he will adhere to what he says. I am very disappointed at what the right hon. Gentleman has told us he is going to do about this grave crisis. He ought to carry out the policy of keeping us as near supreme at sea as he can. We shall never be supreme again as we were, because the Government missed their chance in 1909. If they had had a big programme then, do you suppose there would have been any German increase? Not at all. The Leader of the Labour party is perfectly right when he says that we shall go on adding a little as against Germany—not enough, but just enough to make her go on, year after year until we come to war, as sure as we are in this House. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of a programme is very useful in argument, but it is no good in fact. You can make a programme perfectly. The pre-"Dreadnought" ships are excellent; they have done their turn very well; they are very useful now, and will be for some years to come. But what you want is a big programme, to show the world that we are going to keep supreme at sea, and keep the peace. If you go on as you are doing now you are sure to come to war. The right hon. Gentleman on 18th March said that Germany's menace through making our Fleet come home would impair the mobility of the Fleet. One point which we held supreme, and which gave us such power, was the mobility of our Fleet. I want to see the Fleet once more mobile, and though it can never be supreme again under the new circumstances, which I maintain is the fault of the Government, still we must do the best we can to keep supreme in those seas where it is necessary for us to be supreme. The one bright spot in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was where he inferred that the great Dominions were coming together, so that we shall make one great Imperial Navy, not only to defend the Empire, but to maintain the peace of the world, which is the object of our building a Fleet at all.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think the Noble Lord has displayed unnecessary heat in regard to a crisis which does not exist. I have been puzzling all the time to know why he should refer so constantly to "this crisis," and I think, through listening patiently, I can give the answer. The Noble Lord evidently believes that the description of what might happen in 1912, given in the doleful story told by his Leader, the senior Member for the City of London, in 1909, has really happened in fact.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It has happened.
    Mr. LOUGH: I suggest it has not happened. I will refer to it in detail in a moment, when I think I shall be able to satisfy the Noble Lord that none of the facts on which the panic of 1909 was based have occurred. We occupy to-day the strongest position relatively that this country has ever occupied, and so the Noble Lord may go home and rest in peace. The only feature of our naval policy during the last three years that has thoroughly satisfied me is the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that our naval matters should be treated as non-party. It must be, or ought to be, accepted in the House that Members on both sides are deeply interested in the safety of the country. Therefore if some of us think that in a time of profound peace we should husband our resources to build up our credit and make preparations unostentatiously for any crisis likely to arise, we should not be ostracised in this House. The task may be a difficult one, but we ought to get, I think, the sympathy of those who may not agree with us entirely in trying to put forward a case of this kind. The production of these Supplementary Estimates raises one of the gravest and most momentous issues that we have ever discussed in connection with our Navy. I will best serve the House and consult the convenience of Members if I say in the fewest words possible why I am of that opinion. I have always followed these Naval Estimates with great interest. We have been in power six years, and for the first three years our finances were managed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think his management was characterised by distinguished ability. He protected the interests of the country well. It has been said that he reduced the Navy Estimates; but he did not reduce them any more than the Conservatives had reduced them in 1905. This was during the first three years.
    In 1909 we, as I think, took a most disastrous turn in regard to these affairs. On 16th March of that year we had a crisis raised by hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House; for if this is, as it is, a non-political subject, it is absolutely necessary that we should pay attention to what hon. Members on the other side say. My views, perhaps, are not the views of everyone; but I ought to be allowed freedom to express them, and any hon. Member, if he disagrees, can reply.
    894
    I want to call attention to the statement made by the then Leader of the Opposition, who spoke with all the support of the Opposition, and with all the force of the high authority which he has in this House. His words have sometimes been referred to, but never just precisely as it seems to me they ought to have been. The right hon. Gentleman said that in December, 1910, the Germans would have thirteen "Dreadnoughts" to our ten. They had nothing of the kind; they had not five at that time. On 1st April, 1911, he said the Germans would have thirteen to our twelve. "There is no doubt," he added, "they will have thirteen." That day has passed. They did not have the number stated. Then the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Leader of the Opposition came to 1911, and said:—
    "We have to count on the possibility of the Germans having seventeen in July, 1911."
    They had only eight. He came again to 1912. He said:—
    "On April 1st. 1912, the Germans will have a possible-twenty-one 'Dreadnoughts'; we have twenty-five."
    That is how the scare was created. I say on this day it is hardly worth the dignity of a great Assembly like this that we should not pay some attention to the fact that none of these alarmist statements made in this House which led us to incur great expense have been fulfilled in reality. Then my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, was led to say that the estimate was that the Germans would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in March, 1912, which, was the crucial date. The lesson we learn is that these estimates were wrong. We have passed the crucial date. Germany has only ten ships. She has not built as we were told she was going to build. The whole thing was a tissue of fabrication, made to cast a slur on a great and friendly people. What are the facts? Germany to-day has ten "Dreadnoughts" and we have twenty. We have built up to the full measure of our protection against panic; we have twenty.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: How many had Germany?
    Mr. LOUGH: I am coming to that point. The difference between myself and others is that I deal with realities. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, with realities; and I say that on this day Germany have only ten "Dreadnoughts," and we have twenty ready for them. We have fulfilled the whole of our programme, and Germany has not carried hers out. Therefore

    895
    I was extremely sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London, again almost repeated—although he did not go into figures—the libel which he cast upon Germany three years ago. He said this afternoon that Germany "is building steadily and remorselessly." Germany is doing nothing of the kind. She has not built more than two-fifths of what was said here she would build. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am stating the facts and quoting from publications issued by the Naval League, and that ought to be good enough.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Oh, oh!
    Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the years in which the Liberal Government neglected building. The charges have not been substantiated, and the scare was raised on a foundation which has never been made good. I mean that in the first place, so far as we are concerned, Germany did not build with the rapidity we thought. We expended practically all our money. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I take no account of this million; we increased our naval Estimates by £12,000,000 in three years to meet an eventuality which did not arise, as I venture to suggest.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: All your figures are wrong.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Your figures are wrong.
    Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend behind me, who has changed his opinion in this matter, will have his opportunity. We are spending now at the rate of an added £12,000,000 in three years. We incurred an extra expenditure of £25,000,000 to meet a situation which was not half so serious as we were told it would be. Secondly, we cast aspersions, as I have said, upon a friendly Power, and our own finances were greatly disturbed in finding the money. Liberal policy was entirely reversed owing to these alarmist suggestions. Worse still, my right hon. Friend comes forward to-day and asks us to accept certain Estimates as to the future. Why should we accept Admiralty Estimates? The Admiralty were entirely wrong in 1909; why should they be right in 1912?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to know to what the right hon. Gentleman alludes?
    Mr. LOUGH: The Estimates in regard to the future. The one thing we agree about is as to how many ships there are in the Fleet to-day.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: No, no.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not referred at all merely to "Dreadnoughts." I have only stated the number of ships which it was desirable to keep in full condition. We are basing the Estimates on the express words of the German Act of Parliament.
    Mr. LOUGH: Very well; now I will quote my right hon. Friend's words. I am sure he will bear with me. He said that twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" will shortly be available.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I never said anything of the sort. I said that the number of battleships that would shortly be in full commission was twenty-five. The whole of them will not be "Dreadnoughts."
    Mr. LOUGH: It is very difficult to make a speech under the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Germans would have 101,000 men in their Navy in 1920. That is an estimate. How does he know what will happen in 1920? If during the three years of which we know the facts the Germans did not do what we have said, how can we know about the future?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The facts are not what you state.
    Mr. LOUGH: I do not think when the right hon. Gentleman alludes to 1914, and says that we might possibly have thirty-three to twenty-nine "Dreadnoughts"—though I do not wish to say he said what he did not say—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That does not apply at all to "Dreadnoughts." I was not dealing at all with "Dreadnoughts." I was dealing with ships in full commission.
    Mr. LOUGH: I hope I will get figures that we will agree upon. My right hon. Friend said that by 1915 Austria would have four and Italy five "Dreadnoughts." what certainty is there of this? The argument I wish to present is that this country has already, at an immense cost, provided for a state of things three years in advance, which as a matter of fact, has not occurred at all. The right hon. Gentleman might have done well, having

    897
    regard to the experience of the last three years, to have been content with less immense provision. I would like to allude to another aspect of this matter. So far as I am concerned, I have, never entered into Debate with the First Lord, so far, about naval policy; but I would like to tell him that I have not been at all satisfied with his speeches. Speeches which Ministers of the Crown had made on policy, have had a great deal to do with this matter. I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Glasgow laid down principles of which few can approve. He spoke of the Navy being absolutely essential to us; he said we could not live without it. That is a very common statement. It is no more true of us than it is true of Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] With great respect I repeat that, it is no more true of this country than of Germany. The theory is that we want our Navy because of our food; we import such a vast quantity of foodstuffs because our men and our industries can be employed much more profitably than growing a larger proportion of the food we need. But does not Germany want her navy to bring in her food just as well as we? If it is said that we want more bread the production of these Islands would be immense if we devoted our attention to production. Whatever merits we claim for ourselves we should allow the same for Germany. We should not seek to blacken a country with which we hope to be on friendly terms. In respect to the Glasgow speech, I cannot help saying that the occasion was most unfortunate, for on the day that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in Glasgow, Lord Haldane was in Berlin trying to improve the relations between this country and Germany.
    Mr. REMNANT: Which did most?
    Mr. LOUGH: It seems to me to have been bad management that on the very day that the Noble Lord went to Germany to try and improve the relations between this country and that, my right hon. Friend should have gone to Glasgow to make a speech of this sort about Germany. He did not think there was any harm in it. I think there was considerable harm. I think the whole policy which the country pursued is greatly influenced by the speeches made by a Gentleman in the position of the First Lord, and if we avoided all this mention of Germany it would do something to promote better relations.
    898
    This afternoon I was amazed to hear my right hon. Friend start with the name of Germany. His whole speech was about Germany. Why cannot we make the necessary preparations without drawing in the name of a Power like this, with whom we should always maintain friendly relations? Ministers drag in words about friendly relations at the end of their speeches. I suggest if the subject could be avoided it would do a great deal more good. My right hon. Friend coupled Austria and Italy with Germany. Not one of the three countries has any quarrel with us. I think it is a very deplorable thing that their names should be mentioned. We are in perfect peace with them, and we have nothing to complain of in their conduct, and we should not drag in their names in this manner. My right hon. Friend mentioned one other point. He said the German navy was for the purposes of expansion. Why not? Is not our Navy for the purposes of expansion? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] To what else do we owe this great Empire? We expanded by means of our Navy. There is plenty of room for Germany to expand. There are plenty of unoccupied places, and we ought not to make it a matter of argument against Germany for doing anything which we did ourselves in the past. We ought to measure out the same judgment to the Germans as we would like them to mete out to us. That would be the way to promote good relations, and I hope that my right hon. Friend and those who sit beside him on the Front Bench will consider whether everything we say about Germany should be said as we would have things said of ourselves. If we adopted that policy we would do something to promote better relations.
    There is a great deal in the circumstances to-day that tend to create another panic. I see all the machinery of the panic. My right hon. Friend says "No"; but why did he speak about these Powers, and about the urgency of the occasion? He used the expression "already in 1914," but we are not in 1914. We know nothing about that. We may provide for every effort we see at the present moment and with that we should rest satisfied. We never hear our old Liberal policy of peace and retrenchment from the Front Bench. There is something to be said surely for peace and retrenchment after all? There may be a time when that policy cannot be pursued, but we are in times of peace now; and arguments might be got up in favour

    899
    of this most excellent order. A few days ago the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling us about the fall in Consols. That is due more to heavy expenditure than to anything else, and heavy expenditure arises more from your gigantic Navy Estimates than from anything else. There are many aspects of the question from a Liberal point of view that might be considered by Ministers, and especially by Liberal Ministers. I think we might hear more upon this old policy, which was not only the policy of the Liberal Government, but which was the policy of a great many Ministers during certain periods of our history who were ready to fight a war to an end and to make any sacrifices to bring their efforts to a successful conclusion, but who in time of peace always carefully husbanded our resources. We do not want to place heavy burdens upon the people in times of peace. To put on burdens in time of peace that should only exist in time of war is very bad policy. Here we are always spending. We are now spending £45,000,000 on the Navy. When I came into this House first we were spending £15,000,000. At the present time the crisis is greater, the panic is greater. We could hardly go to bed at night in peace if we took things seriously, so that instead of commonsense security great expenditure makes us feel more and more unsafe. The sum of £44,100,000 is the naval expenditure of the current year; it is £12,000,000 more than it was four years ago, yet my right hon. Friend is not satisfied. As a means of recording the opinions I hold I desire to move the reduction which stands in my name.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: It is somewhat difficult to understand the purpose or the logical conclusion of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Islington who has moved this reduction. The right hon. Gentleman made a promise to me in the course of his speech which he has not fulfilled. He was stating that mistakes were made by those who prophesied a few years ago as to what would be the naval strength of Germany and other Powers, and I asked him if he was referring to the number of ships in commission at the present time, and I asked him how many Germany and others were building. He promised to give me that information, and I confess he has not done so.
    Mr. LOUGH: I did not say anything about the ships building. I was speaking of those completed in 1912, and comparing
    900
    them with what the right hon. Gentleman stated would be built.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: The right hon. Gentleman was founding his argument on ships built. He ignored altogether ships that are nearly built, and that are so far built that they could be brought into war service in a few weeks. That was the fallacy that underlie the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that Italy and Austria had no battleships at all of the first-class, although it is a fact that six such vessels are launched and are afloat and are in course of completion. Some of them are so far complete that if a war was to break out to-morrow they could be put into commission, and arguments in favour of the reduction of naval armaments founded upon fallacies and information of that kind cannot commend itself to the House of Commons. I do not know that I can follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in the whole of the speech he made this afternoon. I am sorry to say there was one argument in his speech which I do not believe will commend itself to the bulk of the Members upon this side of the House, or to the country generally. If I understood my right hon. Friend aright, he said that the formation or existence of groups of nations might be taken as in some degree as a reason for reducing naval preparation by this country. I hope I did not misunderstand what the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey, but if that was his contention, I, for one, humbly and respectfully entirely dissent from it.
    To me it seems, if the position of naval affairs in this country is to be maintained, it can only be maintained by assuming that the command of the sea is to remain to Great Britain. I do not know of any diplomatic relations or diplomatic and international agreement that you could take account of except so far as it lies in your favour; but if you are to reduce your preparations on any step such as that which I think my right hon. Friend intended to convey, and which I am sure would not be accepted, rather would I prefer to hark back to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, as Leader of the Opposition, when Australia and New Zealand had given their promise of assistance to the Mother land to build ironclads and when New Zealand said she would build you a second ironclad if that were necessary. Then my right hon. Friend, advising the Government, told them that the only safe policy is "To

    901
    build, to build, to build;" so that you may have such supremacy and superiority that you will prevent the competition of all other Powers which might otherwise arise. I agree if that was carried out in 1909 things would be different. It would have been carried out by the Liberal Government, but for the undermining of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Islington, in the spirit that peace may be obtained by a comparative cessation of preparation, although I believe the country did not recognise that, but does recognise that the only way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war. I agree respectfully, if I may say so, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, in his criticism as to the First Lord's provocative methods which underlie some of his speeches. We all remember that the First Lord in his speech as Glasgow referred to our Navy as a necessity, while he described Germany's navy as an unnecessary luxury. I venture to think to-day he made an almost equally maladroit and provocative comparison. He made the comparison between the Navies of Germany and Great Britain in 1914, and he pointed out that there will very probably be thirty-three battleships in Great Britain as against twenty-nine German battleships—a margin of four.
    Mr. LOUGH: In what year?
    Sir F. FLANNERY: In 1914, according to the right hon. Gentleman there will be thirty-three British battleships as against twenty-nine German battleships.
    Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman denied that to me.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: No, there was a misunderstanding about what the right hon. Gentleman said. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not enter into naval comparisons of the ships between the two countries because that was not necessary. Then he went on to state that in the following year, 1915, Austria would have four "Dreadnoughts," and Italy five. In other words, he added:—
    "I do not propose to compare the preparations of Austria and Italy with those of Great Britain, because the chances of international complication in the Mediterranean between Great Britain and Austria and Italy are very small."
    Did the right hon. Gentleman not see that whilst it seemed to him necessary to compare, ship by ship, the preparations of Great Britain with the preparations of Germany, it was declaredly his opinion that
    902
    it was unnecessary to make similar comparisons between Great Britain and Austria and Italy. I could imagine nothing more provocative as between those two countries than a statement of that kind. One-half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was occupied with a comparison of the naval power of Great Britain with Germany, and at the end of his speech he said that a similar comparison was not necessary as regards Austria and Italy with Great Britain. I regret this because it seems as necessary to make comparisons between Great Britain on the one hand and Austria and Italy on the other as to make comparisons between Great Britain and any other country. I wish to protest with all the emphasis which I can command against the views already expressed in this Debate, and which will be further expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in regard to a reduction of our naval preparations. In my humble judgment the contrast between the critical state of affairs indicated by the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the preparation which he is supposed to be making by this Supplementary Estimate is painful and dangerous, and provocative of the very state of things the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) has complained of, because the only way to make sure of our safety and the only way to stop the preparations of those Continental countries is to make ourselves at this moment such preparations as will show that we intend to maintain the naval supremacy we possess at the present time, which will very soon slip from our grasp if larger Estimates than those we are now considering are not put forward.
    It is easy for the Prime Minister to state, as he has stated over and over again, that the two-Power standard as a minimum should be maintained. That is a phrase full of promise to those who desire safety, but which, when it comes to be compared in figures, is very much different from, the Estimates as put forward to-day. Here we have what the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last has called a crisis, and how is it met? By a Supplementary Estimate of less than £1,000,000, which still leaves a balance of £600,000 as compared with what was spent in the last financial year. There is a danger looming ahead in regard to our preparations, to which reference has not been made, and it is that the spending on shipbuilding which is going to ensue in the course of the present year will be, in the opinion of those engaged in the shipbuilding trade, in all

