Sitting of 24 July 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Northern Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Arbroath Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Royal Scottish Museum (Extension) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill, without Amendment.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Exe Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Great Western Railway Bill,
Midland Railway Bill,
Birmingham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Exe Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS (INLAND WRITTEN TELEGRAMS).
Copy presented of the Telegraph (Inland Written Telegram) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations, 1912. Dated 24th July, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1912, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold civil employment of profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales for the year 1909–10. Part VII., Summary and Index [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CHAMBER OF LONDON.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year ending 31st March, 1912 [by Act]; to be printed.

LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return ordered, "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1912, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894:—

(1) The amounts paid during the year out of the Equalisation Fund under the Act to the Councils of Metropolitan Boroughs;

(2) The amount of the expenses incurred during the year by the Councils to whom such payments were made (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b)in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and

(3) The amounts expended during the year by the Councils out of the sums received by them under the Act (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, of Session 1911.)"—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return ordered, "as to the proceedings of distress committees in England and Wales and of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, during the year ended the 31st day of March 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 280, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered "of Statement of the amount expended by boards of guardians for Poor Relief during the half-year ended the 31st day of March, 1912, and similar Statement for the half-year ended the 30th day of September, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 76, of Session 1912.)"—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Naval Aeroplanes.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the British and Colonial Aeroplane Company, of Filton, Bristol, is supplying the Admiralty with aeroplanes or other flying craft; if so, whether that firm is paying from 5s. to 10s. per week less than the standard rate of wage to a number of artisans employed by the firm; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The firm is supplying the Admiralty with an aeroplane, and the usual Fair-Wages Clause forms one of the conditions of the order. I have no information respecting the complaint made in the question, but am making inquiry.

  Torpedo-boat Destroyers (British and German Fleets).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many-torpedo-boat destroyers were completed for the British and German fleets, respectively, from 1899 to 1905, inclusive; and how many from and including 1906 to the present time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of torpedo boat destroyers completed for the British Navy during the periods in question is as follows:—

  1899–1905, inclusive

  86

  1906 to present time (not including three for the Australian Navy)

  71

  The figures for Germany are:—

  1899–1905, inclusive

  42

  1906 to present time

  69

  Battleships (British and German).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many battleships were completed for the British and German fleets, respectively, from 1899 to 1905, inclusive; and how many from and including 1906 to the present time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of battleships completed for the British Navy during the periods in question is as follows:—

  1899–1905, inclusive

  …

  …

  27

  1906 to present time

  …

  …

  18

  The Germany figures are:—

  1899–1905, inclusive

  …

  …

  14

  1906 to present time

  …

  …

  14

  It ought, I think, to be added that from 1906 to the present time, in addition to the number of battleships already given as completed, five "Dreadnought" cruisers have been completed for the British Navy and three for the German Navy, in which three I include one now undergoing trials.

  "Dreadnought" Docks (North Sea).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many completed "Dreadnought" docks there are on the North Sea coasts of Great Britain and Germany, respectively?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On the East Coast of Great Britain we have three docks capable of receiving battleships and battle cruisers of the "Dreadnought" type, namely:—

  (1) The Chatham No. 9 Dock, which will receive battle cruisers up to and including the "Indefatigable" class;

  (2) The Hebburn Dock on the Tyne, which, under certain conditions, will receive battleships of the "Dreadnought" type up to and including the "Colossus" class, and battle cruisers up to and including the "Indefatigable" class; and

  (3) The Medway Floating Dock, capable of receiving all battleships and cruisers built or building.

  Germany has six docks capable of taking ships of the "Dreadnought" type, namely:—

  Four at Wilhelmshaven,

  One at Bremerhaven,

  and a floating dock at Hamburg.

  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the Hebburn Dock take a "Dreadnought" fully loaded?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: At the lowest neap tide there are 25 ft. over the sill. If the ship were fully loaded at that time, the Hebburn Dock would not take it.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chatham Dock is not always available,
  1146
  and that ships have often been waiting outside for the tide to get in?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think that the Noble Lord is quite correct.
  Mr. GRETTON: Are we to understand that the Medway Dock is the only one on the East Coast which is capable of taking this latest type of "Dreadnoughts"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Medway Dock is the only one under all circumstances and all tides which is capable of taking all "Dreadnought" ships built or building.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the wind prevents the Medway Dock from being used at all states of the tide and wind, just the same as the Chatham Dock? It is a question of wind and fair-way.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course my knowledge is not equal to the Noble Lord's, but I should doubt that. I admit what he said with regard to the Chatham Dock, but I am doubtful as to his suggestion as to the floating dock.

  Ceylon Excise Ordinance.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the recent Ceylon Excise Ordinance, the Government of Ceylon will provide central distillery buildings and plant and, if so, at what estimate of cost; whether the number of liquor shops has been largely increased by the establishment of separate toddy shops which did not exist before; whether it is the policy of the Excise Department to cheapen the cost of toddy to the drinker to 5d. a gallon or less; and on what Department rests the responsibility of reporting and checking any increase of drunkenness?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the system can only be introduced gradually, and no estimate of the cost is available. As regards the second part, I would explain that previously the arrack and toddy rents have been sold together. It has now been decided to separate them, and it is therefore necessary to make separate provision for the sale of toddy. This necessarily involves an increase in the number of licensed houses, but the number of licensed places in which arrack can be obtained and the number in which toddy can be obtained will not be

  1147
  similarly increased, since toddy will not be obtainable at an arrack shop or arrack at a toddy shop. Further, owing to the prevention of the illicit sales which have been rife in the past, the total number of places at which liquor can be obtained will be greatly reduced. As regards the third part of the question, I am not aware that any figure has been suggested. It is the policy of the Government of Ceylon to discourage the drinking of arrack and to induce people, if they must drink, to drink toddy, a comparatively harmless beverage, the sale of which has been discouraged in the past by the arrack renters. The control of drunkards will rest, as in the past, on the police. It is confidently expected that the new system will lead to a great decrease in drunkenness.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very large volume of dissatisfaction with the new Ordinance in Ceylon; and can he say from what section of the community that dissatisfaction comes?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I interviewed yesterday a gentleman representing the volume of dissatisfaction, and I hope I was able to remove some of it.
  Mr. HOGGE: What is toddy; is it Scotch?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, it is quite a different beverage. It is quite unsuitable to Scotchmen.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what it is?
  Mr. HARCOURT: It is a product of the palm tree.

  Gilbert Islands (Investigation).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to an appeal made to the Prime Minister praying for the cancellation of a phosphate licence in the Gilbert islands and for an impartial public investigation into the affairs of these Pacific islands; and whether he proposes to have such an investigation held and thus give the public access to the truth of the matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen the petition referred to by my hon. Friend, but have been unable to advise that any action should be taken upon it. As stated in answer to a question in the House on 5th
  1148
  April, 1909, an inquiry was made by the High Commissioner in 1905 into the charges made by the petitioner, and the Secretary of State was satisfied on receipt of his report that the complaints had no solid foundation. I do not consider that any further investigation is necessary. I would refer the hon. Member to the despatch of the High Commissioner of 3rd September, 1908, published at page 14 of Cd. 4356.
  Mr. POINTER: Is it not a fact that the licence mentioned in the question was obtained under false pretences, and, that being so, is it not desirable to have an inquiry into the whole matter?
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman perfectly satisfied that the conditions of employment of natives in these islands is satisfactory?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think that question hardly arises.

  Postal Arrangements (Canada, Australia,and South Africa).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the Post Office in Canada, Australia, or South Africa are subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the central Government, or whether they are under the various local Parliaments in these dominions; whether there has been any complaint in those cases where they are under a central authority; and whether there is any intention of putting the postal arrangements back under the various Colonies or States that go to make up the federation, commonwealth, or dominion?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In all three cases the Post Office is under the central Parliament and Government. I have no information on the second and third parts of the question.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman never had a complaint about it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I could not carry in my head any complaints which have been made over a series of years.

  Bee Disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes this Session to introduce his promised Bill to deal with outbreaks of Isle of Wight bee disease; and, if so, why,

  1149
  in view of it probably being unopposed in this House, he does not do so forthwith?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I hope to introduce the Bill to-morrow.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange, that it shall come into operation as from the beginning of next year?
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that extensive bee disease exists in Aberdeenshire; and what steps he has taken in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am informed that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have no reason to suppose that extensive bee disease exists in Aberdeenshire. Only one case has been reported from that county. In that, as in other cases from other districts, arrangements were made to have the bees inspected and to advise as to treatment. I may add that the Board are in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to legislation for dealing with outbreaks of bee disease.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the outbreak of disease come under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland or for England?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This is under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

  Argentine Cattle.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the Order just issued by the Board permitting the landing of Irish cattle at Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf for slaughter there, he will also consider the desirability of removing the restrictions upon the importation from Argentina of live cattle for slaughter at the same market?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The importation of live animals from Argentina is prohibited in pursuance of the statutory obligations imposed upon the Board by Section 25 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and legislation would, therefore, be necessary to carry out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. The Section in question does not apply to Ireland, and in any case the circumstances of the two countries differ materially.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked whether the Board of Agriculture have received any information that, owing to Clause 18 in the Swine Fever Order of 23rd April,1908, which prohibits the exhibition for sale of pigs suspected of fever, excessive fines have been imposed on persons whose pigs have been suspected and have afterwards proved not to be infected by the fever?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer is in the negative. If the hon. Member can give me particulars of any such case, I will certainly have inquiry made.

  Agricultural Co-operative Societies.
  Mr. FLEMINGasked how many cooperative societies are in existence in England among dairy farmers, market gardeners, and fruit growers, respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are no complete statistics of agricultural co-operative societies, but if the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone his question for a week, I hope to be able to give approximate figures.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether in view of the fact that when the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Market Harborough was made known to the authorities as many as fourteen animals were found to be affected with the disease, the Board of Agriculture are of opinion that the disease had existed on the premises for several days prior to its notification; and, if so, whether the Board propose, in the general interests of stock owners, to take steps to ensure in every case immediate notification of the disease when an outbreak occurs?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Every person having in his possession or under his charge an animal affected with foot-and-mouth disease is bound by Section 4 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and by Section 1 of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order, 1895, with all practicable speed to give notice of the fact to the police. This requirement is well known to stockowners, but-notwithstanding the widespread publicity which has been given in the public Press both to the existence of the disease in this country and to its characteristic symptoms, the person in charge of the stock on the farm in question

  1151
  does not appear to have suspected its existence until the owner of the stock returned to the farm, and his attention was called to the condition of the animals. The immediate notification of the disease is of course a matter of the greatest importance, but it is difficult to see what further steps can be taken by the Board to prevent the possibility of failure to comply with the rejuirements of the law such as occurred at Market Harborough. I should be only too glad to consider any practical suggestions for the purpose.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In some of the cases referred to were not some of the animals found in an advanced stage of the disease when the notification actually took place, and have circumstances possibly arisen for a prosecution to be initiated?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; I am considering that point.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can give any information to the House with regard to a rumoured outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Shepton Mallet, in Somerset?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret to say that a report was received yesterday stating that foot-and-mouth disease existed on a farm at Westcombe, near Shepton Mallet. The Board's chief veterinary officer visited the premises early this morning, and found that twelve animals were infected. The usual restrictions on the movement of animals and the holding of markets have been imposed on a large area surrounding the infected place.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether, in view of the case of carrying germs of this disease, either by wind or insects or birds, he attributes the outbreak in Somerset to the importation of Irish stock at Bristol?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. As far as we are aware, it is not in any way connected with that.

  Finance Act, 1911.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state the number of cases dealt with under the provisions of Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1911; in how many of these a reduction of Licence Duty has
  1152
  been granted; and what has been the cost to the Treasury?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that I am not in a position to give the figures asked for, and I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 1st April last. Applications are still coming in.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman even give the amount that has been paid? I make it out to be £36,000 and not £50,000.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give it now.

  Annual Licence Value.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked whether the register of annual licence value of houses of over £500 rental has been completed under the provisions of Section 44 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; what has been done in the cases of houses of £500 and under; and whether there is any immediate prospect of completing the register?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The register of annual licence value of houses of over £500 rental has been substantially completed. Beyond the issue of the form of return, no steps have been taken with regard to houses of an annual value of £500 and under. The method of arriving at the annual licence value of licensed houses is at the present time the subject of litigation, and there is, I regret, no immediate prospect of completing the register.

  Tailors' Strike.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire whether, during the tailors' strike, the employers asked for protection for non-union workers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna):I have made inquiry, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that the police received a number of such applications, which were in all cases complied with. One application was received at the Home Office, and was at once forwarded to the Commissioner.

  Port of London (Strike).
  JAMES THOMASasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, at Bow Junction on the Great Eastern

  1153
  Railway, every morning since 12th July, non-union labourers who are being taken to work at the docks exhibit revolvers to other men working in the vicinity, and in a number of cases have discharged the same; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to deal with people armed in this manner and whose actions may lead to serious consequences?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police finds, on inquiry, that a revolver was fired from a train conveying workmen to the docks shortly after six in the morning of the 13th, 16th, and 17th July. This had not previously been reported to the police, but their attention has now been drawn to the matter, and they will take any necessary action.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary what inquiries have been ordered by him in regard to the action of the police in connection with the present dock strike; when the result of these inquiries will be known; and if, in view of the different opinions expressed by him on various occasions as to the existence and extent of intimidation by the strikers, he will order a general inquiry as to the conduct of the strike in order to determine the amount and nature of the intimidation practised, the adequacy of the police arrangements to provide protection to workers, and other germane matters?
  Mr. McKENNA: A special inquiry has been made as to the conduct of the police in dealing with a disturbance at Rotherhithe on 11th June. The result of this inquiry will be made public in due course, but I cannot yet say when. There have been no other inquiries except such as may have been made in ordinary course by the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Constable of Essex with regard to the action of the constables under their command. My statements with regard to intimidation have not varied except in so far as the existence or extent or nature of the intimidation has varied at different times and different places, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the general inquiry which the hon. Members suggests.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the letter of Lord Devonport of 18th July, in which it is stated that certain assurances were given in August, 1911, that the Members of the Government con-
  1154
  cerned would use their endeavours to induce the transport workers' leaders to carry out the spirit of the agreement then signed, and that it was in view of these assurances that the employers then agreed that taking-on places should be chosen by the men's leaders and be outside the dock premises; and if, in view of the pressure since brought to bear by the union to prevent non-union men being taken on, he will state what steps the Government has taken to carry out the assurances referred to?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that the President of the Local Government Board, under the terms of the agreement, was engaged in discussing with the parties concerned the question of taking-on places outside the dock premises at the time when the present dispute commenced.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of circularising the local authorities recommending them to arrange or receive relief on an organised basis in the East End of London, in view of the fact that some 16,000 school children will shortly be on their holidays and unable to obtain the relief hitherto given them, without which they will be on the verge of starvation owing to the dock strike?
  Mr. BURNS: I and my inspectors are in constant touch with the authorities, and I do not think there is any reason to suppose that they are not fully alive to the situation. No circular letter is, in my opinion, required.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: Can the Prime Minister say whether any negotiations are now taking place on the subject of the taking on of the men outside the dock premises, in view of the fact that it has been stated by both sides to be the only outstanding point of difference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Port of London employers on 12th July pointing out that the present strike was ordered by the Transport Federation officials without consultation with the men, and that if the men resumed work forthwith they might depend upon their being allowed the freest submission of all grievances and just and generous consideration; and if he will take

  1155
  steps with a view to the unfettered opinion of the men being obtained as to resuming work at once on the assurances given by the Port Authority?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the statement of the Port of London employers, referred to by the hon. Member. With regard to the latter part of the question I have no means of obtaining such opinion.
  Mr. F. HALL: Has not the time arrived when a genuine ballot of the men can be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would require an Act of Parliament.

  Motor Omnibus Accidents.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the inquest on a cyclist named Voller at St. Pancras on the 20th instant, and also to the rider of the jury suggesting that wheel-guards should be introduced for motor omnibuses; and whether he proposes to take any action to give effect to this recommendation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen a newspaper report of the inquest and verdict, but, as I have stated in reply to other questions, no practicable wheel-guard has yet been devised that would be effective to prevent such an accident as this.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the Home Office represented at these inquests on persons killed by motor 'buses?
  Mr. McKENNA: Where special circumstances require it.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Do you not think it desirable that they should be—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  Suffragist Prisoners (Reduction of Sentences).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked in how many cases since 1st April the sentences against persons convicted of offences in connection with the movement to secure votes for women in Parliamentary elections have been remitted or reduced?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the
  1156
  9th July. Three prisoners whose convictions are of later date than April have had part of their sentences remitted.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Will the same favourable consideration be given to the case of George Gray, who was sentenced to two months' hard labour for assaulting one of His Majesty's Ministers on Joy Day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the total of signatures against the Established Church (Wales) Bill now reaches 538,985; and whether the Government proposes to proceed with the Commitee stage of the Bill without taking any action on this petition?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a question of this nature is not an abuse of the Orders of the House and of the practice of interrogation, seeing that when a Petition is presented it is then referred to the Committee on Petitions, and that they analyse it? I submit that it is not in order to question a Minister on the subject of a Petition until the Committee has reported. The question is simply put down to expioit a certain subject.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If I were to stop questions on that ground I should have to stop nearly half of them.
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 15th July.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the numbers have mounted up since then, and whether a petition signed by a large proportion of the adult population of Wales should not receive consideration before the Committee stage is proceeded with?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member listened to what was stated by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Swift MacNeill), he would appreciate that the numbers are an indeterminate factor until the Committee have reported on the petition.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he refers me to a private Member when the Speaker has heard what that Member has said, and ignored it?
  Captain TRYONasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, if he will state how many petitions have been received from Wales and Monmouthshire, respectively, for and against the Established Church (Wales) Bill since the introduction of that Bill; and what is the number of signatures received, respectively, for and against the Bill in the same period?
  Mr. BURT: One thousand and forty-eight petitions, containing 511,074 signatures, against the Established Church (Wales) Bill have been presented to the House up till and including 19th July from Wales and Monmouthshire. In the same period one petition, containing one signature in favour of the Bill, has been presented from Scotland; but none from Wales and Monmouthshire.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how those signatures are obtained?

  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Home Secretary whether he can offer any explanation why Ireland should be excluded from the Mental Deficiency Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question whether the Bill should apply to Ireland is under consideration. The Government see no objection to its extension, provided such extension is in accordance with the wishes of the Irish representatives.

  Vivisection.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary if he will state how many of the 5,090 experiments on living animals included in Table IV. (A), and how many of the 95,203 experiments included in Table IV. (B), in the Return for 1911, were actually seen by Dr. Thane and Sir James Russell, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: Dr. Thane witnessed thirty-five of the experiments mentioned in Table IV. (A), and Sir James Russell thirty-three. Of the experiments in Table IV. (B), Dr. Thane saw twenty-one, and Sir James Russell 202. The number of experiments included in Table IV. (B) is 90,113; 95,203 is the total number of experiments in both tables.

  Coal Mines (Certificates for Firemen Examiners).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Home Secretary whether the circular of 10th February, 1912, in reference to Section 15 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, rendering obligatory for firemen examiners and deputies a certificate from a mining school, institution, or authority, has been sent to the local education authority in Gloucestershire and other counties on the footing that such authority is a mining authority within the meaning of the above Section; and whether, in counties where mining is one of the leading industries, the local education authority is expected to make arrangements either for the instruction or examination of such officials?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Home Office circular was sent to the Gloucestershire Education Committee, as well as to a number of other education committees, as the authority for technical education in the county. The circular indicated the conditions on which I was prepared to approve mining schools and other institutions and authorities for the purposes of the Act, and inquired whether the education committee desired to undertake the work of examination of firemen in its county. The Gloucestershire Committee and a number of other committees expressed their desire to do so, and have accordingly been approved. There is no compulsion, of course, on any authority to undertake the work, but I have been very glad to secure the co-operation of the county committees in making adequate provision for the examination of firemen under the Act.

  Industrial Disputes.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the House any information regarding the disputes and strikes which took place at Liverpool, Sunderland, Ashton-under-Lyme, and Grimsby upon 15th July, 1912?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have no information as to disputes at Sunderland, Ashton-under-Lyme, and Grimsby. At Liverpool difficulties arose last week, as explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, not primarily in connection with the Insurance Act, but in connection with a scheme approved by a joint committee of the shipowners of Liverpool and the men's unions

  1159
  for the decasualisation of labour at that port. I understand that the scheme is now settling down into satisfactory working.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the same report applies to Birkenhead as to disputes and strikes arising from the same causes?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information as to Birkenhead. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will give him an answer.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can state when the Bill foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night dealing with industrial disputes by way of compulsory arbitration will be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope next Session.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the House to understand it is not to be introduced this Session, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government proposed to deal with the matter in the immediate future?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I then ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government seriously intends to deal with this matter or whether it is another obligation of honour?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is an obligation of honour which will be performed in due course.
  Mr. BARNES: May I ask whether the statement of the Noble Lord describing the Bill as a Bill for compulsory arbitration is correct?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. It was described by my right hon. Friend in much more general terms.
  Mr. BRACE: In the preparation of the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government remember that for a large number of years at every Trade Union Congress, by enormous majorities, organised labour has declared against compulsory arbitration?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill will not be introduced until next year.

  Land Valuation (Increment Tax).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is under instructions given by the Government that the Inland Revenue officers, when landowners claim that in cases in which ground rent is received such rent shall be the basis in fixing land value, undertake that if ground rents are sold without profit Increment Tax will not be claimed on the difference between the valuation and the sale price; and if any obstacles are placed in the way of landowners taking advantage of the substituted value Clause of the Finance Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The consideration for the sale of a reversionary interest, together with the ground rent incident thereto, is not in most cases the site value of the land on the occasion of the sale as defined in Section 2 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and accordingly the difference between that consideration and the original site value is not the proper basis for the assessment of Increment Value Duty. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  London University Site.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister when the final Report of Lord Haldane's Commission on University Education in London may be expected; and whether Lord Haldane is still acting as the Government representative on the body of trustees to acquire the Bedford estate site for the headquarters of London University?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot inform the hon. Member when the Commission on University Education in London is likely to present its final Report. I have stated before more than once that no body of trustees to acquire the site referred to or any other site has been appointed.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether the proposal made to the Royal Commission on University Education in London by Sir Francis Trippel, and endorsed by them, to acquire a site on the Bedford estate for housing the University of London still has his approval; and whether, in the event of the Foundling Hospital site or the river site being selected for the university buildings, the moneys subscribed for the Bedford estate-site would be available for either of the alternative sites?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No proposals as to the acquirement of any site have been made to the Royal Commission or have been endorsed by them. I thought the Bedford site a good one when I was informed by Lord Haldane of the possibility of its acquisition, and I still think it a good one. The second part of the question refers to a matter as to which neither I nor the Government have any information.

  Rural Depopulation.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continuing depletion of the population of the rural districts and of the fact that a similar depletion has been taking place in France and elsewhere, he will appoint a Committee to consider and report upon the question, such Committee being expressly charged to take evidence upon the rural exodus in other countries and upon the steps, if any, that have been taken by them, respectively, to check it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am well aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, and the question of finding means to check the tendency of the population in this country to leave the rural districts is engaging my careful consideration. The conditions in other countries are not analogous, and I do not think that a Committee such as the hon. Member suggests would serve a useful purpose.
  Mr. YERBURGH: Is it not a fact that a Private Committee is sitting at the present moment the object of which is to find some method of arresting rural depopulation, and has it not been asserted by a gentleman in high position that that depopulation is due to our feudal system, and is it not a fact—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can scarcely expect an answer to that question without putting it on the Paper.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would not this be a subject of reference to the Committee that is now preparing the great lex agraria?

  Malaysian Rubber Company.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked whether, having regard to the allegations which have been made against the management of the United Malaysian Rubber Company and to the fact that 40 per cent, of the British shareholders desire a Board of Trade Inquiry, the Government will consider the desirability of so amending
  1162
  Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, as to empower the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry on the application of members holding one-tenth of the shares issued for cash?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton):The proportion of the issued shares of a company required to support an application to the Board of Trade for the appointment of an inspector was, after careful consideration, reduced in the year 1907 from one-fifth to one-tenth, and as at present advised I do not see my way to propose legislation further reducing the proportion or giving special rights to the holders of shares issued for cash.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Could the Board not be induced either to reconsider its decision or, at any rate, to receive a deputation on the subject, particularly having regard to the fact that it frequently happens, as in this case, grave allegations are made against the promoters of a company, and such promoters are able to outvote the other shareholders?
  Mr. BUXTON: I shall be very glad to receive any representations with regard to the matter; but three or four years ago this matter was considered in the House, and fresh facts sufficiently strong have not come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade to induce it to take action.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman consent, having regard to the importance of the subject, to receive a small deputation of those who would make important representations?
  Mr. BUXTON: With pleasure.

  House of Commons (Salaries of Members).
  Mr. FELLasked on what day there will be an opportunity for the discussion of the Vote for the Payment of Salaries of Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to allot two extra days for Supply. The Votes to be taken are being arranged in the usual way. In any case the matter can be raised on the Appropriation Bill.
  Mr. FELL: In any arrangement of time will the right hon. Gentleman allow at least half a day for the discussion of this Vote?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is being arranged.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any time in these two days will be devoted to Scottish Estimates, seeing we were deprived of half our day yesterday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure; I am afraid not.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the discussion refer to Members who return their cheques?
  Lord BALCARRES: Only two extra days are allowed, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four whole evenings on allotted days were occupied by non-Supply business, and that on six other allotted days one and a half to two hours were occupied by private business?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have given two extra days; I do not know whether the Noble Lord wants more.
  Lord BALCARRES: But does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in giving two extra days he is only giving as much as he has taken away from the allotted days?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for argument. We have given two extra days, and if the Noble Lord wants more he had better ask for it.

  Customs and Excise (Statistical Office).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked what qualifications in addition to merit, ability, and general supervision are required for the post of junior clerk in the Customs and Excise statistical office; what is the essential difference between the duties of the junior clerks and those of the minor staff officers; whether the minor staff officers occupy the seats of the junior clerks when the latter are absent; whether the tabulators at any time perform the duties of the junior clerks; and whether there are any exceptional circumstances existing in the statistical office which would warrant a departure from the usual method of filling vacancies in the grade of junior clerks from the minor staff officers?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is impossible to give a detailed reply with the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question; but, speaking generally, junior clerks are selected with reference not merely to their fitness for the duties they will immediately discharge, but also to their capacity ultimately to qualify for the higher and more responsible posts in the office. The fact
  1164
  that a minor staff clerk may temporarily occupy the seat of a junior clerk does not imply that he is qualified for promotion to the higher duties.

  London and South-Western Railway(Carpenters on Channel Steamers).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the London and South-Western Railway Company are replacing their bonâ fide ships' carpenters on their cross-Channel steamers by men who are not ships' carpenters and providing them with uniform and tools, and who, in the event of accident or collision, would be inefficient for the protection of life and property at sea, and thus endanger the safety of the travelling public; if this is so, will he state whether this is in accordance with the Regulations of the Board of Trade and the Merchant Shipping Acts; and will he see, in the interest and security of the travelling public, that his Department issues such instructions as will ensure that men signed on as ships' carpenters are bonâ fide trained and efficient artisans?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have communicated with the London and South-Western Railway Company, and they inform me that there is not sufficient work in their vessels for ships' carpenters, and that they are now engaging men as seamen carpenters, some of whom have had their training in the carpentry trade. There is no provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts or Regulation of the Board of Trade which requires a ship's carpenter to be engaged as a member of a ship's crew, and the Board of Trade cannot, therefore, issue any instruction of the kind suggested in my hon. Friend's question.

  Law Integrity Insurance Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked what steps the Board of Trade take to have reported to them the facts disclosed in cases affecting companies whose conduct has already been brought under the notice of the Board; whether the Board have yet obtained and considered a Report of the facts disclosed in the case of Glover versus the Law Integrity Insurance Company; and, if so, what action the Board propose to take towards that company or for the protection of the public?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade are always willing to consider facts regarding companies which are brought to their notice, and disclose grounds in which any action can be taken by them, but in many

  1165
  cases they have no means of obtaining information unless the facts are submitted to them by the persons interested. No facts relating to the case of Glover v. Law Integrity Insurance Company, Limited, have been submitted to the Board, and I am therefore unable to say whether there is any ground on which action can be taken by them.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will not a Report as to this case be furnished to the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have nothing further to state or report.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  Mr. GINNELLasked why the Board of Trade have never ascertained the number of life insurance policies illegally issued by the persons calling themselves the Irish Provident Assurance Company, as judicially ascertained in the case of Flood against that company; whether the Board have any jurisdiction over the illegal issue of life policies; whether the illegal policies which those persons selected and transferred to themselves, trading as the London and Provincial Assurance Company, were thus rendered legal life policies; whether the Board recognise this as legitimate life insurance business; and, if not, what action the Board will take in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade did not obtain any information as to the number of policies issued by the Irish Provident Assurance Company, Limited, because an Order was made by the Irish Court for winding up the company before the Returns required by the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, had become due. Even if the Returns had been received they would not have been required to contain the information desired by the hon. Member. The Board have no jurisdiction to prevent the issue of policies of assurance which are not authorised by the Memorandum of Association of a company. The London and Provincial Assurance Company, Limited, has made a deposit of £20,000 in respect of life assurance business, in accordance with the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and is entitled to issue life assurance policies.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question whether illegal contracts can become legal in the manner described?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have dealt with the particular facts with regard to a particular company, and if the hon. Gentleman desires further information perhaps he will put a question down.
  Mr. GINNELL: These are questions with regard to this particular company which have appeared on the Paper not for the first time.

  British Rubber Companies.
  Mr. KINGasked whether there is any control exercised over the methods or operations of British companies with rubber estates in foreign countries; whether the Board of Trade has any powers to prevent companies registered in England from using such methods as those used on the estates of the Peruvian Amazon countries; and, if so, whether those powers are acted upon?
  Mr. BUXTON: The powers of the Board of Trade with reference to companies registered under the Companies Acts are limited to those conferred upon them by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and do not include any power of control over the operations of companies in foreign countries.

  Pilotage Bill.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether, in view of the importance of having full and detailed information on the subject before considering the provisions of the Pilotage Bill, the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider his decision and grant a Return showing the amounts paid by French vessels entering ports in Great Britain and Ireland during the years 1900 to 1910, respectively, and the amounts paid by English vessels entering French ports during the same period?
  Mr. BUXTON: For reasons already explained, namely, the difficulty and probably the impossibility of compiling such a return, I fear that I cannot modify my previous answer. Perhaps the hon. Member will confer with me.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are there not negotiations now going on with France in regard to this question?
  Mr. BUXTON: There is great difficulty in obtaining information, and if the hon. Member will confer with me I will explain the matter.

  Vaccination.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the total number of declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination made in Scotland in the years 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911, and also the percentages of these declarations to the births?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The numbers and percentages are as follows:—

  In respect of Births Registered in

  Declarations.

  Percentage of Births.

  1907

  …

  7,258

  …

  5.6

  1908

  …

  15,846

  …

  12.1

  1909

  …

  22,746

  …

  17.7

  1910

  …

  26,954

  …

  21.7

  The corresponding figures for 1911 are not yet available.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a copy of a photograph of a child named Mary Jarrett, of Croydon, together with particulars of the case; whether the infant is suffering seriously from the effects of vaccination performed upon it by a public vaccinator with lymph supplied by the Board; whether Dr. S.Monckton Copeman, a medical inspector of the Board, has inquired into the circumstances; will a copy of Dr. Copeman's report be open to the inspection of Members of this House; is he aware that many cases of serious illness, some with fatal results, have been reported in the Croydon union within recent years; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received the photograph and particulars referred to, and Dr. Copeman, one of the Board's medical inspectors, has investigated the case and visited the home of the child. He found that the home and the children were dirty, that one of the beds was in a disgusting condition, and that there was evidence that the child had not been properly cared for. In view of these circumstances, and looking to the fact that a number of other children were vaccinated with the same lymph without any ill-effects, I am advised that the illness of the child, Mary Jarrett, cannot properly be attributed to vaccination. Dr. Copeman's Report is a confidential document, and I do not propose to lay it on the Table. Since the 1st of January, 1899, the Local Government Board have received information of four other cases in the Croydon Union in which injury was
  1168
  alleged in consequence of vaccination. In one case the injury was a bromide rash due to the administration of drugs by the mother; another was an attack of whooping cough which occurred fourteen months after vaccination; in the third case the child appears to have suffered from generalised vaccinia, an extremely rare complication of vaccination; and in the fourth case from septicæmia. During the period to which these cases relate over 55,000 persons in this union were vaccinated, and no further steps appear to be necessary.

  Willesden Union (New Buildings).
  Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BEN-TINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will make further inquiries with a view to discovering what the district inspector actually said which can have left the chairman of the Willesden Board of Guardians under the impression that the Local Government Board would be definitely opposed to the new buildings being placed under infirmary rather than workhouse management; and whether he will state what is the policy of the Local Government Board as to placing aged and infirm paupers under medical or workhouse administration, assuming that the practical circumstances of the case render either course equally convenient?
  Mr. BURNS: I learn from my inspector that he expressed no opinion on the question of placing the new buildings under infirmary rather than workhouse management. As I previously indicated, in answer to the Noble Lord, the whole of the institution will for the present remain under one administration, and no question of policy therefore arises.

  Old Post Office Buildings (St. Martin's-le-Grand).
  Captain JESSELasked the Postmaster-General whether the old Post Office buildings at the corner of Newgate Street and St. Martin's-le-Grand are to be pulled down; if so, whether it is proposed to erect new buildings on the present building line; and whether the opportunities for future street improvements at this important corner have been considered?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The old Post Office, which is being pulled down, is not at the corner of Newgate Street, but is bounded by St. Martin's-le-Grand, Gresham Street,

  1169
  and Foster Lane. New buildings are to be erected on the site. It would be for the Corporation of London to make any suggestion with regard to street improvements. If they desire to do so, I shall be prepared to confer with them.

  Belfast Telegraph Service.
  Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the Postmaster-General if, having regard to the delays in the deliveries of important commercial telegrams at Belfast, together with the amount of overtime worked by the postal telegraph clerks, he can say when he proposes to carry out the revision and increase of this staff, as promised by him in answer to a deputation of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association when on a visit to Belfast in October of last year; whether he is aware that in the year 1911 the instrument-room staff worked 20,600 hours' overtime; that during the first months of the present year overtime has increased by ten times the amount worked during the corresponding period of last year; if he is aware that notwithstanding this overtime outgoing telegrams are delayed as much as sixty minutes; that important Press telegrams are not transcribed for as much as sixty-three minutes after their receipt; and, inasmuch as these delays represent the general condition of affairs daily, will he promise a remedy?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate further with the hon. Member. A small addition to the staff has already been authorised.
  Mr. R. THOMPSON: This question is a very important one. I have received a telegram to-day showing the delay.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make a speech now on the subject.

  Great Melton Post Office, Oxon.
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proposed closing of the post office at Great Milton, Oxon, on Saturday afternoons will cause inconvenience to the inhabitants of that and the other six villages tributary to it for telegraphic purposes; and whether he will consider some modification of the arrangement whereby postal and telegraphic facilities may remain accessible to the district on Saturdays?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

  Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is now in a position to take any action on the disclosures in the recent trial of the Law, Car, and General Insurance Corporation?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The Director of Public Prosecutions is investigating into the matters arising out of the disclosures in this case.

  Putumayo District, Peru (Rubber Collectors).
  Mr. KINGasked the Attorney-General whether he has placed the Report of the Putumayo atrocities [Cd. 6266] before the Director of Criminal Prosecutions, with the object of considering whether any indictment can be brought against those directors and agents of the Peruvian Amazon Company who have profited financially from the cruelties practised in collecting rubber in the Amazon basin?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No such indictment could be brought in our Courts.
  Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the secretary for this company was sent out to Peru and brought back a report entirely in favour of the company there?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That does not affect the answer I have given.

  School Attendance (Highgate Case).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Education, if his attention has been called to a case in the North London Police Court last week where a poor woman living in the Highgate New Town district was summoned for not sending her children to school, her excuse being that her children had had measles, and the youngest was still suffering from the disease; is he aware that the magistrate, Mr. Hedderwick, expressed approval of the woman's action in not sending the children to school; can he say if it is the practice to insist on children who have had measles or other infectious diseases returning to school even if others of the family are still suffering; and is the practice approved by the Board of Education?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday to the

  1171
  hon. Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs on this subject, a copy of which I am sending him. Speaking generally, it may be said that the practice referred to is not uncommon.

  Indian Students (Appointment of Secretary).
  Mr. PEELasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the newly-created post of Secretary for Indian students has been made as the result of examination or by patronage only; are any special qualifications required; what proportion will the pension bear to the salary of £1,000 per annum; at what age can the pension be drawn, and will the cost of both salary and pension be borne by the Indian taxpayer; whether Mr. Mallet, who has been appointed, is the same gentleman who was Financial Secretary to the War Office in 1910; and whether a knowledge of military affairs is considered necessary for the post?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I propose to give the House the fullest information about this matter next week. If the hon. Member will be good enough to wait till then, I hope to allay any apprehension he may have.
  Mr. PEEL: May I ask whether the Advisory Committee was consulted before this appointment was made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I believe not. I will give the hon. Member all information next week.
  Mr. PEEL: Do I understand that the hon. Member will give full information on the Indian Budget?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

  Solicitor-General for Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say at what date Mr. Moloney, K.C., first became a Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland or legal adviser of any Government Department there; what Department; whether he is now Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland; and, if not, whether he is consulted by, or has any authority over, that official?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mr. Moloney was appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland on
  1172
  25th June, 1912. He is not Director of Public Prosecutions. That office does not exist in Ireland. The duties are discharged by the Attorney-General.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants(Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked how many evicted tenants, including representatives of evicted tenants, were provided with holdings in the year ending 31st March, 1912; and how many new holdings were provided for other persons not claiming in that character in that year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: During the year ended 31st March last, 165 evicted tenants or representatives of evicted tenants were reinstated or provided with new holdings on lands acquired by the Estates Commissioners. In addition 73 evicted tenants were reinstated by their landlords with the assistance when necessary of Grants by the Commissioners. During the same period 189 persons, other than evicted tenants, were allotted new holdings on lands acquired by the Commissioners.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason why the official explanatory leaflet No. 21, which professes by its heading to state the duties of employers of domestic servants generally, omits all reference to male domestic servants; and whether he will at once take steps to withdraw this leaflet and issue it in an amended form?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The leaflet in question obviously refers to female domestic servants, and the feminine gender is used throughout. I see no need to withdraw the leaflet, which I have reason to believe has been very useful to a large number of mistresses.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman issue a leaflet applicable to the case of male domestic servants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that if there is any demand for it.

