Sitting of 18 March 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

National Electric Construction Company Bill.

Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Public Offices (Sites) (Standing Orders complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Public Offices (Sites) Bill.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
To be considered To-morrow.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Glasgow Boundaries Bill,
"To extend the Boundaries of the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow and of the County of the City of Glasgow, and to alter and adjust the Boundaries of the Counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dumbarton; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Glasgow Corporation (Water) Bill,
"To authorise the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to construct new Water Works; to acquire lands; to borrow money for such works; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Glasgow Water (Charges) Bill,
"To amend the Glasgow Corporation Waterworks Act, 1855, in relation to the supply of water for domestic purposes in districts and places beyond the boundaries of the City, and in relation to the charges to be made for such supply; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second, time.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of January, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Ireland) Amendment. Order, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
Copy presented of Report of His Majesty's Astronomer at the Cape of Good Hope to the Secretary of the Admiralty, for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (LEGISLATION ABROAD).
Copy presented of Reports from the Governments in the British self-governing Dominions and His Majesty's Representatives in Foreign Countries as to the enforcement of British Arbitration Awards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
Copy presented of Twenty-ninth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents,

1505
Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 66.]

TEADE MARKS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Trade Marks Rules, 1912, dated 20th February, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 30th September, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 67.]
NORTH SEA FISHERIES INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Fourth Report (Southern Area) on Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea and adjacent Waters, 1909 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Copy ordered "of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure, with Balance Sheet, for the year 1911."—[Mr. Masterman.]
WINES IMPORTED.
Return ordered, "showing the alcoholic strength, degree by degree, of wines imported to this country during the year 1911 in cask from the various countries of Europe, Madeira, Australia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 78, of Session 1911)."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now give any information about the adjourned meeting of the Brussels Sugar Convention which was to have been held on the 26th ultimo; has Russia obtained the permission to increase her export by 400,000 tons this year; and, if not, whether any action is proposed by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the Secretary of State has any information regarding the progress of negotiations between Germany and Russia in relation to the additional export of sugar by the latter country under the Brussels Convention?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): A meeting of the International Sugar Commission was held in Brussels yesterday (Sunday) at which a protocol prolonging the Convention for a further period of five years from 1st September, 1913, was signed. A declaration relative to the method of distribution of the additional 50,000 tons of sugar which Russia is to be allowed to export during the periods 1912–13 and 1913–14 was also signed at this meeting. Neither document was signed by the delegates of His Majesty's Government, but a Note was addressed to the Belgian Government stating that His Majesty's Government saw no objection to the increase in Russian export in this or any future year during the continuance of the Convention.
  Mr. LOUGH: Was this country represented at the meeting, and are we in any way committed to a renewal of the Convention?
  Mr. ACLAND: We were represented at the meeting, but we are not committed in any way to a renewal of the Convention.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the ratification is to be completed?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he can now see his way to fix the date for the promised discussion on the Brussels Sugar Convention?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that it is impossible at present to fix a date.
  Mr. LOUGH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is announced that a decision was arrived at by the Convention yesterday, and that a ratification of the Powers is to be required before 1st April; if he finds that that is so, will he fix the Debate earlier?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are in no way committed.

  Lingah (Protection of Consulate).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether the Foreign Secretary has any further information regarding the situation at Lingah; and whether any troops have been landed to protect the Consulate?
  Mr. ACLAND: The raiders are estimated at about 2,400 men. For the defence of the Consulate, the senior naval officer and the Vice-Consul recommended the landings of sepoys and the admiral has given orders for 150 men to land to reinforce the consular guard. A naval brigade will also be ready to land in case of need.

  Dardanelles (Mines).
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether any contact mines or other explosive engines have been laid in the Dardanelles; and, if so, what steps have been taken to insure the safety of British merchant shipping passing through the Straits?
  Mr. ACLAND: On 10th March His Majesty's Vice-Consul at the Dardanelles reported that contact mines were being laid, and that it was believed they would all be in readiness by 11th March. He also reported that a channel marked by buoys would be left, and that at least two pilot ships would meet vessels from either direction.
  Mr. M. SYKES: Has the Secretary of State any guarantee that the pilots who will pilot the ships through the Straits will be persons who can be trusted to run the ships safely?
  Mr. ACLAND: We naturally have no guarantee of that exact nature; but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question.

  Military Horses.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that the modern type of English hackney has been used for some years with success by Continental Governments for the purpose of improving the breeds of horses required for artillery and other military purposes, he proposes to take any and, if any, what steps to utilise hackney stallions for similar purposes in Great Britain?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Board already offer premiums for hackney
  1508
  stallions for the service of registered hackney mares. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the Advisory Council on Horse Breeding as to whether it may be desirable to take further steps for the purpose which the hon. Member has in view.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. FELLasked if the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture has been called to an outbreak of swine fever on the 17th December on the allotments at Cobholm, Great Yarmouth, and to the fact that the outbreak was known to the inspectors of the Board, but they refused to order the pigs in four adjacent styes which were presumably affected to be slaughtered, and this was done at the expense of the Cobholm Pigkeepers' Association; and why does the Board refuse to take any action in cases of swine fever on allotments while it acts promptly in cases on isolated farms where little risk is run?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the case to which I understand the hon. Member to refer the Board were advised that the infected place could be satisfactorily isolated. This course was adopted, and the usual procedure followed. I am informed that three pigs were slaughtered on the infected place by or on behalf of the owner, and that he received compensation for his loss from the Cobholm Pigkeepers' Association, of which he was a member. No pigs appear to have been slaughtered on account of actual or presumptive infection on premises outside the infected place, and I am not aware that any further outbreak of the disease has occurred which can be traced to infection from that source. There is no foundation for the statement contained in the concluding paragraph of the question.

  Diseases of Animals Act (Government Farms).
  Mr. STANIERasked if when a disease breaks out among animals on land belonging to and farmed by a Government Department the Diseases of Animals Act does not apply, and therefore the disease need not be even reported to the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the question of the hon. Member depends upon the circumstances of the individual case. Perhaps, therefore, he would supply me with particulars of any case which may have been brought to his notice.

  Sheep Dipping (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that the Wexford County Council has requested that the summer sheep-dipping period should be altered so that dipping can begin from the 15th May instead of, as at present, on the 15th June; and whether the wishes of the council will be complied with?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): No request to the effect indicated in this question has yet reached the Department from the Wexford County Council. The limits of the summer dipping period have, however, recently boon under review, and it is probable that in the forthcoming General Order 1st instead of 15th June may be specified as the commencing date of such period. The Department would not, at present, be prepared to make the period begin as early as 15th May.

  Steamers "Le Nord" and "Lockwood" (Collision).
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry will be held into the circumstances of the collison which took place on 1st March between the steamers "Le Nord" and "Lockwood"; and whether he can state how many persons, including passengers and crew, were on the steamer "Le Nord" at the time, and what accommodation she has in lifeboats; and whether she is provided with water-tight compartments?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I understand that litigation as regards the question of the collision between the steamship "Le Nord" and the steamship "Lockwood" is pending. It is not proposed to order a formal investigation in the case. The first named vessel is under the French flag, and does not hold a British passenger steamship certificate. By the courtesy of the directors of the Chemin de Fer du Nord, I am informed that there were about 350 persons on board, including passengers and crew, at the time of the collision; that the vessel has six boats, four of which are lifeboats, and is provided with watertight compartments.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How many of the passengers and crew would have been saved by the six boats?
  Mr. BUXTON: In this case there was no loss of life.
  Mr. ASHLEY: How many of the passengers and crew would have been saved by these six boats?
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the question and I will endeavour to answer it.