    903
    probability interfered with and hampered by still further labour troubles. The miners' strike is said to have been largely the cause of the non-spending of £1,500,000 in the last financial year. Supposing that the shipbuilding trade is racked, as many of those engaged in it expect it will be, by labour disputes in the trade itself. You would have a further retrogression in regard to your comparative progress in shipbuilding. If that be so, how futile, how inadequate, and how thoroughly insufficient for the purpose is this estimate of less than £1,000,000 in comparison with the necessity which the First Lord of the Admiralty has so clearly set forth based upon the new German Estimates, which he has so very definitely described. There is, in my humble judgment, an absolute need for a very much larger shipbuilding programme to be put in hand at once.
    My Noble Friend beside me has prophesied Navy Estimates next year amounting to £50,000,000, but I do not believe it. I do not believe the Government is capable, having regard to some of those who sit on the back benches, of bringing forward such an estimate as that for the Navy, because they would not obtain the support which they must have if they wish to carry a proposal of that kind through. [An HON. MEMBER: "They would get support from us."] Yes, I know they would, but their difficulty would be still existent in regard to their peace-at-any-price supporters, of whom we have had a sample in the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. So far as I can I wish to place upon record that there is a strong definite opinion on this side of the House and in the country that, having regard to the critical nature of the comparison between Germany and ourselves and our naval preparations, and having regard to the evident determination of Germany to go ahead consistently and persistently with her naval preparations, there is a necessity for an immediate increased programme as regards our own shipbuilding in this country. It may be said that that is difficult, and I grant it. The yards are full, but I think with the influence of the Government much could be done. Instead of a Supplementary Estimate, poor, inadequate, futile by comparison, of less than £1,000,000 distributed over all the various needs of the Navy, it should be the policy of the Admiralty to start at once a new and enlarged programme of shipbuilding, and to lay down as many vessels as will give us in 1914 a supremacy
    904
    not of thirty-three to twenty-nine, but of at least forty to twenty-nine. That is one-third more than Germany possesses, having regard to the necessity also that we have to protect the Mediterranean in view of the progress which Austria and Italy are making.
    Just a word as to what perhaps after all is the keynote of this Debate. The new element in naval affairs introduced by the references of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister to the conferences with Canada and with the Canadian Premier and several other of Canada's ministers. In my humble judgment this is the most important event not only in regard to the Navy but in regard to the federation of the whole Empire that has occurred in the present generation. We on this side of the House have been advocating with more or less vigour now for some years the great policy of Imperial federation, and we have sought to bring it about by reforms in trade, which have been opposed by the Government and by those who support the Government. Is it not strange that unexpectedly the same great object is being approached through another channel, and that in the necessity for mutual defence for combining together the Motherland and the Colonies, there may be found the machinery for federation, for combined conferences, for combined arrangements for settling the policy of combination closer between the Motherland and the Colonies than has ever been anticipated from this question of mutual defence, and of combining ourselves together for that purpose. I believe every hon. Member of this House on both sides, not even excluding the peace-at-any-price Members, agrees that this policy initiated, or expressed, at all events, for the first time by Mr. Borden, the Premier of Canada, is a policy which will commend itself to all parties, and one which will be supported by the united voice of the people in the Motherland. That that should be so is a matter for congratulation to every Englishman who loves his country, and if, as a result of this Debate—whatever be the differences of opinion as to whether our naval preparations should be great or small—a unanimous feeling is expressed and carried across the sea to Canada, it will raise and accentuate a corresponding feeling in our other Colonies to the same effect, and good will have arisen from this Debate which those who squabble about the details of naval preparations do not

    905
    realise, and which will be greater than they ever supposed.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington should have reiterated the charge made by the Leader of the Labour party that provocation can be justly charged against Great Britain in the matter of recent naval building and the increase in naval expenditure, which has been such a marked feature of recent years. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Labour party that the first personal reference that was exchanged on naval matters between the two parties began in the year 1900 officially in the German Naval Law. May I remind the Committee that the all-important Preamble to the German Naval Law set forth:—
    "In order to protect Germany's sea trade and colonies there is one means only, namely, that Germany must have a fleet of such strength that even for the mightiest naval power a war with her would involve such rinks as would jeopardise her supremacy."
    That reference to this country was the first of these personal references in this particular matter. We certainly did not begin them. Let me remind those hon. Members who disagree with me in this matter of the experience of recent years. The present Government came into office at the end of 1905. It was as well known in the Chancellories of Europe as in this country that a Government had taken office which was pledged to the policy of peace and retrenchment, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) referred in his speech. When we came into office, did we honestly carry out our policy and pledge to reduce naval expenditure? Did we merely go on talking about reduction or actually make a reduction? What happened was this. The Cawdor Programme had laid down a prospective building of four capital ships per annum. We reduced those four capital ships to three in the first Naval Estimates presented by us to the House, and on 9th May, 1906, on the Motion of one of my hon. Friends, the House of Commons consented unanimously to a Resolution in favour of the reduction of armaments. That Motion was supported by speeches from every side of the House. I remember hearing the right hon. Gentleman the late Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) speak on its behalf, and on that occasion the Foreign Secretary used these remarkable words, of which I will ask anybody who intends to make, if I may say so without offence,
    906
    another Little Navy speech to take note. In the course of the discussion he used these words:—
    "And just as in the time of the late Government Lord Goschen issued a public invitation on behalf of the Government to other countries to respond to the feeling of this country for a reduction in naval armaments, so I trust tills Resolution may be taken as being an invitation from the British House of Commons to respond to their feeling in favour of a reduction of armaments."
    That Resolution was carried nemine contradicente in the House of Commons on May 9th, 1906. It was accompanied by an actual reduction. We not only talked reductions, but we made reductions. What was the result? In the following month Germany amended her Naval Law and raised her battleship programme from two to three for a period of four years. That was the response made by Germany. In the following year we reduced it again. We had already reduced it from four to three, and we then reduced it from three to two. How did Germany treat that reduction? She passed a further amendment of her Naval Law, so reducing the period of replacement of battleships that her building of three ships became four ships per annum for a period of four years. So, as we reduced four, three, two, Germany increased two three, four. That is about the plainest indication I have ever known in what is sometimes called high politics of a certain direction, and I cannot understand any man of soberness who would give his mind to this question drawing from that series of events any conclusion but one. I am not ashamed to say they led me to revise my opinion on this subject. Since I have been charged with changing my opinions, I should like to say that from my writings twelve years ago, long before I became a Member of Parliament, it will be found I was a big Navy man then, as I am to-day. When I entered this House in 1906, I believed, and I thought I had reason to believe, we had exceeded the two Power standard. I believed that then, and I believe it now, but that is not the case to-day. In 1907 the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made that noble appeal to Europe in the first issue of the "Nation." which he carried into effect, as naturally he would, as first Minister of the Crown.
    I think we cannot afford, in view of our peculiar economic position in the world, to risk for one moment the naval supremacy of this country. I say that with all earnestness and conviction, and I ask my right hon. Friend below me to reflect

    907
    before he charges the Prime Minister with having in effect deceived the House of Commons or of having made false prophecies. He reminded us that the Prime Minister speaking, not after the event—it is easy enough to be wise after the event—but on such information as he had at his command and speaking in soberness and gravity, said that in the present year Germany would have seventeen of what are commonly called "Dreadnoughts." What are the facts at the present moment? Germany has building at the present moment twenty-one "Dreadnoughts." Of those twenty-one fifteen are actually launched, ten are actually in commission, and seven are nearly ready for commission. When the Prime Minister indulged in what my right hon. Friend called undue prophecy he was so near to the truth that we may congratulate the country upon having a Prime Minister who could foresee so well. Germany possesses a very small coast line, has very few colonies, possesses the mightiest army in the world, and is not dependent as we are for about half her food and, what is more important still, for fully three-fourths of the materials which supply the work of her population; and, if Germany occupying so different an economic position from ourselves is entitled to build on a two-Power standard against France and the United States, and on a three-Power standard if we take the three Powers, France, Italy, and Austria, then I repeat again my expression of wonderment that any Member of this House can think the provision of the present Estimates an undue provision in view of the extraordinary economic position which we occupy! Germany defeated on the sea is still Germany, but what is Britain defeated on the sea? I will tell the Committee in a moment the big perils that face us. What is the use of disguising the fact when we have in existence the German Naval Law with all its provisions before our eyes? What is the use of indulging in roundabout phrases to disguise our meaning? In this competition with Germany there is something entirely new from an economic point of view. I beg the Members of the Labour party, and I am sorry to see so few of them present, to take note of what I am going to say.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: There are as many Labour Members here as Liberals.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is not my meaning. It is only that I should desire
    908
    they in particular should hear the argument I am going to address to the Committee. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) asks me not to lecture him. I hope he will not take anything I have said in that sense. But I feel, very earnestly indeed, that a false lead has been given to the working classes of this country by the Labour party.
    Mr. BARNES: That is a good Tory sentiment.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: It does not become a Tory sentiment simply because the hon. Member says so. I was speaking from the economic point of view in relation to Germany. Battleship building concerns great departments of the iron and steel trade. There are only three countries in the world which are able to sustain out of their own resources a fleet of considerable dimensions. Those three countries are ourselves, Germany, and the United States of America. France is not one of them. Compare in this regard the iron and steel industries of Great Britain and Germany. We have been faced with an extraordinary development of recent years, which, I think, is not yet sufficiently appreciated in this country. Take the facts as regards the iron and steel production of the two countries. In 1900 the iron output of Germany was less than that of the United Kingdom, but after an interval of twelve years only we find the German output to be 14.6 million tons against the ten million tons of the United Kingdom. Then in regard to steel. In 1910 the German output of steel was more than twice that of the United Kingdom. This immense competition in iron and steel shipbuilding for war purposes with Germany is quite a different thing altogether to the old competition with France and Russia. It is a competition of an entirely different character. Some of my hon. Friends may have been justified in pointing the finger of scorn at the Russian navy, divided as it was partly in the North Sea, partly in the Black Sea, and partly in the East. They were justified, perhaps, in asking why need we build against that? But they are not justified in using the same argument when we are in competition with a country of an entirely different character indeed.
    The question of the increasing naval expenditure has been very much exaggerated. As a matter of fact, the naval expenditure of this country has not increased to the extent which is commonly supposed, because the naval expenditure under the

    909
    late Government was £41,000,000 and at the present time it is only £45,000,000. The £41,000,000 was expended in 1904–5, and in 1912–13 we are spending only £4,000,000 more. It is true that the late Unionist Government reduced its naval expenditure the last year it was in power, and we also reduced it in several succeeding years; but, even as compared with those years, the increased expenditure has not been of the exaggerated character which has been assumed in some of the speeches made to-day. And I make bold to say that we can well afford that increased expenditure. There are certain old traditions in this House with regard to expenditure that are difficult to get rid of. In connection with armaments, that may be a fortunate thing. In connection with social reforms, I often think it is very unfortunate. But there is a great tendency to exaggerate the evil effects of increased expenditure. May I remind the Committee of what has taken place in the world in recent years? Every country has been increasing its expenditure hand over hand. We find the United States has increased its expenditure by 61 per cent, in ten years; Belgium by 73 per cent.; Italy by 53 per cent.; Denmark by 75 per cent.; and Russia by 66 per cent., as against our 45 per cent.
    I may remind the Committee, too, in that connection, that these figures have a very important bearing on a discussion which took place in this House last week. They have a bearing on the question of the effect of expenditure in general, which is very considerable when you remember the tremendous expansion of trade that has occurred in the last ten or twelve years. If every thing be true that is said about the increased national expenditure, how is it that in the last ten years the world as a whole, which has been simultaneously increasing its expenditure, has experienced a prosperity and increase of trade such as it never experienced before? I have in my hand figures showing the increase in exports of the countries of the world during this period, when the national expenditure has thus been increasing. The United Kingdom has increased its exports by 47 per cent.; Germany by 61 per cent.; France by 51 per cent.; Belgium by 76 per cent.; Italy by 58 per cent.; Japan by 124 per cent, and Austria by 20 per cent. Does not this disprove the common assertion that increased expenditure means ruin to the countries involved? So far from spelling ruin, it means the strengthening
    910
    of the country, and if that expenditure means the protection of the trade of the country, as it does in our case, it cannot be called unfruitful expenditure. Let me compare recent naval expenditure. I have shown that the increased expenditure in our case is not so large as is commonly supposed. But what has a been in the case of Germany? I will com pare similar years 1904–5 and 1912–13. During that period our expenditure has increased by only £4,000,000; whereas the German expenditure has gone up from £10,000,000 to £22,000,000, and that £22,000,000 cannot be justly compared with our figures, because many of the charges attaching to the present rapid expansion of the German army will not be encountered for some time to come. It would, I think, be fair to take the £22,000,000 as equivalent to £30,000,000 or £32,000,000 when drawing a comparison with the United Kingdom, and the charge of provocation therefore entirely falls to the ground.
    I think it necessary to say a word with regard to the peculiar dangers which confront the United Kingdom. I have said that the trade of the world has recently increased very greatly, and simultaneously the scale of trade, the scale of expenditure, and the scale of most of the various branches of the activities of mankind have enormously increased in the present century. So much larger is the commerce of the 20th century, as compared with the commerce of the 19th century, that it is not true to say that the expenditure on armaments in the present century is really larger in proportion to the interests which those armaments are supposed to protect. Of course, our position is an extraordinary one if we merely regard the United Kingdom as an isolated unit, which fortunately it is not. We are an island in such a degree dependent upon foreign commerce as no other country in the world is, or has ever been, or is ever likely to be.
    Mr. HUNT: Free trade.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The position would be exactly the same, whatever our fiscal policy. No fiscal policy could ever put copper in the mines of the United Kingdom, or enable cotton to be grown upon our shores
    Mr. HUNT: We grow wheat.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Of what good would wheat be if people had not the

    911
    wages to earn the bread, and how would they get wages if we were shut off from those materials which climate and nature prevent us being able to get in this country? Our dependence upon seaborne trade cannot depend upon our fiscal policy. We have not only to remember our own insular position. We are the head and front of a great Empire, which is undergoing remarkable developments in the 20th century. This remarkable thing is happening. The Colonies are advertising for our people, and they are getting them. I ask hon. Members of the Committee who are interested in these sober affairs to look at the new emigration returns published last month. What will they find? They will find we lost on balance 88,000 people, a greater number of people than were added to the population of the United Kingdom by the natural increase. That has a very great bearing upon the naval position, and upon the subject which is engrossing the attention of the Committee. The drawing of these units of population from the heart of the Empire to its extremities raises issues of profound importance to the United Kingdom, especially from the point of view of naval expenditure. Although, in my opinion, we can afford our present naval expenditure, I very much doubt if we shall be able to afford the naval expenditure which will be called for in two or three years' time. That being the case, I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the visit of Mr. Borden and his colleagues to this country. It is perfectly true that we cannot hope for ever to sustain the sea defences which are essential to the Empire. Therefore the recognition and the fulfilment of their duty by the Colonies is absolutely essential to the welfare, not only of our own country, but of the Empire at large.
    It is, of course, in our peculiar position, a very easy thing to take for granted things which have been regular for a great number of years. Here we are, an island people, who have become so accustomed to the regular and secured supplies of the economic means for the existence of our people that we come almost to look upon them as commonplace. That is the great danger which lies before the British people at this time, who forget, even as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) forgot in his interruption, the essential conditions of our existence as a nation and as a civilised people. Those essential
    912
    conditions demand the absolute security of our sea frontiers. They will exist even if we are not the head and front of a great Empire. If we remember also the peculiar conditions of that Empire and the thinness of the threads which bind it together, it is impossible for any hon. Member of this Committee to support the Amendment made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. GEORGE FABER: Many of us on this side of the Committee were much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money). I am not surprised that his speech caused some disquietude and even anxiety amongst his own Friends. The hon. Member told us that he formerly belonged to the "Little Navy" party. Time brings its strange changes—I will not say revenges. Men who only a few years ago conscientiously believed in what was called the "Little Navy" policy have been driven by the stress of circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman has been driven this evening, to adopt another policy. There is not much good in adopting the argument "I told you so," but hon. Members on this side of the Committee would not be human if we did not remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they and their party are responsible in a very large measure for the perilous position in which we stand in regard to our Navy to-day. When the Radical Government came back in their great flush of authority and power in 1906 they thought they were going to redeem and reconstitute the world, and that if the great Radical Government, with its then Prime Minister (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman), cried out "Peace" the other nations would follow meekly in their wake and adopt their cry. But they did not. The Radical party were reckoning without their host, and their host was the rest of Europe. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the first act of a Radical Government in 1906 was to knock down the Cawdor Programme by a "Dreadnought," in the next year by two "Dreadnoughts," and in the following year by one, making four in all. The hon. Gentleman has also pointed out that Germany, acting to the full upon her naval programme, not only did not follow in our wake, but remorselessly followed up her original plan. I should like to remind the Committee, not for the sake of scoring off hon. Members opposite, of what the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in March, 1908, on a Motion for the reduction of armaments