    LIABILITY OF HUSBAND OR WIFE.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where husband and wife are living together and domestic servants are employed in the common household, and such servants,

    1173
    although engaged by the wife, are paid by or out of funds provided by the husband, the husband is to be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the National Insurance Act and, as such, liable to pay the contributions and to suffer the penalties prescribed by the Act; why the official explanatory leaflet No. 21 uses the word mistress instead of the word employer in describing the obligations and liabilities of employers as regards the insurance of domestic servants, and why that leaflet asserts that the mistress must obtain the stamps, stamp the cards, and pay the weekly contributions, and that if the mistress fails to pay any contributions which she is liable to pay in respect of her servants she is for each offence liable to pay a fine not exceeding £10 and a sum equal to the amount of the contributions she has failed to pay and is also liable to civil proceedings at the suit of such servants if they are members of an approved society; whether the use of the term mistress in this connection is inaccurate and misleading and calculated to inspire alarm in the minds of women who regard these official leaflets as trustworthy; and whether he will at once take steps to withdraw the leaflet in question and to substitute for it another leaflet which will correctly state the person upon whom the obligations and penalties in respect of the insurance of domestic servants will fall?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the majority of cases the wife acts as the husband's agent in all dealings with domestic servants, and it will normally be part of the wife's domestic duties to stamp the insurance card. It would be misleading in a popular exposition to suggest that this duty should be undertaken by the husband personally. In cases where the mistress is herself the employer, she must herself pay the contribution and will be liable to a penalty as stated in the leaflet if she fails to do so.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question as to whether, under the circumstances stated, the husband is not the employer and as such liable to pay the contribution?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In normal conditions the husband is the employer, and the wife is the agent of the employer.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the agent liable to the fine of £10 or the real employer??
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the wife does her duty the question will not arise.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it the husband's duty to fine his wife?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is entirely a domestic matter.

    RESISTANCE TO ACT.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Mr. G. Trent, a Folkestone stockbroker, threatened to dismiss his chief clerk, a Mr. Savage, a married man, to whom he was paying a wage of £1 per week, in case Mr. Savage obeyed the law and took out an insurance card in manner provided for under the National Insurance Act; that Mr. Savage refused to disobey the law, and was thereupon dismissed, Mr. Trent at the same time giving Mr. Savage an excellent character, and stating that as Mr. Savage held Radical views His Majesty's Government should find him employment; and will he say what action, if any, the Insurance Commissioners propose taking?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not quite clear from the statement in the question whether an offence has been committed. If the hon. Baronet will communicate further particulars, and it appears that an offence has been committed, the Commissioners will at once institute proceedings.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge that any protest against this system of setting the law at defiance and breaking up working men's homes has been made by any Leader of the party opposite?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not heard of any such protest.
    Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire into this question and see that the law is obeyed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I very much hope the hon. Baronet will communicate with me.

    AGRICULTURISTS' CONTRIBUTINS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the resistance to the Insurance Tax which has been organised by agriculturists in Berkshire and Hampshire; that agriculturists with incomes under £160 a year will be

    1175
    called upon to pay an Insurance tax equal to 1s. 3d. in the £ on their incomes; and, if so, what steps the Government proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information as to resistance to contributions to the National Health Insurance Fund being organised in the districts mentioned. All evidence available to the Commissioners points to the fact that employers throughout the country are paying the contributions required of them, and the very few complaints received at the Commission are mainly in connection with special cases and difficulties where it appears that the employer is uncertain as to his obligations under the Act. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any definite information of action of employers by which the interest of insured persons is being prejudiced, I will immediately cause inquiries to be made on the subject.

    NATIONAL UNITED FRIENDLY SOCIETY OF GLASGOW.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the nature of the engagements contracted by the National United Friendly Society of Glasgow which brought about its cessation; whether the cessation was due to financial inability to meet the engagements or to their illegality; in what way the contracts questioned have been legalised, if at all; whether the registrar of friendly societies has approved the arrangement whereby the same persons who ran that society have transferred to themselves, under the name of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society of Glasgow, the property of victims of the former society and now repudiate liability to those victims and refuse to answer their letters; whether he can state the number of persons who have lost their savings through that transaction; why a society founded by those persons under the National Insurance Act, and containing in its name the technical word approved was registered at a time when that name was false and misleading; and whether the official approval since obtained will be cancelled or suspended pending further inquiry?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to another question which I am circulating to the hon. Member for East Limerick to-day. I have no evidence that the National
    1176
    United Insurance Society, Limited, have repudiated their liabilities, but if the hon. Member will supply me with information I will have the matter investigated.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that certain societies not appearing on the official list can be approved, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have a complete list kept written up and placed in the Library?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought that was being done at present, but, if not, I will do as requested.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (LOSS OF WAGES).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that working men elected as members of insurance committees will suffer loss of wages when attending meetings of such committees, he will consider the desirability of enabling the committees to make good such loss?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The insurance committee can pay railway fares in counties for any members of the committee, upon the authorisation of the Insurance Commissioners. I am afraid that in this case, as in that of other similar public bodies, it would be impossible to arrange for payment for loss of work; but I hope that the committees will generally arrange times suitable for the attendance of working-men representatives.
    Mr. WILKIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the case of working men who are living far apart, and who will suffer loss of wages when attending meetings, they could not be compensated in some way?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know of any committee established at present under these conditions. Of course, the members of insurance committees are in the same position as guardians and county councillors. There could hardly be payment for loss of wages in the one case without introducing it in the others.
    Mr. J. WARD: Would it not be possible for a society whose representatives were on a committee to pay them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, if they did it from private funds. I am not sure that they could pay them out of Government funds.

    BLACKBURN PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the National Health Commissioners have received a letter, dated the 2nd July, from the Blackburn and District Friendly Societies' Council, representing 9,000 members, protesting against the constitution of the provisional committee for Blackburn in so far as the representation of the friendly societies is concerned, and, if so, what answer has been made to the representations set forth in that letter; on what principles the friendly societies' representation on the provisional committee was made; if the appointments were made by the Commissioners or by whom; and why the recommendations of a representative body like the Friendly Societies' Council were practically ignored?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the reply sent to the letter referred to.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (REPRINTING).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give further consideration to the request recently made to him to have all the questions and answers upon points arising out of the National Insurance Act collected and printed, as was done when the Bill was under consideration last year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If I find that there is a general desire for the insurance questions and answers during this Session to be so collected, I will arrange for this to be done.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. GREENEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether leave to attend the annual training of their Territorial regiments has been refused in the case of Customs and Excise officers by the Board of His Majesty's Customs and Excise; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In a certain number of cases it has been necessary for the Board of Customs and Excise, owing to pressure of work in connection with the National Insurance Act, to withhold camp leave from officers of the Department who are members of the Territorial Force. Such leave has, however, been allowed in all cases where this could be done without prejudice to the public service.
    Mr. LYELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentlemen whether these were exceptional
    1178
    cases due to the bringing into operation of the National Insurance Act this year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They were entirely exceptional cases due to the bringing of the Act into force this July.

    SOMERSET PROVISIONAL, HEALTH COMMITTEE.
    Mr. SANDERSasked why there is on the Somerset Provisional Health Committee only one representative from Bridgwater, while there are three from Taunton and several others from the neighbourhood of that town?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The steps which have been taken by the Insurance Commissioners to secure the formation of these committees, the methods of obtaining the representation of insured persons in each area, and the reason for adopting those methods, are fully explained in the Memorandum of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. The committees include members directly nominated by the county or county borough council as well as representatives of the insured persons. District committees will be constituted in due course, and on these full local representation will be secured.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Were the Insurance Commissioners aware before they appointed these men that they were residing outside the locality?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not say whether they were aware of it, but there is no objection to members residing outside the locality so long as they are appointed by members of approved societies largely represented in the locality which, they represent. Most of them live on the borders, just outside.

    NOTTINGHAM COMMITTEE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the president of the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce was placed on the local insurance committee, as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, to represent the lace trade together with other trades; whether he is aware that the association of employers and operatives, in view of the magnitude and importance of the lace trade, consider that it should have a special representative; and what action he proposes to take in this behalf?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Commissioners have

    1179
    already taken steps to place on the committee a representative of the employers and a representative of the operatives.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite understand what are special representatives.
    Sir J. D. REES: Representatives of the employers and the operatives.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the great dissatisfaction at the way the provisional health committees are being appointed, would the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Commissioners to have the committees properly elected by the approved members very early in October?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The properly constituted committees will be set up as soon as possible. I am not aware of any grave dissatisfaction. I think on the whole the insurance committees have given general approval in these districts in which they are constituted.

    UNATTACHED SURVEYORS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of unattached surveyors of Customs and Excise, formerly Customs first class examining officers, without previous experience of Excise or old age pension business, are now in charge of Excise districts, to the detriment of the prompt performance of the official work of the Department at a time of exceptional pressure; whether, on account of their lack of acquaintance with their new duties and inability properly to supervise officers of whose work they have had no former experience, certain of these unattached surveyors have made application to revert to their former grade; whether a number of Excise districts are without a permanent surveyor, to the detriment of the public interest and the legitimate prospects of the junior officers of the Excise branch of the amalgamated service; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is an essential feature of the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services that some officials, trained in one side, should be employed from time to time on the work
    1180
    of the other, and this has been done in a few cases by the Board of Customs and Excise. Two of the unattached surveyors referred to have been permitted to revert to their former work. The disposition of the staff is in the hands of the Board of Customs and Excise. I have no reason to believe that the arrangements made by them have operated to the detriment of the public service, and I do not propose to interfere with their discretion in the matter.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect has been to prevent the promotion of men who are fully acquainted with the work, who are being superseded by men drawn from another branch of the service?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself have seen deputations on the subject and do not think that there is any real grievance in connection with the matter.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: My information is quite different.

    WEEKLY CONTRIBUTIONS (ROADMAN).
    Mr. FLEMINGasked what, if any, weekly contributions are payable under the National Insurance Act by a roadman, in the employment of a rural district council at 14s. a week, who will be seventy years of age on 18th November, 1912; and whether, in the event of his receiving no benefits before reaching the age of seventy, he will be entitled to any consideration in respect of his contributions up to that date, if such are payable?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the employment is for six days in a week, so that the rate of remuneration for the working day exceeds 2s., but does not exceed 2s. 6d., 4d. is payable by the employer and 3d. by the man himself. As I stated, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for West Hampshire, on the 4th July, and in reply to the hon. Member for Darlington, on the 10th July, if the man's society adopts the scheme suggested on the first page of Circular A.S. 29 (of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member) such a person would receive sick pay after the expiration of six months at the fate of 6s. for the first thirteen weeks (and 5s. for subsequent weeks) of illness for as many weeks as contributions had been paid by or in respect of him, notwithstanding that he would then be over seventy years of age.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked whether workers who draw compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act are liable for their contributions during that period; what is the position of the employer in such cases; and why this information is not available to persons who seek it direct from the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A workman drawing compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act will not, as a general rule, be liable to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act, and will not fall into arrears if he would have been entitled to sickness or disablement benefit but for the fact of receiving compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If, however, the disablement is only partial and the workman is still employed within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, he will be liable to contributions under that Act, and his employer will be similarly liable to pay contributions in respect of him. I am not aware that the Insurance Commissioners have refused to give information on this point to anyone who asked for it.

    TRANSFER TO APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked whether persons who have not joined an approved society by 15th October will have to continue as deposit contributors, or whether they can afterwards transfer to an approved society; if so, on what terms; and why this information is not available to persons who seek it direct from the Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A deposit contributor may at any time become a member of any approved society which is willing to accept him. This information has been given by myself in Parliament, and also to persons seeking it direct from the Insurance Commission. A person, however, who allows himself to become a deposit contributor runs the risk of experiencing difficulty in joining an approved society, either through falling ill in the meantime or through the adoption by societies of medical tests not at present enforced, and the Commissioners would regard advice deliberately to delay beyond 15th October as very inimical to the interests of insured persons.

    MEDICAL BENEFITS (GERMANY).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury (44) whether, as the relations of the doctors with the insurance committees under the German sickness, accident, and invalidity insurance are subject to written contracts, he will publish a copy of such contracts, together with the actual figures of the fees payable thereunder; (55) whether the total cost of medical and sanatorium benefits under the German insurance scheme for sickness, invalidity, and accident insurance amounts to approximately 14s. per insured person per annum, inclusive of drugs and the treatment of the sick in hospitals and in institutions; and whether he can say how much of the 14s. is actually paid to the German doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am having prepared a Paper dealing with the cost of medical benefit in Germany and the scope and nature of medical attendance and treatment there. The Paper will give collections of agreements entered into by German doctors and their associations under the German scheme and of the fees payable thereunder. No figures would be of any value without fuller explanations than could be included in an answer to a Parliamentary question.
    Mr. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: When will that Paper be printed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As soon as it can be prepared. I am pushing it on as fast as I can.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT (COST)
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what is the estimated cost of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act for each insured man and woman, respectively, over seventy years of age until death; and what reserve is to be made out of the weekly contributions payable up to seventy to provide for this benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The actuarial calculation of the cost of medical benefit is 6s. per insured person throughout life. The reserve at age seventy to provide for the future cost of seven-ninths of medical benefit at this rate is approximately £1 12s., and in the actuarial calculations provision has been made for the accumulation of this reserve in the case of every member surviving to seventy.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what that amounts to, after the deductions from the 6s. per annum?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not understand that there are any deductions.

    CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked whether, on the national health leaflet, fishermen and others who claim exemption under the National Insurance Act are directed to apply to Customs and Excise officers for information, and that applications to such officers and to the Insurance Commissioners on the part of Liverpool fishermen and their employers have not elicited the information required; and whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state what is the position of employers and men where exemption is claimed under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be pleased to make inquiries in the matter if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind. If the latter part of the question relates to the power of the Commissioners under paragraph (k) of Part II. of the First Schedule to the Act to exclude share fishermen in certain circumstances by special Order, the answer is that only one such Order has been issued. That Order is confined to certain ports in Cornwall. The Commissioners are prepared where applications for the issue of further Orders are received to make such inquiry as may be necessary for determining whether there are sufficient grounds for the issue of an Order, but unless and until such Orders are made the ordinary provisions of the Act apply. Special instructions in regard to the position of fishermen, together with posters and forms of application for a special Order, were issued to marine superintendents and fishery officers throughout the country in the middle of May.
    Mr. W. PEELasked who is responsible, employé or employer, for obtaining a card to be stamped by the employer in the case of an employé who has obtained a certificate of exemption, and to whom is the card to be sent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certificates of exemption are granted to employés, not employers. The employé is required by the Regulations to present to the employer his exemption book, which contains a copy of
    1184
    the certificate of exemption, and the employer thereupon becomes responsible for obtaining and stamping an exemption card. These cards, which can be obtained by the employer at any post office, are to be returned to the Insurance Commissioners direct immediately upon their expiry.

    CHOICE OF APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether certain women workers employed by a Nottingham firm were instructed by their overlooker to join the Prudential approved society; whether these workers pleaded that they desired to join other approved societies, and were cautioned by the overlooker that if they did so they would have to take the consequences; whether, on finally refusing to join the Prudential approved society, these workers were dismissed, and one of them refused a written character; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will grant an inquiry into these and other similar cases which have been brought to the notice of the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on the matters referred to. If the Noble Lord will give me further particulars, I will have inquiries made on the subject.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that notices have been actually posted up at some works by the agents of this—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman has said he has no information.

FATAL FIRE IN CITY OF LONDON.
Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question, of which I have given him private notice, with reference to the disastrous fire which occurred yesterday whereby eight girls lost their lives: Whether he is aware that the room in which these girls worked was wholly unprovided with any means of escape; and whether, seeing that the London County Council possesses ample powers for enforcing the provision of adequate means of escape from fire on owners and occupiers, and that, should the council fail in its duty, the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 prescribes intervention by the factory inspector, he will at once

1185
cause inquiry to be made why the workplace in question was left in a condition which has produced this terrible catastrophe; and whether, as the rapid spread of the fire appears to have been due to the presence and use of celluloid in the workshop affected, he will consider the necessity of issuing an Order enforcing special precautions in all workplaces where this dangerous and inflammable substance enters into the process of manufacture?
Mr. McKENNA: I have only received notice of this question within the last twenty-five minutes. In dealing with this lamentable disaster, I need hardly assure the Noble Lord that any circumstances which come within the province of the Home Office shall receive the fullest investigation.

SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL LANGUAGES (LONDON).
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister, with reference to another Bill which the Government has expressed its intention to introduce, namely, a Bill to establish a school of Oriental languages in London: When will that Bill be in the hands of Members?
The PRITVIE MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS BILL.
    "To provide for the registration of Accountants and Auditors in Great Britain and Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. HAROLD SMITH; supported by Mr. Allen Baker, Mr. Marshall Hall, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, and Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd October, and to be printed. [Bill 289.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
    Motion made, and Question put, "That two additional days be allotted to the
    Business of Supply."— [The Prime Minster.]
    Mr. PIRIE: I understand that this is a Motion by the Prime Minister. If so—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Motion. He can vote against it, if he wishes to do so.
    Mr. PIRIE: Can I ask a question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No questions can now be asked. The time for asking questions is over.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not in order to amend the Resolution?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order requires this Motion to be decided without Amendment or Debate.
    The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes,12.

    Division No. 158.]

    AYES.

    [3.55 P.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hackett, J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clough, William

    Hamerstey, A. St. George

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Crooks, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cullinan, J.

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Barton, W.

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Beale, Sir William phipson

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hills, John Waller

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Dillon, John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Bentham, G. J.

    Duffy, William J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Bird, A.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Boland, John Pius

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Boyton, J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Brace, William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Brady, P. J.

    French, Peter

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fleming, Valentine

    Keating, Matthew

    Bull, Sir William James

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Burnt, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Butcher, John George

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Byles, Sir William pollard

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Leach, Charles

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Carlile, sir Edward Hildred

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

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

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

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Lundon, T.

    Parker, Ebenezer

    Stewart, Gershom

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Summers, James Woolley

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sutton, John E.

    McGhee, Richard

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Radford, G. H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Middlemore, J. T.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Richards, Thomas

    Wadsworth, J.

    Molloy, M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Mooney, J. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Webb, H.

    Muldoon, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Munro, R.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rowlands, James

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. sir Thomas P.

    Nield, Herbert

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Wiliams, p. (Middlesbrough)

    Nuttall, H.

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Worthlngton-Evans, L.

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    O'Malley, William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Yerburgh, Robert

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Stanier, Beville

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Gretton, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    King, J. (Somerset, N.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Pringle, William M. R.

    price and Mr. Hogge.

SUPPLY.— [NINETEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEEMENTARY ESTO,ATES, 1912–13.— [Progress.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SHIPBUILDIING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.— PERSONNEL.
  Motion made and Question proposed, 8. Section 1, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,493,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think it would be for the convenience of
  1198
  the Committee if I say a few words as to the scope and purpose of this very important Vote. Perhaps I should say to the Committee that the First Lord of the Admiralty cannot be here until late as he was at the Fleet exercises yesterday at Tor Bay, but probably he will be here before this speech is over. This Vote 8, in its three sections, is easily the largest vote in these Estimates. It comes out, as hon. Members will have seen, practically at half the entire Estimates. The amount of the original Estimate to be voted under Vote 8 this year was £21,626,200 and the Supplementary Estimate debated on Monday was £990,000. Of the £990,000 there is handed over to Vote 8 £646,000. Therefore the total to be voted this year, 1912–13, under Vote 8 is £22,272,200, Then there has to be added to that, Appropriations-in-Aid, £577,300. The gross total, therefore, of the Vote

  1199
  which the Committee is now asked to discuss is £22,849,500. Let me, if I may, make one or two short analyses of this very large sum. In the first place, as between the contractors that supply the various services and the Royal Dockyards. The total contract services of one kind and another which will be met out of this Vote, come to the very large figure of £18,990,700. That leaves a gross total to go to the Royal Dockyards in wages and salaries of £3,858,800. These contract services involve the very large1 sum of practically £19,000,000. First of all there is the cost of the ships which are built under contract. There is the machinery for the ships and shore establishments and the materials sent into the yards by the contractors. There are stores of various kinds— including fuel for the fleet—and miscellaneous supplies which I need not go into. The broad fact remains that of this gross sum of £22,800,000 odd, we shall pay contractors of one kind and another nearly £19,000,000.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: That also includes the construction of docks?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is on Vote 10.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Floating docks?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Floating docks are included as ships. I do not think my hon. Friend referred to them.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: No.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Of the gross Vote, there remains £3,858,800 to go to dockyards for salaries and wages. Let me make another analysis. This gross Vote, as I have said, is for £22,800,000 odd. Of that 14½ millions, roughly speaking, will be applied to the new construction of this year's programme, or of previous years.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does the £14,500,000 include the Supplementary Estimates that have been brought before us?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will give the Noble Lord an answer in a moment. Out of the total of £22,849,500, £14,500,000 roughly, is to be spent on new construction in this year's programme, and previous programmes that are still carrying on. Roughly, again, £2,500,000 is for repairs and alterations, £5,750,000 are for fleet
  1200
  coaling, stores for maintenance, and so on, incidental and establishment and miscellaneous charges. I turn to the new construction Vote, which, as I have said, is roughly £14,500,000, and on which the Noble Lord put a question. The new construction Vote will be devoted to completing certain earlier programmes, and starting the programme of 1912–13. This sum is very largely necessary because of the commitments of previous years. As a matter of fact—now I answer the question—of this sum for new construction under Vote 8 of £14,500,000 to complete and to proceed with the previous programmes of 1911–12, 1910–11, and 1909–10, we shall require £12,097,027. That, I think, is an answer to the question. For the 1912–13 programme we have taken £2,516,500; we require this to start with.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does that include the £600,000 of the Supplementary Estimate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, it is inclusive. At the very outset I told the Committee that Vote 8 included the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate. We require just over £12,000,000 to go on with the programme of last year, of the previous year, and to finish a few items of the year before. I think there is nothing outstanding earlier than that. Now I come to the Supplementary Estimate of £990,000, and its bearing upon Vote 8. We have in Vote 8 £646,000 of that sum. Of this amount £35,000 will go, as I said on Monday, to increase the wages of the men in the dockyards. I need not go into that again, but I have the details with me, and I shall be prepared to answer any questions later. That will leave on the Supplementary Estimate £611,000 for new construction over and above the original Vote 8 Estimate. I may perhaps tell the Committee that when we get that additional £611,000 on Vote 8, which we secure by the Supplementary Estimates, we shall apply it first of all to a necessary new item in the 1912–13 programme—a repair ship upon which we shall spend part of the £611,000. We will spend part of it on accelerating the eight light armoured cruisers.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: How much is going to be devoted to the repair ship?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This year we will take £160,000, but I would like to check that figure later. Apart from the repair ship we are taking a certain sum to accelerate the eight light armoured

  1201
  cruisers of the 1912–13 programme, and we hope to have these ships completed in June, 1914. Then we are taking a certain sum in addition to that already calculated upon for submarines. This sum will be between £160,000 and £170,000. We are also taking a sum for airships—as a matter of fact we have roughly doubled the provision in the original Vote 8. With regard to the programme of 1912–13, to which we are applying £2,500,000—to take the gross estimate again—the programme of 1912–13, when complete, will roughly cost £12,500,000. By taking £2,500,000 to start this year we execute 20 per cent. of the cost of that programme within the financial year. If I may say so, this is a very respectable portion, and very rarely is exceeded. Indeed, I think once only has this been exceeded. Apart from this provision for a repair ship, for cruisers, submarines, and airships, we have decided to lay down the two dockyard-built armoured ships of this year's programme somewhat earlier than was anticipated, but not very much earlier. We propose to lay them down in November. These two dockyard ships are two of the four armoured ships of the 1912–13 programme, which have been slightly accelerated as being laid down in November. I think I ought to say to the Committee, before I sit down, we are very much hastening the destroyer programme of 1912–13 programme. There were twenty destroyers in that programme: two of these we hope to have in October, 1913, three in November, 1913, thirteen in December, 1913, and the other two early in 1914. That is a very great acceleration of previous years' work in regard to destroyers. I think the Committee ought to notice there are forty destroyers in the 1911–12 and the 1912–13 programmes and all these forty destroyers we expect will be completed between December, 1912, and March, 1914. That is a very substantial addition in a very short space of time to our destroyer flotillas, and I think that the Committee will do well to note we are to have forty destroyers of the 1911–12 and 1912–13 programmes between December, 1912, and March, 1914.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do they replace old destroyers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The old destroyers have their use. The point I am making is we hastened the destroyer programme.
  Mr. FALLE: How much is to be spent on those two dockyard ships in this financial year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said they would be laid down in November. That is a small acceleration, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to know the difference between that and the original estimate it would be difficult to say offhand. I am afraid I cannot answer as to what the additional cost would be. I have only one other word to say to the Committee, and it is this: It is necessary that I should tell the Committee for the purpose of financial propriety and compliance with the views of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General, that I should say this. We had three protected cruisers in the 1911–12 programme: the "Birmingham," the "Lowestoft" and the "Nottingham." We originally proposed that these three should be built by contract, but for reasons which seem to us to be good we propose to build two in the dockyards, one, the "Lowestoft," at Chatham, and the other, the "Nottingham," at Pembroke. The three were originally intended to be built by contract, and we are now going to build two of them in the yards. It is necessary that I should state this to the Committee, because the change entails a slight re-arrangement of certain sums of money, and is an alteration in the details of the programme of 1911–12 which was submitted to the Committee. I think with that short explanation of this Vote 8. I leave matters in the hands of other Members of the Committee.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about oil tanks?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, not now.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Committee finds it rather difficult to turn itself to this kind of detail on finance and to questions of the difference between the expenditure of money for the building of ships as between contractors and the dockyards in view of the feelings produced in our minds by the Debate on Monday last. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, and I think I may assure him that so far as this side of the House is concerned, at any rate, after the speech we heard from him the other night, I think the whole Committee, with very few exceptions, would be pleased to say it is not now so much their duty to examine minor financial details or even financial details that may appear to be of somewhat considerable importance, but that the real

  1203
  question which should occupy us is whether the provision made in this Vote is sufficient to meet the situation in which we now find ourselves. And I am bound to say I think the Committee will feel that we are bound in this situation to leave these details largely to the Board of Admiralty. I do not say we ought not to put questions; of course, any hon. Member with special knowledge has a right to ask questions; but the real point for us, and the point which I am bound to say I feel very much inclined to urge, is that we should follow the example of the Reichstag and vote these Estimates without a word. That is the kind of spirit which I think many of us feel, and provided we were assured that sufficient provision was being made we should not wish at this time to inquire too much into the minutiæ of detail. But are we quite satisfied? I feel myself we have had great lacunæ to fill up. As the First Lord stated on Monday, a long time is required and great foresight to provide for naval requirements in any form. What is the corollary to that? It is that insufficient provision or insufficient foresight at one period does not revenge itself at that moment, but comes to its fruition in two or three years after, and it is impossible without every desire and without every realisation of the situation for the Admiralty to make provision in time for a situation in which we may find ourselves in a few years' time. Are they doing their utmost? I myself very much doubt whether the immediate provision made is sufficient to meet the situation in which we shall find ourselves in 1915. The First Lord told us, and the figures I may say were sufficiently alarming, that in 1915 our position would be that we should have in the North Sea thirty-three capital ships as against twenty-nine for Germany.[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Not fully commissioned. Thirty-three ships in full commission against twenty-five German ships in full commission. There are in addition eight ships not fully manned that can be available.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understood it was thirty-three to twenty-nine. I may take it now that it is thirty-three to twenty-five in 1914, in full commission. The whole twenty-five German ships are in full commission. That is a fair comparison. I am only dealing with ships in full commission.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the four German ships in reserve are taken into account there would be twenty-nine, but it would be absurd not to count our eight ships maintained with full nucleus crews which in exceptional circumstances are ready practically when they can get up steam.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I mean ships in full commission apart from Reserve, and I understand now that the ships in full commission ready for immediate striking would be twenty-five German ships against thirty-three British. Does that thirty-three include the Gibraltar ships?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not very satisfactory; it will be a situation of considerable anxiety in view especially of the First Lord's own statement, which obviously is a perfectly just one, of the appalling suddenness with which a naval war may break out, because the moral effect of the issue of the first stroke in a naval war must be incalculable. It is perfectly obvious that twenty-five German ships in full commission in the North Sea as against thirty-three British ships, of which eight are at Gibraltar, certainly cannot be called a 60 per cent, margin.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No one ever pretended we could keep a 60 per cent, margin of fully-commissioned ships.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Do the Admiralty consider that is a sufficient margin?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; that that is sufficient force for the year 1914.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is the opinion of the Admiralty? Of course the Admiralty must be taken as forming its own opinion in this matter, and it is to that extent reassuring that the Admiralty think it is a sufficient force, but I am bound to say that the impression made upon me by these figures is that it is very near the mark indeed—a close shave, and close shaving is a danger at sea. So far as the expenditure on providing these ships is concerned, I am perfectly certain I am expressing the opinion of everyone on this side of the House when I say that none of us would criticise any expenditure which is shown to be necessary to provide not only the heavy-armoured ships but also the auxiliaries necessary to make these ships effective. Personally I am rather doubtful as to the sufficiency of the destroyers. No doubt considerable lee-

  1205
  way is being made up, and the acceleration of forty destroyers provided in this year's programme and last year's programme does to a certain extent overtake the deficiency. The wear and tear in war time upon destroyers and their crews is of a description which can scarcely be realised, and that means the necessity for large reserves, and I take it that we may assume that the first brunt of the contest in a naval war must fall upon the destroyer flotilla, and particularly upon our destroyer flotilla more than upon any other class of ships in the British Navy, because they would have to make our frontier the enemy's coast; and to maintain destroyers perpetually at sea in all weathers, the strain upon the vessels, which are necessarily heavily constructed and not so lightly constructed as they used to be, would be very great. In the construction of destroyers the Admiralty made a very wise and necessary departure when they promoted ships of twenty-five and thirty knots an hour which can keep up that speed in average weather in the North Sea; that is a far more satisfactory class of vessel than the lighter craft, which in perfectly smooth water could do up to thirty knots, but which came down to fifteen or eighteen in heavy weather. What we want to consider is not the speed that can be attained in favourable weather, but the speed that can be attained when these destroyers find themselves in heavy weather. The strain on such craft and crew is enormous, and although it would not be in order for me on this Vote to refer to any detailed question of manning, I may be allowed to point out that there is no use building ships unless you have sufficient men to man them. That, I think, is the real difficulty, and that point appeared in the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday.
  Rumours, and more than rumours, have reached me that within the last few weeks destroyers which were actually ready had to have their commissioning delayed because the men were not available to man them. That is a most serious matter, because the crews who are to man our destroyers require to be the pick of the Navy and require special training. The idea of drafting an untrained crew on board a destroyer to take part in a naval war, as any landsman can see, must be a fatal policy. Putting the figures together, the Admiralty are now building within these two years forty destroyers, and
  1206
  within those two years they are also increasing the personnel of the Navy by 12,000 men—2,000 to meet the deficiency, 5,000 new men in this financial year, and 5,000 in the next financial year. You have got to train 12,000 newly enlisted ratings within the next two years, and none of these can be available for your forty new destroyers. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a most serious problem, because he has not only to build the ships, but to see that they are efficiently manned. The Secretary to the Admiralty told us that out of the £14,500,000 which is provided for new construction £12,000,000 is for what we used to call the old programme of new construction, and £2,500,000 is for the new programme of new construction, and that £2,500,000 represents 20 per cent. of the total cost of the new programme.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This year's.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, for this year. The new programme means this year, and the old programme means all ships which were included in programmes prior to the current year whether last year or the year before. The new programme means ships in this financial year only. The Financial Secretary told us that 20 per cent. of the total cost of the new programme would be spent in this financial year in which the programme was introduced, and, with perfect justice, he claimed that that was an almost unprecedented preparation. I agree that this involves very early laying down, because with ships you have a great deal of work to do before any money can be effectively spent; and if 20 per cent, actually goes that means that rather more progress is made on the new construction, and that more than 20 per cent. of the time necessary after the order has been given has elapsed. That is not a bit too much. The object of accelerating these ships is not so much to accelerate the new programme, but to prepare for the programmes of the years which are to follow, which will be even more vital than this; and there is really no moment when you can separate the new programme from the old. The whole progress of naval construction has to be looked at as one continuous whole. Speaking for myself, I think that the financial provisions for new construction also ought to be looked at as a whole. When we look into these figures one fact which forces itself upon the consideration of the House of Commons is that we are obliged at the beginning of a

  1207
  financial year to take from the Admiralty Estimates of the maximum amount which they hope to be able to spend in view of the necessities of the country at the moment. They have to eliminate in that Estimate all chances of strikes, delays, and innumerable difficulties which may occur.
  When that sum was comparatively small it was not a matter of vital financial importance—that, say 5 per cent, of that, should have to be voted twice over; but now what happens is that every penny of the £14,500,000—which is the programme now put forward as being the maximum amount the Admiralty are able to spend— not actually spent at the end of this next financial year will go into the Old Sinking Fund, and will have to be voted again. We have seen the result of putting £5,000,000 into the Old Sinking Fund, which, although financially praiseworthy, has not had the desired effect financially. I am bound to say that if that £5,000,000 had been put aside for this Vote it would have had a better effect on Consols than the action taken by the Government. I am giving only my own view, and that is what I feel about it. I feel that naval security comes first and social security afterwards. This is a vital matter to the financial position of the country at large, and naval security comes first. This Vote is the greatest factor in naval security. I do not wish to labour the point, but personally I believe if we were to vote enormous sums for new construction every year it would meet the case. I admit the enormous financial importance of the Old Sinking Fund rule, but when a sum of £4,500,000 is devoted by this House to a particular programme of naval construction, and when it happens, through unavoidable causes, that a portion of it remains unspent at the end of the financial year, it does not seem to me to be in accordance with the laws of business that that sum should be devoted to the Old Sinking Fund, and should all have to be revoted in the following year or the year after. I think it is worthy of the consideration of the House as to whether money voted for new construction which remains unspent at the end of the year should not remain permanently allocated to that particular service.
  There are one or two minor matters I wish to say a word about. I should like the First Lord of the Admiralty to tell the Committee whether the Admiralty have so
  1208
  far had any experience of their floating docks, and whether they have answered their purpose. I am bound to say that I am a little doubtful, because I have seen one of those floating docks two or three times, and I have never seen it in use, and I hear that there are great difficulties in the way of using it. I think if the right hon. Gentleman consults his advisers they will confirm what I have said. To use floating docks with advantage they must be alongside a quay where you can bring the men from the shore straight on to the dock, and where the repairing ships can be alongside. That of course necessitates an absence of tide, and where you have no tide you can utilise a floating dock, because it can be lengthened and the ship can overhang at both ends. I know that although floating docks are more costly to maintain than dry docks, the capital expenditure is not quite so large. But in our tidal waters we may have to go a long way from the shore to get the depth. The difficulties are apparent in the Medway where you are five miles from Sheerness, or Chatham, and every man working on the docks has to be brought from Sheerness and Chatham frequently in winter, through heavy fogs, and the loss of time in working renders the advantage of floating docks very doubtful. I have made these remarks before, and so far as I have heard the opinion of professional men with practical knowledge of this subject, it is not favourable to floating docks. I know that is so far a matter of opinion, and I do not desire to lay down the law or ask the House to accept my opinion, but we have to judge in these matters from practical experience, and I hope the First Lord will tell us whether the Admiralty have had any practical experience and whether it goes to support the principle of floating docks or whether he now thinks that dry docks on the whole are more desirable. One point I wish to mention is where construction and manning again come into play. I am sure the part of the First Lord's speech which met with the most general approval and satisfaction of this House was that part in which he referred to what our sister nations were going to do in the matter of naval construction. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not mention a matter which is very important in connection with this matter, and that is how are those Colonial ships going to be manned? Will they be manned in British dockyards, are they to be manned with British or Colonial crews, and who is going

  1209
  to take on their maintenance? I suppose they are not included in the Vote we are considering?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises under the Vote we are discussing.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will not refer to that subject, Mr. Chairman, if you think it better for me not to do so. I think the attention of the Committee is concentrated on larger issues, and I was merely dealing with that point as part of the larger issue of construction and balancing it against the men available for our ships. Of course, in the matter of balancing the construction and manning, the question of the Colonial ships is one which cannot be neglected. The Colonial ships have to be manned, and the House will be interested to know whether we are going to man them or whether the Colonies are going to do it. I think the question of the maintenance of those ships is a matter for this Vote. We wish to know whether the expenses of the maintenance of the Colonial ships will be a charge on the Imperial Exchequer or on the Colonies. I hope the First Lord will answer these questions as far as he thinks advisable, in view of the negotiations and discussions which are going on with the Prime Minister of Canada and other Ministers. Of course, I do not press the right hon. Gentleman to give any further answer than he thinks would be wise and proper. With regard to the question of fuel, I understand that a Committee, with Lord Fisher as chairman, has been appointed to consider the question of the propulsion of ships with liquid fuel. We have not heard the reference to that Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us the reference, or perhaps he will be able to tell us generally, because I do not want the exact words of the reference.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: To inquire into the supply of liquid fuel and its application to warships' propulsion.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to hear that, because that was the point to which I was about to refer. There is no doubt we are in a transition state with regard to fuel, and the transition is not one which, looked upon broadly, can be regarded as favourable to this country. We have always enjoyed with our Welsh naval coal supply a unique position among the nations of the world. Now, when oil fuel is superseding coal, and must supersede coal, as
  1210
  a naval fuel, we are not only in no better position than other countries, but we are in a worse position, because we have no large supplies of oil fuel within the British Islands. A Committee has been appointed to consider this matter and therefore I do not wish to give my views upon it. The Admiralty has realised its importance, and I am sure the labours of that Committee will provide them with the material they require in order to enable them to ask this House for the provision necessary not only to secure a supply of oil at its source, but to secure sufficient storage in this country and at all points where our naval requirements demand it. The question of securing supplies of oil is an international question, a question of very great importance covering a very large area, and I hope the labours of the Committee and the proposals which the Admiralty will make upon them will result in securing the necessary supplies for the Navy. It is a subject with which I had a good deal to do when I was at the Admiralty, and I know the difficulties which attend it. I will not detain the Committee longer, but will only repeat before I sit down the suggestion which I made at the beginning of the Debate, that I am quite sure the House will wish to devote its attention mainly to the sufficiency of the proposals which the First Lord is making, and will not in this Debate desire to criticise minutiæ of finance.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: The propositions of the Government are of so grave a character—and of a dual character—that we cannot very well consider the defence establishment in the North Sea at the heart of the Empire and not instantly bring in the question of the Mediterranean. Some Members of this House were here at the time of the difficulty in the case of Fashoda, and some of them may, as I did at that time, have endeavoured to ascertain the position in the Mediterranean and the proper course to be taken in the case of war. The theory I then formed as a layman I endeavoured to verify by reference to competent authorities. I venture, with diffidence, not to agree with the statement that has already been sent out by the Government, that we may not have to meet in the Mediterranean the alliance of Italy and of Austria. They are members of the Triple Alliance, and the pressure which Germany may place upon them in order to create a diversion from the position in the North Sea may be too strong for them. It is always