  Labour Exchanges (Domestic Servants).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the Labour Exchange at Norwich has endeavoured to supply housekeepers and other domestic servants; and whether Labour Exchanges are authorised to compete with local registry offices in dealing with domestic servants generally?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have no reason to suppose that the Norwich manager has contravened his instructions with regard to vacancies in domestic service. As regards the nature of these instructions, I have already stated that Labour Exchange managers have been instructed from the first not to deal with resident vacancies for domestic servants in private houses. A limited number of Juvenile Advisory Committees have, however, recently been permitted, under carefully defined conditions, to find places for girls below seventeen desiring to go into service. I shall be glad to inquire into any specific case in which it is alleged that the existing instructions have been infringed.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what efforts are made by the Government to enforce those instructions?
  Mr. BUXTON: Any specific case of alleged breach of instructions is at once looked into and carefully considered.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ipswich Labour Exchange also have stated that they are prepared to place domestic servants?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. Member will give me any specific case, I will certainly inquire into it.

  Chinese Seamen.
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he would state the

  1511
  number of Chinese who have signed in Barry from the 1st November, 1911 to February, 1912; what is the increase over November, 1910 to February, 1911; if he would say what number of Chinese seamen have been rejected during the last four months in Barry as being unable to pass the language test, and, seeing that all other nationalities who sign in British vessels have to produce certificates of discharge before signing, will he state why exemption is made in the case of Chinamen; why Chinese seamen who simply state that they are from Hong Kong and that their last vessel was German are allowed to sign; what action the Board intend to take with reference to the number of personations by Chinamen; if he is aware that in the case of the steamship "Caldegrove," which signed at Barry on the 1st March, 1912, not one single discharge book was produced by the Chinese firemen; that these men were signed on board the vessel while she was proceeding to sea; and whether they passed the language test?
  Mr. BUXTON: The number of Chinese seamen signed on at Barry from 1st November, 1911, to 29th February, 1912, was 322; for the corresponding period of 1910–11, the number was 352. During the last four months fifty Chinese seamen have been rejected for failure to pass the language test The Board of Trade have no power to require seamen, of whatever nationality, to produce certificates of discharge when being engaged on a British ship, and therefore no question of exemption arises; nor have they power to refuse to allow a seaman to be engaged merely because he has not produced satisfactory evidence of his place of birth, or of the name of his last ship. The Board of Trade have recently issued instructions with the object of preventing personation among Chinese seamen, but the matter is one of great legal and practical difficulty. In the case of the "Caldergrove" four Chinese firemen produced certificates of discharge; the remaining firemen produced no papers. The Chinese portion of the crew were engaged on board. Six men failed to pass the language test, and were consequently rejected.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House whether those Chinese are employed for purpose of efficiency or economy?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot be expected to answer a question of that kind.

  Railway Restaurant Cara (London and North-Western Company).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company have taken off the refreshment cars from the Irish mail trains, which are subsidised from public funds, but are still running them in connection with trains to Scotland which are not subsidised; and whether he will make representations to the railway company on the subject.
  Mr. BUXTON: I have communicated with the railway company in this matter, and have received a reply, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right. hon Gentleman give the substance of the reply and are the facts as stated in the question?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply, and if he has any further question to ask I will be glad to answer it.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the refreshment cars on the Scottish trains are not stopped?
  Mr. WARDLE: May I ask whether it is the fact that the railway companies are now refusing to carry minerals?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should like to have notice of that question.

  Irish Railways (Pooling Arrangements).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that before entering into pooling arrangements the Great Northern, Midland Great Western, and Great Southern Railway Companies, Ireland, granted rebates on live stock shipped by the different steamship companies from Ireland to Great Britain at the rate of 6d. per head on pigs and 1s. per head on cattle; and, seeing that this rebate has been discontinued since the pooling, will he cause inquiry to be made into the loss sustained by the shippers by the change?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have asked the railway companies concerned for their observations in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of their replies.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the carrying companies receive about 60 per cent, and the noncarrying companies receive 40 per cent. of the freights, to the detriment of the shippers?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am communicating the substance of the hon. Member's question to the railway companies, and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive the replies.

  "Syndicalist" Prosecution.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether they are prosecuting the Syndicalists under the Act of 1797; and whether he can state the date of the latest previous prosecutions under this Act?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The prosecution is for an offence under the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797, and also for a common law misdemeanour. The latest previous prosecution under that Act was in 1804.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words which were complained of by the prosecution were printed at length in the "Daily Mail" and "Daily Express," and will he proceed against those papers?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, and is he aware that these identical words have been printed in at least a hundred newspapers, and two poor printers have been prosecuted, and none of the other people are being prosecuted?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The prosecution is against those who were responsible for the publication and printing of the newspaper, and who are the only persons against whom there is any evidence, at present of a criminal offence. Other newspapers have published it, but I have, advisedly, not proceeded against those newspapers because it is desired to establish that to publish a manifesto of this kind, which appeared first in the "Syndicalist," is a grave offence. The matter was brought to my notice, and it is in the nature of a manifesto which I have not seen published anywhere else.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the offensive words were?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The offensive words are very long. They call upon the soldiers to refuse to obey the orders of their officers should they be called upon to fire at any time in case of disorder or riot.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask when detectives raid a person's house, if they find papers and documents in type, are they not supposed to leave them intact?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the prosecution of the "Syndicalist" newspaper had been taken by direction of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he would take steps to protect the free expression of Sydicalist or other political views?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The prosecution in question was authorised by me in the ordinary course of my official duties. These proceedings do not prevent the free expression of Syndicalist or other political views, they are taken to prevent the incitement of soldiers to disobey the orders of their officers, offences for which soldiers would incur grave penalties.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not usual in the case of a political prosecution for the Attorney-General to consult the Government before taking action?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Yes, Sir, but I do not look upon this as a political prosecution. It is a very rare but a very serious offence, and it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to take the steps he considers necessary.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a rare offence to ask Christians not to kill?
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Attorney-General whether he has taken any steps to prevent Privy Councillors and others inciting people in Ulster to take such action as would bring about "dire consequences"?

  Special Police Force.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary if he has issued instructions to police authorities to swear in

  1515
  citizens as a special police force; whether persons are being informed that it is compulsory on them to be so sworn; and whether any instructions have been given to the police as to their action in the case of those who, for conscientious or other reasons, refuse to take the oath or to serve?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Two circulars were issued from the Home Office last autumn calling the attention of police authorities to the desirability of making provision for the temporary increase of their forces in times of emergency by the establishment of special police reserves or the enrolment of special constables. By law any qualified person appointed a special constable who refuses to serve is liable to a penalty; but what the Home Office suggested was the enrolment of persons willing to serve. I have issued no such instructions as those referred to in the first part of the question. I am not aware that any persons are being informed that it is compulsory on them to be sworn, and as I have no reason to think any police officer or magistrate has proposed to make use of the compulsory powers, there has been no occasion to issue any instructions of the nature referred to in the last part of the question.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I should like to ask whether the railway companies have power to swear in those constables, and if he is aware that preferential treatment is given to those who allow themselves to be sworn in as against those who conscientiously object?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe the answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the second part of the question.

  Colliery Statistics.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Home Secretary if he will state for the years 1910 or 1911 the total number of men employed in the collieries in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, and the average weekly wages which such men respectively earn?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of persons employed at coal-producing mines during 1910 was: In England, 725,886; in Scotland, 131,315; in Wales, 174,776. The figures for 1911 are not yet available. The Home Office
  1516
  has no information as to the average wages paid.