    913
    which was brought forward by an hon. Member opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "I quite agree that one of the heaviest counts in the indictment which many of us preferred against the late Administration was that during their term of office the expenditure on the Army and Navy had enormously and unnecessarily increased."
    He went on to point out that the expenditure in 1904–5—which was our last term of office—was £41,400,000; in 1905–6, £38,300,000; in 1906–7, £36,000,000; in 1907–8, £34,760,000, and in 1908–9, £34,000,000. He made this comment upon that naval table which is contained in his speech:—
    "We have made a very solid, substantial and successful effort to reduce expenditure."
    Then came 1909, and the panic. Their policy of naval retrenchment was calculated to produce a panic, and did produce a panic on their own side. Since then they have been trying to retrace their steps, but it is very difficult, when you have once taken a wrong path, and have gone backward instead of forward in your naval position in the world. In 1908–9 the expenditure on the Navy was £34,000,000. To-day it is £44,000,000. It is £44,000,000 as against £41,400,000 in the last year of our administration. Therefore there has only been an increase of £2,600,000 upon our last naval programme. I agree that when you look the facts in the face it is absurd for any man who is not saturated with party politics or little navyism to say that the policy put forward by the First Lord on the Navy Estimates and again today is too high. The only question, speaking as a Briton, is whether it is high enough to preserve that predominance upon the sea that is necessary to us as a nation. I frankly own that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought for discussion before this House the question of what ought to be done with the surplus of £6,500,000, I took the view that first and foremost it ought to go to the Old Sinking Fund, but I said, the first time I had the chance, that if it were to be applied to the Navy, speaking for my own part, I condoned any irregularity there might have been in the disposition of the matter for the sake of the great naval programme which seems to me so essential to the safety of our position.
    But the Chancellor of the Exchequer then certainly led a great many Members to believe that a great deal more than £1,000,000 of that surplus would be applied to naval purposes. We expected that with these millions to dispose of, and with the
    914
    naval position in front of him, when the Supplementary Estimates were brought before the House it would be more than £1,000,000. There is no new construction at all in the Supplementary Estimate. Nine-tenths, or almost ten-tenths, is made up of an addition to personnel. Every consideration is left for next year. There is a great tendency with the Radical party, where naval or military expenditure is concerned, to say to-morrow, to-morrow, tomorrow, and never to-day. We have to wait another six months before the next Naval Estimates are brought forward, and many things may happen before then. I had far sooner, considering the position in which we stand, that the First Lord had taken time by the forelock, because the money was there. If the House had been asked to sanction the application of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 out of the Old Sinking Fund towards the strengthening of the Navy the House would have granted the money. We have asked for too little. I do not of course mean that the £1,000,000 is not wanted for personnel, but that a certain substantial sum ought to have been set aside for laying down fresh ships.
    I should like to say a word from the financial point of view upon what will before long become a necessity for this country. Our Estimate next year, if the First Lord of the Admiralty does his duty by the country, may come very nearly up to £50,000,000. There comes a point in the history of every nation—it has come in the case of Germany—where you have to say, "I can no longer meet this out of expenditure, I must meet it out of capital." To meet your naval expenditure out of the Budget of the year is a fine thing to do. I believe in paying your way out of your annual Budget, if and so long as you can, but there may easily come a point when you have to say. "Posterity has to bear part of this burden; we are fighting for ourselves and for posterity, and part of this tremendously growing expenditure on the Navy must be met out of capital." When the matter was being discussed in this House in 1909, I said the proper course was to have a naval loan of £50,000,000, and to have a regular naval programme so un-shifting and steadfast that Europe, and the world, might have known where they were as regards ourselves, and we might have known where we were also. But the Radical party committed themselves in 1906, and before that, to the theory that loans were vicious. Loans are vicious in

    915
    the ordinary sense, I agree, but there may easily come a point when you must have a loan, because you cannot stop your shipbuilding unless you mean to drop your position in the world. Away goes the people, away goes social reform, away goes everything, if, when the day of trial comes, as a naval Power, you are found wanting. Next year, or the year after, I wish it was now, we may be forced as a House, independently of party politics, to say the time for a naval loan has come.
    Germany is a great country, not so rich as we are, but with a great population, growing riches and growing power. She has not been able to build up her great and growing navy out of income. She had to do it largely out of capital. This would be a most unfortunate time for a loan from the point of view of finance. Our national credit has been greatly shaken from one cause and another. If we try to raise £50,000,000 we should find the national credit was much worse than some of us think it to be at present. But still there is a bigger question even than that, and that is, What is the best way of convincing Europe and the world that in the matter of the Navy there shall be no deflection and no going back? And it may well be that the best means of convincing the world of that would be by laying down a great Navy programme, calling in aid for that purpose a Navy loan. However that may be, there is no doubt we stand to-day as a nation in the matter of the Navy in a very difficult and dangerous position. I cannot understand anyone, I do not care what his politics are, being a Little Navy man to-day. Even if he is a Socialist, social reform depends upon our position in the world. You cannot have social reform unless you remain in the forefront of the great Powers. It seems to be shutting your eyes to the patent facts of the case to cry out, "Less shipbuilding, and the deterioration of our position as a great naval Power." We must go on. The Radical party by their policy of little navalism is largely responsible for putting us in the position we are in to-day.
    Mr. JOHN WARDindicated dissent.
    Mr. GEORGE FABER: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of replying directly. If Germany had been convinced three, four, or five years ago that we meant business it is not only quite possible, but probable, that she would not have made the augmentations to her fleet
    916
    programmes by the variations which we have seen. If the party opposite are responsible for the position we stand in, I would, at any rate, say to them, do not make it worse by saying that we should not increase our programme.
    9.0 P.M.
    Major GUEST: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. George Faber) has attacked the Government for not having taken more active measures in regard to the Navy. I think this Government cannot be accused of having neglected to fulfil their duties to the nation or the Empire from their point of view. The hon. Member also advocated that we should lay down a large number of ships and start a definite programme by means of a naval loan. I think that would be not only a mistake, from the point of view of the naval forces, but also very bad financial policy not to pay in the year for these services, but rather leave to posterity some debt which they will have to honour when their time came, while they themselves might, for all we know at present, have to further increase the Navy. I listened to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. BERESFORD), and although it was an interesting speech, it was very hard indeed to ascertain what were the criticisms he had against the Government. He was full of detail, but so far as criticism was concerned, I think there was only one that stood out. He complained that the Fleet to be sent to Malta was inadequate to the needs of the Mediterranean. He also said that in future we might have to meet the combined forces of Austria and Italy. It is very hard to make forecasts of what the political situation may be in the Mediterranean at a future date. I see no reason to suppose that we as a nation alone should have to meet Germany, Austria and Italy at the same time. If there is going to be a triple alliance fighting against this country, it seems hard to believe that we should not have our alliances too, which would help to neutralise the position. As regards the sending of ships of the "Dreadnought" cruiser class to the Mediterranean, I think the Government have met the difficulty in which they certainly were placed with not only skill but credit to our national honour. The "Dreadnought" cruisers seem to me to be more applicable than any other vessels to the duties they would have to perform. We certainly cannot ignore our responsibility in the Mediterranean, although from the

    917
    strategic point of view our primary duty is in the North Sea. In fact, on the superiority we may possess in the North Sea depends the whole existence of this Empire. If we had not got command of the North Sea, we should not be able to exist in this country without definite and regular conscription such as Continental nations have, and even with conscription, unless we had that superiority, we could not send a single man of that force out of the country.
    Whatever way one examines the problem one sees that the whole fate of our Empire is based on the principle of naval defence, and more particularly naval superiority in the North Sea. I fully admit that the importance of the secondary theatre in the Mediterranean is very great. In fact the Mediterranean at the present time is perhaps the storm centre of any political unrest there is in Europe, and we have got to maintain a force there sufficiently strong to safeguard the many interests which this country has in Mediterranean waters. There is, firstly, the food supply on which this country depends, of which 40 per cent, passes through the Mediterranean. Another point is this. At some future date, for all we can tell, we may be vitally dependent on the supply of oil coming from the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf. Our needs demand that we should maintain a force adequate to the future construction by naval Powers in the Mediterranean. Austria and Italy are forming a new factor in the Mediterranean situation, just as the increased programme of Germany is causing a new factor in the North Sea. We could not expect this or any Government could maintain both superiority in the North Sea, which is by far the most important theatre, and superiority over all comers in the Mediterranean. You must in the disposition of your forces, whether naval or military, consider what are the probable factors with which you have to deal. Personally I cannot see reason to believe that a situation would arise in which we should have Italy and Austria combined against us in the Mediterranean.
    As to the distribution of Fleets, figures were given us of various proportions of strength between opposing fleets in the North Sea. We can judge from certain reports which have been issued and certain questions answered in this House as to the proportion of strength of various nations in the Mediterranean. Under the
    918
    new scheme of the Government it is proposed to send four "Dreadnought" cruisers and four armoured cruisers, and base them at Malta. In addition to that, it is proposed that, the Fourth Battle Squadron shall be placed at Gibraltar. The First Lord says it takes three and a half days for the Fleet to come from Malta into the British Channel, and that one further day would be required for coaling. Therefore it would be four and a half days before the vessels would be available for service in the North Sea. In the same way the main centre of naval strategy in the Mediterranean is assuredly the centre around Malta. I think there is great fear that if a naval war broke out we might find that we should be at neither of the strategic centres when required. I am sure the Admiralty must have perfectly studied this question; but I should have liked to hear some statement which would assure the country that the Admiralty did not believe that war could possibly break out in the North Sea without the fleet in Gibraltar being available. Personally I would far prefer to have the Gibraltar fleet centred in home water rather than to have a doubt as to whether that fleet would be in position at the time the struggle commenced.
    The statement made with regard to the Dominions entering with this country in its naval necessities have been very welcome to the House to-day. I have felt all along that the day must come, at the present rate of increasing armaments, when this country could not alone maintain the burden, and that we would have to look to our Dominions to assist us in maintaining our Imperial responsibilities. Most of our Dominions are already doing, some of them much, and some of them what they can, to assist us, and we are glad to learn of the further help that is likely to be given. But I do not think it is possible for this country to accept the assistance of those Dominions without giving them some definite interest in the policy and the council which control our Empire. The hon. member for Leicester said he did not think that those Dominions would be content with simply having a position on the Committee of Imperial Defence. I would not like to say that, nor would I like to say how far at the present time it would be right to go, but I do believe that it would be a step in advance if a responsible Minister for a great Dominion had the right to be heard on the Committee of Imperial Defence, which, after

    919
    all, is increasing in importance every day with regard to our strategical position. Every question that affects the political distribution of the naval or military preparations of the armed forces of the Empire comes up for discussion before the Committee of Imperial Defence, and in future, for instance when the Panama Canal may be opened, and we shall find the interests of Canada very closely connected with any strategical disposition that this country may like to have in a case like that, I think most certainly that to have her included upon such a Committee which is at present only an advisory committee, would be of real Imperial military value if we can push forward in that direction. I think it is a matter which must come some day, and if we all recognised, as I think many of us do, the advisability of including our Dominions in our Imperial and military operations, I think we shall be accelerating the coming of that day.
    Mr. MACKINDER: As we listened to the three momentous speeches with which this Debate opened, and as we knew of the presence in the Gallery of the Prime Minister of Canada, I think there must be three ideas that went through the mind of almost every Member of this House, no matter to what party he may belong. In the first place, I take it the gravity of the situation brings home to us a feeling that our country, right or wrong, must be adequate to meet the immediate crisis that is upon us. Secondly, there is a feeling of thankfulness that one of those practical difficulties which alone appeal to the British race had arisen to bring together into working harmony the various portions of our Empire. But there was a third point, which I am quite sure was present in the minds of many hon. Members, though the answers which they might give to the questions that it prompted would be very different. That is as to the causes and the blame attaching to the present tragic competition in fleet building and fleet equipment in Europe. I cannot help feeling that unless we realise the causes which are in action at the present time and prompting this apparent height of folly on the part of the greatest nations on the face of this earth, it would be difficult, at any rate for a democracy, to steer a steady course in competition with the great bureaucracy in Germany. The Leader of the Labour party referred to what occurred last
    920
    autumn, and talked of similar things that occurred before, and said that you had an alternation between suspicion and fleet building and fleet building and suspicion. The causes lie far deeper than that, and we are blinding ourselves if we think that the present competition, between this country and Germany arises in any serious degree from what is uttered in speeches in regard to your Navy. It is what your Fleet does, and not what you say in regard to it, that compels other nations of the world to equip themselves; and unless we realise that, neither shall we do justice to our neighbours nor shall we realise the compulsions that are upon them; nor yet shall we realise the stern facts that are in front of us. During the last score of years Germany and other nations have been noting our use of our Fleet, and it is the use which we have made of that Fleet that has led to the present condition of affairs.
    There are five distinct occasions when by using our Fleet, by throwing it into the balance, we have achieved silently the consequences of a great naval victory. Nations are not blind to it. We allied ourselves to Japan; we kept the ring for Japan in her war with Russia; we were deeply interested in the result. In the markets of Japan and in the markets of China the wages of Lancashire were at stake. At Manila what was at stake? The Monroe doctrine. South America was at stake. There was competition between German and American fleets, and we threw our weight silently and without firing a shot and practically secured our markets in South America. In South Africa we fought for a time with success and failure; but there was one standing success—the success of our Fleet: the silent success of our Fleet in South Africa. What was at stake? The markets of India; untold millions in wages in Lancashire and in the rest of the country. At Fashoda we threw the Fleet into the balance. What was at stake there? The markets and the possibilities of Northern Africa, and, more than that, the friendship ultimately of France herself. It was the very fact that we had this silent power which gave weight and value to our alliance in the entente cordiale. When Germany suffered her silent defeat last autumn, Morocco was at stake. We won a victory for our ally; we maintained peace in Europe and the balance of power. We must go deeper than utterances even of important Ministers,

    921
    and wordy warfare between newspapers on both sides. What is involved is what the First Lord of the Admiralty-described as "the facts marching towards us." What other nations are realising in the march of facts are the results won by our Fleet, and what our working class have got to realise is the fact of the millions in wages which that Fleet has secured to them during the past generation. The strategical position fixes it. Germany cannot appear anywhere in the world without running the gauntlet of our Fleet. It is quite true that if she seeks more than the defence of her own shores, the expansion of her trade or the protection of her position elsewhere, she has always to have regard to the position of this country's Fleet, whether it be in Scotland, in the Shetlands, or in the Channel. I firmly believe without any sense of panic that the German nation is forced to contemplate the invasion of this country, because in no other way is it possible for her to remove the threat which would throttle her on her way to the oceans of the world.
    These are facts which, I believe, will be recognised. If you ask me how they are to be met, it is only by our strongly maintaining the balance of power. I believe that what we have failed to recognise is that in our traditional policy, two reasons, and mainly two reasons, have forced us to use our Fleet relentlessly in determining the balance of power, when diplomacy is under discussion; and those two reasons are, in the first place, that we refuse to bargain in our trade, and that, under our Free Trade system, we maintain our markets by the use of our Fleet instead of bargaining. The second is that we are determined to defend these Islands by the use of our Fleet instead of training our manhood sufficiently to render it impossible practically for any raid made upon these shores to succeed. Did you do that, it were practically impossible to invade these shores. Your Fleet could be away to the Mediterranean; it need not be on the North Sea, or tied to our coasts, because there is no defence inside our coasts. The plain facts are that we are under the old Liberal traditions of Free Trade and of a voluntary Army, and I believe that the result of Free Trade and of a voluntary Army is that in the world you find yourselves in the present condition, namely, that you have to use your Fleet in places in which the manhood of the nation ought to be ready to defend itself, and that you have to use your Fleet in diplomacy in place of bar-
    922
    gaining, with the result that other nations, knowing that it is impossible to get round you seek to beat you. Therefore there is this competition of Fleets, which this House calls out about, but which this nation, by its very policy and traditions, has brought upon itself.
    Mr. WILKIE: We have been told in the course of this discussion that things are changing, especially in regard to moving the power from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, but the point I desire to emphasise is that there is no change so far as the men of the Navy and the dockyards workers are concerned. We have always had these scares. I remember as a youngster we had the Russian scare. Then, later, we had the French scare of Fashoda. Then we even had a scare with America over the Cleveland incident, and the talk that went on of what was to be done between us and America, and the things we read, were something terrible to contemplate. And now we have the German scare. In regard to what may be thought by hon. Members on this side, I want to say that I have never changed my opinion either on the platform or anywhere else, for I have always been in favour of an efficient Navy and efficient defence. But when I say that, I mean something very different from what some right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench mean. How long is this policy of scare to continue as a reason for increasing the burdens of the people? Is there no other way, no other methods of reason by which we can attain our object? Surely the best methods in the work have not been insisted upon, and we might follow some of the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Surely other means might be found? We have our Colonies and the United States of America, and surely it ought to be possible to have United States in Europe working together for peace, working to assist each other, and not working to drain each other's blood in regard to some supposed conquest which some have always in their mind. One of the Members for Portsmouth remarked that the human element ought always to be considered. I agree that we ought to supply the most efficient structure upon which to mount the most efficient weapons of destruction; but, nevertheless, as the Member for Portsmouth remarked, without the men behind these structures would be mere metal. All who have read our naval history know that no matter of what material our vessels may be composed, it is the human element which decides the