  1211
  wise to look at the worst that may occur when devising means of defence or when endeavouring to obtain a solution of a difficulty. Fortunately, the Mediterranean is not of the same importance to us as formerly. The change in the condition of steamers, in the size and propulsion of our steamers and in their rapidity, makes the journey round the Cape and through the intricacies of the Red Sea, always at a low rate of propulsion, a factor that tends to make the difference between the journey round the Cape to India and the Pacific much less now in comparison than it was formerly. I understand, and I quite agree, that in case of war there would be no attempt at all to use the Mediterranean for the purposes of commerce. We could not afford, however strong we were in the Mediterranean, to detail a portion of our force for the purposes of convoys, and, if we did so, it would be a very great danger. Moreover, if we retained Egypt, where we are badly placed strategically, and still commanded the Canal, any ship could by accident throw itself athwart the Canal and get sunk, and there would be a blowing up of banks and such interruptions that would take a fortnight to repair and would be very serious in the carrying on of commerce.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to abandon the Mediterranean food supply?
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I will deal with that in a moment. First of all, it evidently would be too great a strain thrown upon the Navy to preserve the Mediterranean for the purposes of commerce during war. We should abandon the Mediterranean as a mere fighting place. That would undoubtedly be the case. We should close the Mediterranean at Gibraltar, because our danger would be, not what happened in the Mediterranean, but one of the new cruisers of Italy or Austria escaping through the Straits of Gibraltar and falling on our trade routes in the Atlantic. Provided we could seal up the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean being set aside for the purposes of commerce during a short naval war would really count for very little. Our principal food supplies now are coming from the United States, much more from Canada, and very largely now in the way of wheat, as well as other things, from Argentina, and a little from Australia. The amount which we have from Russia
  1212
  could certainly be compensated for by increased demands upon the two Americas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] We are talking about a naval war.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the proportion which comes through the Mediterranean?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is 65 per cent.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: It is a decreasing percentage. The percentage is largely increasing from Argentina. I happen to know something about it personally. The percentage from Argentina is largely increasing, and the quantity from Canada we can obtain if we require it is so great that in the event of an interruption for a month, and it would be allover in a month [HON. MEMBERS Indicated dissent.] I am speaking of a naval war. I am speaking of a difference of opinion in the North Sea as between ourselves and Germany. Both of us would be eager to try conclusions, and those conclusions would produce the inevitable result in a fortnight probably, and certainly in a month. That, at any rate, is my view. I believe modern naval war at close quarters, where the fighting fleets are within a few hours of one another, must bring an issue in a short time. The moment we had a success in the North Sea, the moment we drove our enemies to cover, and the moment we had sealed them up in their own ports, then we could detach a force as large as you please, and we could sweep the Mediterranean from end to end. We are only considering the time that would elapse while we were trying conclusions with the German Fleet in the North Sea, and whilst we had to keep another eye on the Mediterranean. What is to happen in the Mediterranean? Surely the practical thing is to close the Mediterranean entirely to British commerce. It would undoubtedly have to be so. It would be beyond our power to convoy foodships or any other ships by means of part of our Fleet whilst we were operating against the enemy with another part.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: How are you going to do it?
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I will endeavour to explain. I take it we should place at Gibraltar a squadron sufficiently strong with a proper number of destroyers and we should, as we should be justified in doing, close the Straits at night, warning any ship that attempted to pass at

  1213
  night they would run the risk of being torpedoed. I know perfectly well a modern fleet has run through the Straits of Gibraltar at night unknown to us, but still that was in the time of peace, and we should be on the lookout to prevent it. What we want to do is to throttle the route to India through the Red Sea. We are at present in possession of Egypt, and it would be very unlikely in war that any ship under any disguise would get through the Canal, get down the Red Sea, and get out again, if we choose to prevent it. Supposing the worst happened, and supposing, owing to some military force against us in Egypt, we had to retire to the Soudan, we still have Aden, and a squadron at Aden would close the whole of the route to the East. We could shut up the whole of the enemy in Southern Europe. We have, under these circumstances, to consider what force is necessary to do that, and I quite agree it would hardly be wise to have a fleet at Gibraltar working on a pivot, one side for the Mediterranean and the other side for the North Sea, liable to be called away at a short notice.
  5.0 P.M.
  The position at Gibraltar must be made undeniable, but Malta could surely take care of itself for a few weeks. That really is our problem. Of course, if you are going to build against Powers that may develop in the Mediterranean, then the charges that will be put on this country will be very large. I believe that is unnecessary. We can effect all we want at much less cost. We certainly shall not be shut out of food, and, if we do any harm to the commerce of this country by that interruption, surely it would be very much cheaper to compensate that commerce by a money value than to build "Dreadnoughts" in order to meet that contingency. With regard to our position in the North Sea, I entirely support all the First Lord has said. I would even suggest, with regard to the margin of safety, that we must take into account facts and circumstances we do not know. The aeroplane is a fact, but we do not know what its effect is. The submarine is a fact, but we do not know what its exact value may be in warfare. The torpedo destroyer is a fact, but, with equal seacraft and with equal bravery on both sides, we do not know what the result of these new factors in naval operations may be. Therefore I urge a margin larger than we would otherwise have undertaken in order to take out a policy of insurance against contingencies not yet known to us. We
  1214
  might very easily, through no blunder on our part, but entirely through had fortune, be brought down suddenly to an equality, or even be reduced below that point of equality, and we have to provide against that and leave a margin sufficiently strong and broad—a reserve, I am not speaking of a mobilised force—but a reserve that will take the place of vessels that may be rapidly destroyed in the first few days of a great war. We have been reminded that ships cannot be replaced immediately. If a battleship is wiped out you have to wait at least eighteen months or two years before you can replace it. I suggest, for these and other reasons, that the issues are so tremendous and the effect upon this country and its future is so far extended, reaching out of all sight, that we must even do more than has been indicated by the provision made at present. We must anticipate as well that we have to face a new addition to our fleet in the proposal for next year, or even in the autumn should circumstances demand it. Any attempt at weakening only means that we are going to bring further trouble upon ourselves.
  Germany now is in a condition of stalemate, in so far as her military position on the Continent is concerned. She dare not move, she dare not carry out her projects until the unknown quantity of our strength and power of interference has been determined. The people of Germany, unfortunately, have very little to say in the matter of the provision of their fleet or the policy of their Government. She has thrown down deliberately a challenge to this country, and we have to take it up, in no had spirit, with no heat, but resolutely and determinedly, and to warn her that if she proceeds on the lines on which she is proceeding she will have to surrender all attempts at development in Asia until this question of our predominance is settled. We can be a good friend, or we can do a great deal to interrupt her new projects in Turkey and elsewhere, and nothing must be allowed to make it a possibility that we should suddenly find ourselves transferred from a position of dominance to a position of inferiority. The whole of our Empire, our past and our future, all our social reforms and great political reconstructions are as nothing compared with the dominance of this country at sea, and if that is challenged we must accept the challenge.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very precise

  1215
  statement of what he intends to do with the sum he is now asking for new construction. I do not think that, whatever emphasis he lays upon the reasons for allocating a sum here and a sum there, he really satisfied anybody on either side. I do not believe, any more than the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in dealing with these matters on party lines. We want to take the Navy, particularly after the grave statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, upon a somewhat higher plane; so I would ask the Committee to believe that, in the few remarks I am about to make, there is certainly no desire to play a party game, but that they are animated with the object of finding out the exact situation, so that we may judge if the efforts which are being made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are adequate to meet the situation. There is nothing much to comment upon in the statement as to the armoured cruisers and the submarines. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that 20 per cent, of the total cost of the programme to be commenced this year is to be expended in the financial year, and he takes credit for that as something which has never been done before, except, possibly, on one occasion. I do not think, however, when dealing with a situation entirely without precedent that we should look to what we have done before in regard to expenditure, during the first year of a naval programme. We have to look rather to the exigencies of the case, and I am certain there is not a single hon. Member on these benches who will support the contention that the sums taken in this year are sufficient to meet this particular danger. In his statement the Financial Secretary dealt with the four battleships. They are really more important than pushing on the small cruisers which no doubt are a larger matter numerically. But it is the big battle craft that we have to consider. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is going to accelerate the construction of the two battleships in the dockyards by, roughly, a couple of months. In ordinary circumstances they would be laid down in January. I understand they are to be laid down in November. But what reason is there why the two contract battleships should not be laid down immediately?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The drawings have not been completed.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: That is really an explanation which can be carried to an absurdity. Evidently we are always waiting for a better ship. We are waiting until the time comes when we can get a superior ship, but I would rather put forward the argument that a good strong ship ready for sea is better, from the point of view of national safety, than a little better and stronger ship still on the stocks. Is the right hon. Gentleman still going to tell us that he is not going to spend more than £2,800 on the battle cruiser this year? If that is the total sum the thing is too ridiculous. It scarcely pays for the collecting of the plans and the signing of the contract. I want to refer to the delays which have already taken place. We have rubbed this matter in on other occasions, and have had replies which, no doubt, have been honestly given, but they have not dispelled the feeling of discomfort which still exists in regard to these delays. In regard to the 1909 programme eight ships were provided for; only one of those eight was completed within the contract time of two years. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes he can make a meticulous point, and say he pushed forward the date of giving out the order by two months, but we in this House are accustomed to accept from the Admiralty certain estimates of strength at the close of a financial year—at the close of any specific financial year, and if ships are to continue to be delayed to the extent of two, four, six, or eight months how are we in the future to accept the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman or his successors as those upon which we can base our conclusions? I should like to get from the right hon. Gentleman assurances that will allay a certain amount of discomfort which is in the minds of those who take an interest in these things in no party spirit, but with a real desire to press at all times for that supremacy which is essential to us. Two assurances which I ask for are these: First, is the right hon. Gentleman allowing a certain amount of time in his calculations in regard to construction for possible contingencies which in respect of delay cannot be foreseen, or is he perfectly assured that, having given these ships out for construction in two years, they will be built within that period? I would like, further, some assurance that he will obtain from the contractors before tenders are accepted an undertaking under penal clauses that they will deliver the vessels by a specific date. I ventured to put that view into the Press some time

  1217
  ago, and as a result I got three communications from firms, in one of which was this sentence, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will take an interest in, and which, no doubt, he will understand:—
  "If Churchill tries chat game we will make him sit up, for no single reputable firm will tender."
  That comes from a reputable man belonging to a reputable firm, and I think it well the Committee should know there is a feeling amongst some of our biggest shipbuilding firms that they have got the right hon. Gentleman in the hollow of their hands. That is not the kind of situation which should exist where our naval strength is concerned. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman further, in regard to the two contract-built ships, whether, if they were ordered to be laid down now, it would make any difference whatever in our declared naval strength at the end of 1914? Would it not be possible to allay the undoubted feelings of discomfort aroused by the grave statement of German naval progress by hastening oil the designs and getting out the tenders, and telling the contractors, "We will give you so much to be spent within the financial year, but if you can spend more we will indemnify you and promise that Parliament will sanction our indemnity."
  I come to the later programme. There is one ship, the "Audacious," to he delayed to end of August next year. Why could it not be completed within the financial year ending the 31st March next? Then I want to know, in regard to a much more dangerous thing, the reason of the delay in connection with the "Conqueror," which has only recently finished her gun trials, which I believe were witnessed by the right hon. Gentleman. I hear that this vessel has shown great weakness in her gun-mounting, and if that be not so it would be well to have a definite assurance that, if the designs of our ships are good the gun-mountings supplied by the gun-makers shall be up to those designs. I believe these particular mountings were the first issued by the Coventry Ordnance Works, and it certainly is not to the credit of the Navy that there should be any difficulty in this direction. Next I wish to turn to the question of fire control platforms. This is not a subject I should have approached except for the fact that one knows well that little defects do exist and have now been remedied. Obviously a ship may fail if the training of her
  1218
  guns is militated against by the position in which her range finders are placed. It is a fact that the fire control platforms on some of our latest vessels have been so placed that the effect of the heat from the furnaces prevents the range finding and the efficient working of the gun layers. I hope I am making my point sufficiently clear to the right hon. Gentleman. It is very well known to a great number of people that the control platforms in the majority of our ships have nothing in them whatever. The range finders have been brought down and placed in another position. These matters have cost a great deal of money, and it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us that the difficulties which had been experienced by those in charge of the guns in the past have been removed, and that the position of the control platforms is now such that our ships will be able to go into action as efficient as they ought to be. I would like, Mr. Whitley, your ruling upon this further point. My hon. Friend just now wanted to discuss the question of the Colonial ships. I did not wish to interrupt, but it occurred to me that if we might not discuss the "Australia" we could discuss the "New Zealand," because she is a ship given to this country.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no money in the Vote.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand, Sir, that your ruling referred to the method of manning the ships rather than to the actual progress made in construction.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was as far as I went. I think that remarks referring to the ships, in so far as they affect the adequacy or inadequacy of the programme, are in order.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: That is all I wanted to do. These two ships have been very much delayed, and the reason for that delay is perfectly well known to be that they cannot get their armour. I am not very clear upon the point, and should not like to make any charge in regard to it. It appears that armour of a certain type was provided for in the contract for these vessels, and that when the plates were sent in for trial, I believe not one of them passed the test. I should not like to press the matter too severely, but nevertheless a new batch of armour had to be ordered, with the result that the completion of these two ships was delayed. If they were ready now,

  1219
  they would make a vast difference to our naval strength. One final remark on the the question of Supplementary Estimates. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he did not this year bring forward a Supplementary Estimate for a division of ships to take the place of those he has sent to the Mediterranean? In his statement on the Naval Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman set out what he believed to be absolutely necessary for our strength in the event of Germany introducing her new Estimates. In making that statement he made no reference whatever to the Mediterranean. Apparently he had not discovered the Mediterranean. He said we should require, instead of three battleships next year, five. We are now going to get the five. But he did not state that, in the event of Germany introducing a new naval law, he would be called upon to send to the Mediterranean immediately a squadron of our battle cruisers. Had he known that he would have had to modify his claims in regard to the North Sea in that speech, and would have had to tell us, in spite of the promises he gave us for "Dreadnought" vessels, that we should be four short of the total required.
  That being so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman, when he made the statement on the Mediterranean two days ago, state at the same time that it was his immediate business to lay down four ships to replace those sent to the Mediterranean? I am one of those who think that the battle cruisers in the Mediterranean are a finer squadron than those battleships he has withdrawn, and that our disposition for some time to come of our squadron in those seas is adequate to meet all the exigencies, but what are we to do with the gap that has been left in home waters? These ships are to be based on Malta; they are not to be facing both ways at Gibraltar. They cannot be brought home. At the present moment I believe I am right in saying that there has never been greater prosperity in the shipbuilding trade. That is not so much due, although it is largely due, to building for naval purposes, but it is chiefly due to an abnormal influx of orders for the mercantile marine. I do not think I go too far in saying that we have never had such a boom in shipbuilding as at the present time. Is it not a fact—I know this was denied in the course of an interpolation on Monday last—that you could not at the present time get tenders from British builders immediately to lay down four vessels of that size?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Then if that is not the fact, has the right hon. Gentleman given us any valid reason why he could not go straight ahead with the programme of four ships?
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL made a remark inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: I should have thought the very reason that he has taken ships from the North Sea and transferred them to the Mediterranean—a feature he never touched upon in introducing the Naval Estimates—was more than sufficient justification for replacing that security in the North Sea and building immediately. I hope we shall hear that the right hon. Gentleman intends to set about getting this business through, and that he will be able to give the Committee assurances as to what he intends to do. So notable was the omission of any reference to new construction in his speech on Monday, that it was picked out by everybody on that day. What is at the back of it? One could not but come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman had been bluntly frank with regard to the German position. He was very wise. There is no harm in stating your views frankly. Will he not to-day be equally blunt and frank as regards our position in this matter, and as to what he intends to do in the future, and so save the reputation he was rapidly developing, and which is very useful even to a Radical Minister? I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion had the chance of his life. He certainly had all the Conservatives in the country behind him, and I am convinced he had 50 per cent, of the followers of hon. Gentlemen opposite behind him. If a Minister with three-fourths of the population at his back cannot take the strong line which I believe the-right hon. Gentleman wants to do, and intends to do, but has not the pluck to do—if he cannot do that, he does not deserve to have that support which he knows as well as anybody else he would have obtained. These are a few queries upon which it will be interesting to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman this evening.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I do not intend, because it is more appropriate to the discussion we shall have to-morrow, to dwell at any length upon large questions of policy and strategy. But there is

  1221
  one declaration which ought to be emphasised by almost every speaker upon this side—I mean the declaration which fell on Monday last from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). Some of us in the past have, in our petty way, jibed at his naval arithmetic, but none of us would be otherwise than sincerely respectful towards the almost unequalled authority with which he speaks on matters of high State policy. I had the chance, by the accident of the Debate, last year in speaking immediately after the right hon. Gentleman, to pay my humble tribute to the statesmanlike attitude of encouragement he took towards the speech of President Taft. That speech of the right hon. Gentleman was not very cordially applauded by his own party at the time, and I noticed that on Monday he had the usual tribute of stony silence from the benches behind him. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply to the amazement of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford)? I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is a peculiarly appropriate answer to the very remarkable speech, coming from the Liberal benches, by my hon. Friend the Member for Osgoldcross (Sir J. Compton-Rickett), who has fired his broadside and left the House. What did the hon. Member for the City of London say? He said:—
  " It is extremely improbable that we as a solitary Power should be engaged against the Triple Alliance."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1912, col. 879]
  That, I venture to think, is the kernel of the situation. Why should we suppose that our enemies are to have allies, while we are to have no allies at all? Why, in the words of Lord Crewe, speaking in another place—
  "are you continually to produce these blood-curdling combinations?"
  That is not only the opinion, which is entitled to respect, of a British ex-Prime Minister, but it is also the opinion—and I repeat what I said in March—of the most representative German strategist you could possibly produce. The hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) quoted yesterday from a book by General Von Bernhardi. He quoted its most purple passages. But put the worst possible construction on German aggressive intentions as can be found in this book, you have also to bear in mind the opinion of the same writer, which I ventured to quote last March, almost immediately after the book was issued, and which I have never seen
  1222
  challenged, the opinion on which he whole argument for large namely, that in his opinion the Triple Alliance was a broken reed, and that in a naval war he feared the possibility of Germany standing absolutely alone. I should like, in a sentence, to say that I think we ought all on this side of the House, whatever our views may be, to congratulate the Admiralty, not only in having extricated themselves from an absurd two-Power standard, which included America, but also in refusing to replace an impossible standard in the Atlantic by a no less excessive and unreasonable standard in the Mediterranean. I want to give an individual view which I think may be of some slight interest to the Committee. I want to put the position of an ordinary man, and to say that I, who after my fashion was a critic of the Estimates of 1909, have no difficulty whatever in supporting the general plan which was announced last March. I remember, when I said a few words in March, the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh) chaffed me upon supporting the First Lord and deserting the economists.
  Of course, the personal consistency of a humble individual is of no particular moment to the House of Commons, but what was significant in that Debate was that no reduction was moved and that no Division was taken. I do not think it means that I have ratted or that the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Murray Macdonald) has run away. There is a vital distinction between the two situations. It seemed to some of us on this side of the House that the Estimates of 1909 rested upon prophecies. As I understand the Estimates for 1912, they do not rest upon prophecy at all. Some of us on this side of the House—and I stand by all I said—in 1909, 1910, and 1911, criticised and challenged certain figures, and I say dogmatically that in all the controversies which clustered round the famous date of March, 1912, as to the number of our ships and of the German ships, and so on, all that we said was amply justified. What the Germans have in 1912, is precisely what they said they would have, and precisely what some of us as far back as 1908, before the Estimates of 1909 were produced, also said we believed the Germans would have. There was in those days a conflict of opinion as to the maturing of the programme, but to-day there is no conflict of opinion, there is no element of surprise, and there is no suggestion of acceleration. The figures

  1223
  which have been given by the First Lord might equally well have been given by a German Minister. They are in accordance with the ordinary German law, and are based on a construction period, not of two, but of three years. We have to get our figures of X plus Y, and it may be Stated without doubt—I am addressing myself to my friends of the little Navy party—with regard to the Estimates of 1912 that the German X is not a disputed quantity. I want to take, by way of illustration, a single figure of the First Lord which was repeated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) as to the end of 1914 (I would point out that this is before the 1912 programme comes in)—thirty-three British to twenty-nine German ships in full commission. Of course these are not "Dreadnoughts" alone, and I rather wish, if the First Lord could properly do so—of course he must bear in mind considerations of strategy and secrecy—that he could give the actual classes of the ships; because it seems to me after reading the Press for two days, and after listening to the Debates, that this thirty-three to twenty-nine is the kind of crystal which is very likely to do duty upon the platform as the material for a new Navy scare.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It is his own statement.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I hope the Noble Lord will believe that I am not trying to criticise or controvert, but only trying in my ignorant way to understand precisely what the situation is. I think the German total of twenty-nine includes only twenty-one "Dreadnoughts," and that the British completed "Dreadnoughts" altogether at that date would be thirty-two, and deducting, as I suppose we must, the four which go to the Mediterranean and the two Colonial ships, if it is correct to do so—I am doubtful about that—you would have a proportion of twenty-six to twenty-one "Dreadnoughts" alone in the North Sea. If you add to these the eight "King Edwards" and the rest of it, I should have thought you would have an ample margin. The First Lord very properly deprecated any detailed discussion as to type, but if there is a possibility of a naval scare on that point it is only fair to the Government to point out that they have got ships bf the very newest and latest type. According to the Navy League's statement—I think the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) rather disputed it the other
  1224
  day, but I believe it is substantially accurate—not a single one of these twenty-one German ships has the 13.5 gun, whereas at least sixteen out of the thirty-two and twelve out of the twenty-six, which I undersand would remain in home waters, have 13.5 guns available on either broadside. With due respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, what sense is there at this time of day in talking about dropping ships out of the Cawdor programme—that naval Mrs. Harris, which never really, I believe, existed except at General Elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I apologise if that is an unfair statement They complained, as I have always understood the argument, of the dropping of our ships in certain earlier years, when the British proportion was something like three to one, and I really think if they made that criticism they have to decide whether or not at the present day they would rather have, say, two extra "St. Vincents," another "Neptune," and another "Indefatigable," instead of four ships like the "Monarch" and the "Princess Royal." I should say, from the point of view of naval efficiency alone, they ought to thank His Majesty's Government that they resisted pressure and got newer and better ships with two years more life in them before they got on to the scrap-heap.
  Something was said about running it too fine, and that raises, of course, the whole question of the construction period, which was very ably dealt with by the hon. Member (Mr. Burgoyne). I believe there is rather an exaggerated idea abroad, generally speaking, with regard to the German power of construction. I was talking to a man the other day who takes a great interest in these matters, and he said the Germans can build in two years. I said, "What do you base that statement upon?" He said, "The 'Von der Tann' was completed in two years." I said, "First of all that is a single ship, and, secondly, I believe the statement is entirely inaccurate." If you take the extreme period from ordering to full commission it would be over three years; if you take the period from laying down to commissioning, it would be two years and eleven months; and if you take the most favourable period, which would be from laying down to commissioning for trials, it would still be two years and six months. If you are to take the latter period you will be perfectly entitled to take a single ship like the British "Vanguard," which was completed for trials in one year and seven months, as

  1225
  opposed to two years and six months—still an advantage of eleven months. If you take a Return which was given by the Admiralty in reply to a question of mine on 1st March, one would be perfectly justified in saying that not a single German vessel, with the exception of the "Nassau" and the "Westfalen," which are exceptional cases, because they belong to the programme of the year before, have ever been completed in less than three years. The other day I came across an answer of the Home Secretary, who, I think, in the Debates which have passed, was inclined to put the German power as high as it was possible to put it. He said on 31st May, 1911:—
  "The hon. Member must remember that British ships only take twenty-four months to build, and German ships thirty-six to forty, and consequently the fact that the same number of ships are being built does not mean that the two countries are only making the same naval preparations."
  I am purposely excluding the ships of 1909 because they have been exhaustively dealt with by the hon. Member (Mr. Burgoyne). I fully agree that there should be searching criticism of these delays but if you take the statement which has been issued by the hon. Member himself, in respect of nine German vessels, the construction period was 35.12 months, and the British period was 25.98 months, a difference of 9.14 months. I only mention this because it seems to me vital to the whole question of continuity in naval programmes, and I quite agree you have to consider construction as a "whole and not merely the instalment of the first, second, and third years. It seems to me, therefore, that with due regard to national security, you can allow the Germans to lay down ships, so dealing with a certainty, and not with a hypothesis, and that you can then build British ships, possibly of a superior type, several months later, and still have a current programme completed well in advance. If that is so, it is an enormous advantage. It is a capital consideration. I believe it to be a fact, and my reason for supporting the Estimates is that, broadly speaking, the Government are dealing with facts, they are not inventing hypotheses, and they are making provision which is ample, but which in my view is not certainly excessive for the responsibilities of the Empire.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: The First Lord's answers to questions which I have put to him have been singularly honest and straightforward, and much as I hate him politically, he certainly has spoken like an
  1226
  honourable man whom the country can trust in his answers to my questions. There have been two or three criticisms on Vote 8. There are firstly, criticisms of the hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) who thought the Estimates were inflated; but while he said that, he gave us no criterion whatever to judge what is inflated and what is not. He did not even say whether he was in favour of any Navy or not, and I wanted to ask him whether he is.
  Mr. BARNES: He expressly said so.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I did not catch it. Then we had some criticisms from the Prime Minister. He said the Vote was not to threaten the Triple Alliance. He left Italy entirely out. The Triple Alliance is an association of three Powers to fight tinder certain circumstances, and I cannot conceive how this can be judiciously, fairly, patriotically, and wisely left out, and if one leaves it out, as far as one's self is concerned, we must remember that we have an entente, and that if the three Powers attack France we shall have to defend France, or else the entente is a sham which ought never to have been made. It is perfidious Albion again. It is leather and prunella. Let me give a few facts I have deduced from the answers that the right hon. Gentleman gave me to the questions with which I have so much troubled him. In the spring of 1906, when the present Government came into power, we had 30 completed battleships not more than ten years launched. We have now 27 battleships to Germany's 18. The superiority of 100 per cent, has dwindled to a superiority of 50 per cent. In these Estimates we ought to have five more battleships at least, and we ought to hasten several of those on which we are now at work. Take another point. In the spring of 1906 we had 34 completed protected cruisers, not more than ten years launched, to Germany's 16. Now, in 1912, we have 15 such vessels to Germany's 20.
  The superiority of 89 per cent has been exchanged for an inferiority of 25 per cent. Is that maintaining our strength? We ought, in this Vote 8, to have had some more cruisers. Take another point. In the spring of 1906, when the present Government came into power, we had 99 completed destroyers not launched more than ten years to Germany's 44. Now we have 104 such vessels to Germany's eighty-eight. That is to say, our superiority has been reduced from 102 per cent, to 18 per cent. That is not main-

  1227
  taining our standard. Remember that in commissioned waters we have only sixty-seven destroyers fully commissioned, and that Germany has sixty-six. Remember, too, that we have forty-eight destroyers older than the oldest in the German navy. At the beginning of 1906 we had thirty-one battleships in full commission to Germany's fifteen. We have now in full commission thirty-seven to Germany's nineteen. Our superiority of 107 per cent, has been reduced to 42 per cent. We are now to have thirty-five fully-commissioned ships in the North Sea, and Germany is to have twenty-nine. I do not think it is quite fair of the First Lord to reckon the eight battleships at Gibraltar as part of the North Sea Home Fleet. It takes three and a half days to get from Gibraltar, and the fate of England might be settled in twenty-four hours. I think these ships at Gibraltar should be left out of account. In the spring of 1906 we had eight battleships in the Mediterranean, and now we have none. Do we need them less? I think we need them as much as ever. I speak as a landsman. We have more food than ever coming through the Suez Canal. On 1st July, 1906, we were building sixteen armoured ships as against Germany's eight. At the present time we are building thirteen to her ten, but two of the thirteen are four months overdue, and the proper comparison, therefore, would be that we are building eleven to her ten. In the six and a half years immediately preceding the accession of this Government to power we launched fifty-four battleships to Germany's nineteen. What has this Government done? In the subsequent six and a half years we have launched thirty to Germany's twenty-two. In the last four and half years we have launched eighteen to Germany's eighteen.
  These are rather puzzling figures, and they are difficult to follow. I shall be glad to give any hon. Member a copy of them. They are very serious indeed. They mean that a disastrous change has taken place in the naval relations between Germany and England. They mean, too, that we have been taking battleships from the Mediterranean at the very time that Austria and Italy are beginning to pour more in, and that during a time of war. In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, we cannot hold both the North Sea and the Mediterranean with our present Vote No. 8. We cannot hold the North Sea with thirty-five fully commissioned ships against Germany's twenty-nine. We
  1228
  cannot hold the Mediterranean with two cruisers against the ten battleships of Austria and Italy. It seems to me that this question of figures has been very wearisome, and therefore very much neglected. We have been, if I may so say, going down a precipice with our eyes open, and with a passive will, without due regard to where we are. The loss of the North Sea to us would mean the loss of our independence. As to what the loss of the Mediterranean to us would be, I think I can best state the case by quoting Admiral Mahan. He says that the Mediterranean symbolises to us the loss of Egypt, India, Australia, and New Zealand. He adds:—
  "Do I say that Germany intends to attack England? Nothing of the sort. I neither say that she intends to attack England nor that she intends to support England. I call your attention to strategy, and history as rule follows strategy."
  I think we should try to use a little common sense in considering this question. I think we ought to do one of two things. We ought either to secure peace by increasing our fleet by five more battleships and fifteen more destroyers, or we ought to secure peace by making adequate concessions at once. We ought to prepare to fight, or we ought to give in.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We will not give in.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: I appeal for adequate preparations. In the pamphlet I refer to Admiral Mahan describes war as an appeal to force, and he says we have had more bloodless wars within the past generation than in any previous generation. I will not go into that; but the bloodless wars have consisted in the calculation of power on one side and of power on the other. They have been settled without firing a shot. We could arrange that. A highly intelligent German to whom I was talking the other day said, "Give me five minutes' talk with your Foreign Secretary, and I will enable him to dispense with your Navy." I asked "What would you tell him," and he replied, "I should tell him to draw a line across Australia, and let us have half and keep the other half." Will any Member of the Labour party say that? Will the hon. Member who interrupted me (Mr. Barnes) accept that?
  Mr. BARNES: Wait and see.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will the hon. Member next him accept that? No. He tries to blush and says nothing. I say that

  1229
  anything is better than what is thoroughly inadequate, and consequently expensive and useless. Then comes the question what is adequate? Adequacy is what in the opinion of experienced experts is adequate. Whenever I have spoken to hon. Gentlemen opposite, or people not of my way of thinking, they have laughed at the very name of expert. If they are ill, they send for a doctor, because they want an expert. If they want a new bridge they send for an engineering expert. If they want a peerage, they send for the Patronage Secretary. But if they want a naval expert, they put their hands on their breasts and say, "I am he; I will tell you all about it." I believe the most expensive reductions—the most theoretically costly reductions—we have ever made were made in 1906, 1907, and 1908. They have cost us millions, and we shall have to build twenty new "Dreadnoughts" as a consequence. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) has done noble service again and again by calling attention to that fact. I say again we should use our common sense. We should carry out the plans of the experts, for every year that you evade carrying them out you are piling tip taxation, humiliation, sorrow, and dishonour for those who will come after us.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The House will feel with regret that towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech he showed some signs of suffering from the fit of depression and even despair into which his earlier remarks might well have thrown him. The hon. Gentleman has paid me the compliment of saying that the answers I have given on behalf of the Admiralty to his questions have been perfectly honest answers. I can assure the House that I have nothing whatever to conceal except In the public interest, and, so far as I am concerned, the House will have the fullest information which is available on all matters which do not appear to affect the general interest of the country, and in my turn I will pay the hon. Gentleman the compliment of stating that his questions and statements on naval matters are always inspired by very close, accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive, and searching knowledge of the naval situation. I am quite certain that if he had applied his mind, or any mind at his disposal, to the investigation not merely of points which produce alarm, but to those points which we might look to for some feeling of reassurance he would have been able to have given the House this afternoon the obverse
  1230
  of the medal as well as the reverse. The hon. Gentleman states as his main proposition that the provision which the Government is making at the present moment is inadequate. We contend with absolute confidence that our provision is not inadequate. I will not base that remark on mere assertion, but I will in the course of my observations give some reasons why we are of that opinion. First of all, let me refer to the statement which the hon. Gentleman made about the departure from the Cawdor programme. I do not know whether he was in the House when my hon. Friend behind me answered by anticipation that argument. In the year 1906–7 we dropped one ship from the four which the Cawdor programme would have required; we dropped one more ship in 1907–8, and we dropped two ships in 1908–9—four ships in all. Those four extra ships were built in the year 1909–10.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How were they built?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Never mind how they were built. Let us just see whether we are worse off or better off.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What about the moral effect?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will come to the moral effect in a minute. I will deal with the material effect first. I think that there is a moral lesson to be drawn from it too. Suppose we had laid down a ship in 1906–7, it would have been a "Bellerophon," that is to say, a ship with ten12-in. guns, of which only eight can fire on the beam. Suppose we had laid down a ship in the next year, it would have been a "Vanguard." That, again, only fired eight 12-in. guns on the beam. If we had laid down the two ship sin 1908–9 they would have been possibly "Neptunes," which indeed would fire ten guns on the beam, but would have only a very small are of training from the centre turret. Instead of that we have laid down four ships which fire ten 13.5-in.guns, and from every point of view are faster, stronger, more powerful, and more modern. So much for the great material advantage of never laying down a ship until the last moment compatible with full security. That is my answer also to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway(Mr. Burgoyne), who is urging the immediate construction of new ships before the moment when the best designs can be completed.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: The point I want to make is rather that the right hon. Gentleman has got to assure us that the time has not now come to lay down the ships, whatever the design, with the best design that he has.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the essence of my case that we are laying down in due time all the ships that will be necessary for all the particular aims of our policy in the future. So much for the material factor. I think the sequence of the figures is a very striking one. Four British ships were laid down in 1905–6, and two by Germany. Three were laid down by this country in the next year, and three by Germany. Three were laid down the next year by this country, and three again by Germany. In 1908–9 we dropped to two and they rose to four, which shows in the sequence of the four years a complete reversal of the proportion of building. But I do not wish to draw any conclusion from that, except one which we are entitled to draw to vindicate our own position, that we have not been responsible for driving forward this competition in naval armaments, and we have not been responsible for it, and that we have not merely preached the doctrine of moderation, but we have practised it, thus giving every encouragement to others to imitate our example, and yet, as I have shown, we have not in the end suffered in the least in material strength.
  Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: In your judgment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am dealing with facts. These are facts. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway asks about the progress of the various ships, and I dare say the Committee would like to have some information on the various ships which are now under construction. The "Thunderer" has already been completed. The "Conqueror" is expected to be completed in October this year and in commission. These two ships will complete the "Orion" class. The "King George V." and the "Centurion," which are building in the dockyards, have made most satisfactory progress, and will be quite up to programme date and delivered very early next year, in January or February. The "Audacious" and the "Ajax" are behindhand in their progress and cannot be expected to be completed earlier than three months after their programme date. The four ships, the "Iron Dukes" of the 1911–12
  1232
  programme, have all been laid down and are due for completion in the month of January or February, 1914. There is no reason at present to anticipate any delay in these cases. The delay in the "Conqueror," about which the hon. Gentleman asked me, is partly due to labour troubles, but more particularly to delays encountered by the Ordnance Works and the contractors for the hydraulic mountings. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of the importance of broadening our supply of gun-mountings, by bringing additional manufacturing firms into this very expensive branch of trade, and that great advantage has undoubtedly entailed some disadvantages; and I agree with him that there were some defects, none of a serious or irremediable character, which manifested themselves in the "Conqueror's" gun trials, but which will be rectified by the time she comes out in the month of September. I have ordered the gun-mountings over again from the beginning, and I am advised that there is no reason at all why she should not be a perfectly satisfactory vessel when the defects have been put right. The delay in the "Audacious" and the "Ajax" are directly due to labour troubles. The "New Zealand" and the "Australia" have been delayed1 five and seven months respectively by the fact that the very high qualities of armour insisted on by the Admiralty were not reached by some of the plates which were brought up for inspection, and a new quantity of armour has had to be created for these ships. That is a disadvantage, but against it we have this advantage: We have good reason to believe that we are getting a greatly improved armour, which offers a better protection and a greater resisting power certainly than anything was thought possible a short time ago, and which, if not superior, is fully equal to any armour used in foreign countries. It is hoped that the "New Zealand" may be delivered before February, 1913. The contractors are making special exertions to complete her. We are most anxious that she should be completed then, because we wish her to go right away to the Dominion of New Zealand in order to make a cruise in those waters, visiting all the principal ports which it is thought desirable she should visit by the Dominion Government, and then she will return and take her place in the First Battle Squadron of the Home Fleet. The "Princess Royal" has been slightly delayed through labour troubles, and also because the "Princess Royal," like the

  1233
  "Lion," has undergone some extensive alterations in regard to her compass platform, her fire control station, her masts, and her funnel. These alterations have been entirely satisfactory. They have cost a great deal of money, but the results have been satisfactory.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: How much?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not answer by giving figures which I have not got on my Paper.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Sixty thousand pounds.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The reports so far received from the "Lion" have been most satisfactory, and as regards the fire control the arrangements are so much approved of by the gunnery officers who have inspected them that I believe the approaching battle practice will fully justify the expense involved. So much for those great vessels. There have been some delays with the minor cruisers. The "Dublin" and the "Southampton" have been delayed from three to five months by labour troubles. The "Chatham" has been delayed because the machinery was delayed in delivery by the contractors. The hon. Member who spoke last will be glad to know that there is no delay by the "Birmingham." The "Nottingham," the last small cruiser in the programme, was not laid down until the beginning of this year, whereas it ought to have been laid down last year, but the delay was due to my repeated and prolonged efforts to give the Thames Ironworks, or some firm taking it over, a chance of constructing it. No serious consequences will accrue from the few months' delay that have taken place in these ships. While on the subject of these delays I may refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who spoke earlier in the afternoon.
  The Committee will see how enormously difficult it is to estimate in advance the amount of money the Admiralty will be able to earn in the year in carrying out the construction approved of by the House. When we spend £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 a year, labour troubles for a fortnight or three weeks will throw us £1,000,000 out, or any serious hitch which may occur in the construction of these enormously complicated vessels will make a difference of hundreds of thousands of pounds in the account. It is a matter of very great difficulty, and makes absolutely impossible an accurate forecast of the amount of
  1234
  money which the Admiralty, or which the contractors, will be able to earn in the course of the year. The methods of accounting are, of course, very, very peculiar. The House orders certain ships to be built; the contracts are made, and must be carried through; and as the obligations mature they must be met in regular course. But, owing to some delay, the money cannot be earned in the course of the year, and therefore a large surrender has to be made to the Treasury and the money has to be revoted in a future year. This surrender is called savings. It is not, of course—it is only a failure to earn the money, whereas the liability continues quite undiminished; and the fact that all this money, every penny of it, has to be revoted in a future year, in order to carry out and discharge our liability, artificially inflates our Estimates. If it be true that bloated Estimates in one country provoke bloated Estimates in other countries, then I say we are artificially bloating our Estimates over and above any bloatiness which may disappoint us in any other quarter. I am very much inclined to think that it will be desirable at some future date to make proposals to the House with a view to adopting a financial procedure more closely fitted to the actual position of the present time.
  For my part I am very anxious indeed that the House of Commons should have the fullest possible control over the expenditure of Admiralty money, but a system under which you may easily be a million up or down through delays over which you cannot exercise any reasonable provision, does not lend itself to accurate Parliamentary control, and I am not so certain whether it is the best system from, the point of view of thorough Departmental economy. Let me say, in regard to another matter, that the new construction of destroyers is progressing very rapidly. There have been considerable delays in the past, and we have recently conferred with all the contractors with a view to accelerating, I will not say accelerating, but with a view to the punctual completion of all the vessels on which we are now engaged. As the Committee knows, there are twenty destroyers of this year which were laid down at the very beginning of the year, the arrangements having been made in the previous autumn, so that nothing will be required but the sanction of the House for the work to begin. We have, therefore, three or four destroyers left over from the 1910–11 programme. The twenty destroyers of the