  Suffragists in Prison.
  Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a notice in a paper called "Votes for Women" asking for parcels and hampers of provisions to be sent to the prisoners now in Holloway; and, if so, will he say whether it is permitted to all prisoners there to receive luxuries from their friends outside, or whether this advantage is enjoyed only by female prisoners?
  Mr. McKENNA: All prisoners of both sexes, while on remand or awaiting trial, or treated under Rule 243a, are permitted to have food sent in for them from outside, but the prison authorities have power to regulate the extent to which this privilege shall be enjoyed, and care will be taken to prevent its being abused.
  Mr. WATTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that in several instances first offenders were, in the recent trials of window breakers at Bow Street, given longer periods of imprisonment than those who had previously been convicted for a similar offence; whether it is usual to deal more leniently with first offenders; whether this is entirely in the hands of the magistrate; and whether he will take any action in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: The sentence to be passed on a convicted offender is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Court within the limits of the Statute under which the conviction takes place. I have no reason to doubt that, in the cases referred to, that discretion has been exercised properly and with due regard to all the circumstances of the individual case. It is usual for an offender on his first conviction to be treated more leniently than one who is guilty of repeated breaches of the law, but this is a rule that admits of numerous exceptions. No sufficient cause has been shown for interference on my part, but I should in ordinary course consider on its merits any representation made to me on behalf of any individual prisoner.

  COAL STRIKE.

    INTIMIDATION.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to state that in no case has the working of any coal mine been prevented by actual or anticipated violence or intimidation?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is impossible for me or for anyone to say how far the action of the men on strike may have been governed by fears well founded or otherwise of possible violence. I think, however, the House will agree that, considering the extent and magnitude of the strike, it is remarkable how few and insignificant have been the disturbances accompanying it. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of recognising the assistance which the leaders of the miners have rendered by their speeches and influence in the maintenance of law and order.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Although there has not been much trouble, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the enormous amount of distress which exists amongst those who, in consequence of the coal strike, are not allowed to work?
    The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had any information with regard to an outrage by a number of miners at the collieries of Richard Evans and Co., of Haydock, Lanes, on 13th March, in which three constables were stated to have been so injured as to necessitate their removal to hospital?
    Mr. McKENNA: A slight disturbance took place at the Haydock Colliery on the 13th. It appears to have been occasioned by the employment of other than surface-men to fill coal wagons. The police were stoned, and three of them were slightly injured; but order was promptly restored, and I am informed by the chief constable that he does not anticipate a recurrence of the disturbance.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken, or will he take, the necessary steps to bring the offenders to justice?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying so, but I deprecate very much questions which can only create feelings of anger.

    DISTRESS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to do anything to relieve the distress in the country caused by the coal strike?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government, as I stated last week, are carefully watching the situation, and the local authorities throughout the country are also fully alive to it.
    Viscount WOLMER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman in view any proceedings to assist those families who at the present time are on the verge of starvation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I say that we are carefully watching the situation.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing immediate measures, where necessary, to cope with the increasing distress amongst the poor and unemployed throughout the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I have just given to the Noble Lord the Member for Newton.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman wait till the people are starving or will he take immediate action?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will do what they consider necessary in the interests of the community.

    MINERS' BALLOT.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn during the strike negotiations to instances of fraud in the conduct of ballots of miners' trade unions; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as to fraud in the conduct of ballots of miners' trade unions, and in any case the Government have no power to intervene.

    IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the London and North-Western Railway Company, which is receiving special subsidies for accelerating the Irish mail service, are now running their mail trains slow with the professed object of saving coal; whether he is aware that the connections for the trains to the different parts of Ireland are thereby missed, with consequent inconvenience to the travelling public and also to the commercial community in Ireland; whether the action of the London and North-Western Company has the further result of involving the Post Office in payment of special trains in addition to the special subsidies which are not being earned; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The facts are generally as stated by the hon. Member except as regards the question of expense to the Post Office. Such an interruption of industry as is due to the coal strike must inevitably have its effect upon postal communication, which is, of course, dependent on the maintenance of the regular train service of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company is drawing this subsidy for which it is not giving value?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir; the subsidies are modified in accordance with the service given in certain cases. I cannot say, in the particular case the hon. Member has in mind, whether any subsidies are paid, but the Post Office is economising the service in view of the fewer mail trains which are being run.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: If the railway company does not give value in accordance with their contract, can the railway company be placed under any penalty?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Post Office is a very economical Department; we have a very careful eye upon each case.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: That does not answer my question.

  INSURANCE ACT.

    LECTURES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware of the difficulties of working the National Insurance Act, especially with reference to medical benefits, in such districts as Orkney and Shetland, and the position of the medical profession under the Act; and if he would send a competent person as official lecturer should the Scottish Insurance Commissioners be unable through poverty or otherwise to provide such a lecturer; (2) if he had now informed himself of the refusal of the Scotch Insurance Commissioners to send an official lecturer to explain the provisions of the National Insurance Act; and, in view of the fact that their refusal was based on the grounds that they had no funds at their disposal, he would state on what grounds they provided official lecturers for places of easy access, and where there would be little difficulty in working the Act, and refused to send lecturers to such places as
    1520
    Shetland where the difficulties of working the Act were much greater; and (3) if he was aware that it had been admitted that there was nothing approaching the circumstances of Scotland (the Highlands and Islands) in the case of either England or Wales; that a very high percentage of the people in these districts died young, and that was the reason for making special provision for dealing with the Highlands and Islands; that in face of the said admission the Scottish Insurance Commissioners had refused to send special official lecturers to Orkney and Shetland; and if he would explain why this course had been adopted?
    Mr. MUNROasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Insurance Commissioners in Scotland had intimated their inability to send a lecturer on the National Insurance Act to Kirkwall by reason of want of funds to enable them to do so; and, if so, whether he would take steps to secure that this obstacle was removed and that Kirkwall should share with the rest of Scotland in the advantage of having the Act officially expounded?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I propose taking questions 27, 28, 36, and 103 together. More than a month elapsed between the offer of the Scottish Commission to send lecturers, and the receipt of a request for one from Shetland. In the interval the enormous demand for lectures throughout Scotland had resulted in the official lecturers being so fully engaged that it was impracticable at the moment to send one to so great a distance as Shetland. I fully recognise, however, the necessity of the Act being adequately explained in such districts, and I am glad to state that arrangements are now being made for a lecturer to visit, not only Kirkwall, but other parts of both Orkney and Shetland.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Lerwick, Stornaway, and other places there are competent insurance men who thoroughly understand the Act and could co-operate?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that that is so, tout I am trying to get before everyone concerned some official information as to the Act.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that no person is en-

    1521
    gaged to explain the Act who is interested in inducing men to join particular societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is one of the first things the Commissioners have laid down.

    ARMY COUNCIL SCHEME.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the uncertainty on the part of civil employés of the War Department as to the mode of their health insurance under the National Insurance Act, he would state what were the equivalent benefits decided upon by the Army Council in the case of such employés, so that the latter might know before it was too late whether it was in their best interests to join approved societies, like other civilian employés, or to rest satisfied with such benefits as might be provided through the medium of the Army Council?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commission are in communication with the War Office, but it is not possible to state at present which grades of public employés will be excepted under paragraph 6 of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Act, on the ground that the provision made for them in sickness and disablement is, on the whole, not less favourable than the corresponding benefits of the Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it a fact that these civilian employés of the War Office will receive at least as good benefits under the Army Council as they would receive if they were ordinary civilian employés?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If they do not receive as good benefits under the Army Council as under the Act they will not be exempted from the Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: What they wish to know is whether it is advisable for them to join approved societies outside the Army Council scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They cannot join approved societies except as voluntary members outside the Army Council scheme until this point has been decided. We are trying to get it decided as soon as possible.