    923
    victory. I understand, to come to the Estimates, that there is no provision made for an increase of the remuneration for the men in the Navy or for the dockyard workers. I understood from the First Lord to-day that there is some provision being made. I hope I may be allowed to say a few words as to the human element. I think we are all proud of the stand the dockers of London are making for what they consider their own interests, and the history of our country has shown a spirit such as they have shown that we never know when we are beaten; which is the spirit which will carry us right through against all who may oppose us. The men in the dockyards have petitioned year by year, and to mention one merely as representative of the other we had fourteen requests last year, all, or nearly all, of which were disregarded. That goes on year by year. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who, like myself, comes from the workers and has every sympathy with them, whether there is not some other way instead of petitioning and getting the dead stone wall of an answer that the request cannot be acceded to. I am perfectly aware that recently they have gone the further length of meeting the representatives of different classes of workmen in the dockyard. That is something for which we are thankful, but when the men go year by year in a respectful manner and get no redress, they become sour and disconcontented and dissatisfied. In reference to the men in His Majesty's dockyard we have pointed out since 1906—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understand that Vote 8 will be debated in Committee on Wednesday next. I hope the hon. Member is not now going into details with regard to that Vote. I know that the Debate has ranged over a very wide area for the general convenience of the Members of the Committee, but I trust that the hon. Member will not in his remarks anticipate the Debate which will probably arise on Vote 8 on Wednesday.
    Mr. WILKIE: I am quite in your hands. I would like to have your ruling on this point of Order. This Supplementary Estimate gives an advance of wages to dockyard men which the other Estimate did not give. That being so, I thought I was in order in referring to it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have to take this Supplementary Vote item by item. The item we are now dealing with is
    924
    Item A, numbers, officers and men, and has no relation at all to the question of dockyards. For the general convenience of the Committee the Debate has ranged wider than that item, and I have simply expressed the hope that the hon. Member will not anticipate the Debate which properly falls on Wednesday next, by going into details in regard to the wages of workers at the dockyards.
    Mr. WILKIE: I bow to your suggestion if you can guarantee that I will have the opportunity on Vote 8 of dealing with those questions to which I desired to refer to-night. I wish, however, to say a word as to men who do not come under Vote 8 but under this Vote. We have repeatedly put before the House the case of certain workers on the lower deck, namely, ships' carpenters, and the carpenters' crew, who have not had any change in pay or position for over thirty years. We have heard today from various quarters of the House as to the increased cost of living, so that those men, instead of having an advance, have actually suffered a decrease. I understand that there is some sort of committee to deal with the case. If so, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply, will tell us. I do not wish to occupy the Committee by referring to the general question of policy, and I reserve what I have got to say further, for my Motion which is on the Paper on Vote 8.
    Mr. LEE: I deeply regret to see that there should be any difference of opinion between the two Members who have the honour to represent the City of Dundee. I regret that on this occasion I shall be unable to follow in reply to the speech of the senior or junior Member for Dundee.
    Mr. WILKIE: Junior.
    Mr. LEE: I hope therefore he will forgive me if I confine the greater portion of my remarks to replying to the speech of the senior Member for the same constituency. Perhaps I may be permitted to deal in the first place with the question which was so very frequently dealt with by the First Lord, and that is the question of the Mediterranean. With regard to this question of the Mediterranean, I do not wish to go behind his statement that there has been no change of policy and no difference of opinion in the Cabinet. The matter is much too serious to attempt to make any point of that description, but we have before us the statement he made last March, and there is no doubt that the Admiralty has

    925
    slightly modified its policy since then. I cannot help thinking that those second thoughts are best, because after all the previous scheme, which the First Lord of the Admiralty outlined in March, and which maintained the presence at Gibraltar of a weak British squadron of battleships, was a policy which could not be defended either on strategic or diplomatic grounds. The Prime Minister this afternoon spoke of a force established at Gibraltar like our Atlantic Fleet as being a pivotal force, and as being available either for the purpose of controlling the Mediterranean or alternately for reinforcing the Home Fleet in the North Sea. I venture to say that it is an absolute impossibility to propose to occupy that position. In the first place, at the very first suggestion of war in home waters, that fleet would be brought home as a matter of course. But assume that it was retained at Gibraltar. I wish the Committee would follow the late Lord Salisbury's advice, and study these questions on a large map. Let them consider the distances involved. Let them consider, for example, that a fleet based on Gibraltar is further from Alexandria than from Rosyth, and that a fleet based on Gibraltar is further from the North Sea than a fleet based on Newfoundland would be from the British Isles. Therefore a fleet based on that position would be unable either to reinforce in time our fleet in the North Sea or to exercise any practical influence over the course of events in the most important portion of the Mediterranean.
    Let us remember also that time is the very essence of the contract in these matters of naval strategy. The First Lord explained this afternoon the great difference between armies and navies in this respect. Indeed, we have had a lesson, a very striking lesson, in the course of the last week or so in our own naval manœuvres. Those manœuvres, which were of an extremely important character, were all over in a week from the time war was declared until the final result was determined; and yet the First Lord or the Prime Minister has admitted that it would take four and a half days for a squadron based on Gibraltar to be back ready for any effective purpose in the North Sea. Apart from that, the force which, under the original scheme in March, was detailed for Gibraltar was too weak in its composition to have any hope of coping with any hostile force that it would be likely to meet in the Mediterranean. I
    926
    need hardly add that a weak fleet is worse than no fleet. It is simply a present to the first adversary that happens to engage it. Therefore on these grounds I regard the policy which has been adopted by the Admiralty as the-lesser of two evils, and as a temporary expedient only I am inclined to support it. I refer to the policy of detaching four "Invincibles" and four other powerful armoured cruisers for strictly Mediterranean services. As I understand it, they are to be based on Malta and not on Gibraltar, and for the time being they are to be considered as permanently detailed for service in the Mediterranean. On these grounds, if that is the understanding, I am disposed to support the suggestion of the Admiralty. At the same time, I should like to put in this reservation. These ships must not be counted twice. They cannot be made available for defence in home waters as well as for the control of the Mediterranean, and they will have to remain there until such time as a more effective Fleet is substituted for them.
    In saying this, I feel very strongly that it is absolutely essential that we should maintain an adequate Fleet in the Mediterranean for the sole purpose of safeguarding our interests there. We have had quoted more than once the words of the Foreign Secretary, who, speaking from the Foreign Office point of view, said that it is imperative that we should maintain what he called a respectable force in the Mediterranean. He added these words, which have not been quoted, I think, that it should be available for use at any time, thereby clearly showing that he intended that that force must be permanently in the Mediterranean. Whilst I am not prepared—I have not the technical knowledge—to dogmatise as to the exact strength that our permanent Fleet in the Mediterranean should attain, in calculating that strength we must take into consideration what are the probabilities in regard to warfare in that sea. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) made some extremely interesting remarks in regard to the present grouping of Powers in Europe. I am prepared to go as far as this. I find it difficult to contemplate a situation in which this country alone would be faced with the problem of fighting a combination of Italy and Austria single-handed. I only say so because I believe that in the event of a great European war such as between, say, England and Germany,

    927
    there is at least an equal chance that we should receive help from France as compared with the possibility of Italy and Austria being combined against us. That, of course, is looking into the future. In the meantime we have to consider the situation in time of peace. I do not think sufficient attention has been paid to the importance of our holding the Mediterranean in time of peace. Besides the strategic question, there is involved the question of our national prestige in these waters. I hope no one will attempt to underestimate that vast, intangible, but at the same time vital asset of our prestige amongst the Mahomedan peoples and other dwellers on the shores of the Mediterranean. I hope it will not be forgotten that it is recorded by historians that one of the principal causes leading to the Indian Mutiny was the weakness that Great Britain had shown in the Crimea. News of that sort travels almost instantaneously all over the Eastern world, and the barometer of national prestige is extraordinarily sensitive.
    It has been gravely suggested to us by some of the "Little Navy" party and by a great Liberal newspaper, the "Daily News," that the only essential function of the British Fleet is to defend these Islands. I believe that to be one of the most profound and fatal fallacies ever propounded. If it had been followed in the past the British Empire would never have grown up at all. On no account would it be safe for this country to abandon the control of the Mediterranean to the allies of Germany and the Triple Alliance. Yet it is true that great efforts on our part will be needed to prevent it. In this connection, I cannot help quoting a remark made by the chairman of the Naval Budget Committee in the Italian Parliament, who, speaking recently on the questions which arose out of the Malta Conference, said:—
    "That conference emphasises the importance of prompt action with Germany's allies, with a view to maintaining the strategical importance of the Triple Alliance in the Mediterranean."
    That shows we have got to consider the Triple Alliance as a great factor in this Mediterranean situation. We have been told by the First Lord that we had to consider the possibility that by, I think he said, 1915, of Italy and Austria between them having ten ships of the "Dreadnought" class commissioned in the Mediterranean. Therefore we have to consider the size of the force that we have to maintain in those quarters. Here let
    928
    me say that whilst on purely strategical grounds the policy of complete concentration in home waters is defensible—because it is said that, after all, if we defeat our main enemy our Fleet will then be free to go anywhere to deal with others afterwards—let me ask those who hold that opinion not to forget that there is a strategy of peace as well as a strategy of war to consider.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Who is our main enemy?
    Mr. LEE: I am not proceeding on the assumption that we have any main enemy. I am proceeding on the facts as disclosed by the programmes of foreign Powers. There is a strategy of peace as well as a strategy of war. If we assume that we can afford for the purposes of the strategy of war to concentrate the whole of our forces in home waters, I would ask those who hold that view to remember that tension of this kind may last for years, may indeed last to an indefinite length of time, and as a result of that complete concentration our prestige in the outer seas may have completely disappeared. We may have our Fleet in home waters ready for a war which never comes, and we may wrongly comfort ourselves with what is after all a strategic platitude. It is not that that makes any impression whatever on the mind of an Egyptian, a Turk, or a tribesman who dwells on the Mediterranean littoral. The only thing which impresses these are the funnels of warships, and plenty of them. I believe some resourceful naval officers on the West Coast of Africa and other places have gone to the length of rigging up extra canvas funnels in their ships in order to impress the native mind. And there is no doubt whatever as to what would be the effect if the Mahomedan world saw that British warships had disappeared from the Mediterranean and their place had been taken by French, Italian, or Austrian ships. They would draw the inference that this country had thrown up the sponge. On that ground mainly I deprecate what I understand to be the intention of the Admiralty; that is to postpone the sending of this new squadron into the Mediterranean until the winter.
    Great events are now proceeding in the Mediterranean. It is highly important that our flag should be adequately represented there without delay. I hope the despatch of these vessels may therefore be

    929
    anticipated. In this connection I must rewind the Committee that in the Preamble of the German Navy Bill it is distinctly laid down that in the opinion of the German Government the mightiest naval Power should not be in a position to concentrate all its forces in home waters. It is surely unfortunate that even for a few months we should be brought into a position where we have practically concentrated the whole of our forces in home waters, thereby enabling Germany to count a diplomatic and moral victory over us in this matter, without firing a shot, and without having to sacrifice either a ship or a man. The position in the Mediterranean has got to be retrieved. I hope the Admiralty will not suggest that they are retrieving it by means of this Supplementary Estimate! The Supplementary Estimate has nothing whatever to do with the situation in the Mediterranean. Personally I regard the Estimate as Dually inadequate. The First Lord has told us that such as it is it has been necessitated by the new developments of the German Navy Act. I think, of course, it has some connection with it. I go further. The production of this Supplementary Estimate has a certain diplomatic value, as showing that if Germany increases the programme which she has already announced, by means of new Navy Bills, we on our part shall insist upon providing for at least an equal if not greater increase in this country. Let no one suppose, however, that this Supplementary Estimate is any sort of adequate reply to the new German Navy Bill. It scarcely touches the fringe of our liabilities created by this new measure.
    Whilst the First Lord explained the scope of that measure very clearly this afternoon, I doubt even now if the new situation which has been created is clearly understood. Let us recall it for a moment. In future, as a result of this New Navy Act, nearly the whole—four-fifths I think is the figure given by the First Lord—of the entire German effective fleet will be kept mobilised for war, winter and summer alike, within one day's steaming of our East Coast. Whilst it is not for us to speculate as to what is the object and motive of that new standard, at the same time we have to face the fact that it creates a new factor of vital importance to this country, and an entirely new situation. Because we have to remember that behind this ever mobilised German fleet there exists the greatest military force that the world has ever produced. For the first time we have the greatest
    930
    military power in the world openly challenging that sea supremacy upon which alone we have relied in the past for our defence against invasion. And it must not be forgotten that if that challenge should ever be successful, an unlimited range is conferred upon the greatest army in the world, and we no longer have that absolute protection that we have always counted our supremacy upon the sea conferred upon us. This new move on the part of Germany looked at from a purely practical point of view does, at any rate, create the possibility of that bolt from the blue which has been hitherto derided, but which the Japanese employed with such disastrous results against the Russians at Port Arthur. If there is no mobilisation necessary in order to place a Fleet upon a war footing, then the possibilities of our receiving warning of attack are very greatly diminished, if they do not disappear altogether. Whilst I do not for a moment suggest that the German people, or rather the German Government, has any intention of making an unprovoked attack upon us, or upon anyone else, at the same time we cannot afford to be in a position where we have to depend for our safety upon the good will of any foreign Power, and in considering this matter it is impossible to ignore the warnings which have been published in a very interesting book recently published, notably the very striking work of General Von Bernhardis, a great German authority, well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which he states—
    "Instead of waiting passively the attack we should support the idea of anticipating the enemy by making a sudden onslaught, commencing the war in a style similar to that adopted by the Japanese at Port Arthur, whereby serious injury might he inflicted on the British Fleet at the very beginning of hostilities, reducing, in some degree, its superiority, and putting off for a period any effective blockade. It is not inconceivable that some such course of action as this may be adopted."
    10.0 P.M.
    I do not say for a moment that that represents the view of the German Government. I am sure it does not. But it does represent the views of a very large number of people in Germany who are very powerful, and who are agitating for a further extension of the German naval programme. The more likely explanation is that the German Government does not want war, no sane Government and no sane individual does want war, but they would very much like to gain the fruits of victory without fighting, and I am afraid if they succeed in forcing us to withdraw our outer patrols, first from New Zealand waters; then from Chinese waters, and from the

    931
    Mediterranean and so forth, they are achieving a great victory without any approach to actual hostilities. But whatever the motive may be, this fact absolutely stands out from what we have been told by the First Lord to-day, and that is that the new German navy will be out of all proportion to the German mercantile marine, the German overseas trade, or to the German Colonial Empire; and we have got to face that, and I only repeat what other speakers have stated, that the only redeeming feature so far as I can say in this situation is, that this increasing pressure from without, this new peril to which we are exposed has had the effect of promoting the solidarity of the Empire, and the fact that the majority of the Canadian Cabinet are here at this moment taking part in the Councils of the Imperial Defence Committee is a portend and a very good omen, and I only venture to say this in regard to what is contemplated behind the scenes. I venture to hope that in the discussions of these questions the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will be told to the sister nations of the Empire. I think we have been inclined formerly only to tell them what we believed would please them. I think we have got beyond that now, and I should like to emphasise the point that local Colonial navies however useful they may be would be absolutely useless in the event of a great war in European waters. The supreme clash after all has got to come in European waters. We believe that a war of that kind and a clash of that kind would be over in a few days, and the small Colonial flotillas or local navies would have no more influence upon the result of that conflict than if they never existed. These little navies would be mopped up one by one by the victors of that fight. And I would ask the Dominions to realise this, that behind these great navies of Europe are the greatest military forces ever maintained in the world. The German army on a war footing numbers twice as many men as the whole adult population of Canada, and three times as many as the whole adult population of Australia, and if we were to lose control of the seas an unlimited range would be conferred upon these armies to go where they liked and to do what they liked.
    I come now to a question more of detail connected with the Estimates, and dealt with by the First Lord of the
    932
    Admiralty, and that is the question of personnel. This is the particular obligation forced upon us by the new German Navy Act to increase our personnel, because it has become necessary for us to maintain mobilised for all times the greater portion of our fleet. I am very glad the Admiralty showed itself alive to this fact, because we must never again make the mistake that we made in 1889 when we passed the Naval Defence Act authorising the building of a large number of ships, but we quite forgot the necessity to man them. We realise the Admiralty is hard put to it to find men at the present time. The various expedients with regard to Reserves are all to the good as far as they go, but a steady increase in enlistment is necessary for the work. In this connection I wish to say that I was delighted to hear the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the conditions of service. Rightly or wrongly there has grown up the impression that in the great increase of wages which has taken place among workers on shore the men in the Navy have been overlooked. I am quite prepared to wait until the First Lord has made the announcement he has promised soon after the meeting of the House in the Autumn Session, but I would press this point upon him. He is very anxious about the possibility of recruiting full numbers each year. He may well be, but I venture to say that it is of the first importance if he is going to recruit his men that he should make his announcement with regard to the conditions of service as soon as possible. It would be perfectly futile to make a huge demand upon the labour market for men who are for whatever reason, justly or unjustly, disparaging the conditions of service. The inducement must be sufficient to attract the number of men that will be required, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make his announcement at the earliest possible moment. In connection with the question of recruiting, which is going to be one of increasing difficulty in the next few years, I would like to ask whether it would not be possible to further develop the recruiting agencies. Looking at the map in the last Report on Naval Recruiting. I was amazed to find that out of 12,862 men enlisted last year only 208 enlisted in Wales, 353 in the whole of Scotland, and 360 in Ireland, leaving 11,000 to be recruited in England alone. The whole of the counties of Scotland off the coast of which the Fleet has often assembled has produced no recruits whatever for the Navy in