  1235
  1911–12 programme are all under construction at once at the present time, and all these fine craft will come to hand in the course of the next eighteen months.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Estimates he said that we would have the destroyers at the beginning of October, but we now find that the Estimate has been extended by three or four months, and we shall not have them until December of this year. What are you going to do next year again?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not present when my right hon. Friend made his statement, but the statement which I made six months ago holds good in every respect, so far as I am aware. It may be that the progress will not be as rapid as we hoped, but there are special reasons. Take the "Badger" and the "Weasel," which have fallen under the searching eye of the hon. Member (Mr. Burgoyne). Those two boats, which were fitted with special engines, have taken a very long time. In regard to destroyers, we have made certain experiments as to one or two new types, and this very often involves a great deal of trouble and delay, but the advantage is that you are able to get a general design for destroyers on the very best lines. We are fully alive to the great importance of increasing the speed of destroyers. We aim in our destroyers at gun power, torpedo power, and seaworthy qualities. These are the essentials, and it is our intention to add by any reasonable means to the speed of the vessels without detracting from those three important primary qualities, to which the service has always attached such importance. I come now to the submarines. The progress on these vessels is very satisfactory. The great development of design in submarines in other nations has been carefully studied, and the time has come when it is considered desirable to embody certain new features in our own design, and these will be introduced into the vessels of this year's programme, all of which have been ordered. The Supplementary Estimates will greatly hasten the delivery of those vessels, and will also provide for an augmentation of the numbers.
  There is one other branch of Vote 8 this year. A new Department has been formed by the Admiralty to co-ordinate the various branches of the navigation of the air, and to develop the matérial and training to the best advantage. A captain has been appointed to take charge of the Air Depart-
  1236
  ment, and it is expected that good progress will be made on lines which will avoid wasteful enterprise. A good deal has been said on this subject on this occasion and on previous occasions, but I should like to tell the Committee that we are not neglecting the airships and aeroplanes, and that everything that can be done, without wasting money, is being done to secure us a higher development of knowledge with regard to airships than we have hitherto had in this country, and the beginning of an airship flotilla. So far as aeroplanes are concerned, progress is excellent. All the officers concerned are being encouraged to push forward with the utmost vigour. I have repeatedly asked them to make proposals for further expenditure, and the only reason why expenditure in the Supplementary Estimate stands at £60,000 is that that is absolutely the greatest amount of money we can spend within the year without being foolish or thriftless.
  But I confidently look forward to the Naval Aeroplane Service attaining adequate proportions during the course of the next year. I do not think we can afford to use naval officers exclusively for the purpose of conducting aerial navigation, and I hope it will be possible to offer a career—an adventurous career—as airmen to some of the younger petty officers and other smart and really competent youths who come so largely into the Navy every year. Such a career might well be one of the avenues in certain circumstances to commissioned rank in due course, where other qualifications are satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about floating docks. The two large floating docks are progressing as follows: one has already been delivered at Sheerness and is moored there. It has not yet been tested, but my advisers have shown me that there is no reason to anticipate failure. I quite agree that one of the advantages attached to floating docks is that they are not placed in close proximity to the quay of the dockyard. At the same time, there are enormous advantages. First of all, they are cheaper from the point of view of capital expenditure. Capital expenditure is a very important thing to the Admiralty. We are in the position of a firm with a very large income and no capital. These docks can also be moved to suit the needs, within limit, of the strategic situation and requirements; you can get them much quicker, and therefore they have responded to a need

  1237
  which would otherwise not have been met. Then, of course, they can be lengthened and adapted to ships of larger size without any of that expense which attends the enlargement of an ordinary graving dock. The first dock has already been delivered, and the other is due in September, and will probably be delivered in October, and go to Portsmouth, in the first instance. Everything is being prepared for its reception there at considerable cost, and it will be alongside the quay and in close proximity to the dockyard. We have every reason to believe that in all respects it will be effective. The small floating dock at Harwich has been delivered, and it is to dock two destroyers at a time. The small one for Dover has been delivered at Sheerness, and is getting ready for trial. There is another small one just ordered for Portsmouth which will also be able to take two destroyers at once.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What I wanted to know was whether there is any actual experience of their use, and whether they have been found to be satisfactory?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The actual experience is just about beginning, but no difficulty is anticipated. These floating docks are used in many parts of the world with the greatest success.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: We have had one at Bermuda for years.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Modern engineering is every day more competent to carry out the construction of these docks. Then there is another question, that of repairs. I have been greatly struck by the amount of straggling from the flag in the course of recent years. The proportion of vessels coming into the dockyard from quite small causes has reduced the ships available for the different admirals' commands. The matter is of the highest importance to reduce them to an absolute minimum. We had a Committee of Inquiry presided over by Sir John Jellicoe which made a very valuable report on the subject. We hope to adopt the various methods suggested to reduce the number of vessels going into dockyard hands from the seagoing squadron, and consequently to strengthen those squadrons.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it on the present proportion?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In different periods of the year. I am hopeful we may be able to provide for repairs at seasons
  1238
  when we are least likely to require the fleet at full strength, of the fleet has to be done at all times, but it is greatly to be hoped that we shall succeed in keeping a much larger proportion available during the summer months, which are the months when the German high fleet is at its fullest strength, than has been the case hitherto. One of the ways in which it will be possible to reduce the work to be done in the dockyards on these ships will be the new fleet repair ships which is provided for in the Supplementary Estimates. The work of those ships has been excellent, and far more than pays for their cost and upkeep in preventing small defects growing into large ones, and dealing with them promptly on the spot. We are considering a scheme of manning the fleet repair ship by dockyard employés instead of by active service ratings. That will further add to our resources from the point of view of the manning of the active service squadron. That, however, has to be tested.
  I have just given the House, as I thought it was proper to do, what is a general account of the position of new construction, and I should like to say a word on the larger issues which have been raised in this Debate. I see that Lord Selborne, speaking yesterday in another place, referred to me as having said that in the near future we should have only a margin of four ships in the North Sea. Nothing that I said ought to support so very inaccurate and inadequate and misleading a conclusion. Nothing that I said ought to support so very inadequate and misleading a conclusion in regard to the naval strength of this country. Let the Committee look at the facts. We shall have thirty-three battleships, that is what I said, in full commission, by the time that Germany has twenty-five. That is the fact. We shall have a Fifth Battle Squadron of eight more, fully manned with active service personnel against the four German parent ships which are in the reserve. We shall thus have a total of forty-one battleships manned with active service personnel against a total of twenty-nine. It is quite true to say that eight out of those forty-one will be at Gibraltar; but they will very frequently be in home waters—very frequently, and we shall arrange that they are in home waters at such times as it may be considered that their presence will be required, and they will certainly be in home waters at any time when the Fifth Battle Squadron is cruising away

  1239
  from its home port, and consequently is not instantly available. Therefore, I am stating the absolute British minimum of fully commissioned ships at thirty-three on the ground that we shall have always four out of the five squadrons immediately available. I am contrasting this absolute minimum of fully commissioned ships instantly available with the absolute maximum which might, under certain circumstances, be available on the German side. We consider that is quite sufficient, taking everything into consideration, taking into consideration what I said about the average moment and the selected moment, and also taking into consideration, as you must do, the quality of the ship and the squadrons on each side. But that is not the whole of our resources. In addition, there will be the Seventh Battle Squadron, which contains eight battleships, and which is to be manned with the immediate reserve. We hope that this Battle Squadron on this new basis will be available within a very short time after the immediate reserve, are called out. We can call them out without going through the process of a Royal Proclamation; and we can summon them at any time it is desirable to increase our margin of naval strength available.
  Lastly, we have the Eighth Battle Squadron, for which, of course, mobilisation is to take place, but which, as a squadron, is incomparably superior to the last Reserve Squadron of any other country in the world. Behind all this, we shall have at the end of 1914 twelve other battleships—that is to say, if we do not sell any of them—twelve of the oldest battleships in material reserve—that is to say, they are available to replace any ships which are either undergoing long repairs or should become out of action. I do not wish to dwell further in detail and at length, and especially as I do not desire to make comparisons between British squadrons and squadrons of any other Power. Such a proceeding only tends to lead other people to make renewed exertions. I remember particularly when, some time ago, it was stated that battleships of over twenty years of age could not be counted as effective; the only result was that it produced an immediate response in some of the other Powers with whom we are forced to reckon. Therefore I do not wish to do that, but I do ask the Members of the Committee to go to the publications which deal with the naval strength—to the official Papers which are laid on the subject, and
  1240
  to publications like that for which the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) is responsible. [LORD C. BEREESFORD made an observation which was inaudible.] The Noble Lord has his own statistics, but I am content in this matter with the statistics of the Navy League Annual, which are extremely accurate, which are very fairly compiled, and which do not attempt to make out a case either for a scare or for apathy. I say if hon. Members will go to those figures and statements and see what our squadrons actually will be they will see how very unfair it is to try to whittle the naval strength of this country down by a statement like that that we should have only a margin of four ships in the North Sea.
  Mr. JAMESMASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forty-one ships he has mentioned are to include the four armoured cruisers which will be sent to the Mediterranean?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I was only dealing with battleships. I have not touched battle cruisers or armoured cruisers or any other class at all. It is quite complicated enough to discuss the matter on the basis of battleships only. There is one point of view from which we ought to examine the composition of the squadrons, and that is from the point of view of the construction of "Dreadnoughts." That has been a subject often discussed in this House. Perhaps I may tell the Committee what our forecast is in regard to "Dreadnought" construction. We expect in the fourth quarter of 1913 to have-eighteen "Dreadnought" battleships by the time that Germany has thirteen. In the fourth quarter of 1914 we shall have twenty-four and Germany will have sixteen, according to our calculations. In the fourth quarter of 1915 we shall have twenty-seven and Germany seventeen. I am leaving the cruisers out. I am rot counting the two "Lord Nelsons," although those vessels are counted as "Dreadnoughts" by the French, and certainly are vessels of very great merit and power. The House will see, looking at these figures, which omit cruisers and just give battleships, that the statement that we have only a margin of four ships in the North Sea does require to be qualified by a good many other observations.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of battle cruisers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We shall have eight battle cruisers when Germany has four in the fourth quarter of 1913. In the fourth quarter of 1914 we shall have nine when Germany has five, and in the fourth quarter of 1915 we shall have ten when Germany has six, and those are the total figures. That leads me to another point. I hope I am not detaining the Committee too long, but I am very anxious to put the country and the Committee in possession of the facts. I have heard it said that the Mediterranean battleships were brought home because they were wanted here. That is not quite, I think, the right way to describe what has taken place. They were brought home, first of all, because they were no use where they were. I thought I made it abundantly clear that the continued utility of those vessels of that class would vanish entirely when the newer Austrian and Italian ships came into commission. They would be in peace a charge and in war a weak defence. They would have been perfectly ineffective for useful purposes out there, and would have deceived nobody. I should like to point out that you cannot deceive people in regard to naval, matters. Every general staff in Europe knows exactly the value which a ship possesses, not only actually but relatively—compared, that is to say, with other vessels which might be brought into contact with them. So having those vessels there would have been no use for the purpose of defending our interests, and it would not even have been a successful piece of bluff. They have been brought home, first of all, because they could do no more good where they were; and, secondly, not because they were so much wanted, but because their crews were wanted in order to man the much stronger ships of the "King Edward" class, and the new vessels of the "King Edward" class, which otherwise would have been relegated to the Reserve. So you have gained doubly, because not only has the number of fully-commissioned battleships in home waters been increased, but also the quality of the squadrons has been greatly improved. Now let me deal with the argument that the four battle cruisers cannot be spared. The hon. Member for North Kensington has touched on this. He seemed to attribute to me the position that every single ship must be concentrated in home waters, and that if four have to go to the Mediterranean we are therefore four to the bad on what the
  1242
  Admiralty considered earlier in the year was the irreducible minimum.
  Mr. BURGOYNE Mr. BURGOYNE dissented.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad the hon. Member does not attribute it to me. We never said anything of the sort, because the 60 per cent, margin of new construction was always intended to cover a certain amount of oversea obligations. As a matter of fact, when I came into office, two battle cruisers were going to the other end of the world—one to New Zealand and one to China. Both of those ships are now available for service much nearer home. No one has ever defined fully what are the oversea obligations which the Admiralty have to meet. It is quite clear that beyond a certain point there would have to be an increase in the strength of the Fleet—if, for instance, a large new development takes place. If a very great development takes place in the Mediterranean strength of other Powers, it will be necessary for us to add to our force in the Mediterranean, possibly to change its character, to recreate a "Dreadnought" battle squadron there. It may be necessary, but that position has not been reached yet, and it is no use our deciding on that until the time comes. [An HON MEMBER: "It will then be too late!] Not at all. Why should the hon. Member say that? It is no use our deciding on that until the time comes to lay down the ships, so that they will be ready when they are wanted. It will be quite easy to deal with the situation in various ways in plenty of time to make the necessary reinforcements. Quite apart from any further extension of our building programme, we should be in a position in 1915—if necessary—without new construction, somewhat to increase the force that we have in the Mediterranean. So far from feeling the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman opposite, we shall have by 1915 a few ships in hand which, if necessary, could be sent to the Mediterranean.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The men will be available at the date I mentioned—1915. In 1915 it will be possible, if necessary, to increase the number of battleships in full commission above thirty-three—possibly to raise it by three or four ships above that total. Until 1915 is reached the situation is perfectly satisfactory. I have always to consider this question as a dual form of attack. Anything which I have to say to reassure hon. Members opposite may be

  1243
  used immediately afterwards as an argument for saying that what we are asking now is not sufficient. I have to try to prove that what we have got is exactly enough—neither too much nor too little. But there are some statements made which really require to be contradicted. I have seen it stated—it was stated by an hon. Member the other day in the House—that I had described the dangers with which we are faced, and yet I was doing nothing to meet them. That was the statement of the Noble Lord. Let us look at that for one moment. We are doing nothing to meet these dangers. We see them clearly; we have described them plainly; and yet we are sitting still, taking no steps to meet them. We are spending £45,000,000 this year. Is that nothing? We are going to spend more next year. Is that nothing? We are raising the personnel of the Navy from 133,850, at which it stood on 31st March, 1912, to 141,150, which is the figure we hope it will reach on 31st March, 1913. Then we propose to raise it from 141,000, at which it will stand on 31st March, 1913, to 146,000 at the end of 1914—another rise of 5,000; and there will be further increases in the future into which it is not necessary for me to go. I do not think the Committee will say that that is nothing. Even the Noble Lord has not asked for more than an addition of 5,000 men a year.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is four years ago.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as the next few years are concerned we are entirely at one. There is no difference between us on that. We are creating an immediate Reserve, which has already reached 2,000, and next year we hope it will be up to 5,000, in order to man the extra squadrons. Then take new construction. This year Germany laid down two new ships. We have laid down four. Is that nothing? Next year we are told that Germany will lay down one extra ship. We shall lay down two. Is that nothing? This year Germany has laid down two small cruisers. We are laying down eight small cruisers, not quite so large as the German ships, but much faster, and we consider them perfectly well suited to the work they will have to do; and we are accelerating the construction of those eight. It is quite true that this year Germany accelerated the construction of twelve destroyers; we have accelerated the construction of twenty destroyers. In the course of the
  1244
  next eighteen months it is expected that the German fleet will be reinforced by twenty-one destroyers. We shall be reinforced by forty-three destroyers in the same period. The main principle of the German Navy Law is the creation of a third battle squadron, which will be gradually developed and become effective towards the end of 1914. We have already created our new Third Squadron—it is already in full and perfect existence—of eight "King Edward" battleships, and as far as pre "Dreadnoughts" are concerned it is unmatched in the whole world. That is nothing! We are told that this is merely foreseeing the dangers, describing them accurately, but failing to take any steps to meet them. Such statements defeat themselves. I do not think that very extreme statements are at all likely to serve the cause of methodical, steady, and tireless naval development, which is the cause I stand here to plead.
  I see that Lord Selborne yesterday, going twice as far as the hon. Member below the Gangway, demanded the new construction of eight "Dreadnoughts." I do not know that if eight "Dreadnoughts" were to be newly constructed at a cost of £20,000,000 it would be possible to man and officer them by the time they were ready, unless you were prepared to lay up, or put on a very low-grade reserve, ships which are quite good enough to do the work they will have to do in the next few years. With all my pride in the great Service which I have the honour to represent in this House, I should not feel the slightest pleasure in being charged with the duty of adding eight more "Dreadnoughts" to our naval construction at the present time. I could not come before the House of Commons and the country and say, as I can about every penny in the Estimates at present, that I believe them to be necessary for the security of the State. We have the situation well in hand. There is no need whatever for panic or alarm. It will be entirely our own fault if we are not able to produce at the different dates in the future the margins necessary for our security. We submit that if our recommendations are accepted by the Committee, if the ample provision for which we ask is granted, we shall have adequate margins of security for our purposes in 1914. In 1915 we shall be no worse off than we are in 1914. In 1916 there will be a slight upward tendency in the proportion of ships that we shall have. No new development which can

  1245
  affect 1914 can take place now. Any new development which affects 1915 or 1916 can be dealt with effectively when it makes itself known. I am very much obliged to the Committee for allowing me to make another long speech on naval matters. I hope I shall not have to trouble them again; but there were some misunderstandings which I wished to clear up, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I took this opportunity of doing so.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman is always interesting on whatever subject he speaks, but he is not always accurate. He made three very important statements in the speech he has just delivered. He said that he was certain that what the Government were doing was adequate for the future, that it was compatible with full security, and that the Government were not responsible for the competition. I hope to prove by facts that what the right hon. Gentleman said is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman rather took me to task for a statement I made the other day. What I said was that the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the right hon. Member for the City of. London (Mr. Balfour) made the most serious statements, and pointed out the grave peril of the future; and what I wished to say was that the Government were not doing nearly what was necessary to meet the dangers that they see in the future. May I adopt an, argument that is often used from the Front Bench opposite? We have only to wait and see what is going to occur next year. We will have another scare next year—that is certain. The Estimates next year will be enormous. I think they will be over £50,000,000, and they will be bigger the year after. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] We shall see. They will be very enormous if they have to meet the case that will be presented to this House by the Government. On this Vote 8 depends the whole security of the British Empire. There is no Vote that is more important than Vote 8. I maintain that what the Government put in the Supplementary Estimate and in the previous Estimates they produced in May is not nearly equal, as a matter of fact, to what they may have to meet in regard to Germany and the Triple Alliance. It is not wise of us to scoff at Italy and Austria. Italy and Austria have an offensive and defensive alliance with
  1246
  Germany, and Germany is the over-lord, who is perfectly in the position to demand that that alliance shall be kept. We have an entente with France and Russia; but that is not an offensive and defensive alliance. So far as it goes, for naval operations, the Russian navy will not be ready for perhaps fifteen years. The French navy will not be very effective in the near future. That is my opinion, and. I will give reasons for it.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty juggled with figures the other day in a most extraordinary manner. I could not make out what he meant, but that was possibly because of my ignorance of finance. He mentioned £1,600,000—most of it for construction—that we had not spent—and that was going to be spent in the future. That is what I understood him to say. Am I incorrect? There was also £990,000 upon the Supplementary Estimates, of which he has given us a description. I hope that is going to be spent; but what I maintain, and many who think with me, is that this money—the whole of it—ought to have been spent on the Navy this year, and not put into the future. The First Lord of the Admiralty said on 18th March that a large expansion was necessary. So far from being a large expansion it is a large contraction. As a matter of fact, we are spending £610,000 less than was the Vote for the Navy in the original Estimate.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: When I spoke of a large expansion I referred to increased organisation.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I understood the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about finance at the time. Very well; I beg his pardon if I made a mistake, but I so understood him. What I want to know is, What is the serious thing the First Lord speaks about, that the Prime Minister spoke of, and that the late Leader of the Opposition, the senior Member for the City of London, spoke of? Is it war? We are told it is not war. What is this serious thing? Is it pestilence? Is it famine? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it is war, and war of a most horrible description. What we ought to do is to do everything we can to stop that war. I maintain that the Estimates that are being put forward for construction are not sufficient to prevent war. On the face of it the right hon. Gentleman would not be talking about this serious thing if the construction Vote was strong enough. It is war—nothing but war! Our efforts should

  1247
  be to stop the war and to keep the peace, no matter what it costs us. I quite agree with a lot that has been said in this House as to the appalling nature of war. Such a war would put back the civilisation of the world for a couple of centuries. Therefore we ought to have no doubt as to what the Government are doing to meet the serious peril which they themselves have pointed out. On the face of it, they are not doing enough. But one of the most curious speeches which I ever heard was that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) below me. He said war was impossible, owing to the grouping of the Powers. Then he pointed out what value the grouping of the Powers is to us. It is very little, so far as naval defence goes, because the ships are not there, and you cannot get them there. I am sorry my right hon. Friend made that speech, because what will be read in this country are his words, "War impossible," without the context. That is a bad thing to be put forward by any hon. Member, much less by one with the commanding ability of my right hon. Friend. Then he went on further to look at the matter from a naval point of view. It seems to me, he said, 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 that had been said on the other side of the House below the Gangway, I would not have been astonished. But I am amazed that those remarks should have been made on the question of this grouping of the Powers, as the whole thing is a naval question. The other Powers cannot help us in any way comparable to what the Triple Alliance can do. I am only calling attention to this because it is a most serious statement to come from this side, and more particularly from a man of the commanding ability of my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has endeavoured to answer me. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has not cleared up this question of the thirty-three to twenty-nine. Let me read his own words. What he said was:—
  "Thus we shall have at the end of 1914 a minimum of thirty-throe 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July. 1912, col. 848.]
  If that means anything, it means what hon. Members on this side of the House have
  1248
  said, and also what Lord Selborne in the House of Lords said. I am only able to make a margin of four, but the right hon. Gentleman said himself that it did not sound a very satisfactory proportion. He is marvellously able—and I give him credit for that—he said that the proportion was four. There are his words. What he says now is different.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: What I said was:—
  "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."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I suppose I have the same method of reading Anglo-Saxon as the right hon. Gentleman. There is what he said. Is it different from what he said and from what Lord Selborne repeated? He said there was only a pro portion of four. He himself was finding that that proportion is not too satisfactory! I make out he is quite right in saying that, and I make out that the numbers he gave of "Dreadnoughts" and battleships are not correct. I cannot put them down, but I make out they are not correct. I shall be able to correct them in the morning. Then he produced the Navy League return of ships and said it was very valuable. I do ask the House to be very careful in believing anything the Navy League says. I am not going to do that without giving my reasons. Let me show the value of that return. The Navy League have taken the whole of the torpedo-boat destroyers of our Empire, China, the Mediterranean, and wherever we have got them, and have put them down in the list and have taken the German destroyers at home. Could anything be more monstrously ludicrous and unfair? You have to take the classes of ships in the narrow seas which can immediately, perhaps, without warning, go out to fight. That is the whole principle of these Navy League returns. We know perfectly well who made them out.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: How many boats are there?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: At home? Mr. CHURCHILL: No, abroad.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I cannot say right off, but I should say that there must be between twenty and thirty.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: How many?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Well, how many are there?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: About eleven.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: A great many more than that. But this is the point. They have taken the whole of the old boats that cannot go to sea at all in the North Sea, and that were built for the narrow sea, that is to say, when we might have had trouble with France. For this they were perfectly adequate. I have tried them over and over again. You cannot put these boats into the North Sea. You always had to send them into harbour. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the utility of the torpedo boat depends upon the health and vigour of the officers and crew, and there is no living man, even if he were a Hercules, that can keep over forty-eight hours in a torpedo boat and be fit to work and go into action in a seaway. These comparisons are generally nonsense. The Navy League figures are the most misleading of anything I have ever read. I cannot make out the 60 per cent, predominance of which the First Lord spoke. It does not exist under the now plan—which is an entirely novel plan—of sending these four cruisers to the Mediterranean. There has been a complete alteration—a complete right-about-face. It is totally different from what the First Lord told us on 18th March. It was brought about, we surmise, because instead of listening to the statisticians, that is to say, naval experts that learn things in different places ashore, he went to a fighting man, to as good a fighting soldier as we have in the country. After a conversation with that soldier, the First Lord of the Admiralty—with very great common sense—when he saw what was necessary turned round and altered his plans entirely. He stated that in deference to public opinion, and the Commander-in-Chief in Egypt, he had sent out a Fleet to the Mediterranean. He had taken the fleet away, and meant to take away! He had abandoned the Mediterranean. I do not think he will deny that, because if he had not why did he remove gun-mountings, the stores, and the ammunition from Malta.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not deny in the least that I proposed that the battleships should come home. They have come home—at least they came to Gibraltar.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is perfectly true. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. But that is not my point. He abandoned the Mediterranean. He
  1250
  was perfectly honest in the matter, and why? Because the ships were not very useful there.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: They came home because of the men. But the right hon. Gentleman had no right to abandon the Mediterranean without substituting something in the place of the fleet taken away. He has substituted a most excellent fleet. That I say. I mean so far as strength goes. He has restored our prestige. He has protected our road to India and he has protected the 60 per cent, of food that we get from the Black Sea. That I acknowledge. But I am going directly to say why I never have any faith in the right hon. Gentleman. So far as opinion goes, he is like a gyroscope. You never know to what part of the compass he will point. I am saying this because he changed his opinion upon that matter. I do not value any man's opinion who, upon a question of such vital importance to us in connection with our main artery, will at one moment abandon it and in the next moment send a far more powerful Fleet than ever before to it. That is not the way to win wars, and that is not sound strategy. The most extraordinary doctrine I ever heard is that which was told us by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Compton-Rickett) on the other side of the House. No naval officer, and no big Navy man, has ever made such a proposition for the running up of our naval expenditure as he made. What did he propose? He proposed to seal up the Mediterranean. Does he recognise that that would put us at war at once with all the Powers of Europe?
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: If the Noble Lord will allow me to say so, I would point out that France is our ally and Italy and Austria would be at war with us in any case, so that does not leave many Powers to go to war with over the Mediterranean.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, allies or no allies, or even bosom friends, would allow us to block up their commercial interests?
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: It was our commercial interest I said should be sealed up in the Mediterranean, and not the commerce of other countries.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Gentleman is not a seaman. Surely such

  1251
  things as gales of wind and fogs occur. How are you at any time to find out what country the commerce comes from?
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: Seal the Straits of Gibraltar at night; close them to all Powers.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I know the Straits of Gibraltar well, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible, even with four or five squadrons and three or four reliefs, to do that. Your 325 millions of exports and imports alone between this country and the Mediterranean could never go round the Cape. Are you to send all you obtain from Europe alone by the Suez Canal round the Cape? The mercantile marine have now got cheap engines and they do not carry so much coal, and they reduce their bunker space. They carry only a few tons between places where they go to pick up their coal. The bulk of the ships of the mercantile marine could not go round by the Cape at all; and if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about ships, he knows I am right. But this is an enormous question, and to think of changing our trade route through the Mediterranean and going back by the Cape is absolutely absurd.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I am sure the Noble Lord does not want to misunderstand what I stated. I said a naval war in the North Sea would not last more than three or four weeks. That is my theory. I said the greater part of our imports from Europe consist of grain, and that we could do without that grain by increasing our imports temporarily from the United States and the Argentine, and I added that bunker space could easily be added.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not think there is any use in pursuing that subject. I am afraid we cannot agree; but I think as to sealing the Mediterranean it will be very fatal for us to run that risk.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Does the Noble Lord remember that in the "Pall Mall Gazette" the other day a notable naval authority advocated that very policy?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: With very great respect, it is only a reporter who would say that sort of thing. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said on the 18th March:—
  "We have a sufficient margin to be able to meet at an average moment the naval force of an attacking Power at their selected moment."
  1252
  I do not want to go into details; but he has since shown that we cannot do that. He also said:—
  "The Admiralty are prepared to guarantee absolutely the main security of the country and of the Empire day by day for the next few years."
  That was on 18th March; but he withdrew the Mediterranean Fleet from our main artery, and, in face of the Triple Alliance, we cannot afford to conduct our business and strategy under the idea that Austria and Italy will not join Germany. It would be fatal strategy in a fighting man who studies war to allow you to do that. The greatest master of war, Napoleon, did what the First Lord did; that is, he brought his forces home against his strongest enemy. But he kept his lines of communication always guarded—and he did much more: he always had an army in the front of any country with which he was fighting. That is what we have not done; and that is why I entirely combat the view of the right hon. Gentleman in what he calls sufficient strength, and for not having done enough compatible with our security in the future. He has pointed out himself, in the most graphic terms, the dangers we are liable to in the near future. Now I say we cannot do anything to meet these dangers by 1914.
  I maintain there are many great dangers—I hope they will not occur—with regard to the Triple Alliance, and what may-occur between now and 1914; and we cannot do anything to meet them except on. the lines I suggested in a circular letter to the Press, to keep our ships manned, to-break up the schools and all the reserves, and to keep the Fleet, which Members of this House went down to see the other day, in commission. What the right hon. Gentleman will do is to send many of these ships back into the reserves, and to send the men back to their schools, and we will not have a fleet fully manned as we ought to have, both in respect to sudden and secret attack from other Powers. We have no right to run any risk. I still maintain I was correct when I stated that we were doing nothing to meet the danger which right hon. Gentlemen themselves have pointed out is very serious in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) said we were running our margin rather fine. We ought to be above all risks which may be run by any unseen contingency. I think the Committee will agree with me there. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well you must have spare parts of machinery, and that you must have

  1253
  spare ships and you must have spare men if you are to fight, and you must have a heavy reserve if you are to win. In the Mediterranean I had eight battleships when I was in command. I used to have two laid up sometimes and had to get them right. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right to talk of the repair ship. Get the fleet to sea! There are many things which go wrong with machinery in unforeseen contingencies at sea. There were two of my ships laid up; I had two steam trials and the uprights of the cylinders in two of the ships cracked. In one ship the crank head got damaged and in another ship the boiler was badly damaged and I unfortunately lost some men. There were never better men, never more care taken, and yet out of these eight ships, in times of peace, two were laid up for six weeks. That happens with every commander-in-chief, and you have no right to run your margin to this narrow line. What will happen if you go to war when you are not ready? If you are not ready you will be beaten. You will lose your Empire. I say that with the enormous fleet there is on the other side you ought to have a fleet largely better, and you ought to do more now, and the speeches of the First Lord will never turn me from that point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will shout and howl against large Estimates. I myself told you in 1909 what things were coming to in 1913. We told you that you should spend the money that was necessary because we foresaw this crisis and you would not have got this state of things in 1913 if you had made proper preparation in 1909. Take the question of men alone. You have got 2,000 men this year. No doubt you are miserably short and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. The men are the question; the right hon. Gentleman says we shall have the men at the time we complete these ships. I tell him plainly he will not have them. You cannot train first-class men to take charge of guns, and you cannot train artificers, though you can get trained marines to be fit and proper to go to sea with that knowledge and discipline which would be tremendous in days when you are fighting at sea. You cannot do it under five years, and it was owing to the reduction of men for the sake of economy in 1904, 1905 and 1906 that you arte suffering now. The right hon. Gentleman says he is joining 5,000
  1254
  men. I am glad to see that he has taken notice that the men were not fairly paid, and that he is going to do something in their favour, but that is not the real thing about the men. It is your nucleus crews and the question of leave. When I was in command I arranged the men's leave. I worked my officers and men forty times more than any other Admiral, but I managed their leave. As a matter of fact they did not get as much leave as the Admiralty gave. We left them home twice in each month for three nights which cost them 14s., instead of leaving them home one night twice a month which cost them 28s. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. George Lambert) is laughing at.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): I could not follow the Noble Lord's calculation; that is all.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Oh, that is very likely. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the most serious matter is the question of the nucleus crews, and that is driving the men into a state of irritation. I protested against it for three years. The extra work they have to do at sea is enormous, and when in harbour the ships are in groups. If you take the case of those men who coal their own ships, they will work like Hades to get the ship properly coaled. Under the present system they have to coal this ship and that ship, and they are short-handed to begin with. The men are shifted about from one job to another; they are sent out for so long in a torpedo-destroyer, so long in a catcher, and so long in a battleship, and they are overworked. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the question of the nucleus crews and the leaves, because that is what is making the men dissatisfied.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: You are quite wrong.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Who is more likely to know all about the men than I am? The nucleus crew system is an excellent system if it is worked right, but the way it is being worked now is stopping the right hon. Gentleman from getting the men. The right hon. Gentleman was incorrect when he told me some time ago that we were only 240 men short, because we were 2,000 men short, and we had to own it. Why did the men not join, and why are the men leaving? You will not get the men to stay if you do not treat them fairly. The nucleus crew system is an

  1255
  unfair one the way it is now being worked. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am right, and I have got confidence that he will put the matter right. The right hon. Gentleman's real difficulty is that he has not got the men to man the ships as he builds them. He is short of ships through his Government. He was short of everything, and now, to his credit, ha is trying to fill up the gaps, but he is not doing anything to meet the great danger ahead. I am bitterly disappointed, and I expected him to do very much better. He has been all words and no deeds, or at any rate very few deeds. I admit that he has done something for the men. Why I do not trust the right hon. Gentleman is because he has not done what he said he was going to do, otherwise I should not go into his previous character. I do not want recriminations, but if we get what we call a plausible man or a sea lawyer in the Service, we have a habit of looking at his parchment certificate to see what he has done before. I have been looking at the right hon. Gentleman's parchment certificate to see what he has done before. A few of us tried to rouse the country in the year 1909 about this shortage in the Navy, and this is what the First Lord of the Admiralty said at Manchester in 1909:—
  "I hope you will not expect me to advocate a braggart and sensational policy of expenditure upon armaments. I have always been against that, as my father was before me."
  [Cheers.] Hon. Members had better reserve their cheers until the next Navy Estimates. In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say:—
  "The Navy scare is a false, sham, lying, panic started in the interests of the Conservatives."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members still believe that statement, but we will be more courteous to the right hon. Gentleman and we will not call it a false, sham, lying panic in the interests of the Radical party. I will proceed with the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech:—
  "We are not to be driven by windy agitations of ignorant, interested and excited hotheads into wasting the public money upon armaments on a scale clearly not designed merely for purposes of material defence, but being part of a showy, sensational, aggressive and jingo policy which is supposed to gain popularity from certain unthinking sections of the community. We take our stand against that."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is my view now.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait until the next
  1256
  Estimates are introduced. I do not believe in those people who turn sixteen points. At one time the right hon. Gentleman opposite was an ornament to our benches, but he went over to the other side—of course, in the public interest. At first he was a very Little Navy man; in fact, he was the high priest of Little Navy men, and he then became a very Large Navy man, although the circumstances were exactly the same, and there was no difference at all.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought the point of the Noble Lord's contention was that the provision we were making was wholly inadequate.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is perfectly true, but the right hon. Gentleman confines himself to words and not to deeds. The right hon. Gentleman is an enormous Navy man in his words; in fact, he is bigger than I am, but he does nothing. With regard to strategy, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a change of policy by abandoning the Mediterranean, and you have put nothing back there suitable for the requirements. I do not doubt the ability and courage of the right hon. Gentleman. He has got plenty of ability and courage, but a statesman wants more than that. Without being the least bit offensive, perhaps I may point out that you often find plenty of ability and courage in the gaols of our country. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that courage and ability are often misplaced, and it is only because they are misplaced that those people are in gaol. I think the right hon. Gentleman's courage and ability is there, but it is misplaced. I will not say that I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman because that is not Parliamentary, but I have no faith in him and the statements he makes here that he is going to do a lot for the Navy. I think he will do a lot for the men and the officers, but he is not doing enough for the protection of our Empire, and if what he says is true, and I know it is, that there is a very serious time coming for this Empire and this country, let me warn him that if he goes on with his policy of nothing but words and no deeds, we are as certain to meet with disaster as I am standing up in my place in the House of Commons to-day.
  Mr. BARNES: We have had in this Debate a series of speeches of an alarmist, not to say of a Jingoist character, and the most lurid and alarmist of those speeches,

  1257
  I am sorry to say, came from an hon. Member on this side of the House—I refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Osgoldcross (Sir J. Comp-ton-Rickett). The burden of most of the speeches has been that we want more ships, more men, and more guns, and, further, that Germany is arming against us, and if we do not get all these things to arm against Germany then Germany will fight and conquer us, and we shall see the end of all things. I think that is a fair paraphrase of the speech of the Noble Lord who has just sat down, as well as of the other speakers who preceded him. Although on this question I speak only as a layman, I think I am entitled to give an expression of opinion, and I give it for what it is worth. In regard to this alarm I do not believe a bit of it; and, in so far as there is danger at the present time, it arises very largely from the provocative speeches made in this House and elsewhere by men of authority, and this alarm is what those speeches have led to. Still, thorp are one or two points upon which I absolutely agree with the Noble Lord who has just sat down.
  There is the question of the men. If we are to have ships, and if we are going to go on building these immense ships, we ought to have the men to man those ships. I believe that when the time comes it will probably be found that the efficiency and the fighting force of those ships will depend very largely upon the scientific precision with which the men have been drilled, and also, to a large extent, on harmonious working together of all grades, from the top to the bottom. It is necessary to have the men trained, and to have them trained all together, so that when we desire to use them they can be used efficiently. There I shall have to part company with the Noble Lord, because I understand that he wants more ships, and he says, as was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), that the ships we have for immediate use are not adequate. Mention has been made of the relative proportion of first-class ships during the next two years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford said we were only going to have a margin of four ships, but that is altogether wrong. As a simple matter of fact Germany will have twenty-five ships and we shall have thirty-three, or a margin of eight in the first rank. Germany, in addition to that, will have a margin of four reserve ships
  1258
  and we shall have a margin of eight. Therefore in first-class ships we shall have forty-one as against Germany a possible twenty nine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Osgoldcross (Sir J. Compton-Rickett) said it is quite true you may have this margin of ships as against Germany, but part of your margin will be the eight ships in Gibraltar, and you may have to withdraw those ships. Germany may cause a diversion by compelling Austria and Italy against their will to act with her, and therefore we shall not be able to call our ships home. That was the suggestion. Have we not been told Austria and Italy will not have their ships in commission until the end of 1915?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Austria and Italy have now between them six ships launched and complete. They will be there ready early next year, and Austria is going to lay down four more "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. BARNES: Unfortunately we have been hearing about those four Austrian "Dreadnoughts" for years. The fact remains, although we heard of those four "Dreadnoughts" four years ago, in 1908, only one of them is in commission yet. We are now told some of them are to be in commission next year. At all events, we are now discussing the relative position in first-class ships only up to and including 1914, and it seems to be perfectly obvious that within that time Germany cannot use Austria and Italy as pawns, because those ships will not be in effective service and at the control of the Triple Alliance. We are told, just as we have been told often before, that Germany is going to do so and so, and we must be armed against her. I do not profess to be any authority as to how many ships are necessary in order to checkmate Germany in the immediate future, but as one outside, having no technical and detail knowledge of these things, I have got to go to the declarations made on these benches during the last few years to ascertain just what we are up against. We were told four years ago by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman that Germany was going to have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) improved upon that, and told us that for certain on 1st April this year Germany would have twenty-one ships, and might possibly have four more, making twenty-five. Those are the

  1259
  statements upon which this House was induced in 1909 to authorise a certain inflated programme of shipbuilding, and upon which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, like Silas Wegg, dropped into poetry. We had a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty only a little while ago that Germany actually will not have thirteen ships until the latter end of next year, and that she will only have seventeen at the end of 1914, which is now, if you please, a psychological moment. I can only say that, if these experts have been wrong before, it is quite as likely they are wrong now; and for my part I am not going to be alarmed by speeches made either on the Front Benches, or by the Noble Lord opposite. If we built against a nightmare before, and we did, then I think it is quite possible, and even probable, we are being asked to build against nightmares now.
  Something else has happened in the meantime. We have spent our money, and we have the ships in commission, and we have entered into alliances which have brought us weakness rather than strength. Last year we were brought into trouble in regard to a filibustian expedition by France into Morocco, and brought within an ace of war in regard to something which was not our concern at all. We have, moreover, been compelled to make alliances with the most backward nation in Europe, and to actually aid that nation in suppressing the Persian people struggling to be free. It, at all events, looked to me like an alliance when I heard the Foreign Secretary this year and last year repeatedly defend Russia. We are being brought into all sorts of entanglements which are contrary to the. best traditions of the Foreign policy of this country. My position is perfectly simple. I believe if Germany has exceeded her original programme of shipbuilding, then she has been provoked to do it by the action and speeches of responsible people in this country. Germany started a certain programme in 1900. She amended that programme to get more ships in 1906 and 1908, but it was explained to us, and I see no reason to doubt the explanation, those increases of the German programme were due to later methods of shipbuilding, and, as a consequence, to the shorter life of ships. It is only one of the amendments of the German shipbuilding programme that is now in question, and that is the last one which came into operation this year, after Germany had been humiliated
  1260
  by this country last year. That, therefore, may account for it. At all events, last September we had the events which I need not now further mention with regard to Morocco. We had, I am sorry to say, that speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the City of London, by which it was made perfectly plain even he has joined the jingoes of the Cabinet, and I think it very likely had a good deal to do with the last amendment of the German Naval Law. An hon. Member put it quite clearly the other night. He said last year Germany suffered a silent defeat and we won a victory for our allies. I can only say these victories are dearly bought if we get into these entanglements with foreign Powers, which involve an immense expenditure, and the end of which we cannot see.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham a little while ago attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) because he had said he was opposed to the expenditure now under discussion, because it was inflated expenditure. He was quite justified in that observation. It is true we are only being asked to spend a little more than last year; but we are being asked to spend 50 per cent, more than in the year which opened this century. The First Lord of the Admiralty was quite frank. He told us he had further proposals to make to us next February or March, and hon. Members can therefore quite see these Estimates are not the Estimates that must be submitted to the House if the policy at the back of them is to be backed up. He said these Estimates were only a small and preliminary instalment of what is to come as the result of the alteration of the German Naval Law. After that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, with strange inconsistency, said these Estimates were not intended as a menace to anybody, and we wished all people well. For my part, I am against the policy that lies behind these Estimates; the policy of the isolation of Germany, and of our entanglement with other countries. It is leading us more and more not only into expenditure, but into entanglements the end of which no man can see. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, as a sort of consolation for himself, and I suppose he suggested it as a consolation for other people, said he thought, after all, it might lead to peace and maintain peace, because of the frightful possibilities of war breaking out.