    REGULATIONS (LIBRARIES).
    Mr. FRANCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would arrange for copies of the National Insurance Act, together with copies of all regulations,
    1522
    model rules, and other literature issued by the Insurance Commissioners, to be placed in all the public libraries of the United Kingdom for reference?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be happy to arrange for copies of the Act and at present for such further publications of the Insurance Commissioners as are of general interest and importance to be supplied free to public libraries, as the hon. Member suggests.

    WELSH COMMISSION.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked whether it was proposed to make any appointments by the method of nomination under the National Insurance Act in Wales; (2) whether Papers would be circulated, and whether an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the proposed method of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners for making appointments under the National Insurance Act in Wales, and (3) whether the public authorities and educational bodies in Wales would elect representatives on the proposed advisory council for appointments under the National Insurance Act in Wales?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have already said, a scheme advanced by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners is now under consideration, and I am willing to listen to any representations concerning the best method of making appointments under the Commission.
    Mr. E. JONES: Is it intended to adhere to the method of nomination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think the scheme suggested the method of nomination. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme will not be approved of until there has been full opportunity for those interested to represent their views.
    Mr. PEEL: Have any officials been appointed by the Welsh Commissioners by nomination and not by examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that that arises out of the question, but particulars as to the officials already appointed can be seen in the White Paper already circulated.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: By whom is the scheme now being considered?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: By myself, as representing the Treasury.
    Mr. ROCH: How is it possible to make representations about a scheme which Members have not seen?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Member is very familiar with the details of the scheme. In any case, any representations as to the best method of making the appointments will be gladly received by me.
    Mr. E. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a deputation was sent to ask for information and could not get it?

    STAMPS (DESIGN).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the design for the stamps to be employed for the purposes of the National Insurance Act had yet been decided upon?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir; the design for the National Health Insurance stamps has now been approved.

    SOCIETIES' APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that, in spite of his promise that those societies which found it impossible to send before 19th March copies of their future rules in their applications for approval should not be prejudiced, many societies would be quite unable to send in their complete applications by that date, and were consequently in great anxiety as to their position; and whether, in view of this fact, he could see his way to allow further time for the making of applications for the list of societies which would receive priority of consideration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Commissioners have had many representations as to the anxiety of societies which wish to appear in the first list of approved societies for extension of time in order to complete the necessary changes of their rules. They have decided to allow an extension until 2nd April. This need not imply delay in date of approval, and I hope that all concerned will recognise the great importance of making as early application as possible.

  Customs and Excise Duties (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state approximately the amount of Customs and Excise duties levied in Ireland on goods exported to and consumed in Great
  1524
  Britain; and the amount of such duties levied in Great Britain on goods exported to and consumed in Ireland during the last five years?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No official record is kept with regard to dutiable articles, other than spirits, interchanged between Great Britain and Ireland. I will circulate with the Votes a statement showing the figures as to spirits. [See Written, Answers this date.]

  Directorships (Retired Public Servants).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that two gentlemen recently retired from the public service had become directors of Armstrong's, Limited; whether these gentlemen held retiring pensions; whether, if so, their pensions were held on conditions which precluded them accepting such directorships; and whether, in future, retiring pensions would be granted subject to the condition that the Treasury might exercise a veto on their holders joining the boards of public companies?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative; to the third and fourth in the negative. The Treasury have no legal right under existing powers to impose a condition of the kind suggested.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity, on the Estimates or otherwise, of discussing this whole question, which is very important?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Board of Works Loans (Ireland).
  Mr. CREANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that the Board of Works (Ireland) had refused to sanction loans to tenants who had signed for purchase of their holdings, but to whom the vesting order had not been issued, on the ground that there was no certainty that such agreements would be sanctioned, and if the Commissioners should, on final investigation, so refuse such tenants would have to pay all arrears, including the amount added to purchase-money; and whether, in view of the uncertainty of these tenants as to their future position, steps would be taken by the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the facts and to issue such certificates as

  1525
  would satisfy the Board of Works and all parties concerned as to whether the vesting order would or would not be finally issued?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the Estates Commissioners are unable to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to loans made by the Board of Works, tenants who have signed agreements to purchase are treated like other tenants, and if they have arrears of more than twelve months rent, this is a bar to their obtaining loans. But the Board have, with the sanction of the Treasury, made arrangements by which, if certain conditions are fulfilled, this difficulty can be met.

  Blackpool Small-pox Hospital.
  Mr. SUTTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had been asked to sanction the conversion of the small-pox hospital maintained by the borough of Blackpool and the districts of Fylde, Preston, and Garstang, into a sanatorium for tuberculous patients on the ground that it had never once been used since its erection ten years ago; if so, whether he had given the consent requested; and whether the result of the neglect of vaccination, through the Vaccination Acts of 1898 and 1907, had been to make small-pox liability less than had ever before been known in Great Britain?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): With regard to the first part of the question, I received an application from the joint board who maintained the hospital referred to for an Order to empower them to treat cases of pulmonary tuberculosis at the hospital, and a local inquiry was held in regard to it. The inspector who visited the site of the hospital, reports that it is not suitable for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis, and I have informed the joint board that I do not propose to make any Order in the matter. With regard to the second part of the question, I prefer to express no opinion.

  Milk Tests.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he was aware that samples of milk for the purpose of testing for tuberculosis had been of late taken from churns arriving in London without first mixing the milk; and whether, in
  1526
  view of the fact that this abstraction of the cream would prejudicially affect the milk if it were afterwards tested for fat, he would give instructions that no samples should be taken in future unless the milk was properly mixed?
  Mr. BURNS: I am advised that the method of taking the samples is such that the percentage of fat in the milk is not likely to be altered to any material extent.

  Contributions for Imperial Services.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the average contribution to the Imperial Services for two years ending 31st March, 1911, was—for England and Wales, £87,237,250; for Scotland, £9,334,750; and for Ireland, £1,018,250 deficit; and average contribution for same period to Imperial revenue was £138,113,750, £17,023,500, and £10,010,000 respectively, he could, having regard to the principle of federal Home Rule, recently approved by a majority of this House, state the percentage of contribution in respect of Imperial Services that under such proposed federal system would be demanded from each of the three kingdoms?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to state the percentages asked for.

  Taxable Capacity (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in determining the relative taxable capacities of the three kingdoms of the present Union of Great Britain and Ireland, he was prepared to allow such taxable capacity to be based on the percentages of population, assessment to Income Tax, liability to Estate Duty, estimated wealth, and estimated national income of each component kingdom to the United Kingdom as a whole; and whether, should such method of calculation be adopted, he could, from the Census Returns of 1911 and Revenue Returns of 1909–10 and 1910–11, state the taxable capacity of each of the three kingdoms as a percentage of the whole?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to make any calculation on the basis suggested by the hon. Member.

  Bishoprics Enabling Bill.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities during the present Session for the passing of the Bishoprics Enabling Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Past efforts on my part to help the progress of this Bill have not met with encouraging results, and I can make no promise as to giving it facilities.

  Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (Mortgages).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants to call in the mortgages of such of their members as remained faithful to their employers in the railway strike of last year; and whether he will introduce legislation to deal with the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member's question, together with a similar question by the hon. Member for Dulwich were on the Order Paper for Thursday last. An answer was then given to the following effect by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade: "I have seen in the Press a copy of a circular letter, stated to have been addressed to branch secretaries of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in November last. The circular referred to a resolution passed at the September meeting of the society to the effect that the mortgages of all members who failed to join in the strike last August should be called in, but I understand that no such mortgage has been called in, and I should hope that no step of that character will be taken."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: whether, if the circular is persisted in, he will bring in legislation to prevent its operation?