    933
    twelve months. That suggests some defect in the recruiting organisation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do what he can to "comb the Celtic fringe" and extract for the purposes of the British Navy some of the finest material in the United Kingdom. I hope he will take fuller advantage of the opportunities of recruiting for the Royal Marines. This is an absolutely unique case of a corps which is largely hereditary, and which men will join who will join no other service under the Crown, and I believe it would be possible to make a great expansion in that corps if any attempt was made to do so. The policy of the Admiralty pursued persistently has been to reduce the Royal Marines, and that is an absolutely mistaken policy, and one which I hope will be reversed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    I must say a word about the shipbuilding programme which, so far as I can judge, has been absolutely ignored by the Supplementary Estimates now before us except as regards small armoured cruisers. There is no provision whatever in the Supplementary Estimates for any increase in the shipbuilding programme which the right hon. Gentleman announced last March. There is no suggestion of any increased programme to deal with what I call the Mediterranean situation. In dealing with this point I am confronted with this dilemma. I have heard it stated—and I ask whether there is any truth in the statement or not—that even if the right hon. Gentleman recognised that there is a real need for a further extension of our shipbuilding programme at this time it is a fact that owng to congestion of the shipbuilding yards the right hon. Gentleman would be unable to place orders if he were disposed so to do. It has been suggested that our yards are congested and that it would be impossible to execute more orders at the present time. We are told that there are twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" under construction in this country at the present time, and that it would be impossible to add to their number.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This would not be the period for making good the building programme, and it should not be assumed that it is impossible at the present time to build extra battleships.
    Mr. LEE: That does not quite answer my question unless I am to understand that the Admiralty would be in a position to lay down more ships if they chose to do so. Is that so?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes.
    Mr. LEE: Then that disposes of the point that it would be impossible. I believe, however, that it is a fact that owing to the great volume of work of this kind now going on there is a great shortage of skilled labour, and the question is, what is the reason for that? It is partly due to strikes, but I think it is still more due to the arrears of work which have accumulated during the last few years as the result of the vacillating policy of shipbuilding in the years which are passed, a policy which made us lay down one battleship one year and eight the next. Such a policy is bound to lead to congestion in our shipbuilding yards at the later date. We warned the Government in 1909, and I wish to say now, in 1912, that I hope the Admiralty and the Government are looking far enough ahead not only in the matter of hulls and machinery, but also in gun-mounting and armour as well. We have had the usual programme, this afternoon from the so-called economists and the Little Navy men with regard to any expansion whatever in our Fleet.
    The Leader of the Labour party, in the closing passages of his speech, said he was going to co-operate with his friends in Germany who were opposed to any increase in armaments. That is all very interesting, but are the hon. Member's friends in Germany in a position to influence the situation by the weight of a single hair. They may or may not have voted against increased armaments, but I understand all these increases in the Navy have gone through almost without discussion, and whether they vote for or against them it does not make a single hair's breadth of difference, because the German Government pursues its way quite regardless of the hon. Gentleman's friends. I protest most earnestly against the suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the opposite side that it is our fault that this expansion of the Navy has taken place in Germany and that our nation has been provocative. If you apply any reasonable test in this matter you will find that that is not the case. Take the test of new construction, which is, after all, the best. Since the year 1900 Germany has increased her new construction by 260 per cent, as compared with our increase of 40 per cent. If you take personnel, Germany has increased at the same ratio, 260 per cent, as compared with our 20 per cent, for the same period. We have seen this fixed, immutable law of

    935
    Germany, which was to have provided seventeen battleships by the year 1898, and now by the same law Germany provides sixty-one. I know it is the generally accepted view, often quoted in these Debates, that Germany has a perfect right to take this action, and I quite agree that she has. The corollary, however, is that we have no cause to complain; but I am not quite sure that I am prepared to agree altogether with that suggestion, because the position on the two sides is in no sense comparable. The dangers which the two countries are exposed to are in no sense the same. I think the situation was as clearly explained as it could be by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London in a recent article which he published, in which he said:
    "There are two ways in which a hostile country can be crushed—it can be conquered or it can be starved. If Germany were master in our home waters she could apply both methods to Britain, but were Britain ten times master in the North Sea she could apply neither method to Germany. Without a superior fleet Britain could no longer count as a Power, but without any fleet at all Germany would remain the greatest military power in Europe."
    That shows the absolute difference in the situation, and we have reason to complain that this cut-throat, relentless competition is forced upon us by a neighbour who is admittedly friendly. We are assured by the Foreign Office that our relations are cordial. Yet we are in the position described by Lord Rosebery in 1909, in these words:—
    "We are living in the midst of a silent warfare in which not a drop of blood is shed in anger, but in which the very last drop is extracted from the body."
    This being the situation, it is a little difficult to reconcile this friendly relationship and this none the less silent and relentless hostility. Our conscience in the matter is clear. We have not aggressive designs. For over a hundred years we have maintained our supremacy on the seas, but we have never attempted either to oppress our neighbours or to injure their trade to maintain that supremacy is absolutely vital to our existence, and I think it cannot be too often repeated that we are determined to retain it whatever happens; that in this country, when this question is forced upon us, there are really no parties, or, at any rate, that all political parties are as one, and that we are determined as a nation to maintain that supremacy, even although it costs us our last shilling and our last man to do it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure the Committee will not think it presumptuous on my part if I venture to congratulate it on
    936
    the general character of the discussion which has been raised on these Supplementary Estimates. There have been some things said with which, naturally enough, I do not agree; but so far as I have been able to gather it could not be said that a party spirit had obtruded itself to any extent, if at all, in dealing with these Supplementary Estimates. That is all to the good. Naturally and as usual, the Admiralty have been subjected to a cross-fire. There are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who say the provision we are making is not enough to guarantee national safety. Then there is another set of critics who say our provision is wantonly lavish. I may very well set off one view against the other. I say this, at any rate, in all honesty: If I thought either of those views was correct, my name would not be at the foot of this Vote. The members of the Admiralty have exercised all the care that was humanly possible in framing these Supplementary Estimates. They are "penny wise" without being "pound foolish." They are sufficient. That is our deliberate view. They are not in any sense estimates of provocation; they are estimates of self-preservation. These Estimates—let me say this quite clearly—convey no menace to any people of the world.
    We wish all peoples of the world well. We know their prosperity is reflected in our prosperity. Our great friendly neighbour, Germany, are our greatest customers on the Continent of Europe, and I think we are almost their greatest customers, and I hope to live to see the day when international disputes may be settled by peaceful arbitration. Certainly these Estimates are not inspired in any sense by any spirit of aggression. They simply provide that vital protection behind which we can quietly and soberly go on our way perfecting our institutions, curing our social evils. That is all. Though we are all inspired by a common purpose in this matter, I suppose the controversy will continue over the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of the means we are taking to achieve our object, and there at present I must leave the matter. I will only add this. As a Canadian-born Minister of the Crown—I believe I am the only Colonial-born Minister on this bench—I am very proud of the splendid recognition on the part of our brothers in the Oversea Dominions of their vital stake in the integrity of the Empire. I agree very cordially that that recognition is one of

    937
    the most significant assurances for the future of this Empire that we have seen in our time. Let me turn to another aspect of this provision concerning which I am sure I shall find members of all parties in agreement. I refer to the conditions of employment of the men associated with this great Service. I do not think I need add very much to the statement made earlier in the day by the First Lord. The subject has been a matter of constant consultation between him, myself, and other members of the Board of Admiralty since he has been First Lord. It is the fact, as he said, that the strain of naval service has increased in recent times, and that year by year we are making greater demands—we are demanding a higher order of service, and greater intelligence in our seamen and stokers. There is another fact which affects, at any rate, the married sailor—it does not so much concern the single man—and that is the increased cost of living. We have discussed these matters informally a good many times. We know the facts. I quite agree that a long and dilatory inquiry is not needed. All we have to do is to choose the best method of applying the means at our disposal, and we certainly shall do that before the autumn. It is quite impossible, of course, to announce—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What are you going to give?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall go into the matter carefully. We can make no definite announcement now, but we shall state what we think is legitimate and fair when we meet again in the autumn. I should also like, with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) to say that the question of recruiting is a matter which will receive out-attention. I agree it would be well to recruit if we can from a wider field, and indeed we have extended our operations in recent years. I now turn to the question of the Civil employés, and I hope I may have your indulgence—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. While you were out of the House just now the Deputy-Chairman ruled that Vote 8 should not be taken to-night, and when an hon. Member got up to submit a question on that Vote he was told to sit down. But now the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to address the House with regard to it. I want to know is he in order in doing so?
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do is to explain the purposes to which this £35,000 is going to be applied.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. Member had better wait to hear what I have to say before he interrupts. I turn to the Civil employés, of whom the men in the dockyards form the great majority. We have in one naval establishment or another well on towards 50,000 men who are in Civil employment, apart from the men in the Fleet. Apart from the Post Office, I dare say we are the largest employers of labour in the country, and it would certainly be the desire of the Committee, and of the taxpayers whom we represent, that the Admiralty should merit the title of a good employer. Before I come to the £35,000 I should explain to the Committee that these 50,000 hands are divided into two classes: they are established and non-established or hired. Roughly speaking, 8,000 of them are established, and 42,000 non-established. Practically all these men work the forty-eight hours' week, and, although this is a privilege which, I am glad to say, they share with the employés of many private firms, they get four public holidays with pay. With regard to the 8,000 established men, they are assured, subject to good conduct, of permanent employment.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about the Insurance Act, Part II.?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: At sixty, or if we grant an extension, at sixty-five years of age, they get a superannuation allowance; and I admit, before the hon. Gentleman tells me of it, that they help to pay towards that themselves. I knew the hon. Gentleman was bursting to tell me that.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have got that in my speech, which I was not allowed to deliver.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must protest against these interruptions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman expects to be allowed to make his speech if he continually interrupts.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These 8,000 men are assured of permanent employment, and get a pension for which they help to pay. Under the Superannuation Act, 1859, when the pension day came they got one-sixtieth of their wages for every year of service, which gives them from £26 to

    939
    £80 a year pension; but under the Superannuation Act, 1909, they have the alterntive, instead o£ taking the proportion of one-sixtieth, of accepting one-eightieth, which gives them a pension of from £20 to £60. If they accept the latter, they get a gratuity ranging from £50 to £150, and, what is of great value to their representatives, if they die before the pensionable age, having been five years established, their representatives get a gratuity equal to one year's pay. The great bulk of the men have accepted that. The 42,000 hired men are on a different footing. These men are not pensionable. They have no claim to permanent employment, but, in fact, the great bulk of them, say 75 per cent., are fairly certain to be continuously employed, and, although they are not established and not pensionable, if they are stood off on reduction after seven years' service, they get a gratuity, which is a week's pay for every year of service. And if they are stood off after fifteen years for any reason except misconduct they get a gratuity equal to a week's pay for every year's service.
    With regard to the pay of these men—I refer to time rates throughout, but most of them occasionally get an opportunity of adding to their time rates by piecework—during the past six years, from the advent to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty of the late Lord Tweedmouth, there have been considerable concessions made in response to the pleas which the men put forward year by year at the annual hearing of petitions. I should like to take one or two of the more important as bearing upon the purpose to which we propose to put this £35,000. In 1906 the Admiralty gave both labourers and skilled labourers 1s. a week increase. That represented, on the present numbers, an increase in the wage-sheet of nearly £36,000. In 1906 the Admiralty gave the shipwrights 1s. That represented on the present numbers an increase of over £19,000 a year. In 1908 the Admiralty conceded an increase to the smiths on the average of 1s. 6d. a week, and they gave the joiners 1s., and these two increases, on the present numbers, cost well over £5,000 a year. In 1910 and 1911 the Admiralty made a special rate for skilled labourers, bringing men beyond 28s. to 30s. in certain cases. On the present numbers the value of that concession is £12,000 a year. These concessions since 1906 on the present numbers represent an addition to the wage
    940
    sheet of nearly £100,000. To the petitions which were presented to us by workmen in the fall of last year and the early part of this year we have given most painstaking examination, and we have endeavoured to estimate the effect of the increased cost of living. I have here a document which was handed to me at Portsmouth. It is the weekly budget of a man who gets 22s. a week. He is a skilled labourer with an occasional opportunity for piecework beyond 22s., and there are three in his family. It is a very interesting document. Rent 5s. 9d.—that is over a fourth of his weekly wage—meat 3s. 6d.—that is 2d. a day for each member of the family—butter Is. 5½d.—that is 1¼lbs.—bread 1s. 8d., sugar 5½d.—that is 2lbs.—milk 7d., tea 8d.—that is ½1b., flour 3d., lard 3d., cheese 4½., soap 3d., soda 1d., matches 1d., vegetables 1s., coal 1s. 5d.—that is a hundredweight—oil 8d., wood 3d., sick club and insurance 1s., and sundries 1s. That is £1 0s. 8½. This man adds at the bottom of his little budget:
    "This leaves about. 1s. 3½d.. which has to cover the cost of clothing, boots, medical attendance, etc., and all other incidental expenses which may arise."
    Let the Committee note that there is no beer or tobacco, and no entertainment in this, and I rather fancy that the purchase of a pair of new boots is something in the nature of a domestic crisis. I have listened to these men rehearse and explain how they and their wives make ends meet. I am glad to have the privilege of stating that we have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to grant concessions on a scale more considerable than any which have been granted since those granted by the late Lord Tweedmouth in 1906. To begin with we propose to give unskilled labourers another shilling. That will bring the flat rate for unskilled labourers in England and Wales up to 22s., and at Haulbowline to 21s. I may say that the labourer at Haulbowline has invariably been paid a shilling less than the labourer in the home dockyards. That is due to the fact that even at that rate our wages compare favourably with outside rates. The cost of that award on present numbers will be £14,710 a year. Then we propose to raise the minimum of the skilled labourer from 22s. to 23s., and at Haulbowline to 22s. The cost of that concession on present numbers will be £6,740. I am only giving the main concessions. There are a number of personal and minor concessions into which I will not go. We propose to raise the maximum of the special rates for skilled labourers from

    941
    28s. 6d. to 29s. 6d. for established men, and from 30s. to 31s. for hired men. That will cost £3,940. These concessions will cost over £25,000 a year for the men at the lowest rungs of the ladder, the labourer and the skilled labourer.
    I am quite sure we shall not satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie). No doubt he will have an opportunity of telling me what he thinks of me on Wednesday. We propose to raise the wages of the shipwrights by 6d., bringing the established men to 34s. 6d. and the hired men to 36s. That will cost us over £9,000. I admit at once that the rates for shipwrights on the Tyne, Clyde, and Mersey, and at Barrow are now 40s. 6d. They have gone up considerably since October, 1910, as a result of the splendid prosperity of the shipbuilding trade during the last two years. There were fluctuations before that, and the rate in all these districts went down. They came down on the Tyne from 39s. to 37s. 6d. between 1906 and 1909, but now they are 40s. 6d., and so far as I am concerned they have my very best wishes for their continued prosperity. But I shall be asked, no doubt, how, in view of the figure in these places, I can justify the addition of 6d. for the shipwrights. I would like, in the first place, to say that it is our settled policy us an Admiralty that the rates we pay shall compare favourably with the rates for similar work in the locality in which the dockyards are. If hon. Gentlemen will look into it they will find that these concessions have regard to the fact that our men work only forty-eight hours a week, and to the privileges they get as compared with outside workers, to the fair assurance of continuous employment even for most of the hired men, the pensions for the establishment men and their security of tenure, and the gratuities for the hired men after seven or fifteen years When all these things are taken into consideration, I am quite sure I can challenge any hon. Member to deny that our rates compare favourably with those for similar work in the locality.
    Mr. WILKIE: What about navvies?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There are very few navvies, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me any case where any unskilled labourer is employed by the Works Department of the Admiralty at a lower wage than men doing corresponding work outside in the locality I will look into it.
    942
    Since we agreed to this 6d. addition to the shipwrights I have received a very influential deputation, introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee and Devonport. I will give every consideration to the views put before me by the deputation, and will submit them to the First Lord, but I cannot make any promise of any concession beyond the 6d. announced. The naval shipwrights' case is being considered by a committee. What its report will be I cannot say, but they are outside this altogether, and we have made no decision there. Then we are making concessions to yard craft men, stokers and seamen s ratings, and to stokers and deck hands of dredgers costing us £2,390 a year. We are also doing something for chargemen of trades. Besides the shipwrights we are also doing something for sailmakers, bricklayers, leather hose makers, painters, messengers, and chart office attendants, and the grand total of these concessions amounts to £41,500 a year. We have in this estimate £35,000, and these concessions will take effect as from the 1st August, and that is why, amongst other reasons, we have not put the full amount value of these increases, £41,500. It gives me very great personal satisfaction to make this announcement. I know these men, and I respect them. It is part of my class prejudice to be rather proud of the fact that I come from the same class myself. I have sat hour after hour listening to their pleas, hearing their weekly budget, and having them explained to me. I am genuinely glad of the opportunity of lending a hand in some small way with the strictest regard to the interests of the public purse—I shall be told in some quarters of the House, too great a regard. I have been very glad to do something by way of ameliorating in a small degree these men's daily lives. I do not suppose for a moment that we have satisfied everybody. Far from it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee will be eager to have another word for the shipwrights, and I shall be very much surprised if the dockyard Members do not fall upon me with horse, foot, and artillery. But at any rate, with an increase of £41,500 a year for these men, it can no longer be said that they have been met with a stereotyped reply, or with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee calls a blank refusal all round. That charge cannot be made against the reply I have made today.
    Colonel HICKMAN: Is there any extra pay for the bluejackets, the men who fight?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here. I began with the bluejackets, and I said that we have carefully considered the case of the bluejacket. We recognise that naval life puts a greater strain upon him; we look to have intelligence of a higher order; the cost of living has increased; we have all the facts before us; we do not want a dilatory inquiry, and the question now is how best to apply the means at our disposal. I take it that during the Recess, and before Parliament meets again, it will be our business to consider this matter very carefully, and we hope, when Parliament does meet, to be in a position, although I do not make a definite announcement, to submit some proposal which will improve the condition of the bluejackets. We make these concessions with the greatest pleasure, and I am confident that to-morrow, in the dockyards, the anvils will ring louder and clearer because of the endeavour we have made to meet the claims of the men.
    Mr. GRETTON: With regard to the seamen, it is commonly reported by the junior officers who serve on board many of the ships of the Fleet that the ship's complements of cruisers and battleships are thirty to forty men short of the numbers required to carry on those ships—that the crews are harassed and overworked; that the duties press unduly and heavily on them, and that an increase in numbers would, to a very great extent, allay discontent, which is unfortunately very wide in our naval Service at present. The time is now too short to develop all the defects, but I should like to call attention to the case of nucleus crews. There is no doubt that the conditions of service on board the ships which have nucleus crews are very unduly harassing, that the men are always very hard worked and are always being moved from one ship to another. They are constantly coaling, which is one of the most harassing and laborious duties, and they are changed frequently to other ships with new officers. There are many cases in the Service where there have been four or five captains in one ship during a period of three years, and in the same period you will find men serving on six or seven different ships. Those conditions make for discontent, both with officers and men. I would ask the Admiralty very seriously to consider whether that system of nucleus crews makes for
    944
    the efficiency of the Fleet, officers and men, and whether it would not be better to revert to the old system of placing one ship in full commission with a group in the steam reserve. Ships under those conditions would be brought forward rapidly for Service. The First Lord to-day spoke of those nucleus crews going to sea and exercising at sea. Has he ever seen the conditions under which they do go to sea with the nucleus crews for exercise? Those ships are not sufficiently manned to go to sea. They cannot keep watch properly at night, and therefore they have to choose their opportunity and have regard to the weather. He spoke also about those ships exercising the guns under war conditions. A ship was brought to my notice the other day which went through practice under war conditions. Her scoring was unduly low. The ship immediately went through the practice again but not under war conditions and she went from near the bottom to a high place. All these matters lead to great difficulty and trouble, and do not make for efficiency. Earlier in the Debate the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) and the Prime Minister expressed themselves as agreeing that the grouping of Powers made for the peace of the world. That may be so. But neither of those right hon. Gentlemen, nor anyone else, has pointed out that the groupings of the Powers in Europe—the Triple entente and the Triple Alliance depend upon the factor we are discussing to-night. The Triple entente is an impossibility as a grouping of the Powers unless based on the undoubted supremacy of the British Fleet. We have no Army to throw into the scale. The Triple entente is based on the fact that the British Fleet has been supreme, and it is expected that this nation will keep supreme upon the sea. Therefore, if there is any value in the grouping of the Powers for the purpose of peace, it depends upon the supremacy of our Fleet. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated that in 1914 the German Navy would have 29 battleships permanently upon a war footing, while this country would have 33 under the same conditions. How are those thirty-three ships going to be maintained always ready if the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the principle laid down on 18th March last, that we must take our average strength, which will be 25 per cent, or 30 per cent, below the paper strength, allowing for ships under repair and so forth? I do not wish to talk the question out,

    945
    therefore I will simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the points I have brought forward.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES.