  1261
  Surely that involves an equilibrium. If one Power gets a great preponderance of power, then to the extent that they get that preponderance they can get these silent victories over other people; but there is always going to be the desire of other people to come up to the preponderating power, and there is therefore going to be a never-ending vista of increasing expenditure. There is at least a chance of the country keeping free from danger from the fact that the same financial interest that determines the expenditure may prevent its being used; but I am old-fashioned enough to believe there is at all events a danger in the presence of these things—a danger that these things being there they will be used.
  I do not say, and I have never said, that the country cannot afford to pay both for armaments and for social reform; but it seems to me the spirit which these armaments engenders is altogether opposed to social reform. It brings about a spirit of national braggadocio and hysteria altogether contrary to social reform. It is for that reason mainly I oppose them. As a matter of fact, the man who shouts for armaments and "Dreadnoughts" is, as a rule, the man who cares very little for the ravages of disease or for the substitution of order for the anarchy that now exists around us. I shall say no more about the programme of shipbuilding except to express my regret the Government have been induced by some unseen influence to enter upon a road altogether contrary to the best traditions of Liberalism. For my part, I have voted against these increased Estimates every time, and I shall continue to vote against them. It will probably be expected that I should say a few words in regard to the increased wage bill mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary the other day. I do not, I am glad to say, speak as a Member for a dockyard town, and I do not even speak on behalf of any particular class of workman in the dockyards—
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE made an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  Mr. BARNES: I have a perfect right to speak as a Labour Member, and, speaking as a Labour Member—
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The hon. Member has made a mistake—
  The CHAIRMAN: On Monday I had to request the hon. Member not to make speeches during other people's observa-
  1262
  tions, and I thought he had exhausted himself.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. BARNES: I do not speak with any special mandate on behalf of any class of men in the dockyard, neither do I speak for any dockyard, and I am very glad I do not. As a Labour Member I can only express a very modified and chastened satisfaction at the increased Wage indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He told us he was going to give a total of £41,000—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Spread over the men at present on the Votes for a year.
  Mr. BARNES: And I understood also it was to come into operation on the 1st August, so that, in a period of eight months, there is to be £41,000 divided between 50,000 and 60,000 men. I can only characterise that as a pauper's prize. It amounts, I calculate, to less than 6d. per week, or Id. per day per man. I doubt, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) is satisfied.
  Mr. WILKIE: I shall have plenty to say about it. later on.
  Mr. BARNES: I can only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the achievement of the 6d. But if I were a shipwright I should be inclined to say to the Government, "Keep your 6d. until you can give us something more substantial." Or I might have said, "Put 6d. on to the 1s. and bring the labourers more nearly up to a decent wage. "You are giving the labourers in the dockyard 22s. per week. It is a disgraceful wage for any Government to pay an adult man. It does not cover the decencies of life, let alone the comforts of civilisation. I myself shall never be satisfied until the Government pay a minimum of 24s. a week to every man, whether in Ireland or in Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman the other day took credit for the Government for giving at least as much money as was given in the area of the dockyard. But it is doing nothing of the sort. It is giving 22s., an increase of Is., upon the miserable and paltry wage paid up till now. In Chatham the corporation pay 25s. 6d., in Portsmouth 24s., Devonport 24s., and Plymouth 25s., the local co-operative societies 24s., while the building trade rate is 27s. 9d. This is for unskilled labour, while the Government, which professes to be in the first flight of employers, is only paying 22s., or from 2s. 6d. to 3s. less than the local district rates for similar labour.

  1263
  I mentioned the engineers just now. I am not speaking specially for them, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that the engineers' rate for contractors in dockyard towns is a minimum of 40s. per week, agreed upon by the federations of employers and employed. You pay them 34s. 6d. per week with privileges which they often lose, and when they are off the establishment you give them 36s. per week, or 4s. below the rate agreed upon between the associations of employer and workmen. Then take the case of the rivetters. Here I may quote the Board of Trade figures. At Gateshead the rate is 37s. 6d., at Middlesbrough 33s., Newcastle 37s. 6d., Southampton 38s., South Shields 37s. 6d., and London 38s. You pay 25s. a week. Or take the case of the iron caulkers. Their rates in the various towns I have mentioned vary from 33s. to 38s. You pay them 29s. as a maximum. I could go into other classes of labour, but I need not do so; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee will supplement what I have said in this regard. Although we are going to take the 1s. offered, and to hope for more, I must say I am more concerned With dealing first with the men at the bottom. I hope and trust the Financial Secretary will give a little more generous interpretation to the views he has expressed, and that he will give them the 2s. in the immediate future. I also hope that the men afloat will be treated more generously than the men ashore. The right hon. Gentleman must know about the increased cost of living. It is felt as much in dockyard towns as in other towns. The increase of wages by no means corresponds with the increased cost of living, neither does it correspond with the increased wage paid outside in ordinary commercial undertakings. This applies even more to the stokers. They now have, I believe, about 2s. a day to start with. That is a miserable, wretched, disgraceful wage for any Government to pay to full-grown men. The artificers get 5s. 3d. per day.
  The CHAIRMAN: I told the hon. Member that these matters did not come under this Vote.
  Mr. BARNES: I was only using them as an illustration. I am sorry I travelled beyond the bounds of order. Let me say a word, however, on the question of the Colonies. One of the most satisfactory features that has emerged from this Debate is the foreshadowing of the better
  1264
  relationships between the Mother-country and the Colonies. The Colonies have grown up under the protection more or less of the British Fleet. They have done things which we ourselves would not have done. They have disfranchised men of non-European origin. They have had men sent to them free, so to speak; men fully trained and educated at our expense. It is satisfactory to find, after all, that the obligations they have been under to us have been recognised, and that the recognition is coming in a material form in the shape of something in the way of Imperial defence. Of course, that will carry with it representation on some sort of Imperial authority. I do not know what that Imperial authority may be. I am disposed to leave that to the logic of events. But whatever it may be it must depend to some extent on the sort of aid that they give us, and it is in regard to that I want to say a word. I noticed a curious phrase in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday. He said that the Canadians desired to give us aid of a supplementary character, outside the provision made by the British Admiralty, so as to increase our margin of safety. I did not like that phrase. It seemed to me to take away from the grace of the gift. It makes the givers, after all, more or less outsiders, and for my part I should like to see them come in frankly as co-partners with us in the defence of that great heritage which is of as much importance to them as to us, and even more so. In that event they could have some sort of representation in common with us on the basis of the help given. I only mention that because it seemed to me that was the fly in the ointment so far as the help coming from our Colonies is concerned.
  I would again urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the question of wages his earnest attention in the immediate future, and to give a liberal interpretation to the professions he has so often and so sincerely made. I desire the betterment of the conditions of our workmen in the dockyards and in our fleet. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that these men are not benefiting as other men have benefited as a result perhaps of agitation. They have not benefited so far as the dockyard men are concerned as much as similar grades of men in dockyard towns outside the dockyards. I hope that in the immediate future the right hon. Gentleman will see that their wages are brought up to a standard which will enable them to live better lives. While, as Labour Members

  1265
  we are not disposed, as has been suggested, to give Australia to Germany or anybody else, we are disposed, whenever we deem it necessary, to oppose what we regard as inflated and unnecessary armaments. We believe that this year's armaments, although they are not a very great increase upon those of last year, do embody a policy which, if given full effect to, is going to land us in a very much larger increase of armaments next year and the year after. We are looking ahead. We do not want the resources of the country frittered away in this manner. We believe that the resources of civilisation would be better spent; not in arming against nightmares; not in arming against imaginary fleets; but by engaging in a great effort to give the people of this country a larger life, and to lead them into spheres where they may have more hopeful and more healthy conditions.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I have been very sorry to hear the speech just delivered. It seems quite impossible to convince a certain portion of our population of the enormous importance of the British Navy to this country. They do not seem to be able to realise the fact that without the Navy the British Empire cannot exist. What is the British Navy to us? I would invite the particular attention of the hon. Member to this, because I hope I may possibly persuade him that the proposed increase this year is not only necessary, but not half enough. The British Empire exists entirely by the Navy. The British Empire is the Empire of the sea, and nothing else. If our lines of communication were not maintained, does anyone suppose for an instant that Canada could stand by itself; that Australia could stand alone; or that India would remain in our possession?
  And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  NORFOLK FISHEERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.— [By Order.]
  Second Reading deferred till Friday next, 26th July.
SUPPLY.— [NINETEEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

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

  SUIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTTEENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.
  Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,493,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I was pointing out that without the Navy we could not possibly hope to keep our Possessions abroad, or feed our people in this country. Perhaps that would appeal to the hon. Member. If that is the case, is it possible that any hon. Member should get up and make the speech to which we have just listened? It is absolutely suicidal. Having said that, I turn to the question of the dockyards. I am half a dockyard Member myself. So far from joining with the hon. Member who last spoke in telling the Financial Secretary that he has not benefited the men in the dockyards, I wish to thank him most sincerely for what he has done. I should like to have a little more, but I am thankful for small mercies, and I hope that when the time comes he will see fit to give us a bit more on the top of what he has given us. One matter in connection with the dockyard he has not, attended to in the way I should like. I have asked him once or twice whether he could not see his way to increase the numbers of the established men in the dockyards up to what they used to be, namely, 25 per cent, of the total employed. I know he has not seen his way to do that at present. The numbers were allowed to go down considerably, but now I believe they have come up to about 17 per cent. I know that the hired men have had things done for them in the way of a pension—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A gratuity.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: A gratuity and other matters which have improved their position. Still I should like to see the

  1267
  establishment increased. After all, those on the establishment are the best men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to consider that point. I have never been able to understand why it is that we always insist upon giving a very large portion of our work to private firms. I know the old argument is that it is necessary to keep the private firms in full work, with up-to-date and proper machinery and plant, but so long as we have our private firms building, as they always are building, for foreign nations, they will keep their machinery and plant up-to-date. Why should we not fill up our dockyards and bring in as many hands as we can? We want them. I believe at the present moment the dockyards are fairly full, and possibly with regard to battleships we could not build any more, but it has been proved in this Debate that we are short of destroyers, and we could very well put in more hands to build them. By doing so we should not only advantage the men themselves, but the country, because when the time comes, and the time will come probably much quicker than we think, we shall want every hand we can get, not only for building, but for repairs, and you will be able to take all the ships which are being built for foreign nations by private firms and use them for yourselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also consider that point. To come to the larger subject. So much has been said about it to-night by my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) that possibly it may seem that a humble individual and a soldier like myself has no right to talk about the proper strength of the Navy.
  There was one point my Noble Friend missed. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that by dropping the Cawdor programme he had done us a good turn. He told us that instead of building four ships that would now have been out of date, he had built four extra ships in 1909 which were of the pattern we required. That is all very well, but he knows as well as I do that not only ought he to have built these four ships, but four more, and if he had built the four ships that were in the Cawdor programme, he would have had the men of whom we are now so sadly short. If he had built four extra ships, as he should have done in 1909, we should have four more crews, and should not be in the position in which we now find ourselves. Then he has the face to tell us
  1268
  that because he has added 5,000 men this year, and is going to add 5,000 next year and the year after, in three or four years' time he will be in a better position. But he is now 20,000 men short. Why did he bring the Fleet home from the Mediterranean? He did so confessedly because he had not got the men. Whatever the First Lord may say, anybody who has any knowledge of the Navy, and I think I have had more all my life than he has, can tell you that it is impossible to make an able seaman in these days of machinery in less than five years. It will probably take six. That is the reason why these ships have been brought home. I have had the advantage of going about the world a great deal all my life. I have visited almost all our own possessions; I have been in every sea. I cannot imagine how any man can think that by withdrawing the fleet from the Mediterranean he has not done a great deal to destroy our prestige. I have served a good deal in the East, and I say that we live there almost entirely by our prestige. We live by what we did before; we live by the strength of our Navy, and we live by the prestige of the force of our Army. Although the Prime Minister told us the other day that it is an absurd assumption to imagine that we should have to meet Austria and Italy, as well as Germany, it is going that way. They are Germany's allies. By the withdrawal of the Mediterranean fleet we have already done a great deal to wreck our reputation in Turkey, in Egypt, and, I believe, in India also.
  As to the suggestion which has been made from the benches opposite that we should drop the Mediterranean and clear out, as a soldier I san say that even supposing it were possible to do so, which it is not, by that you would give up Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt, and you would lose India. I was in Turkey a few years ago at the time the Young Turks were turning their heads very distinctly in favour of Germany and away from us. Why was it done? They were quite open. They had not the slightest hesitation in saying why. They said, "you have reduced already," as we had then, "your naval power in the Mediterranean; by so doing you are ignoring the fact that Austria and Italy are determined to become naval powers of importance. They are allied with Germany. Germany is very strong on the land, and we Turks consider that we had better to look out for ourselves." Surely that shows what sea power means

  1269
  independently of the fact that we cannot exist at all without it. Let me go a little farther off, to the Pacific, A short time ago we were the predominant Power at sea in the Pacific. What is the position now? We have a weak squadron compared with the very strong fleet of the Japanese. It is perfectly true that the Japanese are our allies, and they will be just as long as it suits them. The whole of our garrisons, and in every other part of the world, have been and are still based on our sea power. The garrison of Hong Kong would be ridiculous if we had not a fleet to look after it. Come a little further home. Come back towards India. You find precisely the same thing. You find that our garrisons are absurd. They could not be maintained for a single moment if it was not for sea power. Again in the Indian seas our sea, power has been reduced. Go to the Atlantic. Go to Halifax, go to Vancouver. What do you find? I know the value of the British flag, and I know the misfortune—aye, a worse than misfortune—when that flag has been either withdrawn altogether or sadly weakened in our other seas. In Vancouver you find our loyal brothers across the sea tell you that the withdrawal of our flag from those seas—we have two little footling gunboats—has had this effect, that the rising generation has no idea of what the strength of the British Navy is; they do not see it. They see the American navy, but they do not see ours. Is it likely that that is the best way to bring them up to honour and admire the British Navy?
  Go down to Jamaica. What has happened there? There have been disturbances and there have been eruptions of volcanoes. What has happened? Has it been the British flag that has arrived to help the people? Not at all; a foreign flag. After all, if we are to exist as an Empire there is only one possible means of doing it, and that is by maintaining our Navy at such a strength that it is not only difficult to defeat it, but that no country would venture to assail it. To talk, as the First Lord has talked to-day, of a margin of four ships in the North Sea, or even eight—is it right? What does it matter to Germany if we beat her at sea She remains, as we have been told before, the biggest military Power in Europe. Why is she building? What absurd nonsense it as to say that Germany is building this great fleet to protect her commerce. What commerce has she got to protect compared with ours? Have we not been twenty
  1270
  times as strong as Germany? we helped to build her commerce Have we ever attempted to assail it? Then, what about food? Will Germany depend for her food upon the other side of the water? No! but we do. If we have a reverse at sea, what does this House suppose will be the effect? It is common knowledge, if only people would appreciate it, that we should have a food panic and bread riots, and no Government could possibly continue the war. But without that, if we lost a food ship or two we should have an enormous rise in prices. We should have that the moment we went to war. Would Germany? Not like we should! What nonsense it is to compare us with Germany as a sea Power. We must be strong enough to beat Germany in these seas, and any possible combination in the Mediterranean, or in any other sea on the civilised globe. By giving up the Cawdor programme in the way this Government did, by their fooling, by their prevarication, and by their want of appreciation of the position, they have betrayed their trust, and the position in which we now find ourselves is solely and entirely owing to them.
  Mr. WILKIE: I will not enter into the question of the number of ships here or there more than to say that, in my opinion, notwithstanding the imaginative speeches which have been delivered in some quarters of the House, the Admiralty would be well-advised to hasten slowly. If you build too many ships today, they are made obsolete by new designs and new destructive power. Of course experts, like doctors, differ. And the Admiralty, like the House, can only rely on those responsible to them for advice. I am glad I heard the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and, as he pointed out, no party spirit has intruded itself to any great extent. I do not approach this in any party spirit, nor any political one, nor even from the dockyard point of view, but from the general industrial and economic spirit. A late hon. Member informed this House that the dockyard rates were governed by the rates outside, and, of course, the rates outside are more or less governed by the Admiralty and their employés inside, and, next to the Post Office, they are the largest Employers of labour in the country. He also said that the Admiralty desire to merit the title of good employers. Workers generally understand that good employers are

  1271
  those who pay the best wages and give the best conditions. I want to show that the Admiralty are not doing so, and that if they desire to merit the title of good employers, they must make a considerable advancement on the proposals which have been made. We want deeds and not words. It has been said that so far we have had words only. I am not going so far as that. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) criticised adversely the offer made in reply to the petition of the workmen. I am one of those who are always thankful for small mercies, and I wish to use the very small step we have got for the purpose of getting something further. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that out of 50,000 workers there are about 8,000 established. That is only something like 16 per cent. I hope that the statements as to establishment are not going to be much longer used as against the other 84 per cent, of the Admiralty employés. The argument as to "establishment" will not be so potent in the future as in the past because of the new position created by the National Insurance Act. I have never said a word against that measure, though I have been against some of the red-tape machinery adopted to put it in force. I have always been in favour of the principle of the Act, and now that it is in force workers will be more on a level footing. If, as the First Lord has told us, the strain of naval service is greater than before, and if better intelligence is now required, should that greater strain and better intelligence not be better remunerated both in pay and conditions? I am sure the necessity for improvement was shown by the Parliamentary Secretary himself in the domestic budget he detailed to the House on Monday. In that budget there was neither beer nor tobacco. Nor was there anything for entertainment, and we know that "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." We want him to be alert, and that ought to be secured by better remuneration.
  The increased cost of living is admitted. Since 1906, when the question of pay was dealt with, the workers have actually had a reduction through the increased cost of living. The increase given to the shipwrights of 6d. brings up the establishment men to 34s, 6d., and the hired men to 36s., but the difficulty in regard to this, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admits, is that the rate on the Tyne, Clyde, and
  1272
  Mersey, and at Barrow is 40s. 6d. That is for new work. The First Lord emphasised the question of repairs to-day, and if you bring in that question you have to add 3s., which makes 43s. 6d. a week. The point is this: What have the men said in regard to this nimble 6d.? They say that the mountain in labour has brought forth a mouse; they really expected something more in accordance with the present rates of pay and the present conditions of competition outside. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the Admiralty men only work forty-eight, hours in the dockyards. But so do the men only work forty-eight hours in some of the districts which build warships. Even on the Tyne the average hours are fifty-two and a half, for which they have an average pay of 42s. That is 6s. more than the Admiralty give. On the Mersey the average hours are fifty-one and a quarter, and the pay is £2 2s. 9d. a week. On the Clyde the average hours are fifty-four, and the pay is £2 1s. 7½d. At Barrow the average hours are fifty-one and a half, and the pay is £2 2s., as against the dockyard pay of 36s. for forty-eight hours. These figures show that there is not so much difference on the question of hours. Therefore the question of hours cannot be trotted out against an advance as applying to all the other workers. Some of them have higher rates in the Admiralty than outside, whereas in the case I am putting before the Committee it is quite the reverse.
  I am always reminded of the privileges the Admiralty men get. The workers appreciate these privileges. We are not going to belittle them, but I wish to inform the Committee that we get from outside firms as many privileges on certain lines as we get from the Admiralty. Therefore the one can be easily put against the other. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was only dealing with time rates. He knows that if he dealt with piece rates it could be shown that the Admiralty rates are a long way worse than those paid by. outside employers. I wish the representative of the Admiralty and the Committee to take special note of this point. The Admiralty pay the rates I have quoted on the Tyne, Clyde, Mersey, and at Barrow, through their contractors. In the name of common sense, why do they not pay these rates themselves and get credit for it? Then they might claim to be good and model employers carrying out the Fair-Wages.

  1273
  Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Admiralty pay as good rates as outside employers for work done in the localities where the dockyards are. The Committee know as well as I do that at Sheerness, Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke, there are no other yards where warships are built, though there may be a few building yachts in these places. Therefore, it is not fair to say they are paying as good wages as outside employers. That is an unfair way to put the Fair-Wages Clause, which says that it must be similar work, and there is no similar work to the work in His Majesty's dockyard in the places I have enumerated. I join my colleague the Member for Blackfriars in appreciating the advance which has been given to the unskilled labourer and what they call the skilled labourer. They have been given a shilling a week, but I wish that it had been double that amount. I do hope that some other means will be taken instead of the annual process of going through the whole of this question, because the matter is becoming serious. Unless this question of the limits of remuneration of the workers in the dockyards is dealt with discontent will get beyond control. Therefore I hope that it will not be allowed to go that length, but that some means will be found to deal adequately with the matter, and so increase the efficiency of the Admiralty workers at the dockyards and the tradesmen throughout the country.
  I will not repeat the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Blackfriars from the Board of Trade Returns, but the rates paid for drillers, riveters and caulkers are very much higher outside. What we contend is that when the Admiralty employs skilled labour at the skilled work, which the contractor is carrying out under the Fair-Wages Clause that they compel him to adopt, they ought to have skilled men for that skilled work. If the men are able to do the skilled work they ought to get the money, and if they are not able the Admiralty should take the old way of indenturing them to the trade and apprenticing them to the work, which would then be more efficiently done. I would like to emphasise the appeal which I have made. Instead of having these long petitions every year, running into sixty-one pages this year, giving the officials and the Members of the Admiralty a tremendous amount of work, they should have some conference with those who are connected with the workmen. In the skilled trades,
  1274
  before a lad can go into the principal trades in a dockyard, he must pass a very severe examination, and his education is of the highest, and even for the less skilled work they have to pass a very severe examination. That being so, another method ought to be considered, which I believe would tend to allay the friction that has arisen and give more satisfaction to the workers. I hope that they will carry out their promise to give us in the Autumn Session something tangible for the men of the lower deck and for the men who are not advanced in pay or position in His Majesty's ships. I have been told of one Member of the Government that he managed to get there through helping to obtain for the dockers what is known as the "docker's tanner." I am just wondering if this advance will become known as "Dr. Mac's tanner," and be the cause of his advancement in the Government as a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman to whom I refer. I have made no statement in any antagonistic mood, but I have made these remarks in the best interests of the Navy, of efficiency, of good workmanship, of the worker, of the Admiralty, and of the nation as a whole.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am a little disappointed at the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). My colleagues and I have worked very hard in endeavouring to settle this question of wages and have taken into consideration the increased cost of living; and then to be told that the concessions which we have made may fairly be described as the pauper's prize strikes me as a little ungracious. I cannot make the same comment, I am very glad to say, on the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie). He is thankful for small mercies. May I say in reference to the method by which we endeavour to arrive at what are proper concessions to make, that the Board of Admiralty go into every yard every year. They sit there and meet the workmen face to face. The workmen can come and be represented by two members of every class of workman, or if they like they can be represented by one of their own class and an outside trade union leader, and in many cases they take that latter course. I desire to say from my experience—and I have had as much experience at this as any other member of the Board for the time I have been there—that certainly

  1275
  the workmen themselves and the leaders of their union do state their case with great skill and great power. Since 1906, as the result of hearing these petitions, we added to the wage sheet on the present number, roughly £100,000 a year, and now we are proposing on the 1st August on top of that to add concessions which on the present numbers will be estimated to cost another £41,500 a year. I say that those concessions are well deserved and I am quite sure that the money will be well earned, but I do not think that any hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak of them as the pauper's prize; neither do I think he will represent the view of the sworkmen in the dockyards. Of that £41,500 a year, £25,000 as I said on Monday will be given, and rightly given, to men on the lowest rungs of the ladder, the labourer and the skilled labourer. I am very glad to have had the privilege of being a party to increasing the wages of these men. As I said, we propose to add on the 1st August a shilling to the flat rate for the unskilled labourer, a shilling to the minimum for the skilled labourer, and a shilling to the special maximum for the skilled labourer. Those three concessions together affecting as they do the men who are most poorly paid, mean an addition of £25,000 a year on the present number, and the other concessions into which I will not go now mean another £16,500, of which the shipwrights get a concession of 6d. per week.
  I gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) that he does not think that enough. Really I never thought he would think it enough; but I think it is equitable and fair. Both the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) referred to the skilled labourers, and to the fact that skilled labourers in the dockyards are engaged occasionally, frequently if you like, upon work which is paid for outside and in private yards at tradesmen's rates. It is due to the Committee to say a word or two about that. We have in the dockyard an organisation which comprises the labourer, the skilled labourer, and the mechanic. In the dockyard there is a variety of occupations, some of which have no precise counterpart in the industrial world outside. The dockyards—Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke—are in areas where if any man were discharged he would find it difficult to get
  1276
  corresponding work in the locality. If a shipwright were dismissed from Devonport he might have to go to the Clyde or elsewhere to find a situation. My hon. Friend referred to the riveters, caulkers, and drillers as getting tradesmen's wages. But what would happen if in the dockyards we classified these skilled labourers as tradesmen? Whenever a piece of riveting was finished, the workman might have to stand off. I stand here and say deliberately that we have found by employing the skilled labourer we can give him more continuous work. We first take the labourer, who in time acquires a certain aptitude in working machinery, and by and by, after a few years, he also acquires a certain measure of skill. We have found that by allotting riveting work, caulking work, drilling work, and other work of that kind to the skilled labourer—intervening between the labourer and the mechanic—we by that means are able to afford him more continuous employment than if we said the riveting, caulking, and drilling were to be done by tradesmen. If that were done, I am afraid that we should have to cut off skilled labourers, as is done in private yards.
  Mr. WILKIE: That is not what I suggested; I do not want them to be paid off; but what I do say is that if these men perform equally skilled work they ought to be paid at the rate which is given to the skilled workers outside.
  9.0 P. M.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not want to disparage the work of skilled riveters in other yards, nor do I want to discourage the skilled labourer in the dockyard. My hon. Friend may take it from me, however, that the work in the dockyard is not quite so responsible as that which the skilled tradesman, who is a riveter, does in the outside yard. It is good work which is done in the dockyard, and we are very glad to have this class of men to undertake this sort of work. Both my hon. Friend and I have the same object in view, to do the best we can for these men. I venture to say if you take, not the last two years, when shipbuilding has been very active, but the previous two years, or if you take a series of years, it will be found that the time which outside riveters have to stand off for lack of work makes the position of the dockyard skilled labourer, with the new special rate maximum 31s., and the old special rate maximum of 30s. in the past, favour-

  1277
  ably compare with the condition of the outside worker who is subject to the disadvantages of times of depression and of nonemployment. In regard to the question of shipwrights, I make no complaint about my hon. Friend's observations. He says: "On the Tyne, on the Clyde, on the Mersey, and at Barrow, the shipwright is getting 40s. 6d. for skilled work, while you are only giving the shipwright in the dockyard 36s. How can you justify a rate of 4s. 6d. a week less?" Let me remind the Committee that the principle of the Admiralty is that we shall pay rates and have conditions of employment in the dockyards which are not less favourable than the rates and conditions for corresponding work in the locality. I think that is the proposition. I do not think my hon. Friend would come to me and say that we ought to pay at Pembroke exactly the same wages as are paid on the Clyde. We undertake to pay a rate of wages which is not less favourable than the wages paid for corresponding work in the locality of the yard. Therefore we are not on common ground at all. The hon. Member says that the dockyard hired shipwrights will get 36s., and this "nimble 6d.," of which he spoke, whereas on the Clyde the wage is 40s. 6d. Even if you compare the 36s. in the dockyards with the 40s. 6d. in the private yards, if you take the pay hourly, and compare the forty-eight hours in the dockyards with the fifty-one hours, fifty-two hours, and fifty-three hours in private yards, the pay outside comes very much more near to the 36s.
  Mr. BARNES: In not a single one of those private yards where forty-eight hours are in operation do they pay less wages on that account.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Forty-eight hours is not very general, and I think that the hours are generally fifty-one and fifty-two hours. Even with forty-eight hours a week—obviously it is a matter of arithmetic—you get much nearer than would be imagined to the pay of 36s. Roughly, there are 50,000 men in our employment, and 8,000 of them have absolute fixity of tenure, subject to good conduct. They have superannuation allowance, and even the non-established men, though it is fair to say they have not at present fixity of tenure like the established men, are, in fact, in three cases out of four, fairly certain of continuous employment, which you have not outside except in time
  1278
  of great prosperity. Although the non-established men are not pensioned, if they are dismissed after seven years they get a gratuity of one week's pay for every year's service, and if they are dismissed after fifteen years, for any reason except misconduct, they get one week's pay for every year they have been employed. I consider it a little ungracious to say that these concessions, which represent £41,000, added to £100,000 per year, are a pauper's prize, and I am glad to have the opportunity of telling that to the hon. Member to his face.
  Mr. WILKIE: With reference to the forty-eight hours inside and outside the average weekly wage of private yards for forty-eight hours per week, and taking no other, is £2.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Then you have to add the value of the privileges which I do not want to put too high.
  Mr. WILKIE: And outside privileges.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Since we arranged this 6d. increase my hon. Friend brought a deputation to me, a very influential deputation whose views were very powerfully expressed. The views of that deputation, which came on Monday week, will undoubtedly be seriously considered, and I will also give to the petitions for the coming year every consideration as will my colleagues; but I cannot go beyond the concessions which have been made to the shipwrights of 6d. per week. If I did I should, first of all, be going beyond my province, and I should be raising hopes which might not be realised, which is the last thing I should wish to do.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty this afternoon, like that which he made on Monday, was most interesting and informing; but I think I may say that so far as we on this side are concerned, it left us a little cold in regard to the question of new construction. We have been given much useful information with regard to the German fleet, and the First Lord reminded us that there has been added a sixth division, and that the German naval policy was marching unswervingly towards its goal. I only hope we might be able to say that the British naval policy was marching unswervingly to its goal. We also know that the Mediterranean is not to be abandoned, and that the First Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are on the best of terms. So far, so good; but let us look at the

  1279
  position in the Mediterranean, or, rather, what it will be in the future. It will be, says the First Lord, stronger than it is to-day, by withdrawing the six older battleships from Malta, and replacing them with battle cruisers of the "Invincible" class, and substituting for the present cruisers more powerfully built vessels, while at Gibraltar there will be stationed six battleships which will increase in two years' time to eight. The weakness of the Gibraltar squadron is that it is to be ready to operate in the North Sea and the Mediterranean whenever occasion requires. The First Lord told us in March last that it was absolutely necessary that we should concentrate all our strength in the North Sea. Presumably, then, the eight vessels which are to replace the present vessels placed at Malta, will have to be drawn from the Fleet in the North Sea. Therefore, to this extent, the Fleet in the North Sea must be immediately weakened. Does the First Lord imagine that he is adding to the strength of the striking force by this process of disposition? His action reminds me of the Irishman who endeavoured to increase the size of his blanket by cutting a piece off the top and sewing it on to the bottom.
  We shall have in 1914, we are told, a minimum of thirty-three battleships, fully manned and in full commission—I think those are the words of the First Lord this afternoon—against the German figure of twenty-nine. That in itself, to use the First Lord's own words, is certainly not an excessive proportion. He goes on to add, and he emphasises this in reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, that the quality of the ships of the squadrons must be measured. He asked us not to press him too closely on the point. I do not propose to press him on the point, but I think he will agree, and the House will agree, that it is idle to suppose that a German sailor is not equal in every way to a British sailor, and if one ship is better armed and of a larger size than the other, the difference is not so very great. I should like to have a statement from the First Lord, though as he has left the House I suppose I cannot get it, whether in 1914, on the present basis of new construction, our fleet of first-class battleships will satisfy the new standard of British naval superiority laid down by himself, namely, 60 per cent, superiority of vessels of the
  1280
  "Dreadnought" type over the German Navy on the basis of the existing Navy Law? To return to the figures twenty-nine and thirty-three, it must not be forgotten that the Fourth Battle Squadron, as we were reminded by several speakers to-day, consisting of eight ships, will be stationed at Gibraltar, which is at least three and a half days' sailing from the North Sea, and six days' sailing if it were operating in the Mediterranean, so that our North Sea Fleet will be twenty-five and not thirty-three. That is to say, we shall Have available in home waters only twenty-five as against twenty-nine German ships of similar size. Further, I would remind the House that all the while the North Sea Fleet will be weakened by the presence of the eight cruisers placed at Malta, because those must necessarily be taken from the North Sea.
  I fully agree with the First Lord that it is wrong and wasteful to build a ship for the Navy before it is wanted, but I submit that the only way to meet the difficulty I have pointed out is to increase our margin. The First Lord will perhaps say, "That is exactly what I am going to do," because he stated that the construction for the next five years would have been three, four, three, four, three; but now, in view of the German expansion, he says that the programme will be five, four, four, four, four. That is true, but the Supplementary Estimate, if you will allow me to say so, takes no provision of any kind for this expansion, except in respect of men. If the recruiting of men, as the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth said, does not proceed faster than it has done in the past, it is by no means certain we shall be able to secure the men for which the money is being voted. That, however, is another matter, and does not come into this Vote, so that I cannot refer further to it. In reality, then, no addition whatever has been made to our First Fleet. With regard to the Mediterranean, the position there is only restored; at the expense of the position in the North Sea. With regard to the new ships that may be required to meet German expansion, all we have to depend on is the promise of the First Lord. Again, we have to face the fact that in home waters we shall only have twenty-five "Dreadnoughts" against Germany's twenty-nine. As I have already said, we should increase the margin, and the only way to do that, and to do it satisfactorily, is to lay down the extra ships required to meet the