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will state what means were taken to prevent the recommendations of the Committee on Irish Finance being officially conveyed by any Member of the Government to anyone outside the Government without his knowledge?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is that, so far as I know, no means were taken.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the decision to
  1528
  convey or not to convey the recommendations of the Committee on Irish Finance to anyone outside the Government was communicated to every Member of the Government or only to certain of its Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government, and therefore all the Members of it, are responsible for the course adopted.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Were the representatives of the Government in another place aware of the exact state of the case?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what the state of their information was. My answer was: that the Government as a whole are responsible.

  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Prime Minister whether Sir Kenneth Muir Mackenzie, who has been appointed a member of the Civil Service Royal Commission, is responsible for the bulk of appointments in connection with the Royal Courts of Justice; if so, whether he was aware of this fact When the appointment was made; and whether, if Sir Kenneth Muir Mackenzie is more or less concerned in the subject matter to be investigated by the Commission, it will be possible for him to retain his position on the Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is that the responsibility for the appointments referred to by the hon. Member rests with the Lord Chancellor. As regards the latter part, I consider that Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's services and experience render him eminently fitted to serve on the Commission.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these appointments are handed over by the Lord Chancellor?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Sir, I am not aware of anything of the kind.
  Mr. KING: Is the appointment made so that Scotsmen may have their fair share?

  Welsh Disestablishment Bill.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister, whether he still hopes to introduce the Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church in Wales and to make provision of its temporalities before Easter; and how many days will be given

  1529

  to the discussion of the Motion to ask leave to introduce the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: lam not yet in a position to make a definite statement.

  Seddon Trial.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the large photograph in an illustrated paper of 15th March of the court room at the conclusion of the Seddon trial in the Old Bailey, showing the judge wearing the black cap and the prisoner receiving the death sentence; and whether, in view of the fact that the City Corporation is responsible for the granting of permission to take such photographs and the Home Secretary has no control, he will introduce legislation either to prohibit altogether the taking of such photographs or to provide that cinematograph proprietors will have equal facilities of photographing such proceedings and making a public spectacle of them?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. My attention had not been called to this matter before my hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper. I am now in communication with the Court authorities on the subject.

  Civil Servants and Private Employment.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether two eminent Civil servants recently retired have entered the service of a firm or firms engaged on the manufacture of armaments for the Government; whether he has considered the effect of such a transference of knowledge acquired in the public service upon the public interest; whether these gentlemen are in receipt of pensions from the State; and, if so, whether the Government can prevent the recurrence of similar re-engagements of Civil servants upon their retirement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first three portions of the question is in the affirmative. As at present advised, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of the ex-Civil servants as regards their acceptance of such appointments, unless public interests are adversely affected.
  Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that these directorships raise important national questions of a unique and unprecedented character?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I have not sufficient knowledge to answer that question.

  Assessment of Parishes.
  Mr. INGLEBYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to some figures given by the chairman of the finance committee to the Docking Board of Guardians at its last meeting purporting to show that some parishes in the Docking Union are largely under-assessed and some parishes over-assessed; and whether, for the guidance of overseers and assessment committees, he could obtain the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to permit copies of the gross assessments made by surveyors of taxes and based on accurate returns to be placed at their disposal?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has not been drawn to the matter referred to. I may, however, refer the hon. Member to Section 13 of the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, and Section 22 of the Revenue Act, 1863, under which assessment committees may require certain information of the kind in question to be placed at their disposal.

  Asylums Officers.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether any alteration has taken place in the hours of labour and other conditions of the asylums officers since the Report of the Select Committee of 1911; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to promote legislation to carry out the improvements recommended?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Commissioners in Lunacy that, although in certain asylums there has been some reduction in the hours of duty and some alteration in the other conditions of asylum officers' service, there has been no general alteration in these respects since the Report of the Select Committee. The Government cannot undertake to promote legislation on the subject. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the Bill which was considered and amended by the Select Committee has been reintroduced this Session.

  Motor Cars (Dazzling Head-lights).
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the subject of accidents caused by dazzling head-lights on motor cars has received his

  1531
  further consideration; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to take any steps to deal with the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Practical experiments have been recently made by the Board's engineering inspectors, but I am afraid some time must necessarily elapse before I am in a position to say whether it is possible to deal effectively with the matter.

  Milk Preservatives.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes in the Board's Regulations for the restriction of the use of preservatives in milk and cream to prohibit the use of formalin as a preservative of cream, but to permit the use for that purpose of boric acid, biborate of soda, and other like antiseptics deemed by medical experts to have an injurious effect upon the nervous system; whether, and for what reason, his expert advisers differentiate between these various adulterants; and whether sterilisation and keeping under suitable atmospheric conditions would in their opinion render unnecessary the use of all such preservatives?
  Mr. BURNS: The Draft Regulations which I have had prepared propose to prohibit the use of formalin in cream, but not to prohibit the use of boric acid, borax, or a mixture of those preservative substances, provided that a full declaration of the presence of the preservative and the amount added is made in the manner prescribed by the Regulations. The considerations which have been taken into account in framing the Draft Regulations in question are dealt with in Dr. Hamill's report to the Local Government Board respecting the use of preservatives in cream.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it necessary that we should have any of these nerve poisons in our London cream?
  Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Gentleman will look both at the Report and the Draft Regulations he will see that we are doing our very best to reduce these elements to the smallest possible proportion.

  Aliens' Relief.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Local Government Board (1)
  1532
  whether he can state the number of aliens admitted into lunatic asylums in the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive; and the average cost per week of their maintenance, including administration charges; and (2) whether he can state the number of aliens who were in receipt of outdoor relief in the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive?
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions, and I will deal with them together. The only information in my possession on the points raised in the questions is that which is given yearly in the Reports of the Inspector under the Aliens Act, 1905 (see Appendix III.). It relates only to the county and city of London and to certain other large towns in England and Wales and in Scotland. The figures for 1911 (not yet published) show that in these areas 2,513 aliens were in receipt of outdoor relief and 369 aliens were sent to lunatic asylums. I understand that the average weekly cost for each asylum inmate (excluding the cost of repairs, additions, and alterations in the asylums) was, in the year 1910, 9s. 11⅜d. in the county asylums and 11s. 2⅞d. in borough asylums. For the figures for previous years I must refer the hon. Member to the published Reports; but he should remember that they are not all strictly comparable with those for 1911, as the places from which they are collected have been varied from time to time.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Could not the figures dealing with the West Country be also made available?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire whether they can be made available hereafter; they are certainly not available now.

  Relief by Overseers of Poor.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked whether, in London and some other towns, the powers of the overseers as to relief of the poor have been transferred to the borough and town councils, either by a transfer of such powers or by making the council the overseers; if so, what are the names of the towns; to whom should application be made and by whom can the relief be given; whether the council can by resolution empower the town clerk or any other of its officers, or a committee of the council, to grant relief, or must each application be dealt with by the whole council; and what are the powers of relief transferred?
  Mr. BURNS: Apart from the Metropolitan borough councils, I am not aware that any municipal authority has the powers of overseers with respect to the giving of poor relief. The powers in question are extremely limited, as will be seen from Section 54 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, and it may be doubted whether in the Metropolis, where the Poor Law is very completely organised, these powers are of any substantial value or could be practically utilised.