    [10.58 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Duffy, William G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Anson, Rt. Hon, Sir William R.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lynch, A. A.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Baird, Lawrence

    Fell, Arthur

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Ffrench, peter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Banner, John s. Harmood-

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Furness, Stephen

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Malcolm, Ian

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Meagher, Michael

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gretton, John

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Mooney, John J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset,E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Boland, John Plus

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Morison, Hector

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Boyton, James

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Muldoon, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, J.

    Munro, Robert

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hamilton, Lord C. (Kensington, S.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Bull, Sir James James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nolan, Joseph

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Harwood, George

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hay ward, Evan

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Dowd, John

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    O'Malley, William

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E,

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Homer, Andrew Long

    Pease, Rt Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Crooks, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Crumley, Patrick

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cullinan, John

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Radford, G. H.

    Doris, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Reddy, Michael

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. sir Albert

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Webb, H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Summers, James Woolley

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Rowlands, James

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Sandy, G. J.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Younger, Sir George

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Valentia, viscount

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Sheeny, David

    Wadsworth, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Shortt, Edward

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hogge, James Myles

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hudson, Walter

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Brace, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Wardle, George J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Lansbury, George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Clough, William

    Lawson, sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Winfrey, Richard

    De Forest, Baron

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— James Parker and Mr. Goldstone.

    Glanville, Harold James

    McCallum, sir John M.

    Hancock, John George

    Martin, Joseph

    And, it being after Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS [SUPERANNUATION.]
    Considered in Committee. [Progress, 3rd July.]
    Resolved, "That it is expedient to make further provision for the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Superannuation and other Annuities and Allowances to Elementary School Teachers certificated by the Education Department."
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1910–11.
    Committee to consider the Surpluses and Deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for 1910–11, and the application of Surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, To-morrow.[Mr. Gulland,]
    Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented on the 14th February last, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  APPOINTMENTS FROM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  APPOINTMENTS FROM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  Civil Service Assistant Clerks.
  Civil Service Assistant Clerks.
  Customs and Excise Assistants.
  Customs and Excise Assistants.
  Ordnance Survey Maps.
  Ordnance Survey Maps.
  Mineral Resources (County Clare).
  Mineral Resources (County Clare).
  Donegal Herring Fishery.
  Donegal Herring Fishery.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Baltinglass Union (Dispensary Residence).
  Baltinglass Union (Dispensary Residence).
  Shops Act (Urban Councils, Ireland).
  Shops Act (Urban Councils, Ireland).
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  POWERS OF IRISH PARLIAMENT.
  POWERS OF IRISH PARLIAMENT.
  Tubercular Dispensary System.
  Tubercular Dispensary System.
  His Majesty's Ships (Active List).
  His Majesty's Ships (Active List).
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Army Ordnance Department.
  Army Ordnance Department.
  Military Remounts.
  Military Remounts.
  Injured Driver.
  Injured Driver.
  Vaccination of Soldiers' Wives.
  Vaccination of Soldiers' Wives.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Industrial School Case.
  Industrial School Case.
  Cow-pox.
  Cow-pox.
  Conscription.
  Conscription.
  Manchuria and Mongolia.
  Manchuria and Mongolia.
  Attack on Dardanelles.
  Attack on Dardanelles.
  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  Disturbances at Kilrea.
  Disturbances at Kilrea.
  Age Statistics.
  Age Statistics.
  Report of Census.
  Report of Census.
  Objections to Vaccination.
  Objections to Vaccination.
  Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society.
  Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society.
  United Malaysian Rubber Company.
  United Malaysian Rubber Company.
  Bolton Cows.
  Bolton Cows.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Steamship "Titanic" (Loss of Manuscript).
  Steamship "Titanic" (Loss of Manuscript).

Preamble
The Lord CLONCURRY—Took the Oath.
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 Order applicable to the following Bills has been complied with:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 13).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Sheffield Corporation.

Swansea Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Brixham Harbour Order.)
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Order was withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONA ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. (No. 123.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL. (No. 124.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
DUNBAR WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Willingdon), and reported from the Committee. (No. 125.)

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ESSEX, & c.) BILL. [H.L.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (KENT, & c.) BILL. [H.L.]
LAND DRAINAGE (LINCOLN WEST) (SOUTH DISTRICT) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to..

SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) BILL.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Regulations, dated 18th July, 1912, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee as to the time for joining an approved Society;
2. Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to notices by employers under Section 47 (2) of the Act:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 126.)

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)); agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed for To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Willingdon.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD WILLINGDON: I move an Amendment to leave out Clause 7 of the Schedule, which runs—
Purchase of Tramways outside City by Local Authorities.
7. The provisions of Section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, shall apply to the intended tramways so far as situated outside the city. Provided that in the application of those provisions the period of forty-two years shall be substitutes for the period of twenty-one years therein mentioned.
This Bill provides, among other things, for the making of tramways inside and outside the city of Glasgow, and General Order No. 130, under the Procedure Act, repeats the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament. The effect of that is that if any local authority makes a. tramway outside its own particular area the Commissioners have to put in powers to the outside authority through whose area the tramway goes to purchase the tramway within a certain period. The Commissioners have
582
inserted Clause 7 to carry out this particular Order, but it has been represented to the Commissioners that, under previous legislation on the same lines, the Glasgow Corporation in the years 1901, 1904 and 1905 had this provision omitted. Therefore the Commissioners have recommended to the Secretary for Scotland that, having regard to these precedents, to the relative unimportance of the intended outside lines, and to the advantages of uniformity, these tramways should be exempt from the operation of Section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, and they recommend that the clause in question be deleted. The Secretary for Scotland approves the recommendation, and I therefore move to leave out the clause.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 11, lines 1 to 5, leave out Clause 7—(Lord Willingdon.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The precedent which the noble Lord proposes to make is a serious one. I remember that some years ago when I was sitting on either a Scottish Commission or a Committee the Glasgow Corporation made a similar proposal. They were proposing to construct tramways in the district of another authority, and they proposed that the other authority should be deprived of the power which all local authorities possess of purchasing the tramway after a certain time. Glasgow thus stretches out its feelers into the surrounding district and obtains a foundation for a claim at some future period to annex that district. On that occasion we came to the conclusion that there was no reason for interfering with the existing law. I do not know anything of the circumstances of the case now before the House, but I should very much like to hear what the Lord Chairman has to say. I venture to think it is a matter that ought to be submitted to the Lord Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): When this matter was submitted to me I was given to understand that there had never been a case in which Glasgow had been refused the privilege for which they are now asking.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I refused it myself.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have no doubt that the noble Earl's statement is perfectly accurate, but had that side of the case been submitted to me I should have hesitated very much in saying that I would not object to the request made this afternoon that this clause should be omitted. I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships—it would certainly be for my convenience—if the present stage of the Bill were postponed in order that we may make further inquiry into the matter, because the fact stated by Lord Camperdown puts a different complexion on the affair.
LORD WILLINGDON: I am perfectly willing that the Bill should be postponed if that is thought desirable.
The further debate adjourned sine die.

EXE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO-VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY) PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 127.)

THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES.
LORD RIBBLESDALE LORD RIBBLESDALE rose to ask His Majesty's Government for information with regard to the unofficial Committee which has been formed for the purpose of investigating the question of land reform; and farther to inquire into the special qualifications of the members of the Committee for the purposes of this inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in anything I have to say to-night I will spare you any comments of my own on the past or present taxation or rating of land. As Mr. Gladstone wrote to Lord Tennyson—
"Taxation and all that belongs to it forms rather a painful chapter in human affairs."
Neither do I mean to say anything as to what we hear a good deal about just now—the Single Tax on land. I see that Mr. Hemmerde, fresh from all sorts of electioneering exploits, now says that he does not want to embark on anything so complex as this owing to the present conditions of the country, and that all that he himself is in favour of is a good fat tax on land values. As against this, though, I see that the Master of Elibank, the Official Whip, disclaims altogether a speech which his brother made last week in which he said that he thought the Single Tax was a phantastic notion. The Master of Elibank says it is all very well for his brother to say that, but he is speaking entirely for himself and in no sense for His Majesty's Government. I have not the slightest objection to serious-minded persons who hold views of their own getting together and deliberating and favouring His Majesty's Government for the moment with their views on any particular subject or upon any particular institution. After all, this is a free country. But I hope to show your Lordships that this so-called unofficial Committee is very different from anything of that sort.
This so-called unofficial Committee appears to be animated and inspired by Mr. Lloyd George; according to The Times it received a most cordial welcome from the Prime Minister in another place; and it has quite lately been reinforced by Mr. Wedgwood Benn, one of the Party Whips, becoming a member of the Committee. I confess, my Lords, I think the sudden appearance in our common affairs of this unofficial Committee is quite as mysterious and almost as disquieting as that of the Trojan horse. These, perhaps, owing to recent events, are no longer the walls of Troy, but still I think this House would like to hear a little more about what it all means from His Majesty's Government. I confess that all I can learn about it is a little disquieting, though I do not consider myself at all of an apprehensive disposition. In fact, I labour too much under a tendency to think that nothing tremendous is going to

585
happen the day after to-morrow. Still I notice that these Single Taxers have formed themselves into a league, and they met together in Essex Street, Strand, the other day, the occasion being a convivial dinner at which speeches were made and toasts honoured. The Lord Advocate, warming to his work—I think he was speaking to a resolution of applause on all they had done about land—declared that land was a quite different commodity from any other property and therefore it should receive quite different treatment. It is a self-evident proposition that land is not like whisky, and that it is not like coal. One great difference was pointed out by Mr. Lowe, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said—
"Capital is a coy nymph; and, remember, she has wings."
Land, we know, is leaden footed and cannot get away. That I admit is a. great difference. The Government have the land of this country, as the French say, sous la main, and if the State chooses to treat land in a particular manner the land cannot get away.
I feel that I need not make any apology to your Lordships for bringing this matter before the House. I say that for three main reasons. In the first place, we have lately had the Parliament Act passed, and under that Act this House was specially invited to become, as it were, the family solicitors of the country. We have been specially invited, I think, under the Parliament Act to inspect and scrutinise most jealously the prospectus and the contracts of any new issue. The second reason why I think it is proper that this discussion should come on in this House is that this House, in spite of the democratic tailor and hosier and hatter, to some extent at all events, however inadequately, represents the "shackles of feudalism" which was a picturesque phrase in Mr. Lloyd George's speech at Woodford, and which the Prime Minister on July 9 said he thought rather well of, and though it might be a little over picturesque he said he accepted it as a sound definition. The third reason is that this new land policy, if Mr. Lloyd George is to be believed, appears to be the new Liberalism. It is the new electioneering ticket, at all events. Mr. Lloyd George the other day wrote to Mr. Outhwaite stating how pleased he was with that gentleman because he was making land taxation a living issue in the politics of the day.
Mr. Lloyd George is not only an attractive but an exceedingly powerful Minister. I myself have a great weakness for Mr. Lloyd George. His imagination captivates me, and his eloquence enchants me. I think sometimes what I will call the class case may be a little overstated, but taking Mr. Lloyd George all round I believe that his devotion to what he thinks the cause of the less fortunate people in this troublesome world is quite as sincere as his disapproval of your Lordships' House and his mistrust of what we know, to use an old-fashioned term, as the landed gentry. And while I am on this I should like to express the hope that Mr. Lloyd George will patch up his peace with the doctors or that the doctors will patch up their peace with him, because I personally think that noble Lords opposite are all wrong about the insurance Act and that Mr. Lloyd George some day will get the credit for a very beneficent measure. Now with all these amiable feelings to Mr. Lloyd George 1 stand here to-night as one desirous of saving him in some way from himself. No one knows what Mr. Lloyd George's policy is. I do not think lie does himself, and I am certain the Prime Minister does not. From all I can learn the Chancellor and his friends, and perhaps what the papers call the Ship of State, are in some respects drifting in this matter of land taxation on to the shoals of an economic fallacy. Given, if you like, that it is desirable to get land out of few hands into many hands. I am not personally averse to that particular proposition. But are not Mr. Lloyd George and his reformers in some danger of arresting the processes of supply and demand and sale and purchase by special ad hoc taxation to force existing owners out? May not any such taxation prevent altogether the objects which Mr. Lloyd George and a great many members of the Liberal Party have in view? Although you may get the present owners out of the land, you will have great difficulty in getting other people in.
I will read to your Lordships a few lines from a letter which I hold in my hand from an economist of repute, and not only is he a political economist but a man of the world. He says—
"There is no reason to tax land more than Consols. A man must be encouraged to invest in both. Already the land bears the whole burden of the rates, which is not the case abroad. The peculiarity Of a Land Tax is that it falls on the

587
then owners, because the purchasers will, of course, deduct from the purchase price the various burdens and buy on the net income. The policy of the Government is to promote free trade in laud, but why make land a luxury of millionaires? Small holders are generally approved. Small holders can only succeed if the ownership of land does not expose the holder to uncertainty in the protection he has a right to expect front the Government. If more and better houses are wanted by labourers, by all means let this be done as in Ireland, but heavy taxation will, of course, discourage capital outlay. You want to attract capital to land."
As to the second part of my Question, in which I ask His Majesty's Government what the special qualifications are of the gentlemen who have been appointed on this unofficial Committee, who have been reinforced by one of the Liberal Whips, and who, as I say, start their labours with considerable applause from His Majesty's Government, I find myself in a considerable difficulty. We know—it was stated the other day in an answer given in the House of Commons—that this unofficial Committee is to be equipped by private munificence, and we are also told that no Unionist is to be invited to serve upon it; but I cannot get at the names of the members of the Committee although I have tried. Sub rosa I have learned that the Chairman is a relative of a gentleman possessed of very large landed property; but as far as I can make out from what has appeared in the newspapers the other members who have been indicated as having been appointed to the Committee are all fond of golf, but their practical experience in land seems to stop short at golf links and greens. Mr. Hetnmerde is a prominent member of this Committee; he is a splendid oar and a persevering playwright; but to the best of my information nobody seems to know whether any of these gentlemen have had practical experience of land. So that their labours are to be entirely based on a reference, which they will receive, no doubt, from a distinguished person, and upon their own views as to the position in which the matter ought to be placed in this country.
As a matter of courtesy to the House I endeavoured, when I put this Notice on the Paper, to find out the names of the unofficial Committee, and I wrote to Mr. Wedgwood Benn on the subject. This gentleman is in a very peculiar position. Just for the love of the thing, apparently, he has joined this Committee, but he has not taken the trouble to find out who are going to serve
588
with him. Replying to me from No. 12, Downing-street, Mr. Wedgwood Benn wrote—
"I am sorry to say I cannot give you the information for which you ask, as I am merely an ordinary member of the Committee recently joined and do not know the full names."
He is going into this biggish job, but he does not know the people with whom he is going to work. Mr. Wedgwood Benn added that Mr. Roden Buxton, the secretary, would be able to give me the information. I thereupon wrote to Mr. Roden Buxton, and this morning I received from him a very polite light communication. He presents his compliments, and so on, but—
"regrets to say that he does not feel authorised to forward the names of the members of the Committee on his own responsibility, but he will With pleasure lay Lord Ribblesdale's letter before the Chairman of the Committee and will communicate further with him."
I am afraid the further communication, from the look of things, will come a little too late for this evening's debate, and I can only apologise to the House for my failure to get the names of the members and their special qualification which we should all have much enjoyed investigating.
The question is, Is this unofficial Committee to be taken seriously? It is very difficult to say. I am inclined to think not. I do not care very much about taking things seriously until they are round about one's ears. But still it seems to me that the proceedings of the unofficial Committee and its formation and so on are worthy of some consideration here and perhaps even of our vigilance, and it is for that reason that I have put down the Question to which I now invite an answer from His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I certainly do not at all complain of my noble friend for having raised this question, which he has adorned with the eloquence which always charms us whenever we have the felicity of hearing him speak in this House. I have no doubt that in his studies of the subject my noble friend has looked at the reports of the various references which have been made to it in another place. A series of Questions on different days were put to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and I think to sonic other members of the Government, and I am sure that my noble friend will not be surprised if I am not