  1281
  change in the German fleet and to lay them down at once; and to build besides that a new squadron of battleships and of cruisers for the Mediterranean without delay. If this were done, then I believe we should be safe for some years to come. Under present conditions we are not secure, and we cannot become secure. I think that all Members on this side will agree with what I have said. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We decline to regard Italy and Austria as possible foes." That is very nice. "The fact that these two nations will have eight, nine, or ten 'Dreadnoughts' in commission in January, 1915, need not be taken into account." That also is very nice. But either the Triple Alliance is in being, or it is not. Hitherto we have always considered that it was. If that is so, the combined fleet of the Triple Alliance in 1915 will, so far as "Dreadnoughts" go, exceed our 33 by 4, 5, or 6, as the case may be. It is all very well for the First Lord to say that the Gibraltar Battle Squadron in conjunction with the Navy of France would make a combined force superior to all possible combinations. No one will subscribe to that statement. Is it not a humiliation? Is it not a confession of our own weakness in the Mediterranean? After all, this would not be an entente, it would be an alliance. Are we prepared to hand over to a foreign Power our interests in the Mediterranean? Remember, the greater portion of our food comes through the Mediterranean. This sea is the key to Egypt, and Egypt is the key to India, to say nothing of Australia and New Zealand. I do, not think that the people of this country will be willing to hand over their interests to France.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present—
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Again, has the Government considered the position of Germany in this matter? How does an arrangement of the kind hinted at by the First Lord help on our friendly relations with Germany? We must have nothing to do with an entente or an alliance in the matter of naval supremacy. We must stand alone—yet not alone, because we should have the Dominions with us. We are one people, with one destiny, co-heirs of the same glorious inheritance, an Empire upon which the sun never sets. This inheritance and this Empire we intend to defend by land and sea, not by the
  1282
  help of foreign nations, but by the bone and sinew of the British race. The First Lord bids us look at the naval policy of Germany, which he says marches unswervingly to its goal. So, I say, should the British naval policy march unswervingly to its goal. What is that goal? It is to secure for all time the supremacy of the sea and the safety of our Empire.
  I propose to say a few words about the dockyards. I regret to see the cutting down of the establishment. The establishment, which formerly numbered 70,000, has been cut down in six years by 5,000 men, a reduction of 9½ per cent. The object of the establishment is to have ready in the Royal dockyards a sufficient number of men skilled in all the technicalities of naval shipbuilding, on whose services the Government can depend in any emergency. The question we have to ask ourselves is, have we got that number? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that we have? I say that we have not. I submit to the Committee that instead of cutting down the establishment the safer policy would be to extend it. You are building more ships and increasing the personnel of the Navy, and on the other hand you are cutting down the establishment and impairing the reserve. To my way of thinking this is a short-sighted policy. The greater the number of ships, the greater the personnel of the Navy, the greater the establishment in the dockyards should be. Apart from the general question of establishment, there are special cases in which the workmen are prejudiced by this cutting down. The right hon. Gentleman will know what I mean by this. Shipwrights' apprentices ought to be established two years after they have served their time. At least, that used to be the custom, but I am sorry to say it has fallen into disuse. They have often to wait six or seven years before they are established, which makes a great deal of difference in the matter of their pensions. After twelve years' service naval shipwrights can claim to be established. How can this be done under present conditions without inflicting a further hardship on these dockyard shipwrights who are waiting to be established? The difficulty of obtaining shipwrights is great. There have been advertisements in the Labour Exchanges only recently, asking for shipwrights in the yards.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The shortage is not confined to our yards.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No, but there is a shortage of shipwrights in the yards, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that a certain number are leaving at the present moment. I suggest that they are leaving because they are not well enough paid. In any case the difficulty remains. Shipwrights are leaving the yards, and the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to give them only an extra sixpence. I am not going to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity. I am sure be would give them a shilling if he could. But he has given them only sixpence, which is merely sufficient to pay their insurance. How other men in the yards will regard this payment I cannot say. I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman to have extended it to the joiners, who are very badly paid. They get 34s. 6d. a week; they want 36s. That is not a very great advance, seeing that outside wages range from 37s. at Barrow to 42s. in London and Liverpool. Thirty-four shillings and sixpence is the lowest wage paid to any workman in the Royal Dockyard; but, say the Admiralty, these men have continuous employment. How can the Admiralty say that, when the men are made to pay 2½d. a week towards the unemployment fund of the dockyard? I do not say that they do not have continuous employment, but it is not an argument which the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to use. It is said that they work only forty-eight hours. So do all the other trades in the dockyards, and yet in every case their pay is higher. It is true that after seven years they get a gratuity, based on a week's pay for every year's service. This would amount in seven years to £8 7s. 6d. If to that you add the wages for holidays you get £17 14s. 10d. as representing the bonus a man would get in seven years. But look at what he would get if he was working in private employment. If you place against this the 4s. extra which is the average of the outside men, he would get a bonus of £72 10s., as against £17 14s. 10d. I venture to say that that is hardly a fair way of dealing with the men who hold such an important and responsible position as the joiners. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes next year to consider the petitions, to consider that of the joiners. With regard to the chargemen, I asked the right hon. Gentleman to place these men in the same position. I do not gather what he has done in the matter, but it would appear that some have got Is. 6d. and some Is. All these chargemen have the same kind
  1284
  of work, and the reason for paying them 1s. and 1s. 6d. respectively is merely a question of economy on the part of the Admiralty. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say that a great number of them are paid on a higher scale. Take the shipwrights in the Devonport Dockyard. Only twenty-five of them have got the Is. 6d.; yet they all do the same work. Is that fair? Is that the proper way to treat the men in the dockyards? I say no! The Financial Secretary I understood had placed all the chargemen upon the same basis.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. There are some chargemen who get 9s. a week and some 6s. a week. We are going to increase the number who get 9s. a week. There will still remain some who get 6s. a week. In addition we are going to give the chargemen leave of nine days a year with pay.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: There is something, then, in what I said as to twenty-five out of the 100 getting the increase? You propose fifty? What about the skilled labourers, whom you have kindly given the 1s. to? I am sure they will be grateful to you for it. But you must remember that these men are performing work which in private dockyards is done by mechanics who receive a much higher rate of pay. I do not want to instance any cases. I have not the time now. but I could give the right hon. Gentleman several cases in this connection. The Financial Secretary the other night read to us a very interesting document. I have a similar document in my possession. This interesting document contained the weekly budget of a skilled labourer earning 22s. a week, and it left him, after he had paid for the necessaries of life, with Is. 3½d. for clothing, boots, medical attendance, and other incidentals. That was what was in it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You said it was very hard, and that you were very sorry for these men, did you not? And you said you were going to give them a shilling extra, and you did. But you also gave the unskilled labourer a shilling extra. You brought the unskilled labourer from 21s. to 22s., and you therefore placed the unskilled labourer in exactly the same position as the skilled labourer. You have placed the ordinary labourer in exactly the same position as the particular man whom you said you

  1285
  were so sorry for, and whose case you said you would consider. I leave it to the House to say whether you have done right. On the other hand, I venture to hope that when next year comes round you will give a little more consideration both to the skilled and unskilled labourers in the dockyard. In the few moments at my disposal I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering the question of pensions for the hired men. I have already spoken in this House on this point. The Financial Secretary said to me on one occasion when I was pressing the case of the hired men that some must be disappointed; that all could not be established, seeing the established numbers were limited. Can he tell me on what equitable grounds the Admiralty refuses to recognise the claim for a pension of one set of workmen in the yard while granting a pension to another set of workmen, both sets of workmen doing exactly the same work, and being equally qualified? The national and shipbuilding work of this country cannot be carried on in this way, or ought not to be. Yet that is the way the matter stands at present. Two men are equally eligible for a pension: one is taken; the other is left. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of discussing this question with a deputation of these men, and consider whether they can possibly, in conjunction with the Admiralty, formulate a scheme by which they can receive a pension?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If a deputation is arranged—accredited as the deputations are at the hearing of petitions—I will be prepared to hear what they have to say; but I can hold out no hope of a pension scheme except one self-maintained.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. That is hardly what I want for these men. But I think the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, myself, and other dockyard Members will probably bring a deputation before the right hon. Gentleman if he will only name the day to receive us. Perhaps it might be before the holidays or after the holidays, but perhaps in any case he will fix a day to hear these grievances from the dockyard.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  In my opinion a case has not been made out for a Supplementary Estimate; the *case has not by any means been proved.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): It is Vote 8, and not the Supplementary Estimate which is before us.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Of course, I referred to the Supplementary Estimate, which forms part of Vote 8. Vote 8 is before us. I should like to say that I listened with amazement to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty on Monday, and also to his speech this afternoon. He held the House entranced by the masterly way in which he moved in and out amongst battleships, cruisers, and torpedo-boat destroyers, showing undoubtedly that he had mastered, as he generally docs, the technique of his office. He knew his problem, and I think he demonstrated to this House that certainly he has become an expert. We all congratulate him on his knowledge of everything connected with his office, and particularly on everything connected with the technique of his office; but although we may congratulate him on all that I think we may feel very grave dissatisfaction, because what he has gained in reputation as an expert he has lost in reputation as a statesman. After all, we surely are governed by statesmen, not by experts! Even the Noble Lord opposite, in his very interesting speech, pointed out that he deplored our taking into this controversy the name of any single Power; he deplored our continual comparisons of the strength of the British Navy with that of Germany. I think that sentiment is one with which many of us on this side of the House will agree. After all, surely the needs of the British Empire are the protection of her trade routes, and it is quite unnecessary, as the First Lord intimated in his introduction, that we should drag in talk about what Germany is doing, and that we should resolve this House into a Committee Room of the Admiralty to discuss competitive formulæ and whether we have a certain number of ships more than Germany or any other Power.
  In round figures the total expenditure of this country on the Navy is now £44,000,000. I believe that is double that of Germany, and surely that colossal preponderance ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that there is no necessity of going into details so far as that or any other Power is concerned, as to the components of their Fleet. The right bon. Gentleman went on to give us figures with regard to the future. On

  1287
  these particular comparisons I think also if we look to the past we have no reason to assure ourselves that the forecasts of the future are likely to be any more accurate than the forecasts of the past. The Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth pointed out quite rightly, and was perfectly entitled to make a party point out of it. that the original scare of 1909 originated on this side of the House, and we ought to remember that the scare with regard to the future may have no better foundation. If my memory serves me right, the First Lord of that date pointed out that Germany this year would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts," and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the City of London, pointed out that we would have twenty-five, I think I am right in saying that Germany at this date has but twelve, or at most thirteen, and I am entitled to say in these circumstances that the present First Lord will be just as likely to be wrong in his forecasts of the future, and that when he spoke of facts he spoke of contingent facts or possible facts, and not existing facts. We have to contend with the position as it is to-day, and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs—
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: My argument was the precise contrary. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of forecast, I agree with him, but I took a different view with regard to building.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I was referring to the matter of building. My hon. Friend referred, I think, to the rapidity with which we could build in this country, and very properly pointed out that in the matter of building we should take advantage of securing the very latest scientific engines. We are asked to subscribe to increase future Estimates on the ground of security. But I submit there are other elements of security. To be obsessed with the idea that great ships and enormous fleets are the only security is, in my humble opinion, to ignore other attributes which go to make up the strength of a country, and a country which may possibly be—though we hope not—dragged into war. There is surely the question of financial reserve to be considered. On a previous occasion I took the opportunity to refer to that, and if I may again refer to the illustration I gave to the House, which was the war between Japan and Russia, I should like to
  1288
  do so for a moment. There was the case of Japan, triumphant in the high seas, when the Russian navy was at the bottom of the sea; and Japan had also obtained great successes on land as well as at sea, yet Japan was compelled to come to terms, with Russia for no other reason than that she was unable financially to continue that war. I did not suggest that the British Empire is in the same position as. Japan; but it is an illustration having regard to your strength and security of which we should take a broad survey. You should have regard in your expenditure on naval armaments, and also in regard to. social reform, some ideas of economy. Our national credit is not in a high position at the present, and if we were under the strain of the money market, which is very considerable to borrow £100,000,000 if faced with a European war, we would be in great difficulty to obtain the capital, and we would probably be faced with a very grave reduction in our national credit as a result. I submit any wise First Lord of the Admiralty, or any Government, while maintaining a strong Navy to which we all subscribe, should" have regard to other attributes that go to build up strength and security, and which go to obtain that success which we all wish this country to attain.
  Therefore, I submit in a time like the present of absolute peace, when our relations with this particular power were described by the Foreign Secretary as excellent, to come down to this House and' make speeches such as we have heard made here, supporting such important and' grave expenditure and unlimited expenditure is not to do the wise and commonsense thing in view of the situation as it exists to-day, but is to show that Liberalism is bankrupt of ideas. It is to. show that there is no alternative, no hope, no policy held out to us. When our statesmen tell us in their speeches that they have no alternative policy, when there is no reference made to better understandings, to the possibility of arbitration treaties, or any other possible method, to arrive at some understanding except by this folly—for it is folly on the part of Germany and other Powers as well as ourselves, wasting the great reserves of loanable capital of the world—is to offer us a policy of despair. Although I rejoice that the Dominions are prepared to come in and join forces with us, yet I regret the fact that Canada, for example, which has been able to continue during all these

  1289
  years on such friendly terms with her great neighbour the United States without expenditure on armaments should be drawn into this great orbit of wasteful and devastating expenditure. I rejoice, if this expenditure is to be continued, that our Colonies are willing and patriotic enough to join forces with the Mother-country, and to support her; but I deprecate, and deplore that it is a Liberal Government particularly that makes no effort either by policy or statesmanship to allay this devastating and sterilising and impoverishing expenditure to which we are asked to subscribe. I submit with many others on this side of the House, that we are now at present in a position of strength and security and that we have an adequate Navy for our immediate needs, and that while keeping up this strong Navy we should also maintain our financial reserves and do something to improve the condition of our people and to make them more contented and happy, and that we should do something to reduce the cost of living which this expenditure undoubtedly does a great deal to aggravate and increase. Any one who gives attention to that subject must know if you carry through economics you reduce the cost of living. By doing something to do away with the Sugar and the Tea Taxes, or something to improve the conditions of the working classes, you are also adding to the strength and the physique of your people, and thereby improving the conditions of your Navy and your Army. Therefore, anything that tends to improve the condition of the people must improve the strength of this nation, and it is wise for the Government to keep that in view. I hope that in the few minutes I have addressed the Committee I have made good the point that in view of the present position of things, and with the present facts before us, no case has been made out for this policy, which has been announced as the policy of the Government. I hope that on every occasion an ever increasing number of hon. Members on this side, as well as hon. Members on the other side, will oppose this policy. There was a time when Disraeli was willing to join forces with Gladstone on this side of the House in favour of economy. He had a great brain and realised that strength did not only depend upon armaments, and that wise statesmanship must have regard to the other attributes to which I have referred. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will join forces with us, because we recognise that it is hopeless for us to fight for economy when hon.
  1290
  Members opposite invariably support our Front Bench in this ever increasing expenditure. We look forward to the time when hon. Members will see with us, that while we are in favour of a strong and adequate defence, we recognise that there are other attributes, and that the true prosperity of this nation does not depend upon an ever increasing and devastating form of armaments.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. Member who has just sat down has repeated most of the shibboleths which we are accustomed to read in the daily papers. I do not agree with the hon. Member when he says that Liberalism is bankrupt of ideas. In face of the single-tax policy that statement misrepresents the ingenuity of the Liberal party. I am only surprised that he did not advance what is a more forward theory, that all those who cry for extra "Dreadnoughts" should find the money for them by a tax on land. This of course, is not original. There has been in history a most unfortunate precedent for that, for it was the only contribution that Ethelred the Unready made towards the Navy, in ordering all men with a certain amount of land to build a ship, and soon after that the Danes invaded this country. I regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the House, because I wanted to deal with the speech he made this afternoon. The great fault I have to find with the right hon. Gentleman is that he has said a great deal, but his deeds have not come up to his words. He made two excellent speeches, so good that they earned the high distinction of being bitterly attacked in the "Daily News." He has made two more good speeches in the course of the last two days, but a great many people think that under his regime the Navy is not perfectly safe and secure. When the right hon. Gentleman translates some of his words into deeds I shall be amongst the first to be laud the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. What are the, deeds up to date of the right hon. Gentleman? Under his regime we have made a determined effort to abandon the Mediterranean, and I do not think we can realise the effect that partial abandonment will have upon the Continent, and especially in the East, where such an enormous amount of prestige depends upon a show of force. My case against the right hon. Gentleman is that we were promised that if the German programme referred to was brought in Supplementary Estimates would imme-

  1291
  diately be produced to meet it. The Supplementary Estimates we discussed the day before yesterday had very little to do with that programme, and no ships are to be proceeded with to meet the increase foreshadowed in the German programme. I think a very great opportunity has been lost, because the House was absolutely ready to vote any sum that was asked for to meet the needs of the Navy.
  What is the result of this great Supplementary Estimate? The right hon. Gentleman has asked for under £1,000,000, and in the next sentence he tells us that he has returned £2,000,000 already voted for the needs of the Navy to other expenditure. The third point I have against the right hon. Gentleman is that I think all the evidence tends to show that he is still under the malignant influence of the Little Navy party, who are always blaming somebody for this large expenditure on the Fleet, and generally hon. Gentlemen on this side, and sometimes the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can the not really see who they have got to blame for this large expenditure? Can they not now see who are the real culprits who have brought about this large expenditure? I say it is the Little Navy party, and that party alone, which has been the cause of reducing the great superiority we had in the Navy, and who are directly responsible for the great increase in expenditure which we have to meet to-day, and which we shall have to meet by increasing sums in the future. I hope the Committee will not think that in saying this I am actuated by any party motives at all. I have been brought up in the Navy, and it is my school. I may tell hon. Gentlemen that it is the keenest service in the world and one of the best, and I put it infinitely above party politics. I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that I should attack a Little Navy party just as bitterly if they sat on this side of the House. I repeat that the Little Navy party are responsible for this large expenditure, and my statement can be proved by the most complete circumstantial evidence that has ever been brought before the country. The right hon. Gentleman explained clearly the German Naval Law. I do not believe the country really understands that law very well or the amendments which have taken place in that law. I do not think the country understands the psychological moments when those amendments were made.
  1292
  The German Naval Law, as everybody knows, started in 1900 to come to fruition in 1920. In 1905 the Conservative Government produced the Cawdor Memorandum. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. R. Harcourt) called this Memorandum a "legislative Mrs. Harris." It would never have become a "legislative Mrs. Harris" if the Conservative Government had remained in power. It only became a "legislative Mrs. Harris" when the Liberal party came in power. Take the first amendment of the German Naval Law. It was pretty evident in 1905 that the Liberal party would come' back to power.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Why did you issue the Cawdor Memorandum?
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: It was issued by the Board of Admiralty which is above such things as mere party politics. Does the hon. Gentleman insinuate it was not genuine?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I say it was issued two months before the General Election, and such a thing had never been done before. The Cawdor Memorandum was issued in November, and the General Election took place in December.
  Mr. LONG: Do you insinuate it was a party move s If so, say so.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. If he has not got the courage to get up and say what he means, he had better not interrupt.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am stating the facts.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: It was pretty evident the Liberal party were coming back to power. It was evident the country thought so. What was one of the chief cries of the Liberal party? "Reduction in naval expenditure." What was the direct answer of Germany? They added six extra "Dreadnoughts" to the Fleet Law to come into operation with the advent of the Liberal party, and to remain in operation about, what they thought, was the ordinary normal life of the Liberal Government. If the Cawdor Memorandum had been adhered to, all might have been well, but in 1906 the Government built three, in 1907 three, and in 1908, the culminating point of their policy, they only laid down two. That had the direct result of another amendment of the German Naval

  1293
  Law, but it was a little more subtle this time. They did it by reducing the age of battleships from twenty-five to twenty years. People did not understand that, but it had the direct effect of adding four more "Dreadnoughts" to the number contemplated in 1900. In 1909 the Government began to see where they were drifting. They laid down eight "Dreadnoughts" in that year, but even the laying down of those eight has been criticised by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in today's Debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) quoted, I believe, the old rhyme:—
  "We want eight, and we won't wait."
  10.0 P.M.
  Does he think we could get on without those eight? They came to their senses more or less in 1909, but last year they had a relapse. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna) had more or less to apologise to the Little Navy party. He talked about a safe reduction this year. I think it was folly to talk about that. He talked about the high-water mark of naval expenditure. The whole lesson of the two previous amendments of the German Naval Law was thrown away, with the direct result that a third amendment has been introduced, not only for three extra "Dreadnoughts," but, as the First Lord of the Admiralty explained, for an enormous increase to the striking force of the German fleet. Three times has that naval law been augmented, and every time it has coincided with the three points of greatest weakness shown by the party opposite.
  Mr. D. MASON: May I ask where is this Little Navy party? I do not know of any such party.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have known from the tenour of his speech just now. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know where forty-two of them are, I recommend him to look in the Division List of the day before yesterday. If he objects to the title "Little Navy Party," I cannot imagine why he has moved a reduction. I am going to tell them what they have done. In my opinion, the direct result has been to add thirteen "Dreadnoughts" to Germany's fleet. It will cost us at least the building of twenty "Dreadnoughts" in answer to that, and it will mean a capital cost of about £40,000,000, besides a huge annual expenditure and commit-
  1294
  ments for the future. If the Cawdor programme had been carried out, I think this would have been the result. It is only a matter of arithmetic to see that if it had been carried out we should to-day have built less ships in the aggregate than we have done. I believe those three amendments would never have been made, and now, secure in an assured superiority, we should have been safe in starting to reduce our naval programme. We should have been so secure and so superior in naval strength that nobody would have thought or dreamt of approaching us. Is it not time—I do not ask this in an offensive way, but for the good of the Navy and of the country—that the advice and the policy of the Little Navy party should be altogether ignored? Let me give an example of the sort of figures they get given to them, and upon which I dare say they build their ideas. A gentleman, with the initials, "H. S.," well known, wrote in the "Daily News" a letter attempting to show there, is no need for further expenditure, and basing his whole case on the fact that we have increased our expenditure in the last eleven years far more than any other Power. No doubt the hon. Gentleman (Mr. David Mason) read that. Let me just tell him what those figures were and what they ought to be. I have the return here in case it is challenged. The "Daily News" figures for 1901 were £13,500,000, and for 1911, £44,000,000. The £44,000,000 is correct, but the £13,500,000 ought to have been £31,000,000, a little mistake of an underestimate of £17,500,000. Now take the German expenditure. That was given at £12,500,000 for 1901, and £22,000,000 for 1911. The latter figures are correct, but as regards 1901, instead of £12,500,000, it should be £9,500,000. In this case the amount was over-estimated, and whereas the apparent increase for England was given at £30,500,000, instead of £13,000,000, the German increase was given at £9,500,000, instead of £12,500,000, which closely approximates our increase of £13,000,000. I submit that these are contemptible methods to employ, and more or less explain the attitude of some hon. Members opposite if they are led by these exaggerated figures instead of facing the honest, straightforward facts. I want to come to our position in the North Sea in 1914. The First Lord of the Admiralty last March gave out as his policy that 60 per cent, over Germany was to be aimed at. I want to know where that 60 per cent, is now?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The 60 per cent, standard refers to the new construction of battleships.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I am glad to be corrected. In March the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the value of the pre-"Dreadnoughts," and I should be the last to say that they are not valuable. It is a terrible thing to see vessels of this kind going out of commission. I saw the "Majestic" at about the time of her launch, and I considered her one of the finest ships in the world. That was only in 1896. But every addition we make to our battleships, every fresh one that is launched, tends to make these pre-"Dreadnoughts" obsolete. They are going off our effective list much faster than off the effective list of every other nation, although they are immensely superior to any of the pre-"Dreadnoughts" any other nation can produce. Consequently, our preponderance is rapidly diminishing, and it must at no very distant date come almost to vanishing point. The time is arriving when comparisons of naval strength will have to be made in terms of "Dreadnoughts" only. Before saying a word about our position in the North Sea in 1914, which I think is one of the weakest points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to refer to the Mediterranean. We are all on common ground when we say we must rely upon ourselves there. Everybody is agreed upon that. I am very glad indeed that the Mediterranean is not going to be abandoned, not only because of the enormous food supply which we obtain through it, but because of that prestige which is really so important in the East. Our fleet in the Mediterranean will be the four invincibles stationed at Malta. It is a very strong fleet, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what basis he has selected four. We have dropped standard; we no longer have the two-Power standard. What, then, governs the selection of four? By 1915 we may have a one-Power standard only. Is that the respectable standard which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us we should have? I do not think—and I say this with all deference—that the Fleet at Gibraltar will be of very much good, and I say this for three reasons. First there will be a tendency to count on it both at home and in the Mediterranean, and very likely it will not be available for either.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I quite clearly stated that its movements would be regulated by the main situation. There is no ambiguity
  1296
  in that, and in certain events it would no doubt come home, and not go into the Mediterranean.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Of course, it is not wise to move big ships during times of diplomatic strain, and therefore the proper strategic point for the Fleet should be Malta. On the other hand, I think it would be forced to come home, probably through some panic, like that which occurred during the Spanish-American war, when America ordered all her ships home, this step being very largely due to a newspaper panic, which urged that the great thing was the protection of their shores. My last point is the position of our Fleet in the North Sea in 1914. To-day the First Lord rather took to task those who read from his speech of Monday that we should only have a superiority of four over Germany. Personally I am of opinion that that is the correct reading, after a careful examination of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The question, for all practical purposes, is not what we have got on paper, but how many have we instantly ready for action and to go out to sea. The right hon. Gentleman will probably admit that that is the primary consideration. The naval manoeuvres were all over in six days, and a naval action might be very swift indeed. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if these figures are right. We shall have twenty-five ships absolutely ready in 1914?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Thirty-three fully-commissioned ships, including those at Gibraltar.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: And eight "Formidables," with full nucleus crews which can be ready at less than twenty-four hours' notice. The right hon. Gentleman said if they were away from home they could not be ready in less than twenty-four hours and then the Gibraltar Fleet would be brought home, so that there would always be thirty-three.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: And very often forty-one.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Can you depend at any time on forty-one? The eight at Gibraltar are at least three days away, and anything might happen in three days. In addition to that they will have to coal when they get home.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to point out, if I may, that the margin I propose is a much larger margin than has ever existed hitherto. When I came to

  1297
  my present office, and for many years before that, we had maintained sixteen battleships only, and prior to that there were even less, so that under my proposal there is a really large increase in strength.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I quite appreciate that in those days the situation was much worse, and when the right hon. Gentleman said we had not that Fleet it should be borne in mind we had nothing like the Fleet to face which we now have. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman accuses us of reading thirty-three as the minimum, I think I should be entitled to call it the maximum for all practical purposes. Out of that thirty-three has the right hon. Gentleman deducted those which will always be under repair or in dock? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman allows for that, but if it is 10 per cent., although that is not very much, it would reduce the thirty-three to thirty, and that brings us almost on an equality with the twenty-nine German high sea Fleet. I should like to ask why the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about battle cruisers, although he mentioned battleships? I think our position in 1914 will be ten to Germany's six, but the four that have to be taken from the North Sea for the Mediterranean will reduce us to an equality in battle cruisers. The Committee must remember that battle cruisers, to all intents and purposes, are exactly the same as "Dreadnoughts." It is rather confusing using these terms, and the right hon. Gentleman has not helped us by using the terms "Dreadnoughts" and pre-"Dreadnoughts." Could we not lump battleships and battle cruisers together, and go back to the old title of ships of the line?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If you did that, you would have to count vessels like the "Shannon" and those of the "Natal" class, which are certainly the equal of the older battleships of several Continental Powers. Taking the whole combination, considering speed, gun power and armour, there is a number of these vessels, eight or nine of them, which certainly are capable of playing a decisive part.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I think the demarcation between the pre-"Dreadnought" and the "Dreadnought" has been used in all the tables up to date. With regard to the position in 1914, I say you have cut it fine, and it is for you to
  1298
  do everything in your power, and the only thing you can do is to try to accelerate the present year's programme all you can, because the opportunities for doing so will not last very much longer. I wanted to say something about cruisers and destroyers, but I will not do so now. I desire to express my gratification that the Government have given extra pay to the men. We all realise how hard it is for men in the Service who are kept at home to live, especially the married men. As to the statement with regard to Canada, everybody congratulates the right hon. Gentleman upon that. We cannot say what the Dominions are going to do, but we may be sure that what they are going to do will be as generous as the Dominions have always been to this country. We do not know what they are going to do, and we shall not know for some time. In the meantime we ought to pay our own way, and to lay down a new unit altogether. Then, if the Dominions relieve us to any extent, we can drop it. It means paying a little more now and a little less later on. I conclude with another appeal to the "Little Navy" party. If they cannot agree with us, let them keep to themselves for a little bit, and let the world see that we are all one in this House, as I believe we are, and that we are all one in the Empire, as I believe we are determined to keep an absolutely supreme Navy, not from pride or arrogance in any way, but simply to keep the peace in the world, which I believe is the fervent wish of everybody.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I do not complain in the least of the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he brings a practical experience to bear which I do not possess. But there is one thing I should like to correct, and that is the effect of the Cawdor programme on the German navy. We are doing our best in providing a Navy adequate for the security of our shores, and I do not think it is quite fair to be told that we are responsible for the large increase of a neighbouring Power. The first German Navy Law was passed in 1898 at the time hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves were in office. The second Navy Law was passed in 1900, again when the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. The Cawdor Memorandum was dated 30th November, 1905. That was about a week before the General Election. What does it say?
  "I have recently received the report of the Committee I appointed to consider the Estimates for

  1299
  1906–7. I am able to say that these various economies will allow the Board to diminish the sum for which Parliament will be asked by a further £1,500,000 beyond the £3,500,000 reduction made last spring."
  Then the hon. Gentleman said it is due to us that the German Navy Law was passed in 1906.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I did not say that.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman accused us directly—those whom he called the, Little Navy party—of being responsible for the amendment of the German Navy Law in 1906. I do not want to make this a question of bickering across the floor of the House, but I might as well retort that it was this Cawdor Memorandum which reduced the Navy Esimates by £3,500,000, and then another £1,500,000, and which was issued to the world on 30th November, 1905, and which was responsible for the German Navy Law of 1906. You cannot get away from that. The German Navy Law was passed in May, 1906. We never said a word about our programme until July, 1906, therefore how can you say that the German Navy Law of 1906 was due to any action taken by the present Government? The case is convincing against it. I should not have mentioned the matter if the hon. Gentleman had not directly accused the Admiralty and the Government of being responsible for this increase in the Estimates of a neighbouring Power.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I especially did not attack the Government, but the Little Navy party.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure the hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of the Navy, will say that we were absolutely right in dropping these ships in 1906.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The hon. Gentleman must not ask me a question of that sort; that I cannot possibly allow. I believe the hon. Gentleman and the Government were entirely wrong, and I shall always say so.
  Mr. LAMBERT: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman will allow that the four ships that we did lay down of the "Orion" class are greatly superior to the class of ships which would have been laid down in 1906, 1907, and 1908. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will say it is the worst possible form of economy to build ships before you want them. We did not want them then. They are in commission now, and they are
  1300
  much more powerful than the ships which would have been built then. I do not want to bring party into this matter, but hon. Gentlemen must not attack us. We have got an incomparably superior unit in the four "Orion's" to what we should have had had we not dropped the ships which were mentioned in the Cawdor programme.
  I want to say a few words with regard to the Amendment. I hope he does not think that it is a pleasure to us to propose these Navy Estimates. We would infinitely rather they were less. They are forced upon us, not through our own will or desire, but by the action of other Powers with which we have to compete. My hon. Friend in his speech said once or twice that we must do something. That is a very vague assertion. He does not say what we are to do. I would like to have that translated into something more definite.
  Mr. D. MASON Mr. D. MASON indicated dissent.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members on both sides to be good enough to think over the points they desire to place before the Committee, and subsequently they can state them when called upon to speak.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Hon. Members have brought forward no alternative schemes to the proposals of the Government to provide for the defences of the country. I do not think the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) was very gracious to us for the concessions we have made to the dockyard employés. We have made important concessions. Here, again, I do not want to bring up the figures, but I would say that we have made enormous changes in the conditions of the men employed by the Government. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman opposite that the number of men employed in the dockyards on 30th December, 1905, when the Conservative Government went out of office, was 27,061. On the 13th July this year there were no less than 36,718. That does not show that we have been neglecting the dockyards or the interests of the dockyard ports. Take Devonport, which is in the county I have the honour to represent. On 30th December, 1905, the number employed there was about 7,200. Now it is 10,905, an increase of more than 50 per cent., and yet the hon. Gentleman says we have done nothing! We have given increases of pay amounting to £140,000. We have, I believe, brought the dockyards.

  1301
  up to a very full state of perfection for the work they have to do. We are endeavouring to treat the workers in the dockyards perfectly fairly. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me developed the theme which was mentioned earlier in the Debate about twenty-nine German as against thirty-three British ships in the North Sea at a certain date. The First Lord dealt with that very fully this afternoon, and I do not think that I can add anything to what he said. The First Lord has taken the House and the country very fully and frankly into his confidence. He has told the House and the country the exact truth. He has concealed nothing, and he has exaggerated nothing. I admit there is a difficulty, because he is between two fires. One is my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) and the other the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). I must say I enjoyed the Noble Lord's speech vastly. It was a most interesting and amusing speech, but when he finished I asked myself, "What is it all about?" except that I think we were to have a crisis again in 1914. The Board of Admiralty have endeavoured to provide adequately for the safety and naval defence of the Empire. We believe that these Estimates are no more than sufficient, but that they are sufficient to secure the safety of our commerce and of our shores.
  Mr. LONG: I am extremely sorry that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Lambert) thought it right, in the beginning of his remarks, to use language which distinctly conveyed the insinuation—if it was not a charge—that the Memorandum issued by the late Lord Cawdor, was a political document and not a genuine declaration of policy of the then Board of Admiralty. I regret it for two reasons. First of all Lord Cawdor is dead; in the second place, he was a man of the highest personal honour, a man who rendered the utmost public service to the country, and I am confident that whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think—all of us who are engaged in this party warfare are inclined to take occasionally unfair views both of the principles and the action of our opponents—Lord Cawdor was actuated by the sole desire to do his duty by the country as First Lord of the Admiralty. I am sorry that the Civil Lord did not either make his charge definite or withdraw it. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Mason) means to divide. If he does press his Amendment to a Division
  1302
  my friends and I will certainly vote with the Government. I am bound to say with my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsell) that if the hon. Member for Coventry did not speak as the representative of those who desire—I do not want to be offensive and I will not say a little Navy—a smaller Navy, then I do not know what was the object of his speech, or the meaning of his Amendment. Therefore, we shall vote against it, because we are opposed entirely to any attempt to reduce the proposals for which the Government are responsible. The hon. Member did not attempt to indicate what is the alternative policy that he desires. He talked vaguely about diplomacy. The hon. Member is, I am sure, a man of a high order of intelligence. Does he really moan that he thinks there is some unknown method of diplomacy by which Foreign Secretaries and Cabinets are going to prevent a country going to war when that country believes that her own future and power depend upon going to war? What more can diplomacy do than it has done?
  Mr. D. MASON: A great deal.
  Mr. LONG: It is as true to-day as ever it was that however clever diplomats may be they are of very little avail unless they are backed by a strong, powerful, and sharp sword. Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is one which is wholly indefinite. For these reasons we shall vote with the Government against the Amendment. But it must not be supposed that in doing so we are expressing any accord with the policy of the Government on this momentous occasion. There is a great deal to be said for and against the policy of great naval armaments. I am not going to argue the question now. There may be an opportunity of saying something about it to-morrow, when the whole field will be opened. I desire to safeguard myself and my friends by saying quite plainly that while we shall support the Government against the Amendment of the hon. Member we shall not do it because we think that the Government are. doing all that they ought to do, or because we do not think that even greater efforts ought to be made with the supreme moment to make clear to the world that this country intends to remain as she has been for so many years, paramount on the seas and able to hold her own, to stand by the oversea Dominions and maintain the supremacy of the British Empire.
  Mr. WHELER: The Civil Lord, in his concluding observations, made reference to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford), but I cannot help thinking that the House will recognise that whatever may be the experience of the hon. Gentleman he cannot claim to have as much experience with regard to naval matters as the Noble Lord. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his statement this afternoon, talked about making ample naval provision for the national security; but that seems a rather extraordinary statement to make, because here we are discussing a question which comes suddenly, but which was not mentioned by the First Lord when he brought in his Estimates six months ago. At any rate, it does seem to me that this sort of statement, coupled with the fact that we were told the Mediterranean was to be abandoned, and now that it is decided not to abandon it, shows that the policy of the Government is a policy which is liable to change from day to day for political reasons. That is not going to inspire the country with any great confidence as to our naval affairs. I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to dock accommodation. As one who represents a Division in which is Sheerness, I am naturally interested in the floating dock which is established there. I think the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) mentioned the fact that a dock has been established in an isolated reach of the River Medway, about six miles from Chatham and two or three miles from Sheer-ness, and he asked a question, which I should like to have answered if possible. Why this dock could not be brought nearer to the dockyard? I should also like to know whether it is not the fact that there is sufficient deep water much nearer to Sheerness to which that dock could have been brought, and where it could be reached much more easily than where it is at the present time? So far as I understand, the men are to be brought over from Chatham to work the dock. There are many times of the year when there is fog and other difficulties on the Medway which would undoubtedly render it troublesome for the men to get to their work at the dock, with the result that there must be much loss of time in the working of that dock. I should very much like to know whether it would not have been possible to have brought the dock nearer to the fixed dock at Sheerness in
  1304
  the same way as in the case of the floating dock at Portsmouth? While we are discussing an increase in the number of ships, I should like to know why we are not making further dock accommodation on the North-East Coast. We are preparing for possible warfare on the North Sea —though we hope it will not arise—yet at the same time we have very few places where to increase our dock accommodation for the quick repair of vessels in time of war. From the Medway to Rosyth there is no suitable spot for a floating dock at the present time, but I would ask very humbly whether the Admiralty have ever considered the possibility of a natural harbour like Cromarty, in Scotland, where a floating dock could be established with great advantage, and also form a natural harbour where large ships could be accommodated? One word with reference to the situation of the Caledonian Canal, which, I believe. comes within four miles of the Firth. It would be quite possible for a fleet stationed there in time of war to have its supplies brought up on that canal from behind, and they could be of service without ever going into the zone of warfare at all on the other side of the coast. That is only a suggestion, and I would like to know whether that natural port has ever been considered by the Admiralty in connection with the northern portion of our coast. I do not want to bring the question of the dockyards into the question which has been discussed to-night, but there is a matter I have been asked to mention with reference to the establishment, and it is this: The right hon. Gentleman knows that skilled labourers have a deduction of 1s. 6d. per week from their wages, which reach, I understand, 26s. 6d. per week. The skilled labourer gets considerably less wage per week than the shipwright, while the deduction is the same. For thirty years that amount is deducted, and it totals in each case something like £117. When the pension is given at the end of the thirty years the skilled labourers get a pension of £27 17s. 3d. and a gratuity of £74 6s. The shipwrights, with the same deduction, get a pension of £33 and a gratuity of £88 11s. 10d. The skilled labourers feel that as they pay the same in the deduction they should receive an equal pension and gratuity, and it does seem hard that it is not so. I do not understand why the amount should not be the same, and in the interests of the skilled labourers I would ask the right hon. Gentle-

  1305
  man to consider the question. With reference to the dockyards, I am certain, speaking for the dockyard I represent, that we are very grateful for what is being clone in giving what is practically a shilling per week increase to most of the grades in the yard. At the same time, that increase has been long overdue, and has been deserved for many years, and the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that, though he gave it with a great flourish of trumpets, he must realise that it is only due to those men who have been asking for it for years.
  Mr. FALLE: The Member for Coventry (Mr. David Mason) told us that the £44,000,000 we are spending is exactly double what the Germans are spending. That is not exactly accurate, as if he takes another estimate of the Germans he will find that both two estimates are practically equal. I am glad to see that the hon. Member agrees with me. I will not touch on the larger question which has been well threshed out. When we return in October we hope there will be a well considered scheme giving the men on the lower deck the position and pay which ought to be theirs. The Civil Lord has told us that in his opinion the Government have done all they possibly can for the dockyards since 1906. But since that date the Estimates have increased by £13,000.000, and his party have voted themselves £400 a year. It is a small matter, but it is more than the shilling a week increase to the skilled and unskilled labourers, and considerably more than the sixpence a week to the shipwrights. The poll tax takes 6½d. a week from these men, so that at the best they are a halfpenny a week worse off than before. The writers in the dockyards are asking to be established. I hope to be able to bring their case, which is a strong one, before the right hon. Gentleman and to convince him of its strength. I have before referred to the question of badges. All badges, good conduct and long service, carry gratuities -with them except in the case of chief writers, chief engine room artificers, chief electricians, and gentlemen of that class. I think that that is a matter which should be very carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman. Up to 1907 certain men in the Marines did not receive the gratuities with the medals, but the practice was then thought unfair, and the gratuities are now given. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see that the
  1306
  withholding of the gratuity in the cases I have mentioned is absolutely undefen-sible. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport has already referred to the question of certain workmen and their pensions. I understand that a pension scheme has been evolved at Woolwich and found to be financially unsound. I see no reason why it should be unsound. The men are willing to contribute, but they have not been asked how much they are ready to contribute. If they are willing to do so, I do not see why the men should not increase their contributions until the scheme is financially sound.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Self maintained?
  Mr. FALLE: Yes. As I understand they give up their right to a bounty. If they do that and are ready to subscribe as much as the Admiralty desire, I see no reason why the scheme should not be at least as financially sound as that under which we are to receive 9d. for 4d.
  Captain MURRAY: In the few minutes that are left I desire to refer to the design of the battleships which at present compose our fleet. It is assumed, I think, that the "Dreadnought" design is the Alpha and Omega in battleship construction. Some hon. Gentleman says "No," but I think that is the case. I believe it also to be the case that there is a growing opinion in the Navy that the "Dreadnought" design in battleships, the all-big-gun type of ship, is not all that it ought to be, and that a ship of a different design, might well be introduced. I start with the assumption that the way to defeat your enemy in a naval battle is to disable his personnel and silence his guns. I do not want to dogmatise, but I have come to the conclusion that the faith that is placed in the armour should be placed in the guns. It used to be an axiom in naval tactics—anyway up to the middle of last century—that the gun was the chief means of offence and the best kind of defence. In the middle of last century armour was introduced, and the designers of battleships began to place great faith in it. They looked almost entirely to armour protection instead of placing their trust in the gun. What has been the result? It is seen in the "Dreadnought" type of vessel—the all-big-gun ship—in which gun-power is sacrificed to armour and to speed. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord cannot say that gun-power in these ships is not sacrificed to the-weight of armour.
  Mr. CHURQHILL: Yes.
  Captain MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman does deny that. Well, what I submit to him is this: that to-day there is a race between projectiles and armour. A 12-inch gun will throw a projectile of 850 lbs. that will pierce seventeen inches of Krupp steel at 3,000 yards. A 33.5-inch gun, such as is carried by vessels of the "Orion" class, will throw a 1,250lb. projectile and pierce twelve inches of Krupp steel at 12,000 yards. My point is this: that too much reliance is placed nowadays upon armour. If, when a certain thickness of armour has been produced, it is found possible to produce a gun firing a projectile to pierce that armour, where is the race between armour and projectile to end? What is the maximum thickness of armour necessary to keep out the high explosive shell? In the Russo-Japanese war the greatest damage done, and the largest number of ships put out of action, was by the high explosive shell on the unprotected parts rather than by armour-piercing projectiles. I submit to the First Lord, and he is well aware of the fact that in the Navy at the present moment there is no consensus of opinion that the "Dreadnought" type of battleship is the best. I submit that it is a matter well worthy of consideration to ascertain whether or not the type of ship in which there is more gun power and
  less armour would not be the more satisfactory type of ship in which to go into battle.
  Major GUEST: I feel that very little thanks or gratitude has been extended to the Admiralty for the very considerable concession they have made to the dockyard workers in the country. They have started on the right lines; they have first tried to raise the pay of the men at the lower rung of the ladder and I think that step is a very real step in advance and will be received with gratitude by the workers in the different dockyards. I desire to associate myself with other dockyard members with regard to the pension scheme for hired men. They have a very real grievance and I believe the Admiralty, after they investigate their case, will find that a scheme can actuarialy be worked out to which the men will subscribe and by which they will get pensions. I hope when the deputation comes to the Admiralty they will carefully consider this question and see the reasonableness of it.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,493,700, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 281.