  Education (Scotland).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the hardship imposed on teachers called on to attend vacation classes to equip themselves for the new requirements of the Scotch Education Act of 1908, in so far that the travelling and maintenance allowances foreshadowed in Section 17 of this Act are being seriously curtailed; and can he give any promise that early steps will be taken to meet all claims?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The amount spent on such travelling and maintenance allowances is in the discretion of the secondary education committees, who may be expected, in framing their estimates, to have regard to the relative importance of the various calls that may be made upon the district fund. The suggestion contained in the last clause of the question is, I fear, impracticable.
  Mr. PIRIEasked, in view of the disparity in numbers of nearly five to one between those who commence the higher grade course and those, who stay to finish it and are afterwards able to take the intermediate certificate, will he institute an inquiry to see whether a better method of selection of the desired number of suitable pupils can be found, seeing that the percentage of those who do not mature seems to indicate that many take up the course without proper knowledge of its intention and requirements; and would he also make inquiry whether any higher grade schools which have so far failed to justify their existence could be taken off the list with a view to the amount of public funds now expended on them being made available for primary education, in connection with which some of the Grants are now seriously curtailed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As to the first part of the question, the necessary power for dealing with the difficulty is reserved
  1534
  by Article 144 of the Day School Code and the accompanying footnote. As to the second, any school which fails to fulfil its function as a higher grade school will be removed from the list after due notice.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SUBMARINES (LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS).
    Mr. FRANCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can announce the date on which he expects to be able to secure that all types of submarines will be fitted with the latest and most complete form of apparatus for saving life and mitigating the dangers of this branch of the Service?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): Nearly all the submarines; are fitted with arrangements for providing the crew with a possible means of escape from the vessel. Up to the present it has not been practicable to fit this in the A Class. Experiments have just been carried out with an improved apparatus, which will enable the appliance to be fitted in this class. It is hoped that the supply and fitting will be complete in about two months.
    Mr. FRANCE: Are those who go to sea in the A class at present running exceptional danger?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It depends upon the views taken of the utility of the apparatus.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether any form of appliance can conceivably prevent danger?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, no.

    NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the representatives of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who attended the Coronation ceremony received any pay for the time they were absent from their civilian duties; if not, will he say why the Naval Volunteers should have been put in a worse position in that respect than the Territorials; and whether in the future they will be given equal treatment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The representatives of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve were paid their expenses in connection with travelling, victualling, and accommodation, this arrangement being considered appropriate at the time.
    Mr. WATT: Why should they be treated differently from the Territorials?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I do not know.
    Mr. WATT: Does not the right hon. hon. Gentleman think it his duty to know?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot undertake to know all these things.

    ESTABLISHMENT MEN.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state how many of the men who had passed the age of forty-five, but were otherwise eligible for establishment during the period of its suspension, have since been established, and how many men between the age of forty-five and fifty have been established since the age limit was extended, exclusive of those men who were passed over during the period of suspension and since established?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer has been circulated with the Votes last Thursday. [See Thursday, 14th March, 1912, col. 1407.]

  Royal Dockyards.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the number of skilled labourers allowed to be established in each department in His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The authorised numbers are as follows:—

  Captain of Dockyard's Department, Riggers and Skilled Labourers

  30

  Constructive Department

  166

  Engineering Department

  80

  Electrical Engineering Department

  20

  Naval Store Department

  9

  Sir JOHN JACKSONasked the total number of established men employed in His Majesty's dockyards in 1906–7, 1907–8, 1908–9, 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, respectively; the number of men placed on the establishment in each of these years; the date when the establishment was suspended; the date when the establishment was re-opened; and the total number of men (hired and established) employed in each of the years above specified?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to this question was issued with the Votes last Thursday. [See Thursday, 14th March, 1912, col. 1407.]

  Messrs. Huntley and Palmer, Reading.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord whether his attention has been called to the wages paid by Messrs. Huntley and Palmer, Reading, to biscuit weavers, coal runners, and other men and women workers; and if he is aware that, in consequence of the low wages paid to the workpeople in question, they have joined a trade union, with the result that a number of them have been dismissed for such action; and, in view of the firm being contractors to the Admiralty, whether he is prepared to take action in the matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have no contract with this firm, and there is no trace of any contract with them in recent years.

  Telephone Service.
  Major MORRISON-BELLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he could arrange that hon. Members making use of the three telephone boxes situated near the stairs to the Members' Cloak Room should not have the benefit or otherwise of one another's conversation?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury: The First Commissioner is trying to remedy the defect complained of by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the practice of the Post Office in the matter of accepting unused reply-paid telegram vouchers in part payment of subscribers' monthly accounts for trunk calls, telegrams, express letters, etc.; and whether he can see his way to modify the regulations in this matter on the lines of extending the facilities?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been the practice of the Post Office for some years to accept unused reply-paid telegram vouchers in part payment of telephone subscribers' monthly accounts for trunk calls, telegrams, express letters, etc. The only restriction hitherto attached to the use of the vouchers in this way has been that they must have been issued during the month covered by the account in respect of which they have been tendered in part payment. I have now arranged for this restriction to be modified so as to admit of their acceptance provided they are not actually out of date—that is, provided

  1537
  they are not more than two months old when used for the payment of accounts.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the closing of the public telephone at the Troedyrhiw post office on Thursday afternoons inconveniences the inhabitants; and whether, without interfering with the half-holiday of the merchant in whose premises the post office is situate, he can arrange for a public call office which would be available to users at all hours?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The closing of the public telephone call office at Troedyrhiw on Thursday afternoons is a result of the closing of the post office at that time in order to afford the sub-postmaster and his assistants a half-holiday. The local authority agreed to the change. A continuous exchange service is given to subscribers, but I fear that it will be difficult to arrange for call office facilities to be available on Thursday afternoons without curtailing the half-holiday privilege. I will, however, inquire whether any such arrangement is practicable.
  Mr. CATHCARTWASON: Will the Postmaster-General state whether, under the proposals for telephone extension in rural districts, he will be able to afford the islands of Flotta and of Papa Westray any facilities, especially in view of the fact that the said islands, with a population numbering some hundreds, have never received the benefits of the telegraph?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the high cost of laying submarine cables and the difficulty of maintaining them in the waters around the Orkneys, I fear that it is impracticable to establish telephonic communication with the numerous small Islands referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question of the further extension of wireless telegraphy?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Wireless telegraphy has been used, to some extent, in the islands forming part of the hon. Member's constituency. If the hon. Member will make any practical suggestion to me in regard to its further extension I shall consider it.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked on what grounds the refusal to allow copies of Service journals to be placed in the rest rooms of the telephone exchanges in the General Post Office, South, is based;
  1538
  whether he can state what considerations govern the selection of the literature supplied to these rooms, and who is responsible for the selection; and whether, in view of the importance to telephonists of the Report of the Medical Committee appointed to consider the conditions of working, he will also withdraw the refusal to allow copies of that report to be placed in these rooms?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am inquiring into this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question again in a few days' time.

  Galway Postmistress.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Postmaster-General whether Miss Lavan, who was recently appointed postmistress of Portumna, county Galway, has been removed, and some other person appointed in her place or about being so, without notice to the general public interested or any public man of the district; and whether, when notice had been given when a vacancy was created a few months ago by the retirement of the late postmaster, Mr. Lavan, he had received a memorial signed by most of the traders in the district and public men, requesting the appointment of Miss Morrissey, and also a memorial signed by the people and the authorities in her favour from the Craughwell district, where she is at present engaged in the post office; and, as the memorial states that she has given entire atisfaction, whether he will explain why the opinions of the inhabitants and representative have been ignored, and the office filled up without notice to anyone?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have found it necessary for disciplinary reasons to remove Miss Lavan from the situation of sub-postmistress of Portumna; but no one has yet been appointed to succeed her. I received and duly considered various recommendations and memorials on behalf of Miss Morrissey and other candidates before I selected Miss Lavan, and I am prepared to reconsider them now that the question of filling the situation has again arisen.