589
able to add anything of a material kind to the replies which my hon. and right hon. friends gave in another place. What has happened is this. The inception has taken place of this unofficial Committee, as I think my noble friend described it—
LORD RIBBLESDALE: It was so described in the House of Commons. It is not an invented term.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is a quite correct term, if I may say so, and a proper description of the body. That is to say, certain gentlemen undertook to collect within the next few months information upon matters of fact relating to various rural matters—I do not think that I can describe it more accurately than thus, although I do not know that their activities in the matter of inquiry will be exclusively confined to rural questions—upon certain matters of fact affecting land; and when this information has been obtained it will be available for His Majesty's Government. The bringing together of unofficial bodies of this kind is not without precedent, and I do not think that it can be seriously held, if it is properly understood, that it is open to objection. There is no question of any expenditure of public money. There is no question of framing any policy. The whole business, therefore, becomes one of the collection of information which His Majesty's Government may find it convenient at some future time to put to a purpose. The endeavour will be to collect that information as impartially as possible. My noble friend stated that he had not succeeded in obtaining a complete list of the members of this Committee although he had made some inquiries, but he had seen a number of names mentioned in the newspapers. The only name which, so far as I know, has been publicly stated is that of the Chairman, a gentleman well known to many members of your Lordships' House, Mr. Arthur Acland, who has held high office and is generally respected as one of the leading public men of the day. The reason which I imagine prevented the secretary of the Committee from sending a formal list to my noble friend on his inquiry was simply this, that the body being a privately formed one it was not desired to give it the authoritative stamp which would be given by such a reply or by cross-examination of Ministers as to a particular reason why some gentleman or other had joined it. That is the same reason why I do
590
not propose to give a list of the names of such members of it as I have heard of, because, in the first place, I have no reason to suppose that it would be a complete list, and primarily I have no desire, as a member of the Government, to take the responsibility of apparently having assisted to nominate this purely private body for the collection of information.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Is there on the list the name of any single gentleman thoroughly acquainted with agriculture
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should think that some of these gentlemen are. But the noble Marquess will remember that this is not primarily an agricultural inquiry in the strict sense. If we desired to undertake a formal agricultural inquiry such as might be conducted by a Royal Commission, I have no doubt that the composition of such a Royal Commission would have been quite different from that of this small body which is going to collect, as I say, simple information on matters of fact. I venture to think that the value of the information which these gentlemen will obtain will greatly depend upon the fact, which I am informed is to be the case, that quite separate local inquiries are to be made by them—inquiries into the entirely different conditions which, as your Lordships are well aware, prevail in different parts of England, in different parts of Scotland, and in Wales. There can be no question, as it seems to me, of laying down any principle which is applicable either to the tenure or the cultivation of land either for England only or for Scotland or for Wales, the conditions being so intensely and fundamentally different in different parts of the United Kingdom—I ought to say Great Britain, because this inquiry, as I understand, in no way extends to Ireland.
The kind of inquiries—and in this I am speaking not from any knowledge which I possess but from what seems to me to be probable—the kind of inquiries which I suppose these gentlemen will conduct are something of this sort. You hear statements made that in some parts of England the country is being practically depopulated of its rural population; that practically all the younger generation, as soon as they grow up and have a chance of leaving the countryside, make their way to a town. Well, that is a subject into which surely

591
inquiry is worth making, even inquiry of a completely unofficial kind. Then we are told by some that that migration is in many parts of England due to a shortage of houses in which the rural labourer can live. That is one of the points, as I take it, on which the conditions are vastly different in different parts of the country. That, again, is a type of question into which useful inquiry may be made—inquiry of the kind for which everybody has been very grateful when it was made by Mr. Charles Booth in the case of London, or by Mr. Rowntree in the case of York—Inquiry as to the conditions in which the poor live, and, so far as is possible, an investigation of their causes and suggestions for possible remedies. Then we are faced in many parts of England by the slow but in many cases steady decay of small country towns. That is one of the subjects on which I venture to think investigations might be held of real value from a number of points of view.
So far as regards what is called the English land system, relating to purely agricultural land, I do not know how far these gentlemen will be able to make inquiries of a general or of a particular character. But there is one point in relation to that which I confess seems to me well worthy of inquiry. It is this. We are most of us in this House well acquainted with the English land system, with its merits as it is worked on a large scale in many parts of the country and also with its possible defects, and a question which seems to me worth inquiring into is this. Here is this English land system, an artificial one from many points of view, dependent on the contribution of by far the larger part of the fixed capital of the industry by the landowner. That is the main feature which distinguishes the English land system from that of almost any other country. It seems to me a subject worth inquiring how far the peculiar balance of that system, which demands for its success a state of equilibrium, is upset by the extent to which land is changing hands, by the rush to sell agricultural land which has been so marked in different parts of England. I am not going to discuss with your Lordships the causes which may have actuated individuals in putting their land on the market. I am speaking, of course, of agricultural land and not of building land. There have been a variety of reasons, which it is worth while in pursuing this particular subject to discuss. In some
592
cases I dare say the reason has been an apprehension, which I cannot believe to be well founded, of damaging legislation as applied to agricultural land, because noble Lords must in fairness admit that so far as agricultural land is concerned, except as it has taken its share like all other property in paying Super-Tax or being subject to the higher scale of Death Duties, it has been spared any special attention on the part of the revenue authorities. Nevertheless vague apprehensions may have caused some to sell. What has caused others to sell, I have no doubt, is the higher general scale of living which causes people to demand high interest for their money instead of low, and, as we know, there is no form of investment which returns so low a rate of interest to the owner as English agricultural land. But without attempting to go further into the investigation of those causes, it appears to me that the change is so marked and so remarkable a one that it is worth serious inquiry how far the conditions of our and the Scottish land system can be said to be altered by the change of ownership, it being remembered that so much in our land system has depended on the personal relations between the landowner and the tenants of the farms—personal relations which are naturally altered by a sale.
I have no wish to speak with gloom and foreboding as to the prospect of considerable change in the ownership of agricultural land in this country. I have no doubt that, particularly in the case of outlying estates in which owners are not able to take close personal interest, the landlord is very often wise to part with some portion of his agricultural property; but the fact, I think, cannot be blinked that the effect on our land system may possibly be one of considerable moment. A great many of your Lordships remember how unexpected and far-reaching upon the Irish land system was the effect of the passing of a measure which at the time was considered to be of the highest utility and likely to repair to a great extent the unfortunate condition into which so much of Irish land had fallen—I mean the passing of the Encumbered Estates Act in 1849. The consequences of the passing of that Act were of the most far-reaching character, and its passage had an easily traced effect upon the subsequent land legislation which followed in the course of the next twenty and thirty years.

593
The only quarrel I have with my noble friend is when he spoke of a new policy. There is no such thing as a new policy. The only policy which can in any case be an effective policy is that of those who at the time are entrusted by His Majesty with the government of the country, and to speak of any new land policy of His Majesty's Government is, I beg to assure your Lordships, a most complete misnomer and can only be accounted for by something approaching to an hallucination. I cannot help thinking that a good many people have been now, as they often are, misled by what they have read on this subject in the newspapers. We hear a great deal of talk about the sensation-mongering of the daily Press, but I think it cannot be wondered at that sensationalism should exist when public credulity always seems willing to keep pace with it, or even, if possible, go ahead of it. ft is not, I am sure, necessary to address a warning to your Lordships on that count, but a warning may very properly be addressed to a great number of persons who attach to newspaper paragraphs and newspaper articles an importance which does not strictly belong to them, greatly indebted though we all are to the Press for the information which it gives us and for the manner in which it gives it.
I remember hearing many years ago a story of an observation made by a very wise and witty gentleman of the United States, Mr. Evarts. Mr. Evarts had an English friend who possessed a herd of Jersey cows, and this friend complained to him that although his herd was most carefully got together—no expense had been spared upon it, and it was supposed to be the best that could possibly be obtained—yet he had never succeeded in obtaining the output of milk which he saw recorded as being not uncommon in the United States. Mr. Evarts said—
"I cannot understand why you should be disturbed in mind at finding that cows give rather less milk in England than they do in American newspapers."
And I should be disposed, therefore, to point out to some timid people that there is a most substantial and essential difference between a Land Tax or a demand made by a responsible authority and a tax described on a platform or advocated in the columns of a daily newspaper. As I say, I am sure this warning is in no sense needed in the case of your Lordships, who are experienced in affairs, but it is, I am sure, needed in the minds of a great number of persons. I
594
would therefore tell my noble friend, who was disposed, as he said, not to take this inquiry very seriously, that he really must take it as seriously as he thinks the facts of the case demand, and he must form his own judgment as to the gravity of the matters into which these gentlemen are going to inquire. If he thinks there is no case for any such inquiry, he may be quite sure that a number of others will think the same and no results of a kind which he would consider alarming are likely to follow front it. If, on the other hand, he thinks that there are abuses existing—whether it be on the question of housing, whether it be on the question of rural employment, whether it be on the question in which the noble and learned Earl opposite (Lord Halsbury) has been so conspicuous, that of the transfer of land—on any of these matters if he thinks a case exists demanding inquiry I do not think he would be disposed to complain of this inquiry which is going to be conducted. I hope that what I have said may have succeeded in reassuring noble Lords if there are any here, who have been disposed to attach too much credence to the rather portentous stories which they have heard and read, and that they also will be disposed to agree that an inquiry of this kind may have and ought to have some really serviceable results, of which a Government in some future day may be able to make practical use.
THE MIARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the interesting and ingenious speech which the noble Marquess has just delivered was not, I think, entirely successful in throwing light upon the very obscure and somewhat suspect transaction to which the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite has drawn the attention of the House. The noble Marquess referred us to the answers that had been given by Ministers in the House of Commons. I made it my business to study those answers, but it was precisely because they seemed to me and to others so unsatisfactory and so vague that I was glad to observe that the noble Lord who made this Motion came here to-night to cross-examine noble Lords on the Front Bench. The noble Marquess appropriated the definition given by the Prime Minister when he said that this inquiry was an unofficial and informal one, and added as a gloss of his own that it was not one which, in his opinion, ought to be taken too seriously. I am not quite sure that we entirely agree with him on that point.

595
Pray do not let it be imagined that we on this side of the House have the slightest objection to any purely informal and unofficial investigation which may be instituted by groups of members of either House of Parliament. Such inquiries may sometimes serve a very useful purpose. But our point here is that this inquiry is not one which can with any propriety be described as merely unofficial and informal. It is an investigation which is apparently to be dry-nursed by His Majesty's Government from start to finish. To begin with, the Prime Minister bestowed his solemn approval upon the appointment of the Committee. Then we find that the members who are to serve upon it are "approached," not by the rank and file of the House, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Then we find a gentleman well known to many of us, a Privy Councillor, an ex-Minister, appointed, I presume by the Prime Minister, to preside over the deliberations of the Committee. And finally, to make the story complete, there is added to it Mr. Wedgwood Benn, one of the Government Whips, who appears to think that by simply describing himself as a private Member he can cut all the links and associations which connect him with the Whips' room. The noble Marquess may perhaps ask me whether I am able to draw a sharp line between inquiries which are official and inquiries which are unofficial. There may be some difficulty in that. But of this I am quite persuaded, that this particular inquiry is not one which without great abuse of language can be described as an unofficial inquiry.
Then let us consider a little the composition of this Committee. There has been a singular amount of coyness in divulging the membership of the Committee. In one of the conversations in the House of Commons information on the point was refused by the Prime Minister on the ground that the matter was unofficial; but we know one or two things about the composition of the Committee. There are no Unionists upon it, at any rate. They have not been invited in any way to associate themselves with this important investigation. Then my noble friend Lord Londonderry asked whether the Committee included any gentlemen practically conversant with agriculture. The noble Marquess opposite was not quite sure about that. And then he made this most singular announcement. He said that the inquiry was not really an
596
agricultural one but dealt with other matters. He told us that there were to be separate local inquiries as to local conditions, and then he described the kind of information which was to be sought for by these roving bodies. Does the noble Marquess suppose that inquiries as to the local conditions in regard to such questions as what is usually spoken of as the rural exodus, in regard to housing, and so forth, can take place without reference to the practical conditions of the agricultural problem? The two things are indissolubly mixed together and it is idle to attempt to separate them.
Those who have spoken here and elsewhere for His Majesty's Government are at pains to explain that this Committee is not a Committee of Single Taxers. Well, perhaps not. My own belief is that you will find it extremely difficult to discover any one with any knowledge either of agriculture or of finance who will go the length of identifying himself with the Single Tax in the full sense of the term. The consequences which would result from the adoption of Mr. Henry George's full-blown doctrines are so obvious and so absurd, even to the meanest understanding, that although there may be fanatics who may hold these views I cannot believe that any responsible Government will be found to advocate them; indeed, I well remember the predecessor of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—I think we were at the time discussing the Scottish Land Values Bill—repudiating with all the earnestness possible, and with evident sincerity, the idea that His Majesty's Government could for an instant entertain what he described as the policy of Henry George. He added that those were doctrines with which His Majesty's Government had no sympathy whatever, and I feel sure that that is the case, at any rate so far as the noble Marquess opposite is concerned, at the present moment. But, my Lords, oar point is that the whole of these Members of Parliament who have been honoured with a place upon this Committee are gentlemen who are identified with a policy involving the transfer, I will not say of the whole of our taxation but of a great part of our taxation, from other sources to the land. About that there is no doubt whatever. We should very much like to know something of the procedure which is to be followed by the Committee during those peregrinations which the noble Marquess mentioned.

597
Are they going to call witnesses? Will they have power to call witnesses? If they do not call witnesses and witnesses representing, not their own views, but the views of those who differ from them, what will be the value of this inquiry with its vast scope and the multitude of subjects which it is to include?
And that leads me to remind the House of another little point which we gather from an answer given in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. He was asked whether the Report of this Committee would be laid on the Table. What was his answer? He said he did not know. Is it not extraordinary that an investigation of this comprehensiveness and this importance should be contemplated and that we are not even to know whether the results of the inquiry are to be kept secret or whether they are to be made public? There is another matter of which I should like to remind the House. The subject into which this unofficial Committee is to inquire is a subject which has already been inquired into by more than one Committee or Commission. There was, for example, the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes; and there was the Commission presided over by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which heard a great quantity of evidence and submitted very weighty recommendations upon all those subjects of which the noble Marquess spoke a moment ago. Now are you going to take this irregularly-composed Committee, this Committee of partisans—for that is the only way to describe it—and set them to give you a Report which shall overshadow and supersede such documents as the Reports of the two weighty Royal Commissions to which I referred a moment ago? The thing seems too monstrous to contemplate.
Let me say for myself, and I have no doubt I speak for others too, we should welcome an inquiry into this question of the taxation of land, but if there is to be an inquiry let it be an inquiry conducted in the full light of day and by a properly constituted body. The noble Marquess told us that this Committee was to deal with what I think he described as the balance of our agricultural system, with such questions as the movement of the population from the country towards the towns, and with the housing problem. Why, surely, my Lords, if you are to have an inquiry into
598
such matters as these you want a weighty and authoritative body properly constituted and really able to sift the evidence with a thorough and practical knowledge of the matter. There are two ways in which Committees and Commissions are constituted. You sometimes appoint to them representatives of extreme views on both sides, you give them a fairly impartial chairman, and you trust that out of the conflict of opinion some reasonable compromise may be reached. That is one way. The other way, of course, is to appoint to your inquiring body no one but men of a judicial mind, chosen because they are unbiased and impartial. But in this case you have taken neither of these methods. You have made up your Committee of inquiry entirely of men whom I described a moment ago, I think not improperly, as partisans. Can you expect that front such an inquiry any real good will result?
The real defence for the action of His Majesty's Ministers in this matter is one which I think the noble Marquess cannot venture to give. I will suggest it to the House. They have a very motley and a somewhat unruly body of followers, and amongst the most persistent of them are these gentlemen who are addicted to various versions of the Single Tax policy. My explanation of the appointment of this Committee is that His Majesty's Government have found it an extremely convenient way of keeping these gentlemen quiet for a little time. They have given them this bone to fight over, and for the moment no doubt they will be relieved of the necessity of themselves dealing with the matter. I am very glad that the noble Lord on the Back Bench has called the attention of the House to this matter, because it is in my view not, as the noble Marquess supposed, a matter of no importance, but a matter raising very serious questions of principle and one to which the House ought certainly to give its attention.
No Peer rising to continue the debate,
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY said: My Lords, if there is to be no reply to the observations of the noble Marquess who has just sat down it is a sign of great weakness on the part of the Front Bench opposite. I fully understand that the Leader of the House is in a difficult position. He does not know whether to declare this Committee an official or an unofficial Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I stated quite clearly that the Committee is unofficial.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Are the Government going to support the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer contained in his letter to Mr. Outhwaite at Hanley? It is difficult to see how the matter can be unofficial when this subject was dealt with so fully by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Marquess opposite says he is tillable to give us the names of the members of this Committee. At any rate, we know there is not to be a single Unionist upon it. From rumours we have heard we learn that the Committee is to consist of gentlemen who are interested in every kind of industry except agriculture. The only member who is acquainted at all with agriculture has property in Austria but has no interest whatever in agricultural land in England. This is to be a packed Committee, packed for one purpose only and packed by men who are supporters of the Party opposite, who hope that by raising this question of land values they will get at what they want to secure—namely,— the Single Tax. The Single Tax has been brought forward at recent by-elections by men who are considered prominent members of the Party opposite. Is this Committee appointed in view of the question of the Single Tax being in future made the policy of the Party at present in office I believe it is, and that is the opinion of the members who are upon it My belief is that this question of the Single Tax is started with a view to making it an election cry in the country. The Government know full well that if they went to the constituencies to-morrow on Home Rule or Disestablishment or against a reform in our fiscal system they would have no chance of being returned. They are therefore anxious to get up a new cry. But the moderate members of the Party opposite do not approve of these violent measures, and therefore the Government have allowed this Committee to be appointed to keep quiet certain sections of their supporters. This, however, is not a policy which moderate men in the Government should allow. I cannot believe, for instance, that speeches like that delivered at Limehouse by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are approved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House; and I say that it is the duty of the noble Marquess and his colleagues who hold moderate views to dissociate themselves
600
from the violent outbursts to which I have referred and not allow these speeches to go to the country as representing the views of the Cabinet. But the truth is that the country is slowly waking up to the fact that there is no moderate party in the present Cabinet. Thinking men view with scorn the action of the so-called moderate men in the Government in allowing these violent speeches to go unrepudiated. In a paper entitled "Land Values," by Mr. Outhwaite, the recently-returned Member for Hanley, occurs a paragraph stating that the rank and file of the Liberal Party are tired of having to wait for Cabinet pronouncements to know the faith they are to hold; that Liberalism stands for economic freedom; and that when the straight road to emancipation has to be taken an irresistible army will rally, and happily there will be no mistaking those who now retard advance. I cannot imagine that such language will be appreciated by noble Lords opposite. In conclusion, I must again express my surprise that no one has risen from the Government Front Bench to reply to the speech of the noble Marquess beside me.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not know whether Lord Ribblesdale has derived much satisfaction from the answer he has received. If he has, I think he enjoys the position of being quite unique in the House. Who appointed this Committee? That is what we want to know. The noble Marquess says it is unofficial, but a Committee does not come into existence without having some origin. The noble Marquess told us we must not believe what we see in the newspapers. How far does he carry that? Does he carry it as far as the reports of speeches are concerned, because if the reports are not undeserving of belief we know that this Committee was the direct result of Mr. Lloyd George's speech at Woodford. These were his words on that occasion—
"We have got to free the laud, to free the land that is at this very hour shackled with the chairs of feudalism. We have got to free the people front the anxieties, the worries, the terrors that their children may be crying for bread in this land of plenty. We have got to free the land. It is a disgrace to the richest land under the sun that people should want. This Act [the Insurance Act] is a beginning, and with God's help it is but a beginning."
It is an extraordinary thing that within a day or two after that Mr. Lloyd George gave