  Division No. 159.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Adamson, william

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnes, George N.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Brace, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  De Forest, Baron

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  David Mason and Mr. Pointer.

  Goldstone Frank

  Martin, Joseph

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Boland, John Plus

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Boyton, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baird, J. L.

  Brady, P. J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Butcher, J, G.

  Crooks, William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cameron, Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barran, Sir John M.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Cullinan, John

  Barton, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Joyce, Michael

  Rawhnson, John Frederick Peel

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, Michael

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Renoall, Athclstan

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Richards, Thomas

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Pcckham)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duke. Henry Edward

  Lardncr, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Robertson, sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rowlands, James

  Falconer, James

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Ferens. Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  French, Peter

  MacGhee, Richard

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mackinder, H. J.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Sheehy, David

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Furness. Stephen W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  McCallum, Sir John M.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Summers, James Woolley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mr.sterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Greig. Colonel J. W.

  Meehaii, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Gretton, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, H.)

  Griffith. Ellis J.

  Molloy. M.

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Money, L. G, Chiozza

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Guinness. Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Gwynn, Stephen Luclus (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hackett, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wadsworth, John

  Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Munro, R.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harwood, George

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Newton, Harry Kottinghahm

  Webb, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hayward, Evan

  Norton. Captain Cecil William

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hazleton. Richard (Galway, N.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.J

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  O'Dowd, John

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon., s.)

  O'Malley. William

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Hills. John Waller (Durham)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hinds, John

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Jackson, Sir John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Jones. H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the CHARMAN proceeded to interrupt the business.
  Whereupon, Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (SOUTH WALES SEA FISHERIES DISTRICT ORDER).
  Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I beg to move, "That this House is of opinion that the Order made the 27th day of June, 1912, by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, being an Order for dissolving the Glamorgan and Milford Haven Sea Fisheries District and creating a South Wales Sea Fisheries District, and presented to the House on the 27th day of June, 1912, pursuant to Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, should not have any force unless the borough of Cardiff and the county of Glamorgan be excluded from the operation thereof."
  I would like to point out that within the boundaries of this transferred fisheries board district are included five places, all of which, according to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, are required to put down objections to such an Order. Of these three—Carmarthen, Swansea, and Pembroke—have agreed to be bound by the Order, but the county of Glamorganshire and the county of Cardiff have both objected to the Order coming into force. I cannot see any reason why the town of Swansea should have agreed to this Order, because it was never included in the old Fishery Board Order, as the limit to that Order was as far west as Nash Point. The town of Swansea had no interest in the old Order, and it certainly can have none in the new, because the fisheries emanating from that port are of such small extent that they are not worth the amount of money which the town of Swansea will have to pay in rates towards the up-keep of the whole of this great district. I agree that Carmarthenshire and Pembroke would benefit, certainly so far as they benefited under the old Order which is at present in force, but I cannot see why a new Order should come into force which embraces the whole of the southern estuary, and which includes a part of the coast in which sea fishery is practically non-existent. Glamorganshire and Cardiff cannot possibly benefit under the new Order, unless
  1312
  it is a benefit to pay a rate. When you pay a rate for no benefit received, that is a matter to which they have a perfect right to object. Swansea is in a most extraordinary position in coming into this Order. It is against its own natural friend, situated as it is in the county of Glamorgan, with the same class of trade as the city of Cardiff. The only reason that I can see why Swansea should have agreed to this Order is that the hon. Member who represents it in this House wishes to be a supporter of the Order in the same way as he is the backer of the Government on the religious question in Wales. Glamorganshire and the city of Cardiff have been mainly, if not entirely, brought into this Order for the simple reason that they are compelled to pay the rate which will go to the upkeep of fisheries which exist so far from them that they can give them no benefit whatsoever.
  The rough assessment value of Glamorganshire and Cardiff together is £6,500,000, while that of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen and Swansea town is only £1,500,000, which shows that practically Glamorgan and Cardiff will be expected to pay nearly five times the amount of the whole of the expenditure which comes under this new Order. That ought to be a sufficient reason in itself for the objection of these two places to be well founded and for my Motion to be adopted by the House. There is another reason: the question of the representation on the Sea Fisheries Committee. After the objections had been heard of Glamorganshire and Cardiff, and they had been carefully gone into by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the-contributions of the whole of the persons to be assessed under the Order were made more or less proportional to representation. That was not got until after a severe struggle. But even now the representation is wholly out of proportion to the value and importance of the various local authorities concerned, and that is shown directly by bringing into the Order Glamorganshire and Cardiff and by this enormous and increased rate of a matter of which they get absolutely no benefit. To give one illustration of the way in which Glamorganshire and Cardiff have fought this Order, as far as they possibly could, the Glamorganshire County Council have passed a resolution refusing to pay more under the new Order than they did under the old. I do not say they are necessarily right in law, but it shows that they have-gone as far as they could under Section 6,

  1313
  Sub-section (1) of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, to get out of this Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will withdraw the Order and pursue his inquiries further and, if necessary, bring another Order forward. Co-operation is absolutely necessary in the whole of South Wales in order that it may work properly. My final argument is contained in the Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:—
  "Very great weight attaches to the views of these two important bodies. Glamorganshire and Cardiff, for the reasonable way in which their objections were laid before me inclines me to the belief that the modification which I am about to propose will reconcile them to the Order and the recognition which it accords to their importance."
  The proposed Order has not done away with the objections of these two ports of South Wales which he himself says ought to have been given the greatest consideration. The Order would not be resisted if it were not that we who come from that part of the country realise the immense importance to Glamorganshire and Cardiff of the Order and far more, the burden they "will have to bear if it is carried out in its entirety. But it is also because the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries through its own inspector recognise the weight and the authority of these two places, and says he hopes he has been able to bring forward a Report on the Order which will reconcile them to the powers that be. I can say that he has not succeeded in doing so. If the right hon. Gentleman, in pursuance of that courtesy which he has certainly shown to me since I approached him on this subject a few days ago, would continue to show that courtesy to the city of Cardiff and the county of Glamorgan by withdrawing the Order and having a new inquiry, I am sure he would not only benefit the whole of South Wales, but he would be happier in his own mind in having been able to please both places.
  Mr. BRACE: I beg to second the Motion. It is sufficient for me to say that in seconding the Motion I am carrying out the desires of the County Council of Glamorgan who feel that they have been badly treated in being asked to become responsible for a very large proportion of the money necessary to carry out the work under this Order without giving new representation. That is not, in their judgment, carrying out the best principles of British legislation. The county of Glamorgan has very little fishery to preserve. The noble Lord has stated categorically the reasons why we ask that the Order
  1314
  should be cancelled. If the President of the Board of Agriculture cannot see his way clear to cancel the -Order, I would ask whether he could not see his way to exclude Cardiff and Glamorganshire from its operation. I dissociate myself from the noble Lord's remarks in regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) while associating myself with the appeal he made.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion should have thought it necessary to object to the passing of this Order, because it is the result of several continuous years' negotiation. The proposal made by the noble Lord and my hon. Friend is to cut out Glamorganshire and Cardiff altogether from the operation of the Order. I would point out that the first result of that would be to make the fishery members of the new body a majority on that body, and therefore to take the control of finance out of the hands of the representatives of the county councils and put it into the hands of those who would be fishery representatives. That would in itself be a retrograde step. There is no other effect the Motion would have on the Order itself. What are the grounds on which it is sought to exclude Glamorganshire and Cardiff. I understand my hon. Friend wishes to exclude Glamorganshire on account of the expense to be thrown on the county. I would point out that the maximum that can be thrown on the county of Glamorgan works out at one-hundredth of a penny in the £. Then Glamorganshire claims that they lack representation on the new Fishery Board, but I would point out that Glamorgan is to have the largest body of representatives. The complaint made with regard to Cardiff is that her interests are not fishery interests. In the first place Cardiff is a port where a large and increasing number of trawlers is registered, and where there is a fishing population, and the interest of Cardiff is much more direct in the fisheries of the Bristol Channel than are the interests of inland towns in Lancashire in the fisheries of the Lancashire and western district.
  Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: The fishermen of Cardiff trawl off the west coast of Ireland.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but the trawlers of Cardiff also operate in the Bristol Channel. I am informed on the authority of some of the best fishery experts that

  1315
  the best breeding grounds are to be found all the way up the coast of South Wales oven further than Cardiff itself, well into the estuary. Surely the protection of fry is a matter of increasing importance to the fishermen in the Bristol Channel and even to Cardiff itself. Cardiff is much more interested in this matter, even though its trawlers may go a long way afield, than the towns of Bolton or Blackburn are in the case of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee, and yet both of these towns are glad to join in helping to secure for themselves the benefits of that committee. The real reason for making this Order has been that it has been impossible for these districts with small committees to work patrol vessels. You must have one committee to do this great work. The whole tendency along the coast has been to amalgamate the small committees into one large committee. The Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee looks after the coast all the way from the Solway down to Cardiganshire. It does excellent work, and not only those who are directly interested in the fisheries, but those who have to live so far as food is concerned partly on the products of those fisheries are only too glad to see the work done. The cost of this work cannot add in Cardiff more the 1/22nd of a penny in the £ to the local burden, which is a very small contribution towards this public service. I hope that the city of Cardiff will not object any further to the passing of this Order, which has been the subject of such long negotiation, but will allow it to go through.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: I would not detain the House even for a few minutes were it not that the Noble Lord had thought fit to go out of his way to attack the corporation of Swansea and myself for the action which has been taken in this
  matter. The Noble Lord attributes to me Machiavellian designs of which I am perfectly innocent, and as if this were another case of King Charles' head some hon. Members take the opportunity of dragging my unfortunate name in in connection with every public event of which they do not approve. So far as I am concerned, I am entirely innocent as regards the action of the corporation of Swansea, but I was asked some days ago to support this Order on the ground chat it would be a very great advantage to the fishermen of South Wales. If the Noble Lord had taken the trouble to read the very excellent Report that is appended to the Order he could have ascertained that the corporation of Swansea applied as long ago as 1888, after the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of that time, for an Order. So it is not a new thing that I have engineered but a very old story which began long before I had anything to do with the borough. The corporation and people of Swansea do not agree with the Noble Lord at all; they have more public spirit than their neighbours at Cardiff, and they are ready to make sacrifices to come into what they consider a very advantageous scheme for the fishery of Swansea. The Noble Lord has not taken the House altogether into his confidence, otherwise he might have explained why Cardiff was so anxious to welcome the Board to which so much objection is now taken in that town. They are now hostile and resolute opponents of the scheme; but it is very curious that they at first wished to welcome the Board, and when their invitation was not accepted they said that they would not have it at all. I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw his Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 183.

  Division No. 160.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Mackinder, Haiford J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Baird, J. L.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Pryce Jones, Col. E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burn, Colonel G. R.

  Hill, Sir clement L.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Butcher, John George

  Hills, John Waller

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanier, Beville

  Chaloner, Col R. G. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jackson, Sir John

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Kinloch-Cnoki, Sir Clement

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Eyrcs-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Falle, B. G.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Ninian Crichton-Stuart and Mr.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Brace.

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Adamson, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Grady, James

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harvey, G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Keliy, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

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

  Armitage, R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hayward, Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnes, George N.

  Harleton, Richard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barton, William

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

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

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Boland, John Plus

  Hinds, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Holmes Daniel Turner

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rulus

  Richards, Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kelly, Edward

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, J.

  Rowlands, James

  Crooks. William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas. Bridgeton)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lundon, T.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes. Clitheroe)

  Delany, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (LeitrimJ

  Denman, Hon. R. U.

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duffy, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Summers, James Woolley

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McGhee, Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs,Spalding)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tlpperary, N.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Wadsworth, J.

  Falconer, James

  Martin, J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas courtenay

  French, Peter

  Molloy, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  White, J. Dundas (Glas. Trades ton)

  Furness, Stephen

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Muldoon, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Goldstone, Frank

  Murro, R.

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Creenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

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

  Griffith. Ellis Jones

  Needham, Christopher

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Nutiall, Harry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Wackett, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  And it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the
  House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'clock.

  Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 (Parliamentary Grant, Ireland).
  Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 (Parliamentary Grant, Ireland).
  Peamount Sanatorium, County Dublin.
  Peamount Sanatorium, County Dublin.
  Claim for Compensation (Westmeath).
  Claim for Compensation (Westmeath).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  COUNTY COURTS.
  COUNTY COURTS.
  H.M.S. "Thunderer" (Fire Control Station).
  H.M.S. "Thunderer" (Fire Control Station).
  Egypt (British Troops).
  Egypt (British Troops).
  Special Reserve.
  Special Reserve.
  School of Economics, London University (Army Officers).
  School of Economics, London University (Army Officers).
  Fatal Army Gun Accident (Buddon).
  Fatal Army Gun Accident (Buddon).
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.
  Royal Artillery Uniform.
  Royal Artillery Uniform.
  Beef Rations.
  Beef Rations.
  Births and Deaths (Scotland).
  Births and Deaths (Scotland).
  Fishery Cruiser.
  Fishery Cruiser.
  Primary Schools (Teachers' Pensions).
  Primary Schools (Teachers' Pensions).
  Western Australia (Immigration).
  Western Australia (Immigration).
  Great Northern Railway Company(Superannuation Fund).
  Great Northern Railway Company(Superannuation Fund).
  Pilotage Bill.
  Pilotage Bill.
  Tory Island (Wireless Communication).
  Tory Island (Wireless Communication).
  Highland Railway (Sorting Carriages).
  Highland Railway (Sorting Carriages).
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th instant discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
(Salford Order.)
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the said Order, the opposition to the Salford Order having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 15th instant and Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL
(Cambridge Order.)
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the said Order, the opposition to the Cambridge Order having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 15th and 17th instant respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported, with amendments.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last., "That no Private 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; agreed to: Bills road 2a accordingly, and committed The Committees to be appointed by the Committee of Selection.
EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LLANELLY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E. Rosse, E. Camperdown (Chairman), L. Penrhyn, L. Crawshaw, L. Charnwood; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (Caerphilly Order) and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Sheffield Corporation Bill; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIR- MATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

SEA FISHERIES (CONWAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
TRAMWAYS PROVLSIONAL ORDERS BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIR- MATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
  SEA FISHERIES (LYNN) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading resumed (according to Order).
LORD WILLINGDON: Your Lordships will remember that the Amendment which I moved on the Third Reading was to omit from the Schedule of the Bill Clause 7—
Purchase of Tramways out ode 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 he substituted for the period of twenty-one years therein mentioned.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): This is a question which your Lordships will remember was raised by Lord Camperdown on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. We then had some little disagreement as to the history of the case, and I promised to look into it. I find that what the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, said was perfectly right—that he did raise this question when acting as Chairman of Commissioners in 1901, and he reported that whilst he had not the power to refuse this grant to the Glasgow Corporation he would have refused
672
it to them had he possessed the power. The position under the Bill now before your Lordships is a very simple one. The tramway under this Bill is only seventy yards long—merely a siding. It is in the burgh of Renfrew and turns into a culde sac off a tramway in a street belonging, to the burgh of Renfrew, but a street in which the exact position of affairs is what the position would be in respect of this seventy yards of tramway if the clause which Lord Willingdon has moved to leave out is omitted. The ordinary purchase clause does not apply in the case of the main line of tramway, and it is desired by the promoters that the purchase clause should not apply to this arm, which is merely a siding and would be quite useless for tramway purposes to ally one not owning the main tramway. I think, therefore, that on the merits your Lordships will be well advised in agreeing to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON*LORD LAMINGTON rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the position of affairs in Persia with particular reference to the Anglo-Russian Convention.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on several occasions I have troubled your Lordships with remarks on the trend of events in Persia, and the present situation in that country justifies the fears to which I have from time to time given expression. The Anglo-Russian Convention was adopted as a kind of healing plaster for the political sore in Persia but I fear that at the present time the wound is gaping far beyond the edges of the plaster that was then applied. The Anglo-Russian Convention was adopted in 1907 on the basis—and it is important to remember this—as stated in the Preamble of the Convention, that the Governments of Great Britain and Russia engaged to respect the integrity and independence of Persia.

673
That was fortified by the Memorandum presented by our Ambassador to the Persian Government in September, 1907, in which the Anglo-Russian Convention was referred to as being "based on a guarantee of Persia's independence and integrity." The Persian Revolution in the following year was, no doubt, the outcome chiefly of abhorrence of the cruel oppression exercised by the then ruler of that country, the ex-Shah Mohamed Ali; but there is reason to believe that the Persians were getting very much alarmed at the growing interference with their affairs by their two great neighbours, and particularly in respect of the Articles of the Anglo-Russian Convention which they regarded as infringing their political independence.
We are always confronted with the retort—it is made frequently in the House of Commons and in that portion of the Press which supports the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government—What would have happened had the Convention not been framed? That is a hypothesis with which it is impossible to deal. First of all, it is quite possible, for the reason I have given, that the Revolution would never have taken place; secondly, one does not know what value Russia and Great Britain placed upon their respective interests or how far they were willing to press diplomatically in defence of their respective interests. I am quite willing to admit that the Convention has secured harmony between Great Britain and Russia at present—I hope for ever—but I maintain that that harmony would have been perfectly consistent with also securing the independence and integrity of Persia. There was nothing incompatible in that. But the present harmony has, I think, been established by the sacrifice of the real basis contained in the Preamble of the Convention, and at the present time the situation in Persia is pretty much the same, in my opinion, as if no Convention existed.
Look at the present situation. At the present time from Tabriz in the West to Meshed in the East, through that long stretch of Northern Persia, it may be said that Russian control is practically absolute. Coming further south to the capital, Teheran, I do not know of any other authority exercised there at the present time than that of Russia. I do not say it is supreme, but I do not know of any other
674
authority or control there. I do not believe that any important act is undertaken by the Persian Government at the present time without the sanction or approval of the Russian Government. The glove may be Persian, but the hand inside the glove is Russian. How far further south that control may be exercised I do not profess to say. One hears wonderful stories of Russian influence spreading right away throughout Southern Persia. Personally I do not believe in all these stories or in the machinations and intrigues that are imputed to Russia, but these stories are the necessary consequence where you have power exercised without responsibility. There is no responsible power at the present time in Persia. What is the result in Southern Persia? You have there a state of complete anarchy. The Central Government is powerless to exercise any authority throughout that vast area. The main trunk route from Teheran to Isfahan all last year and sometime previously was constantly being looted. The mail horses were stolen, and there was practically an interruption of all trade; and the only solution found for that state of things was for the Government to appoint the chief brigand to be in command of a large district, and since that time he has been occupied in despoiling the district of which he is in charge.
As regards our own position. A few months ago from the Baluchistan frontier in the East all along the south coast to Persia, right away up the Persian Gulf, and up the west Persian frontier till one arrives at Russian territory there was not a single commercial route open except that which is known as the Lynch road—a rough mule track over a succession of high mountain chains. That road was open two months ago but in May it was closed owing to the coming down of a wild tribe, and I believe that route is closed at the present time. Therefore you may say that right away from Baluchistan up to the Russian frontier there is no trade route available at the present time. In consequence of this our own prestige in Persia has suffered considerably. The people know that as a nation we do not desire to annex a single acre of their territory. They have always regarded us as their friends, but they consider that we have been timid and pusillanimous in not upholding their individual rights. The goodwill they have hitherto entertained for us has suffered

675
somewhat by the action last year of His Majesty's Government in sending a detachment of troops up to Shiraz and Isfahan. That detachment was either too small or too big. It was too small to do anything with regard to maintaining order in the country, but it was sufficiently large to create feelings of animosity.
I have recently been in Persia, and throughout my journey I found one feeling of depression and despondency among the Persians with whom I came in contact, whether individually or collectively, owing to the passing away, as they consider, of their freedom. I know nothing more depressing than a journey in Persia at the present time. That is the result of the Convention, or rather of the working of the Convention by His Majesty's Government. In my view the Revolution gave a splendid opportunity, it was a real godsend, for putting life and spirit into the declaration that it was intended to maintain the independence and integrity of Persia. Recently Sir Edward Grey in another place stated that a very large section of Russian opinion is discontented at the working of the Convention. They regard the Convention as a self-denying ordinance and a one-sided affair, and believe that Russia has given up a great deal and obtained very little in return. I am aware that those views are held by a large body of Russian opinion. At the same time, I believe there is a section of the Russian people who are opposed to any territorial extension of their responsibility. Those two rival parties have their representatives in Persia itself, and instances have occurred time after time in which it has been found that the responsible Minister, the authority representing Russian interests in Persia, has adopted one policy and his lieutenants have acted almost diametrically opposite. The Minister may be loyally endeavouring to carry out the terms of the Convention, but his subordinates have been advancing Russian interests to the detriment of those of Persia.
I admit that this makes the work of our diplomatists much more difficult, but I do not think it absolves His Majesty's Government from putting more strength and vigour into their negotiations with Russia for the carrying out in a proper spirit of the terms of the Convention. Only last week in this House we had practically an admission from the noble Viscount, Lord Morley,
676
that the principle of the Trans-Persian railway was accepted by His Majesty's Government under coercion. They did not adopt it in the interests of India, but because something dreadful might have happened had they refused the proposal as put before them. It is clear from the Blue-book on Persian Affairs recently published that that is not the only occasion on which we have been very submissive in our dealings with Russia. Your Lordships may remember that, after Mohamed. Ali had been dismissed from his Throne and had taken refuge in Europe, he returned through Russian territory and had a series of fights with his countrymen in order to regain his Throne if possible. As is shown in the Blue-book, time after time it has been represented what harm has been done to Persian interests and to British and Indian interests by the ex-Shah's return, and how the great tribe, the Bakhtiari, had to take the best men from their country and go and fight the ex-Shah, with the result that the money supplied to Persia for the purpose of her regeneration, instead of being spent on improving the administration in Southern Persia, had to be spent in meeting the ex-Shah. Finally he was defeated and had to leave Persia.
May I allude to one curious misconception which I think Sir Edward Grey is under? He said that it was only owing to Russian influence that the ex-Shah was got rid of and had to leave Persia. That is a travesty of what took place. Had it not been for Russian support the ex-Shah would not have been living at this time, or he would have been a wandering pauper in some other part of the world. It was recognised that, having returned to Persia, he was not justified in claiming any longer his pension, but on the representation of Russia his pension was allowed to be awarded to him again. Sir Edward Grey, in a telegraphic Despatch of January 17, said—
"A rendition of the renewal of the pension must Is' that Great Britain and Russia will lend Persian Government their support against Mohamed Ali if lie returns to Persia without the consent of the two Powers."
After a long series of Despatches I gather that the ex-Shah finally left Persia about two months after that date, with the only stipulation that he should not return to Persia or should forfeit his pension if he returned to Persia "without the consent of the Russian Government." The consent of the British Government was waived, as

677
also was any idea that we should give support to the Persian. Government should Mohamed Ali return again to Persia. That is an instance of how the position that was taken up with great fairness at so late a date as January 17 has been whittled away.
In this connection I should like to obtain a definite answer on the point whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to what was said in this House by Lord Morley in December last. The noble Viscount then said—
"Whatever intrigues may have gone on between the ex-Shalt and the subordinate agents of the Russian Government, they do not affect the desire, the intention, of the Russian Government not to support the ex-Shah if he should attempt to return to his Throne, and we for our part have informed the Russian Government that it would be impossible for us under any circumstances whatever to recognise the ex-Shah."
It is highly desirable to obtain some definite answer on this point, because the greatest fear is felt in Persia at the present time that the ex-Shah may return, that if he did there would possibly be a series of terrible reprisals, and also that he would be a mere puppet in the hands of the Russian Government.
There is one other instance of where His Majesty's Government have very readily acquiesced in Russian action, and that is with regard to the garrison that is kept at Kazvin. On December 27 our Ambassador at St. Petersburg said that M. Sazonoff was quite prepared to withdraw the troops from Kazvin as soon as the conditions of the Ultimatum that was then being presented to the Persian Government were complied with. There was a subsequent Despatch which admitted that these conditions had been fully complied with; but the garrison at Kazvin was not withdrawn. His Majesty's Government from time to time made representations about its continued stay there, particularly at the time when the ex-Shah left Persia, but the garrison of at least 1,000 men was still at Kazvin in May, and there is no reason to believe that it is not there at the present moment. I quote these instances as showing that His Majesty's Government have been more than complaisant, that they have been only too ready to sacrifice the independence of Persian interests. The whole of the Bluebook shows what a farce it is to talk of there being any freedom of action on the part of the Persian Government. One of
678
the conditions of the loan of £200,000 to Persia was that Persia should recognise fully the Anglo-Russian Convention. Hitherto they have always been opposed to any such recognition, because they deemed the Convention to be an infringement of their sovereign powers. However much they resisted it, they finally had to give their agreement to the Convention, and in doing so I think they sealed the fact that they were no longer an independent Power.
Perhaps I am rather flogging a dead horse in dwelling upon the independence of Persia, because in the House of Commons in December last we had an admission by Sir Edward Grey which seemed to me to give the whole case away. At that time he said, in reference to the Anglo-Russian Agreement—
"It was never intended by the Agreement to destroy or diminish Russian influence in any part of Asia where it had already been obtained. The object of the Agreement was not to thrust Russia hack, and, or course, not to deprive ourselves of any influence we had at the time in Asia. Russian influence when the Anglo-Russian Agreement was made was already predominant in the North of Persia."
A perfect state of stagnation does not exist, and it was not likely, if Russian influence was not to decline, that matters would remain exactly as they were at the time of the signing of the Convention. There was bound to be an advance towards an extension of the interests of Russia and possibly of ourselves. Therefore if it was the intention of His Majesty's Government at that time that there was to be no decline of the interests or of the influence of the two Powers in Persia, it was perfectly inconsistent to make any reference in the Convention to "the independence and integrity" of Persia. On February 8 Sir Edward Grey said, in a Despatch, that the Persian Government was deserving now of the support of His Majesty's Government because they had got rid of those members who were unfavourable to the continuance of Russian influence in Northern Persia. That is really the whole case against the Mejliss. What these people were fighting for was simply the ordinary independence of their country and for freedom of action. But this was held to be a reproach, and not until the Mejliss was, by a coup ďétat, dissolved and some members of the Government who were supposed to hold strongly Nationalist views were dismissed did His

679
Majesty's Government think fit to give any support to the Persian Government. "Patriotism" seems to be only a virtue in the case of a great and powerful and Christian nation; where in a country like Turkey or Persia efforts are made by the people to defend their rights and freedom patriotism is held to be rather an absurdity and almost a wickedness. Personally I regard with admiration those who have done their best to hold on to their country and to make it an independent country.
It is customary for upholders of the policy of His Majesty's Government to say that Persians are quite incapable of ruling their own country. I emphatically express my dissent from that point of view. I have come in contact in Persia with men who are quite capable, in my opinion, of ruling their country. You have Mr. Shuster's opinion on that point. There are men in Persia quite fit to occupy important posts and to maintain order and secure the proper working of responsible government. Also I have come in contact with people who have been for a long time resident in Persia, who know Persia and its inhabitants better than do our own Government officials, and who say that there are men there who are absolutely qualified in this direction. Yet the taunt is constantly flung in their face that they are incapable of managing their own affairs. If that doctrine was sound it is the more ridiculous to male out that you are working the Convention with the idea of setting up a free and independent country. For myself, I believe that the Anglo-Russian Convention was brought into being in order to save His Majesty's Government from having a policy about Persia at all. Secondly, it fulfilled the object of acting as a screen to the British public regarding the true position of affairs in Persia. Whenever an incident occurs in that country of a deplorable nature a curtain bearing the inscription "The Convention; all is well" is at once let down, and the gaze of the public is hidden from the drama which is being enacted on the Persian stage.
The question may be put to me, "What do you propose should be done in Persia? Can it be saved now?" I believe that, even at the eleventh hour, something practical could be done to save Persia and to maintain its integrity. First of all, you have a very peaceable and tractable people easily governed. The bulk of the people are renowned for their peaceful
680
proclivities. There are one or two aggressive tribes, but they are not of the character of those tribes on the North-West frontier of India with which we have had to deal, and I believe that in a short space of time they could be brought into submission. The great bulk of the people of Persia are quite easy to rule. Then, again, you have a body of men who could be easily trained and disciplined to act as gendarmerie. While I was in Persia I came in contact with some of the remnants of Mr. Shuster's gendarmerie, and I found them an excellent, willing and scrupulously honest body of men. The energetic and zealous Swedish officers who are training the gendarmerie there could not speak too highly of the aptitude of their Persian recruits to learn their drill and make themselves a model gendarmerie. Those two factors might help towards securing Persian independence.
But there must be two big changes. First of all, you must get rid of the present financial system, which commands no confidence at all, either amongst Persians or amongst British residents in the country; and, secondly, there must be a complete change of attitude on the part of the two Governments towards the working of the Convention. They would have to put life and spirit into the words "independence and integrity." They must honestly desire to infuse a national spirit into the people, and the Government must not be liable to be suppressed whenever at any particular time they are able to execute some reform. That has been what has taken place in the past, and the object of my remarks to-night is to let the public in this country know that all is not well in Persia, and that at the present time there are complications which may develop very seriously, and perhaps disastrously, because the independence of the ancient kingdom of Persia now hangs by the very finest of threads and its integrity is rifted through and through.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE ion INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend, Lord Morley, who usually undertakes the reply to Foreign Office questions on behalf of the Government, could not be in his place to-day, as he is receiving an honour which he highly prizes at the hands of his fellow-townsmen in Lancashire. But, as it happens, in relation to this particular question it is also my business to keep

681
myself abreast of all the information as it comes to His Majesty's Government, and therefore I will do my best to reply to the various points which have been raised by the noble Lord. We recognise, of course, his right to raise this subject from his personal knowledge of the country increased by a recent visit, and we welcome any pieces of information which he is able to give us either of events that are actually happening in the country or of what he has observed of the disposition of its people. I understand that in spite of the criticisms which the noble Lord has levelled at some of the results which he understands to have proceeded from the Russian understanding, he would in no way desire to impair our good relations with Russia—[LORD LAMINOTON: Hear, heard.]—either in Persia or in any other part of the world, only be believes that those good relations might be fully maintained with a definite change of action on the part of both Governments. [LORD LAMINGTON: Hear, hear.] It is, of course, quite true that the existence of an understanding between the two Powers, particularly in relation to questions so thorny as those which arise in Persia, does not and cannot necessarily involve a perpetual identity of view, and it is clear from Papers already laid on the subject that there have been occasions in which either Russia has remonstrated with us or we with Russia in respect of some action of the respective countries.
But I am particularly glad that the noble Lord has in one respect recognised the difficulties of the situation—a respect in which they are often, as I think, not realised by those who speak in public or who write on this subject. It is sometimes the custom to talk of Russia and the action of Russia as though all the inhabitants of Russia thought precisely alike on these questions, and that there was only one set of views and opinions which had to be taken into consideration. It is a common form of error to suppose, because a country is not governed by an Executive responsible to a Parliament, that therefore there is no such thing as public opinion in such a country. Nothing can be more misleading. Whatever the form of government may be, however despotic it may be in name or in appearance, the rulers of a country have to pay and do pay a close regard to public opinion; and, as the noble Lord has fully recognised, there are in relation to this question of Persia quite different schools of
682
thought among Russian statesmen and Russian administrators. There is, no doubt, a strong forward school in that country who would be disposed, if they spoke their minds frankly, to criticise the understanding because it prevents the complete Russification of at any rate the northern half of Persia. On the other hand, there is a strong body—and in essence the strongest body, because these are the views held by the Russian Government—who have no desire for an indefinite enlargement of their responsibilities in the direction of Persia. They do not desire to lose any influence which they possess as the most powerful neighbours of a weak country and as the principal traders with that country; but they do not desire to undertake any more direct control or to proceed in the direction of occupation still less of annexation. We are able to say with confidence that during the whole of these difficult proceedings the loyalty of the Russian Government and the loyalty of the Russian Minister at Teheran, M. Poklewsky, who is so well known to many of us in this House, to the Convention and all that it involves has been altogether complete. At the same time I quite agree that it is impossible to believe that the action of all the agents of Russia throughout Persia has been, so far as one is able to judge, in conformity with the wishes of St. Petersburg, or that it has been inspired by a desire to maintain that independence and integrity of Persia which the noble Lord has rightly quoted as forming an essential point in the understanding between the two countries.
The noble Lord spoke of the northern part of the Russian sphere of influence as being "absolutely controlled by Russia," and he spoke of a part of their sphere rather further south, including the capital, Teheran, as being, not absolutely under Russian control, yet in a condition in which Russian control was the only control, and he added, I think, that the Persian Government could not move hand or foot without the leave of Russia. I think that is a statement which is liable to be misunderstood, because as a matter of fact the Russian Minister and our successive Ministers there have worked together, as I said just now, with absolute loyalty. It is, of course, the case that to both the Persian Government has made frequent appeals for advice and assistance, but it would not be accurate to state that any difference has been made at Teheran as between the responsible agents of the two