  Postal Facilities, Charlton Kings.
  Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked whether, as the district of Charlton Kings, in Gloucestershire, with a population of over 5,000, has been deprived of all postal and telegraph facilities on every Wednesday in

  1539
  each week in order to provide the postmaster with a half-holiday, he will arrange for some assistant to take up the duties on that afternoon, and so afford the inhabitants of the district the usual advantages of a post office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As has been explained to the hon. Member, a weekly half-holiday was granted to the sub-postmaster with the consent of the local authorities, and in accordance with the general practice recommended by the Parliamentary Committee of 1906–7. It is not the case that the district is deprived of all postal and telegraph facilities during the time that the sub-office is closed. I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion made.

  Women Clerks, Post Office.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a letter from the Assistant Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Norfolk, dated 30th December, 1911, stating that the Hobhouse Committee must be understood to have fixed the scale of salaries for the women clerks in the Post Office in respect of their average work; whether these women clerks have recently had certain of the simpler clerical or quasi-clerical duties hitherto performed by them taken away from them and assigned to a new class of assistant women clerks in the money order department; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that by taking away the simpler duties he has raised the average character of their work, he will now consider the advisability of raising their salaries in accordance with the principle on which the Hobhouse Committee fixed their scale of salaries?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the Assistant Postmaster-General's letter. The elementary duties were not distributed among the women clerks as a whole, and did not affect the average quality of the work of most of them. These duties have been transferred from a few women clerks, and no doubt the average quality of the work of these few has been improved. But I cannot see that this raises any question of improving the scale of salary of the class as a whole; the few women relieved of the elementary duties are only doing the same work now as their colleagues did in the past.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not a fact that the work which these women have been doing in the past has now been heightened in quality and difficulty; and if their salaries were fixed by the Hobhouse Committee in respect of the previous quality of their work, does he not think it is desirable that the salaries of these women should be raised?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The work is not being paid for at a lower scale than was recommended by the Hobhouse Committee.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "few" persons whose work is affected by this really number hundreds, and that it is now proposed to give the work to hundreds of women who are paid not on the higher but the lower scale?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already said that I am not prepared to make any change on a large scale until the Select Committee has examined into the question and expressed their opinion on the matter.
  Mr. WARDLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say it is not a fact that a lower scale of wages than was fixed by the Hobhouse Committee is being paid?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In the case of assistant women clerks?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The class of assistant women clerks does not exist. The work which is now being done by the women clerks' class is being paid for on the scale recommended by the Hobhouse Committee, and no women clerks are being paid at the lower scale.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Is it not a fact that these women are receiving less pay for the hours they work than any other women in the Civil Service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the interpretation of the Hobhouse Committee's recommendation given by the Assistant Postmaster-General is contrary to his own interpretation, and will he say which interpretation we are to accept?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware that there has been any such inconsistency.

  Parcels Post (Damage).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if, in estimating the extent to which parcels are damaged in the post, any allowance is made by the postal authorities for the number of parcels injured in the post about which no complaints are made, or if it is assumed that serious damage is restricted to those about which complaints are made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any general estimate of the extent to which parcels are damaged in the post has regard not only to the number of complaints received, but to the observation of my officers and to the reports made to me on the subject from time to time, but statistics relating to complaints of damage can, of course, only be based on the number of actual complaints received.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say approximately how many complaints of parcels being injured in the post have been received at the chief office in London, according to the figures supplied to him in response to his recent inquiry on the subject, giving as nearly as may be the actual number instead of the proportion per thousand of parcels handled?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the hon. Member presses for the figures supplied to me in response to my recent inquiries, I will give them. As I stated in my answer to him of the 22nd February last, complete and trustworthy figures could not be given without communication with every head office in the United Kingdom. The number of complaints received at the chief office in London was, during January, 1911, 2,929, and during January, 1912, 1,796. The number of parcels delivered in England and Wales during the period in respect of which these complaints may be presumed to have arisen was, in December, 1910, 13,179,619, and in December, 1911, 13,249,104.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say approximately what proportion of parcels sent by parcels post require special handling; and if the estimate of the proportion of those about which complaint is made on the ground of damage in transit relates to the total number of parcels sent or to the number requiring special handling?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the information which the hon. Member desires is what proportion of parcels can, if properly packed, be conveyed as safely in bags as in baskets, the answer is that, according to the estimates furnished by some of my most experienced officers, the proportion is about 95 per cent. For the remainder baskets or other special means of protection are used when possible, as has always been the practice. In reply to the second part of his question, I beg to refer him to my answer of 22nd February, which shows clearly that the estimated number of complaints received was compared with the total number of parcels sent.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can say how many business firms and chambers of trade and commerce have made representations about parcels injured in the post since the extended use of canvas bags instead of wicker baskets?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand the hon. Member's question to have reference to general representations made to the chief office in London. The answer is that ten firms and eighteen chambers of trade and commerce have made such representations.

  Laud Registry Staff.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Attorney-General why members of the Land Registry staff who have hitherto occupied the position of superintendent surveyors have been transferred from this position to that of temporary third-class clerks, involving a reduction in pay from 17s. to 8s. 7d. per diem, although every satisfaction has been expressed at the manner in which they have carried out their duties in the former position; and whether steps will be taken to reinstate them in the map department from which they have been removed?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The original employment of the gentlemen referred to (three in number) was temporary in the map department of the Land Registry, and was discontinued after a year's notice, at the end of March, 1909, on a diminution of that department which had become necessary. As they stated that they had no prospect of obtaining other employment, they were offered the refusal of three new posts in the temporary clerical staff of the Land Registry which were created about the same time. This offer was accepted by them.

AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I crave the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement with regard to the action of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in connection with certain mortgages held by its members, my reason being that whilst I claim that the whole of the business is of a purely domestic character and ought never to have been mentioned in this House, in view of the questions asked and the various statements made, wherein, it is alleged that I attempted to mislead this House on an important question of fact, I desire to submit a statement of the case in order that the House itself may judge my action. Following the strike of August last, the executive committee, at their September sitting, decided to instruct the trustees to foreclose mortgages of those members who were not loyal to the executive committee's instructions. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is liberty."] In accordance with this resolution I issued a letter to the branches of the society which had members who held mortgages. In this letter I asked the branch secretaries to give the necessary information as to the action these members took up during the strike. The trustees then would be in a position to consider each case with the full information before them. The result of the letter shows that there were ninety-two members affected by this resolution, and, on the trustees reporting the full facts to the executive committee the latter body decided that no further action should be taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
  It appears, however, that on 5th December the society's solicitors received from the solicitors of a member residing at Enfield a letter intimating they had received instructions to transfer the mortgage. On 8th December I informed the society's solicitors that no notice had been given to this member to foreclose; but, it appears, he having arranged to raise the money from the Great Eastern Building Society, the transfer was completed. Briefly, these are the full facts of the case, and, in view of the statement which appeared in a newspaper on 11th March, wherein Mr. A. E. Beck, of the Trade Unionists' Defence League, stated—
  'that many cases of a serious hardship had occurred as a result of these mortgages being called in,'
  1544
  and, further—
  "he did not know the number of mortgages that had been called in, but he knew that they numbered hundreds,"
  I will leave the House to judge as to whether, having regard to the fact there were only ninety-two cases involved, and, further, that the only one redeemed was done by the member himself entirely on his own initiative, I was not justified in saying that the statement appearing in this paper was a malicious attack on a trade union, and without foundation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any statement to make now as to the altered course of business in consequence of proposed legislation?
The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps, Sir, it would be convenient I should preface what I have to say by giving notice that I propose to-morrow to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the payment of a minimum wage for persons employed underground in coal mines, and for purposes incidental thereto. I defer any statement either as to the causes or the results of the recent negotiations or of the grounds for the proposed legislation until I have an opportunity of doing so tomorrow, when there will be an equal opportunity afforded to every hon. Gentleman for a free discussion; but, in the opinion of the Government, not only the introduction, but the passing of that Bill at the earliest possible moment—and by that I mean not later than the close of the present week—is very serious, and, indeed, imperative. For that purpose it has been necessary for us to recast the programme of business already announced.
What I suggest to the House as the proper and most convenient course of proceeding in view of these altered circumstances is as follows: To-night my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will introduce the Navy Estimates, and we shall hope to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. To-morrow I shall move a Resolution asking the House to give to the Government the time on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings of this week, which is at present appropriated to private Members' Motions and specifying the time for the various stages of the Coal Bill and Supply. I may point out that, in order to comply with the requirements of the law,