601
a breakfast, at which a certain number of persons appeared who I believe are the members of this Committee. If I could only get the noble Marquess opposite into a private room I am sure he could give a great deal more information as to the members of this Committee than he was good enough to give to the House. It struck me that he must know a good deal more with regard to the composition of this Committee, more especially after the two letters which Lord Ribblesdale read, one front a Liberal Whip and the other from a gentleman very nearly in the same capacity. In reality the Government know a great deal more about this question than they will divulge to the House. There can, I think, be no doubt of that.
I believe the guess of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition as to the origin of this Committee to be absolutely accurate, and I will tell you why. Mr. Hemmerde—I do not think any one will dispute that he is one of the members of this Committee—went to Mr. Lloyd George's breakfast, and he had just previously been returned for a Division of Norfolk. He is a Single Taxer, though I. must say he has lowered his topsails since he went to Crewe. At Hanley he supported the Single Tax, but now he says that he is in favour of it in theory, but that in an old country like this you cannot have it. I think it is largely to keep this gentleman and others quiet that this Committee has been appointed. At the meeting of the English League for the Taxation of Land Values this month Mr. Hemmerde said—
"I believe that the Government is in earnest. The time has come for very plain speaking to some members of the Party whose voices carry no weight in the country, but who think it their privilege to dictate to the Party how far it is to go. There is no hope for Liberalism in this country unless it moves fast. Look at the Dock Strike, the Coal Strike, the Railway Strike. It is no good talking about a minimum wage to remedy these things. This fight is the biggest fight there has been in English politics for centuries."
I admit that language of that sort, if repeated, will be inconvenient for the Government, and it is certain that His Majesty's Government have looked upon the formation of this Committee, if not with absolute approval—although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the originator of it—at all events in the hope that it will keep some of their extreme friends quiet.
602
The noble Marquess opposite said there was precedent for this. Is there a precedent for a speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer followed by the appointment of a Committee which is said to have been self-appointed? I do not know whether the noble Marquess will admit that this Committee was appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it was not, is there a precedent for a self-appointed Committee suddenly rising into existence who are to collect information not exclusively about the condition of the rural part of the kingdom? I think the noble Marquess knows a great deal more about what they propose to de than he has up to the present time told us. Then he said there was no such thing possible as a new policy, because the policy is the policy of the Government. Therefore if you follow his argument out it comes to this, that as soon as a Government is in power nothing that they propose is a new policy. And he tells us, last of all, that we are not to believe anything we see in the newspapers. Although we may not believe all we see in the newspapers, at any rate we have had a good deal more indication in the newspapers as to the truth of this matter than we have up to the present time succeeded in extracting from His Majesty's Government.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, with your indulgence I wish to say one word to put myself clear with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. He was very kind in the way he treated the few observations I made, but when he said that I was not inclined to take it very seriously I should like to say this, My point is that I do take it very seriously that the Government should identify themselves with this Committee in the way they have done and refuse us all information; but what I do not take very seriously is the Committee itself. Really if I did take this Committee of partisans —and I do not think the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition went too far when he used that word—as serious people, I should have to take seriously an unofficial committee of thieves and ticket-of-leave men who declared their willingness to instruct the Government upon the reconstitution of the Metropolitan Police, or an unofficial body of professed secularists who undertook to remodel the Establishment and to tell us what we ought to do with the Right Rev. Bench.

MOTOR TRAFFIC IN LONDON.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND*THE DUKE OF RUTLAND rose to call attention to the returns recently given in the Press of the motor traffic in London, and the casualties resulting therefrom; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to soon introduce legislation dealing with the whole subject of mechanically-propelled vehicles throughout the country.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, it is some years since I ventured to address your Lordships on this subject, and I have laid to my soul the flattering unction that at any rate one of the suggestions which I ventured to make on that occasion was acted upon not very long afterwards by the London police—I refer to the putting on of a certain number of skilled inspectors and constables to take action with respect to the more noisy and unwieldy motor-buses then punning. Last year 410 people were killed by vehicles in the streets of London. That is a very heavy death roll to contemplate. Of this number 122 were killed by horse-drawn vehicles and the remainder by mechanically-propelled traffic. During the same period motor omnibuses were responsible for 1,900 accidents which did not end fatally, and motor-cars for over 5,000 accidents. That is a very serious matter, but I am far from blaming the motor industry generally. You have to consider the number of motor vehicles which are on the streets now compared with a few years ago. Nine years ago there were only thirteen motor omnibuses on the streets of London; now there are more than 2,000, and additional motor-omnibuses are being put on at the rate of thirty a week. Nine years ago there was only one motor-cab on the London streets; to-day there are over 7,000. Those figures prove that this question of mechanically-propelled vehicles requires very grave consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government.
We were told in the early days of motor traffic that we would soon get accustomed to it, and that one great advantage of it would be that there would be far more room in the streets. A taxi-cab being much shorter than a horse-drawn cab, it was contended that proportionately there would be more room and traffic would become less congested. I do not think any one acquainted with London traffic will say that this has been realised. On the contrary, the congestion is very great
604
indeed in the main streets of London, in which the traffic is mostly mechanically propelled. I at once say that I do not hold the drivers of these vehicles so much to blame as some of the newspapers make out. The strain of driving a heavy motor-omnibus weighing two tons through crowded traffic when the roads are slippery is very great both physically and mentally, and a driver is pretty well worn out at the end of his day's work. In my opinion many of the men who drive motor-omnibuses and taxi-cabs in London deserve very great credit for the manner in which they work their way through crowded traffic, and I always wonder that more accidents do not occur. While on this point I must say that the manner in which the traffic is handled by the London police seems to me perfectly marvellous. I have a high respect for the pluck and presence of mind of the street duty policeman. With regard to the accidents that take place, I think that pedestrians contribute largely to their own misfortunes in many cases. It is a common occurrence in crowded streets to see people ignoring the many refuges which would enable them to cross with safety and strolling casually across unconcerned as to their own safety. I think that in some thoroughfares there are too many of these refuges. That may sound an absurd statement, but there is no denying the fact that the placing of refuges in crowded thoroughfares at distances of only 100 or 150 yards apart does cause congestion of traffic and lead to accidents.
There is another matter. Nowadays when rebuilding work is going on, hoardings are carried out so far and up so high that it is impossible, when this rebuilding is taking place at street corners, for drivers to see other vehicles coming round the corner, and if a large piece of glass were inserted in the triangle in such cases it would be of great advantage in preventing accidents. Then, again, there is no question that the twenty-mile speed limit is too high for London. I think fifteen miles or even twelve should be the limit inside London. I have often seen at midnight or at one o'clock in the morning vehicles racing down Piccadilly at well over thirty miles an hour to the imminent danger of the public. I hope that before long legislation on the whole subject of mechanically-propelled vehicles will be taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, and that as a result we shall have a consolidated law

605
placed on the Statute-book which will do away with many of the gross anomalies and absurdities which now occur. Take the Great North Road. That is a clear road, and in parts it is quite safe to go at any reasonable speed you like. What can be more ridiculous, on a straight, open, clear road where there is not the slightest danger to any one, than being arrested for exceeding the twenty-mile limit? You may have been travelling some distance at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour with no danger to the public and not the slightest vestige of inconvenience to anybody; but the moment you go over a certain line on the road you are arrested, although, as I say, you are travelling then at exactly the same speed as you were on the other side of the line. Could a greater absurdity exist in the law than that? That is a matter which I hope before long will be adjusted. In open country where you have a clear run and no cross roads I cannot for the life of me see why you should not be allowed to drive at a higher rate than twenty miles an hour, so long as there is no danger to the public. At the same time it ought to be severely punishable for a motorist to drive through any village at a higher speed than ten miles an hour, and it ought not to be left, entirely in the hands of the local authorities to say to which places the ten-mile speed limit should apply.
Although, on the whole, motorists are much more considerate than they were a few years ago, I admit that the road hog still exists. I should like to abolish him altogether, and I think this could be accomplished by compelling him to go through villages much more carefully and by imposing heavier penalties for dangerous driving. You all know the story of the foreign chauffeur who indignantly declared at the police court when charged with furious driving, "I always make it my hobby not to kill anybody." I think motorists generally make it their hobby now not to kill any one, but still there is a great deal that can be done by legislation in the way I have indicated to stop the practices of the road hog. It is curious that while fowls, ducks, geese, and even dogs now-a-days do not take the liberties with motorcars that they used to, yet children seem to be as reckless as ever they were, and it is a great problem what to do with children who will insist upon playing in the middle of the road although they have excellent playgrounds elsewhere. In conclusion, I venture
606
to hope that His Majesty's Government will in a future session introduce useful legislation on these matters and at the same time consolidate the law so that we may have a satisfactory, intelligible, and workable Motor Act.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Duke has given us formidable figures as to the number of accidents in the metropolis last year. I saw in one issue of The Times last week a report of five fatal accidents in London. I am afraid that in this matter people are losing all sense of proportion. If five people are killed in a railway accident we have columns written about it as well as leading articles in the newspapers, but here were five people killed in one day in the streets of London and the matter was dismissed with half-a-dozen lines. I endorse all that the noble Duke has said as to the need for further legislation. At Constitution Hill there is a notice to pedestrians to beware of riders. I do not think that that strip for riders is very much frequented; but when you emerge on to Hyde Park Corner you are at one of the most congested and dangerous points in London. The noble Duke seemed to imply that it was in the more congested thoroughfares that the larger number of accidents occurred. I believe it is in the open thoroughfares where danger most lies. The noble Duke, who is in the full vigour of manhood, may be able to get across safely. But take Grosvenorsquare. Before leaving the pavement you may look carefully to see that there is no motor-car coming along, but if a car is travelling at thirty miles an hour it is on top of you long be-fore you can get across to the other side. I certainly support the representation that a speed limit of fifteen miles an hour should be fixed inside London. No doubt children are guilty of carelessness, but they have not many recreation grounds in London and it is only natural that they should play in the streets. It is hard upon those who pay the rates and presumably have a perfect right to cross public streets that they can only do so at great risk to their lives. I hope something will be done by His Majesty's Government to mitigate this great source of danger to the inhabitants of London.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, with a great deal of what the noble Duke has said I am, and I am sure the majority of your Lordships are, in hearty agreement. The figures as to accidents are no doubt very

607
large, but it must be remembered that the total number includes every kind of accident., even the slightest personal injury, and that the figures given are in respect of an area of 700 square miles and a population exceeding 7,000,000. We must all regret that 410 lives were lost through traffic accidents in London last year, but the number does not appear to be so very large when the vast population and the considerable area are taken into consideration.
The mileage of cabs and other public vehicles has increased greatly since the introduction of motor traffic. In 1902, for instance, there were 11,382 cab licences; they were practically all horse cabs. I do not know what the average run per day for a horse cab is, but if you take the average at forty miles that would represent a daily cab mileage then of 455,280 miles. In 1911 there were 10,973 licences—3,347 horse cabs and 7,626 motor vehicles. If we again take forty miles as the average of a horse cab and eighty as that of a motor, the total average mileage per day is now 743,960 miles; and I think it may be assumed that the mileage of privately-owned vehicles has increased in the same ratio. Coupled with this there has been an enormous increase in the mileage covered by pedestrians. I agree that pedestrians are sometimes to blame for contributing to accidents, but it is not much use telling a pedestrian when he has been run over and hurt that he was to blame.
The noble Duke said that when motor traction was first introduced we were told that there would be more room in the streets but that that had not turned out to be the case. In that. I quite agree with the noble Duke. The congestion of traffic in London has increased enormously, and far greater difficulty is experienced by the police in dealing with traffic. But though there has been this increase the streets generally and the pavements have not been widened but remain the same width for an increasing population. It is the old question of trying to put a quart into a pint pot. With much that the noble Duke said as to speed on country roads I dare say a good many of us agree, but I doubt whether you would have public opinion behind you in any proposed legislation to increase the speed limit to twenty-five or thirty miles. Rightly or wrongly, the general public think that there is some sort of security in having a
608
speed limit. His Majesty's Government and the Departments concerned are watching the evolution of motor traffic, but I cannot say what may be proposed eventually as regards this question of speed, though I doubt very much whether public opinion would sanction the increasing of the speed limit. I fully endorse what the noble Duke said in praise of the London police and the manner in which they handle the traffic. The noble Duke also expressed the opinion that in many places there were too many refuges. That, however, is not the view of the Chief Commissioner of Police; and the police are pressing the local authorities wherever they can to increase the number of refuges in certain places.
The speed of vehicles in London is controlled under Section 1 of the Motor Act, 1903, which makes it an offence to drive negligently or in a manner dangerous to the public, or under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that the speed limit is being exceeded. In towns what is commonly known as the "police trap," but more euphemistically called the "control," hardly applies. It is most difficult to employ the control in town traffic. Then it has been suggested in this discussion that a specially-low speed limit should be imposed at danger points in towns. I agree with the noble Duke that the speed at such points and through villages and urban districts should not exceed ten miles an hour; in fact, in many cases ten miles an hour is too fast. In town traffic, however, it is by no means certain—in fact the contrary is, I think, held to be the case—that a very low speed limit would conduce to increased safety. A comparison of the figures of the City of London with those of the rest of the metropolitan police district supplies a striking corroboration of this. In the City of London the traffic is more congested, and moves at a much slower rate than in any other part of the metropolis; moreover, the traffic in the City is more controlled —I mean by there being more police in proportion to the population—than elsewhere. But, notwithstanding this, in the one square mile which forms the City of London and which constitutes one seven-hundredth part of the metropolitan police area the number of accidents is one-tenth of the total. These figures go to show that accidents are due to the density of the traffic rather than to excessive speed. Low limits are also to be deprecated from the point of view of facilities for traffic.

609
The Government Departments concerned and the police have the whole subject under careful consideration, and if it is found possible to take any steps for the greater control of traffic and the greater protection of pedestrians at certain points this will be done. The Departments always welcome suggestions as to measures which might be taken for dealing with this problem, and I will certainly lay before the Departments concerned the suggestions which the noble Duke has made to-day. There is no doubt that the advent of mechanically-propelled traffic has changed very much the conditions of our life, and although in many ways there may be advantages there are also considerable disadvantages. I can only say
610
that at present the Government do not contemplate legislation on the subject. The evolution of motor traffic is, as I have said, being watched by the Chief Commissioner of Police in London, by the Departments concerned, and also by the local authorities in the country, and no doubt some further legislation will have to be brought in before long to consolidate the legislation on the subject and minimise as far as.possible the danger which has grown up with this traffic.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.