683
Governments there. The noble Lord, while criticising the Convention, did not suggest—and he was himself aware of the omission—did not suggest any other method apart from the Convention by which the integrity of Persia can be altogether secured. He said—I believe with perfect truth—that the existence of the Convention was not incompatible with that integrity. But he did not say what I myself believe to be the fact, that the existence of the Convention avoided either the definite partition of Persia or at any rate an occupation of a large part of Persia by Russia, with a possible abstention from any similar steps on our part in the south, but with some strengthening, which would clearly have been necessary in such a case, of our position on the actual seaboard of the Persian Gulf. That is what I cannot help believing would have been the outcome if there had been no Entente between us and Russia.
But the effect, according to the noble Lord, either of too much interference or too little has been equally disastrous. He points to Northern Persia as being now in Russian occupation, though I venture to think that he has very greatly overstated his case; and he points to Southern Persia as being in a condition, not of British occupation, as we all know it is not, but of complete and hopeless anarchy without a trade road upon which it is possible for any caravan to make a journey. That, surely, places us in a somewhat melancholy dilemma. Because it seems only reasonable to assume that if Russia had for the time being, or permanently, cleared altogether out of Northern Persia a somewhat similar state of anarchy would have reigned there, or that the only method by which any species of order could be secured in Southern Persia would have been by a definite occupation by our troops. I should be very sorry to believe that such a dilemma is the one that we have to face, although I certainly should not pretend to speak in anything like sanguine terms of the situation as it exists at this moment or of the immediate future.
The fact is, my Lords, I can think of no comparison so accurate with the present condition of Persia as that of the state in which the noble Lord's native land was in the second half of the sixteenth century, during the troublous reign of Mary Queen of Scots and during the infancy of her son. It would be possible to make a number of close parallels between the condition of
684
things that obtained in Scotland at that time and that of which one reads in Persia now. We are confronted with this perpetual difficulty, the question of money, which appears to move in an eternal and vicious circle in this way. Unless a considerable amount of money is advanced to Persia there is no chance of restoring order, but unless order is restored you have no security for the interest on the loan. It is possible, therefore, to go arguing backwards and forwards on those two facts, each of them indisputable in itself, with the natural result that money appears to become more and more difficult to lend. But it is only just to say that the Russian Government have fully recognised the paramount necessity of a loan, and, if possible, a large loan. It may be necessary in the interval to go on dribbling out smaller sums of money for the meeting of immediate necessities, the pay of the various forces involved, and so on, but both countries will do their best by a close examination of the real financial resources of the country to see how the difficulty of obtaining a reasonable security for the interest of a large advance can be met. Although, of course, their financial advisers are bound to look at the matter from a purely financial point of view, I am convinced that the Governments will be disposed not to take too hard or strict a view in considering the possibility of an advance.
The noble Lord, in speaking of Southern Persia, mentioned what happened in the autumn of last year, when we sent a larger Consular escort to Shiraz, and the attack on Mr. Smart, our Consul, took place on the road from Bushire. The noble Lord criticised the form of that Consular escort, which he said was either too large or too small. It was not large enough for an army, and it was too large to be regarded as a Consular guard. The noble Lord has been in those parts and I have not, and therefore I should be slow to contradict him; but I confess it is not easy to see, the condition and position of Shiraz and of our Consul there being what it is, why an Indian Cavalry regiment should be regarded as something so formidable or imposing that it could not be looked upon as a Consular guard. It might have been simpler, if the noble Lord likes it it might have been wiser, to send a battalion or half a battalion of Infantry instead. The reason for sending Cavalry was that at the time the life and property of British subjects in Shiraz were considered to be in imminent danger.
LORD LAMINGTON: The danger was over when they were sent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The danger may have been over, but the fear of danger certainly was not over. Far from it; and we did not treat it as a matter of special importance whether Cavalry or Infantry were sent for that particular purpose. It was most clearly and expressly laid down that the Cavalry were sent as a Consular guard and not as an escort for caravans. Their position has remained that of a Consular guard, and it will so remain until they return to India. I can say without hesitation that I shall be very glad when that large Consular guard can be removed. I should be very glad myself if it could be removed to-morrow. We shall certainly return it to India—though it will have to be replaced by some other force—as soon as conditions permit. As the noble Lord knows, there have been various complications respecting the demand for compensation in respect of the attack on Mr. Smart. In the absence of any powerful Central Government at Teheran, it is no easy matter to secure that the individuals upon whom we believe the responsibility for that attack properly lies should be made amenable, and the question of the reduction or withdrawal of this particular force has been complicated by that fact. But I can assure the noble Lord that as soon as this Cavalry regiment can be returned to India the better we shall be pleased.
I was glad, however, to hear the noble Lord speak with appreciation of the efforts to create a gendarmerie under Swedish officers. I believe that the formation of such a force offers the best prospect which can be put before us of restoring the safety of the southern roads. I think I am right in saying that the proposition is that a force of 1,500 men should be devoted to this purpose, and it is gratifying to have the testimony of the noble Lord that not only are the Swedish officers keen and apt for their work, which confirms the information that we had received, but that also they in their turn are well satisfied with the material which they have to turn into these road guards. But, as the noble Lord very well knows, the formation of a gendarmerie of this kind produces troubles and difficulties of its own. The various tribes on the roads are accustomed to supply what are termed road guards," who are paid for their services by a form of blackmail upon passing
686
caravans, and the institution of a Government gendarmerie naturally interferes with this particular source of profit. It will therefore be necessary, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, to proceed carefully in securing the adhesion of the various tribal leaders to the plan if it is to work at all successfully and without friction.
I think that the noble Lord was a little sanguine, even possibly a little biased, in laying stress, as he did, upon the peaceful proclivities of the people, and in expressing the belief that if they were only left alone they would settle down, as I understood him to believe, to order and to good government. I do not dispute for a moment that the Persian character may deserve everything that has been said of it. But I cannot help recalling that during all the most troublous years of Irish government noble Lords opposite and their friends heard with deep impatience what used to be said by those who desired to speak up for the popular movements in Ireland and the freedom of Ireland from crime. Noble Lords used to point out that that might be all very well; that there might be fewer burglaries and fewer crimes of ordinary violence, but that upon the whole, owing to agrarian agitation and crime, life could not be regarded as safe over large districts. Therefore while, as I say, not disputing anything that the noble Lord may say of the merits of the character of the Persian people, who are a profoundly interesting people from their history, yet at the same time it is, perhaps, a little sanguine to believe that a mere policy of non-interference would lead to the establishment of a state of order and facility of trade.
In one sense I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord so far as our sphere of influence is concerned. I should do my very utmost to the last possible moment to avoid anything which could be described as military occupation of any part of the country or an attempt to restore general order by British arms. I say this because no man can possibly foresee the end of the road along which you have to travel if you adopt that policy. You have to deal with a proud people, as I have just stated, proud from their past history; you have to deal with a people who hold the most exclusive religious faith in the world; and you have to deal with a people in whom an anti-foreign sentiment is very easily aroused. The noble Lord has himself said that the mere fact of

687
our sending a somewhat larger Consular guard to Shiraz than we have been in the habit of sending there created the wildest suspicions of our intentions in the minds of some of the inhabitants: Therefore I would do practically anything to avoid anything that could be described as a military occupation, not merely on account of Persia, although I think it would be a distinct wrong to her; but it is also on account of the interests of India and of the interests of this country and of the Empire at large that it would be, in my opinion, an act of supreme folly to enlarge our responsibilities in that direction. Therefore interference of that kind is interference which I venture to think ought only to be taken in the very last resort, and in order to avoid something which is obviously and definitely worse.
As I said, I cannot pretend to regard the future very hopefully. I do not think it is necessary to adopt the depressed and gloomy tone used by the noble Lord in regard to the aims and intentions of Russia. I cannot think that he is fair to the Russian Government. The vicious circle of which I spoke in relation to the supply of money and the restoration of order sets before us a problem which must be regarded as one of supreme difficulty, and until that is removed and until also, I am bound to add, the Central Government at Teheran is able to take a distinct and definite part in governing the whole country, or at any rate doing what it can to administer the whole country—until an advance is made in those directions I agree it is not possible to speak with very much confidence of the immediate future. There are some signs, however, of an improving state of things. I think the noble Lord mentioned the Lynch road as the last which had been kept open but was now closed. What happened was that the Bakhtiari Khans, who look after the protection of that road, had not been able for various reasons to afford the engineer who looks after the road and his staff proper protection. Our Minister at Teheran went on at every opportunity pointing out the necessity of resuming this Protection; and our last news in the early part of this month is that one of the principal and most energetic of the Khans, furnished, I am glad to say, with sufficient funds for the purpose—because that is an item which always in such cases ought to be mentioned—was to start, and as far as I know has started, for the highlands there
688
for the purpose of restoring order and guaranteeing the security of the road. That, of course, is done through the Central Government at Teheran, and there is every reason to hope that the results will be successful and that that particular trade route will shortly be open and secure once more. I think I have covered the various points raised by the noble Lord, but if there is any other question with which I have not dealt I have no doubt he will remind me, and I shall be happy to answer if I can.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who sits behind me, Lord Lamington, has, not for the first time this afternoon, rendered a substantial service to Persia and to British interests by bringing the unfortunate condition of that country before your Lordships' House. To-day he has spoken with the added authority of a recent visit to the country, which has enabled him to see things with his own eyes and accordingly to speak to your Lordships as an eye-witness of recent events. The noble Lord drew for the information of your Lordships a picture of the present condition of affairs in Persia which I can only describe as profoundly disquieting and even pathetic. The noble Marquess who has just sat down seemed to dispute the general accuracy of that picture, and more than once described it as over-coloured and overstated, but I do not think there was anything in his speech that led us to doubt the substantial accuracy of what the noble Lord said on every point. Indeed, from such information as I possess I should be inclined in some respects to speak in even more gloomy terms about the present condition of Persia and about its future prospects than the noble Lord did himself.
The noble Lord alluded to the last occasion—it was in December of last year—when the subject of Persia came before your Lordships' House, and I remember very well that at that time, a time of great crisis in Persian affairs when the Persian Government was reeling under the blows of two successive Ultimatums from Russia, the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, reassured us by reading out to the I louse what he described as an important assurance from the Russian Government. It was to this effect—
"The Russian Government assures us that it has no aims that would violate the independence and integrity of Persia. It assures ns categorically, and desires us to place on record that such

689
military measures as it has taken in Persian territory are of a purely provisional nature, and it has no intention whatever of infringing the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 as to Persia."
We were somewhat comforted by that assurance, and I remember thanking the noble Viscount for the definite advance that seemed to have been made by this announcement. We were told by Russia that her military occupation was to be of a purely provisional character. But now what is the impression left upon us by the picture drawn by the noble Lord? Only two days ago I read a reply given by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons to the effect that at the present moment there are 12,400 Russian troops in the North of Persia—an occupation more extensive than has ever taken place before; an occupation so definite that it quite justifies the noble Lord in saying that practically the whole of Northern Persia has passed under the political control of Russia. Tabriz in the North-west has long been a town practically under Russian domination. The same is now true of Meshed in the North-east; and recently we heard that the Russians had even bombarded the holy shrine of Imám Reza at Meshed. It was but yesterday I read that at Tabriz they had ordered the Persian Government to organise a further force of so-called Persian Cossacks, which means, of course, Persian troops under the charge of Russian officers and non-commissioned officers and practically obeying Russian commands. That, then, is the position along the whole of the North of Persia—a position of absolute Russian supremacy, of Russian military occupation very little short of annexation.
Then we come to the middle part of Persia, the part in which lies the capital. Here, again, I understood the noble Marquess to dispute the general accuracy of what my noble friend said. I believe my noble friend was entirely justified. In Teheran at the present moment the Government is impotent. The Regent who has been conducting affairs during the last two years has, I believe, left the country; the Treasury is empty, and the control of the finances, if the word is capable of being used in connection with the present situation in Persia, is in hands which are profoundly distrusted both by the British and by the Persians themselves, and which are believed to be inspired by great sympathy with the views of those extremists on the Russian side to whom the noble Marquess referred.
690
I pass clown to the South, towards the sphere with which we are specially interested. The noble Marquess deprecated the use of the word "anarchy" as applied to the condition of the trade roads in the South of Persia. It is a curious thing that only this morning I saw a letter from a correspondent in Shiraz, written less than three months ago, in which he used these words—
"The whole of Southern Persia is in a state of anarchy and is ruled by robber gangs."
That I believe to be a faithful description of the fact. Trade is practically nonexistent.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl scarcely caught what I said. My intention was to point out that according to Lord Lamington the only alternative was either full military occupation or anarchy—that there seemed to be no other course.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not for one moment think that that was the alternative of my noble friend. But I was alluding to thou passage in the noble Marquess's speech in which he disputed the accuracy of the use of the word "anarchy" as applied to the conditions in Southern Persia. I am afraid it is true. Such is the position in that part of the country with which we are chiefly concerned; and the position, unhappily, has been rendered not better but worse by the very measures taken by His Majesty's Government to alleviate that state of affairs—I allude to the despatch of Indian Cavalry troops to Shiraz and Isfahan. You have 240 troops at Shiraz and 120 at Isfahan. Does not that quite justify my noble friend in what he said about this force being either too large or too small for its object?—too small to control the roads, to protect travellers, to dominate the tribes; too large for the mere purpose of a Consular escort. I believe myself that the despatch of those troops was a great mistake. It has caused nothing but ill-feeling and heartburning in Persia. So much so that the one traveller—it used to be the other way about—who cannot not now march up with any security from the sea to the towns in the interior is an Englishman. Surely that is a most pitiable state of affairs. I hope that that mistake having been recognised His Majesty's Government will, as soon as they can do so with dignity and propriety, take these

691
escorts away. I quite agree with what the noble Marquess said on the point of military occupation. There is not a sane man in this country who would welcome an occupation either on a large or a small scale by British forces of any part of Southern Persia. It is precisely because we think the attitude now adopted must inevitably lead sooner or later to some such occupation that we feel bound from time to time to call attention in this House to matters as they progress. Such, my Lords, is the state of affairs in the North, the centre, and the South of Persia.
There is one other point of view that even we in your Lordships' House ought to consider, and that is the position and sufferings of the Persian people themselves. I believe the attitude of that unhappy people, torn by this disorder, is one of profound misery, so much so that they would welcome any strong hand that was stretched out over them, whether it were Russian, or British, or foreign of any description whatever. That, my Lords, is an element that may appeal to our pity, but it is also an element of danger; because, of course, the knowledge of such a condition of affairs can hardly fail to be an encouragement to the extreme persons on the Russian side who are anxious to push their Government into a further advance.
Broadly speaking, although the noble Marquess deprecated the use of strong adjectives, he said little to dispute the picture which the noble Lord behind me drew and some of the details of which I have filled in. But in one portion of his speech the noble Marquess indulged in the now familiar retort, familiar because we have not only heard it in this House but the Foreign Secretary has repeated it almost ad nauseam in the House of Commons—namely, that bad as this condition of affairs is it would have been much worse but for the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The way in which the noble Marquess put it this evening was this, that owing to the Convention we had escaped a definite occupation by Russia of the northern part of Persia. The facts that I gave just now, I think, show that the position of affairs is little short of a definite occupation of that part of the country by Russia.
The general argument used by the noble Marquess and employed by the Foreign Secretary is one which it seems to me is quite inconsistent with the facts of the case; and for this reason more than for any other.
692
The Anglo-Russian Agreement was concluded in September, 1907—that is to say, nearly five years ago. But what was the position of affairs in Persia before those days? For nearly a hundred years the position of Russia in the North has been one of military ascendancy in strength almost as great as that she now occupies. Yet during the whole of this time, although there was no Anglo-Russian Agreement, Persia retained her independence. None of these calamitous results ensued. But since the conclusion of that Agreement—I do not say entirely in consequence of it—the position of Persia has been steadily and daily getting worse. To what was it due that in the old days Persia succeeded in retaining her integrity and independence without the Anglo-Russian Agreement to sustain her? It was due to the consciousness that had any attempt been made by Russia or by any other Power to destroy that integrity or to interfere with that independence, such an act would have been met by the determined hostility of this country. That has been the traditional policy of British Governments for the best part of the last century. Why is the opposite result produced now? It is because our attitude in Persia, at the same time that we repeat our old assurances about independence and integrity, is no longer one of determined insistence upon the principles to which I refer, but is apt to be one of complacency, of acquiescence, of mild-mannered agreement in the various infringements that take place of Persian autonomy, which one may almost say is being whittled away before our very eyes.
The noble Marquess seemed to think that perhaps the worst thing that could happen in the matter of Persia—it would, indeed, be a bad one—would be that we should be driven at any time to contemplate a military occupation of the southern part of the country. True. But let us try and look a little bit ahead. Let us try and see the direction in which things are tending. It seems to me that if the present state of affairs continues, if Russia is driven by the exigencies of the case to tighten her hold, first upon the North and then upon the centre of the country, she must gradually move down towards our sphere and must fill the vacuum which is created by the incompetence of the Persian Government. And in this way I do see—it is a prophecy and warning which I utter with profound regret—a drawing together of the Russian

693
and the British spheres of interest and activity in Persia. I do see in the not distant future India, and the British Government on behalf of India, being driven to do something in defence of those interests in the South which it is absolutely necessary for the safety of our Indian Empire we should safeguard. I do see Persian independence gradually being crushed out of existence before our eyes. The noble Marquess concluded by saying he could not be very hopeful, and that there were not many bright spots on the horizon. I see no single bright spot on the horizon. I see dark clouds rolling up, pregnant with danger and with risk, not merely to Persia but to our future relations with Russia and to the interests of the Indian Empire itself. I am sorry to speak in what the noble Marquess, I am sure, would tell me is a very pessimistic and gloomy fashion. I would gladly say that I think things are going well. But when I am familiar with this state of things how can I allow my conscience to be lulled by the facile expressions that fall from Ministers, and to say that things are well when I know them to be bad and believe them to be getting worse?
As regards what the noble Marquess said in direct reply to Lord Lamington, there was one point he did not allude to—I think he forgot it. The noble Lord behind me sought from His Majesty's Government a repetition, which I am sure they would be prepared to give, of this very definite pledge about the ex-Shah. The ex-Shah was a curse to his country while he was in it, and he ought never to be allowed to return. A most definite pledge has been given in that respect, and my noble friend sought nothing more than to be told that that is a pledge to which His Majesty's Government will faithfully adhere.
The noble Marquess made one point to which it is only fair that I should allude in passing. He said the Russian Government themselves, both at headquarters and through their representative at Teheran, have been quite loyal to the terms of the Agreement. I, of course, fully accept that assurance. Indeed, any one who knows the Russian Minister at Teheran at the present moment, Monsieur Poklevsky, would be confident that lie would conduct the relations between his Government and our own in a perfectly straightforward and honourable way. But the noble Marquess laid his finger on what is the weak spot in the situation. There are
694
always agents who interpret the policy of their Government in a more extreme sense and divert it to the gratification of their own political ambitions. That is the serious feature of the position. What is more serious still is that it is these extreme elements who get the better of the Minister. Therefore while you are getting the fullest assurances from your Russian allies, the Agreement between you and them is being almost neutralised by the illicit and extravagant action of their subordinates.
The noble Marquess alluded to two other points. The first was the question of loans. I quite grant that the question of loans is one of great difficulty, because, as the noble Marquess very justly pointed out, you cannot give a loan without some security, and the Persian Government is hardly in a position to give any security at all. Yet at the same time I think a certain financial and political risk must be run in this respect. After all, His Majesty's Government equally with ourselves have one object in view—namely, the recovery, if so it may be, of the independence and integrity of Persia. It cannot be done without money. I think, therefore, that at the present stage we ought not to be too exacting in our conditions. I believe His Majesty's Government along with the Russian Government have recently provided a loan to the Persian Government in the form of cash, and I think that within the limits of such caution as they find themselves able to observe something further must be done in this direction. The second point to which I wish to refer is that of the gendarmerie. Let us by all means give every encouragement we can to this experiment of a gendarmerie under Swedish officers. The noble Lord behind me paid a tribute, which I was glad to hear, to the spirit and patriotism of the men and also to the hold that had already been established over their confidence by their officers. These officers, unfortunately, have no executive authority. They are instructors and little more. Still there is in the creation of this gendarmerie the germ of a good idea, and I hope His Majesty's Government will lend every support to it in their power.
My observations have, I am afraid, been of a somewhat depressing character, but we shall do no good by shutting our eyes to the fact that the position in Persia requires unremitting vigilance. His Majesty's Government can do much more, I believe,

695
than they have done in the past on the lines indicated by my noble friend behind me. What, after all, did he ask for? That there should be introduced into our negotiations either with Russia or with Persia the spirit, not merely of loyalty to our own assurances, but even of standing up where the occasion arises to stand up against the action of those who are disloyal to them. I do honestly think that His Majesty's Government might show greater spirit in their dealings—a little more courage, a little less acquiescence, a little more delicate regard for the interests of Persia itself. I am not one of those who wish to see the Anglo-Russian Agreement, profoundly as I dissent from some of the terms on which it was concluded, torn up. But if spirit is shown on the one side, let spirit also be shown on the other. Let the British Government show more emphatically than they have hitherto done that the one object they have in view and on which they mean to insist is the continued vindication of the independence and integrity of that unhappy country.
LORN LA1VIINGTON: My Lords, I wish to disclaim the suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that my alternatives were anarchy or annexation. I said that I look to the gendarmerie to produce order again in Persia. May I take it that the noble Marquess adheres to the terms of the statement made by Lord Morley last December—that in no circumstances would His Majesty's Government recognise the return of the ex-Shah Mohamed Ali?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord knows that I cannot speak definitely on behalf of the Foreign Office because I do not represent it. The noble Lord, I think, was not quite accurate in saying that we had withdrawn the stipulation that in no case would the ex-Shah be allowed to return to Persia without our leave. I think, as a matter of fact, that the position was maintained that a return of the ex-Shah into Persia at all without our consent was altogether inadmissible, and to that the Russian Government agreed. On the general merits, I may say that all I know of the character and proceedings of the ex-Shah would lead me to suppose that there is little or no prospect of any such leave being given.

UNIFORM TIME (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Amendments which I have on the Paper are put down with a view of making the language in this Bill similar to the language used in the Act of 1880, and I merely submit them as suggestions to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I do not think they can have any effect upon the intention which the noble Earl has in view, and I merely suggest to him what I think would be better phraseology than that at present in the Bill. Statute time is defined by the Act of 1880, and the wording of that Act is as follows—
"Whenever any expression of time occurs in any Act of Parliament, deed, or other legal document, the time referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held in the case of Great Britain to be Greenwich mean time and in the case of Ireland Dublin mean time."
I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be much better to adhere to that language than to adopt the language in his Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I am quite satisfied that the Amendments on the Paper do not infringe the spirit of the Bill but improve the drafting, and I accept them.
Clause 1:
Application of Greenwich Time to Ireland.
1. The official time to be kept in Ireland and in all public places and works therein shall be Greenwich time, and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act, 1880, whenever any expression of time occurs in any Act of Parliament or in any rule, regulation, proclamation, or other document issued by or under any legal authority or in any deed or other legal instrument, the time referred to shall in the case of Ireland be deemed and held to he Greenwich time.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out from the beginning of the clause down to "1880." The expression "official time" has really no meaning at On Question, all. It would only have a meaning if a definition were added stating what official time was. The same applies to the expression "kept"—official time should be "kept."
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from ("follows") to ("whenever") in line 11.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to omit from Clause 1 the words "or in any rule, regulation, proclamation, or other document issued by or under any legal authority or in any." These words also do not occur in the Act of 1880, and I do not think there is any occasion for inserting them here.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("deed") in line 14.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to insert, after Ireland, the words "unless it is otherwise specifically stated." Here I desire to again follow the language of the previous Statute. The words which I move to insert are with a view of saving the rights of private individuals who might desire to have some different time in a contract or document.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, after ("Ireland") insert ("(unless it is otherwise specifically stated)").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move, after the word "Greenwich," to insert "mean." The insertion of this word is absolutely essential. We do not really keep celestial time. It is subject to certain vagaries; these are corrected, and if "mean" is not inserted here Ireland would be keeping different time from that kept in Great Britain.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after("Green which") insert("mean").— (Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to—.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The object of the next Amendment is to repeal the words "and in the case of Ireland, Dublin mean time" in Section 1 of the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
"Amendment of 43 &44 Viet. c. 9.
"In section one of the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act, 1880, the words "and in the case of Ireland, Dublin mean time "are hereby repealed." —(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Preamble:
Whereas it would be conducive to the convenience of the public that the time kept in Ireland should be the same as that kept in England and Scotland:
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I suggest that there is no object in this Preamble. The title is sufficiently long, and it is not usual to insert Preambles unless there is some special reason for doing so.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Preamble.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I do not wish it to be thought that in suggesting these Amendments the Government undertake any responsibility for the passing of the Bill. We have merely been assisting the noble Earl to put the Bill into proper form.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I quite understand that.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 130.)

IRISH CREAMERIES AND DAIRY PRODUCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD PLUNKET: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move at this stage. It is to omit the proviso in Clause 1. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I withdrew this Amendment at the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, with the idea of endeavouring to find some way of getting rid of the difficulty with which we are confronted owing to the insertion in the Bill of this proviso, which is very much objected to by the Irish creameries. I am sorry to say that, though I have consulted with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, we have not been able to find any way out of the difficulty, and therefore I am compelled to press this Amendment. I trust that in another place some alternative proviso may be agreed upon which will satisfy the Board of Trade and at the same time not render this Bill a contentious one.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 19 to 23, leave out ("Provided that in Great Britain the term 'Creamery' if applied to Irish butter shall not by reason of the foregoing provision be taken to be a false trade description unless there is also applied to the butter a description stating or indicating that the butter was made or manufactured in Ireland").— (Lord Plunket.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this subject was fully discussed yesterday when the Committee stage of the Bill was taken, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat the arguments which were then stated. I must say I regret very much the action of the noble Lord in seeking to delete this proviso. The only desire we have in inserting it is to protect the British salesman who quite inadvertently sells as creamery butter Irish creamery butter not made in a registered creamery. I sincerely hope that language may be discovered later which will satisfy all parties. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment, but I must say that we reserve to ourselves the right to reinsert it in another place if, as perhaps may be the case, some compromise is not reached. My noble friend Lord Lucas is in his place, and I hope he will give your Lordships the benefit of the view entertained on this subject by the Board of Agriculture.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is an Irish Bill and one which does not affect our Department, except that we have in this particular case to safeguard as far as we can the interests of English traders who are concerned. I can assure the noble Lord opposite that we will do everything we possibly can to assist the interests he has at heart. We fully realise what admirable institutions these creameries are, and we wish that we could have had the same success in this country in starting co-operative creameries. We do not wish to do anything to injure Irish creameries, but at the same time the matter has to be looked at from the point of view of the English trader. With the best will in the world towards Irish creameries it is a little difficult to give them a monopoly in the word "creamery." Ireland is by no means the only place which has creameries. We have creameries here; and a great deal of creamery butter comes into this country from abroad. Unless the trader can be perfectly certain of the country of origin, which is not always easy, it would be impossible for him, if this Amendment is agreed to, to call butter "creamery butter" at all; or, if he does, he runs the risk of its being discovered to have come from an Irish creamery and then he lays himself open to the penalties in the Bill. It is hard on the English trader that it should be necessary for him in all cases to trace the origin of the creamery butter he sells. Therefore, while we are prepared to go a good way to meet the objects of the promoters of this Bill, we think that what the noble Lord is asking for in his Amendment is pushing the thing a little too far. May I add this word of warning? As far as we know, the Bill is accepted by all parties in Ireland, but I do not think English traders have been consulted on the measure. It is difficult to prophesy, but there is a strong probability that if the noble Lord's Amendment is agreed to there will be mobilised against this Bill a very strong body of opinion on the part of the traders of this country which would seriously endanger the prospects of the Bill passing into law.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When this matter was discussed last night we were left under the impression that the further consideration of it was to be

701
delayed for a few days so as to give us ampler opportunity of going into the merits of the question. For some reason best known to the parties another decision has been arrived at, and the Bill comes on again this evening. We remain of opinion that my noble friend who moved this Amendment was able to show a strong case in favour of it. He was able to tell the House that agricultural opinion in Ireland, and not only agricultural opinion but official opinion in Ireland, is solid in favour of the omission of this proviso, which if it were allowed to remain in the Bill would, in the opinion of those concerned in the creamery industry, open a door to serious abuse. That is the prima facie view of the case and it appeals very strongly to me. The noble Lord opposite is able to suggest that there may be hard cases on the other side. That is possibly so. But in the meantime I am inclined to think that, having regard to the great weight of opinion behind my noble friend's Amendment, the better course will be to delete the proviso. That will not at all prevent the further consideration of the point, and we shall all, I have no doubt, be well pleased if some compromise which will meet the views of both parties is arrived at before the Bill becomes law.
LORD PLUNKET: I should like to say that the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society fully appreciates that the Board of Trade may have an excellent case, but this proviso has been drawn up in a way which cannot satisfy Irish creameries. The noble Lord opposite stated that the Bill was agreed to by practically all parties in Ireland. It is agreed to generally by all parties, but not with this proviso. There is not one single co-operative creamery that we have heard from—and we have heard from a great many—which is not opposed to this proviso. We are most ready to work with the Board of Trade in this matter if we can, and if the proviso is deleted now we hope that before the Bill comes up for Second Reading in another place we may be able to find some way out of the difficulty which will satisfy all parties.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

THE GOVERNMENT'S LAND POLICY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to a statement attributed to Mr. Outhwaite, M.P., at Crewe on July 22 at a Liberal meeting, that Mr. Lloyd George, with the support of the Prime Minister, will embark this autumn on a great campaign which is to be continued right up to the next General Election, "to do something for the overthrow of the land monopoly"; and to ask whether there is any foundation for Mr. Outhwaite's statement; and, if so, whether it correctly represents the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships probably noticed in The Times a report of the speech by Mr. Outhwaite at a Liberal meeting in Crewe, where a by-election is now pending, in which he made the statement contained in my Notice. That statement is a very open and clear statement. Mr. Outhwaite used the words "Mr. Lloyd George, with the support of the Prime Minister." That is equivalent to the Government, because these two Ministers cannot be regarded as independent members of the House of Commons. According to Mr. Outhwaite there is to be "a great campaign to do something for the overthrow of the land monopoly." When I read this I could not help contrasting it with the speech which we heard on Monday from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who I regret is not in his place to-day. On that occasion the noble Marquess was asked for some information with regard to the so-called unofficial Committee, and he said he could give none. He was asked for the names of the members of that Committee, and he said he could not give them. He then proceeded to belittle by all the language in his power the effect of that Committee and to explain to your Lordships that we must not take the matter seriously, that it was not a thing which proceeded from the Government but was entirely unofficial. In fact, the language in which he indulged would have done credit to the Delphic oracle from the point of view of mysteriousness and uncertainty. He only told us one thing—namely, that he is not a Single Taxer.
The noble Marquess then went on to very much depreciate the value of that statement by finding fault with Lord Ribblesdale for having spoken of a "new

703
policy." He said there was no such thing as a new policy—that the Government of the day was the Government of the day, and the policy of the Government was the policy of the Government; and to speak of such a thing as a new policy was, he said, an hallucination. I could not help thinking at the moment that, according to this argument, it is perfectly easy for any Government at any time to alter their policy completely and then to say "This is not a new policy because it is the policy of the Government." Contrasting that speech with the statement by Mr. Outhwaite I should like to ask your Lordships, To which of those statements does probability more attach? I think I shall be able to show your Lordships in a very few words that all the positive evidence that we have is in favour of Mr. Outhwaite's statement that this policy is the policy of the Government and that it is going to be pursued accordingly. In the first place, we know that Mr. Lloyd George has a positive policy with regard to land, and Mr. Lloyd George, as we also know, is a very powerful member of the Government. He has made a statement to this effect once or twice. In a letter which he wrote on the occasion of a recent by-election he said—
"Our present land system may have served some useful purpose in the past, but it has long ceased to be anything but a burden and a blight."
Then, again, speaking at Woodford, he said that the land was in the "shackles of feudalism" and so on, and that it was their duty "to free the land." Therefore there is no doubt as to what Mr. Lloyd George's policy is with regard to the land.
Now Mr. Lloyd George's policy, according to the Prime Minister, is shared by all his colleagues. On July 8 Mr. Asquith was asked whether the statements of Mr. Lloyd George at Woodford were approved of by the Government and his answer was—
"The views expressed by my right hon. friend in his speech at Woodford as to the necessity for land reform are shared by his colleagues."
Therefore these are not merely the views of Mr. Lloyd George; they are the views of His Majesty's Government. Then in appointing this so-called unofficial Committee Mr. Lloyd George had Mr. Asquith's approval. In reply to a question Mr. Asquith said—
"My right hon. friend has with my approval approached certain gentlemen … with a view to securing their services on an unofficial Committee which has been formed for the purpose of investigating the question of land reform."
704
in the same afternoon he was asked whether there was any precedent for an individual Minister of the Crown appointing a Committee to deal with a subject like this, and Mr. Asquith replied—
"I said the Committee was appointed with my sanction."
Therefore, my Lords, it is quite clear that this cannot properly be described as an unofficial Committee. I do not see how the word "official" can possibly be withheld from it seeing the auspices under which it was appointed.
Further than that, this very extreme theory of land taxation is being pressed by Liberal candidates at the various by-elections, more especially at the by-election which is now taking place for the Crewe Division. Mr. Murphy, the Liberal candidate there, has been gradually advancing in his views with regard to land. He was a little modest and rather coy at first; then he progressed until he reached a 2d. tax on the capital value of land; and yesterday he advanced still further. He did not enter into a figure, but he said this—
"Take whatever figure you choose. A penny will bring in £25,000,000; 2d. will bring in £50,000,000. That would enable you to wipe off every single duty now on the necessities of life and relieve poor people of their burdens."
The Prime Minister, in writing his approval of Mr. Murphy's candidature, did not refer to this extreme doctrine as going beyond his own individual opinions. What he said was this—
"I trust that the Progressive forces in Crewe will return you at the top of the poll to strengthen and encourage the Liberal Government in the arduous work which lies before them."
It is evident, therefore, that Mr. Asquith thoroughly endorses Mr. Murphy's candidature; and if the Prime Minister is not a Single Taxer himself he is not ashamed and not unwilling to take advantage of the votes which will be obtained by Mr. Murphy, who is in favour of extreme taxation. I think I have said enough to prove to your Lordships that all the positive evidence we have is in favour of supporting the statement made at Crewe by Mr. Outhwaite.
I do not know who will reply to my Question on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but I wish—I cannot say I hope—I could be told that there is nothing in this statement by Mr. Outhwaite, that it does not in any sense represent the

705
intentions of His Majesty's Government, and that His Majesty's Government will take no part in such a programme. But if there is something in Mr. Outhwaite's statement—and, as I have said, I am afraid it cannot be contradicted—if there is anything in it and if His Majesty's Government have a policy on this matter, why do they not tell us what that policy is? It seems to me that it is the duty of the Leader of this House, or whoever represents him, to speak out on a matter of such vital importance. I can assure your Lordships that nothing can be of such disservice to the country and to the interests of the country as for the Government to indulge in hesitation and ambiguities and to attempt to conceal—the concealment, of course, can only be for a very short time—from the country what their real policy with regard to land is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Earl is alarming himself quite unnecessarily. In the statement of Mr. Outhwaite, which the noble Earl considers definite and important, I find anything but definiteness, and I cannot find much of importance in it. What in the world may the words "to do something to overthrow the land monopoly" mean or not mean? The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has been recently associating himself with most laudable efforts to enlarge the ownership of land in this country. I suppose that may well be described as "doing something to overthrow the land monopoly," and that the Ashbourne Acts in Ireland and the Land Purchase Act of the late Government also may be brought within that description. I suppose the legislation with which this Government is associated for land purchase is something in the same direction. I hope that more efforts will be made to bring the land and the owners and occupiers of land into closer contact; and in that sense I hope that a vigorous campaign will be continued up to the next General Election to do something to overthrow the land monopoly. But as to whether it will be on the lines of the noble Marquess's policy or on other lines there is nothing in this quotation which throws any light. Mr. Outhwaite spoke for himself, and had no authority to speak for the Government. I know nothing of his statement except what appears in the noble Earl's Notice on the Paper, and no more, I believe, do my colleagues. What
706
the Government land programme will be is a question the Government will pronounce upon when they have had full opportunity to consider it. The noble Earl referred to the unofficial Committee. As my noble friend Lord Crewe said on Monday, the Committee is absolutely non-official—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was appointed by Mr. Lloyd George with Mr. Asquith's approval.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But it is absolutely non-official, and was appointed, as the Leader of the House stated, solely for the purpose of inquiry—not to draw up a programme, but to collect information. The noble Earl is alarmed at everything. He has been alarmed at every progressive step taken during the last twenty years. The programme of the Government may be seen hereafter. It is not likely to include the Single Tax or any of the alarming things of which the noble Earl has spoken.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, such light as the noble and learned Viscount has afforded us is darkness, and I think that what he has told us will only add to the confusion of the loss subtle intelligences of average men. The Lord Chancellor is perfectly entitled, as a debating point, to shift everything connected with this matter on to Mr. Outhwaite. Except just now, when the noble Earl reminded him of certain facts, he seemed completely to ignore the very open and definite statements which have been made by powerful members of the Government. He told us that Lord Crewe had explained exactly what the Committee was to do and the work on which it was going to engage. It involved what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition described as "extended peregrinations all over England." Then Lord Lansdowne asked two important questions. He asked whether the Committee were going to take evidence and evidence on one side only, and whether in considering their Report the Reports of Royal Commissions on this subject in recent years were to be entirely set aside. But although we had from the Leader of the House on Monday last a long speech couched in that excellent tone of taste and courtesy and consideration for people who do not agree with him which always characterises Lord Crewe's speeches, I think the noble and

707
learned Viscount on the Woolsack is stretching the English language to extreme limits when he tells the House that very much was explained to us. I did not grasp the true inwardness of Lord Crewe's observation the other night as to the hallucination under which we were supposed to be suffering in describing this as a new policy. I subscribe entirely to what Lord Camperdown said about the new policy. This is not an expression which we have coined. Day after day in the Daily News we see the headline, "The New Liberal Policy." That must mean something. At all events I have not heard anything from the Government which convinces me that it means nothing. Mr. Outhwaite is only one of many people who, following the lead of a powerful Minister, have taken this line and announced the crusade on the new policy. The mystery amuses me. These are days of tourneys, and if they like to masquerade throughout the country as un-named Ivanhoes we have no objection; but we know under whom they act. I should be the first to agree that we can go too far a field into conjecture as to what land reformers may have in their minds, or what they may be in a position, which is much more important, to force the Government to do. But I am bound to say that this extraordinary blend of Delphic utterances and categorical statements does drive us into conjectures of this kind. They may be conjectures; but these two things acting together naturally give rise to alarm and suspicion, which I do not think either the speech of the noble Marquess on Monday night or the few words from the noble and learned Viscount to-night are likely to allay, in the minds of people who have some little apprehension as to what this new policy may land us all into.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has, if he will forgive me for saying so, shown himself a very ingenious but not a very convincing commentator upon a somewhat doubtful text. He fastened upon the use by Mr. Outhwaite of the words "land monopoly," and I think he suggested that I, too, desired the land monopoly to be broken down. I object very much to the use of the term "land monopoly," because I do not believe there is any such thing at the present time. The facts of which we are every day made aware by the public Press
708
show that land is not at this moment by any means held as a monopoly. I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount in thinking that it is a great misfortune that the land of this country should be in the hands of a comparatively small number of people, and I am quite willing to co-operate with him in any movement directed to bring- about a dispersal of the land among a larger number of owners. But that was not by any means what was suggested by Mr. Outhwaite in his speech at Crewe. What Mr. Outhwaite stated, and stated, I venture to think, quite definitely, was that a great campaign—which he described as the greatest contest between privilege and the people that had been known since the days of the Corn Laws—was to be undertaken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the approval of the Prime Minister. That was a perfectly definite, and I must say a somewhat alarming, statement. I dislike it because it seems to me to be full of that class prejudice which is always imported, so it seems to me, when these questions are discussed in Radical circles. What my noble friend has asked is, I think, a perfectly legitimate question—or I should say three perfectly legitimate questions. He asks whether this story of the great campaign is true or not. The noble and learned Viscount, apparently, is not aware whether it is true or whether it is not true. Then my noble friend asks whether this unofficial and informal Inquiry, which, remember, has been undertaken at the request of the Government and the results of which are to be made available for the information of the Government, for that has been distinctly stated—whether this Inquiry has nothing to do with the great campaign which is to take place in the autumn. We can, I think, draw our own conclusion as to that. And, thirdly, my noble friend asks whether it is the case, as it evidently is the case, that the Inquiry and the campaign are very closely indeed connected. If they are, what becomes of the statement made by the noble Marquess who leads the House when he told us that there was no question of this Inquiry leading to a new policy and that those who had any such anticipation were labouring under an hallucination? Those are three simple and straightforward questions, and I venture to say they have not been answered this evening.
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.