1545
it is essential that the Consolidated Fund Bill should be introduced this week, and that it should pass through its various stages in time to receive the Royal Assent on Thursday of next week, the 28th March. That is the latest day if the requirements of the law are to be complied with, that the Royal Assent can be given.
When that Resolution has been disposed of—and I hope it may be very promptly—I shall move for leave to introduce the Bill, the title of which I have just announced, and I should hope we might take that preliminary discussion, which, of course, would be carried on in the absence of the text of the Bill before it has been printed or circulated, up to 8.15. We should then ask the House, during the remainder of the evening to-morrow, to dispose in Committee of the Navy Votes A, 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, and 15, upon the understanding, of course, that it is only in order that they may be included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, and that the time which would have been given, and which was promised will be given at a later, and I hope a very early date.
On Wednesday we shall propose to ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, and after that again, rather as a formal matter, the Report stage of those Navy Votes necessary to include them in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
On Thursday we should hope the House will agree to the remaining stages of the Coal Mines Bill, and the Report of one or two outstanding Supplementary Votes, and I think the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means. If that were done, the Consolidated Fund Bill could be read a first time at the end of that evening. I am rather embarrassed in the allocation of this Time Table by the fact that Friday has for a long time past been consecrated by general expectation, and indeed by the rules of the House, to the discussion of a Bill connected with the Enfranchisement of Women.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Postpone it.
The PRIME MINISTER: Personally, I should be very glad to do so—not indefinitely, but for a short time; but, on the other hand, I know it would interfere with an enormous number of arrangements that have been made by a good many people if there were a disturbance of the programme for that particular day. We might, of course, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen prefer it, take the Supplementary and
1546
Ways and Means Reports after Five o'clock on Friday and introduce the Consolidated Fund Bill and read it a first time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am only throwing that out as a suggestion. I do attach great importance to the possibility of our passing through the various stages, as far as this House is concerned, and completing the remaining stages of the Coal Mines Bill on Thursday, in order that the House of Lords may have an opportunity of considering it on Friday; and, if possible, that it may receive the Royal Assent before the closing of the week. I am not going into controversial subjects, but that is a highly important object for us to attain. That is the reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, and that is the altered programme which I suggest for the business of the week.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, assuming this Bill has to go through, I agree with the Prime Minister in thinking that no unnecessary time ought to be lost in getting it through. At the same time, serious as is the crisis, I think everyone in the House must recognise that the measure proposed by the Government is also serious, and it does require adequate, though that does not mean necessarily, prolonged discussion. I would, therefore, make three definite suggestions to the Prime Minister, His proposal about other business seems to me extremely drastic, but for the reason I have given we wish to meet him as far as we reasonably can. As far as the Navy is concerned, I think it is hardly necessary to take quite as many Votes as he has put down, and I would suggest the number should be reduced. In addition to that, if the House agree to this very drastic treatment of the Navy Vote, I think it is not unreasonable for us to ask him that the general discussion on the Navy, which we do not have now, shall come immediately after Easter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Before."]—or before, so that no undue delay should take place in regard to that. As regards Friday, if it is necessary to take up the time of the House in this drastic way, I do not think—although I do not take exactly the view on the subject which comes up then as the Prime Minister—there is any reason why it should be treated in a special way, and I can see no objection to another day being given later for the discussion of it. As regards the Bill itself—the Bill dealing with the coal crisis—it seems to me hardly possible that we can adequately discuss

1547
the Second Reading the day after we have seen the Bill for the first time. I repeat I do not wish to put any unreasonable delay in the way of the Prime Minister. This is a measure the effect of which we cannot judge until we have seen it in print, and more than that, for the great bulk of us, we cannot judge it until we have had an opportunity of consulting with those who know what its effect will be. I am sure, therefore, we cannot have adequate discussion without an interval of at least twenty-four hours between the printing and the Second Reading Debate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think I am not unreasonable in the claims I put forward, and I sincerely trust he will meet us in regard to them.
The PRIME MINISTER: I can hardly complain of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think it is very reasonable, and well deserves consideration. I will deal with the specific points he has raised. First of all, with regard to the possible reduction in the number of Navy Votes, I will consult my right hon. Friend, and if it is possible we will do this.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask one question? I do not quite understand whether the Resolution that is going to be proposed to-morrow is a guillotine Resolution as regards all the business or only deals with private Members' time.
The PRIME MINISTER: I had much rather it was done by agreement. We must take private Members' time, but as to the rest I hope we may come to some agreement. As regards what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the reopening of the Debate on the General Navy Estimates, I think we can arrange for that before Easter. Tuesday, the 26th, is the day set aside for the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill; that is usually a formal stage, and we might very well devote the Government time that day to the continuation of the general discussion on these Votes. With regard to the Women's Suffrage Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I am concerned, is pushing an open door. There is some pressure from the other side. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman it is a necessity we should have a careful consideration of the principles of the Coal Mines Bill. But I should be very sorry, personally, that the House of Lords should
1548
not have that Bill before them as early as Friday. There are important interests very well represented in that House who are well competent to speak on this matter, and it would be rather hard on them if they were forced to discuss it at a Saturday's sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We do not like Saturday sittings here. I will carefully consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope it may be possible to come to a general arrangement as to the amount of time and number of days which the various stages will take.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether before the Prime Minister makes any definite arrangement about Friday's business, he will consult the promoters of the Conciliation Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord may be sure I am surrounded by them.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to suspend the eleven o'clock rule on the days that he is taking.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think we must.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Is there any reason why the Bill should not be printed and circulated before it is introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think it might be very convenient, but I do not know how far it is possible. I will consider it.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Commander Rupert Edward Cecil Lee Guinness, commonly called the hon. Rupert Edward Cecil Lee Guinness, for the County of Essex (South-Eastern Division).
BILLS PRESENTED.
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  "To secure Compensation to Market Gardeners for certain improvements." Presented by Mr. ROWLANDS; supported by Mr. Higham, Sir Robert Price, Mr. Soames, Mr. Winfrey, and Mr. George Greenwood; to be read a second time upon Monday, 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VACATION OF SEATS) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the vacation of Seats by Members of Parliament accepting offices of profit under the Crown." Presented by Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD; supported by Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Cave, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. Russell Rea, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The foundation of naval policy is finance, and the only credit that can be claimed by a Board of Admiralty is for keeping the requirements of the Navy at a minimum consistent with public safety, and for securing the utmost possible development of war power from the funds entrusted to them. If the country is of opinion that the needs of the Navy have been well and amply provided for, it is to the House of Commons and not to the Board of Admiralty—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to the First Lord—that their thanks and gratitude are due. It is necessary that this should be recognised, and it is right for me to say at this point that the great scale which our naval armaments have been forced to assume has only been rendered possible (without additional taxation or recourse to borrowing) by the wonderful fertility of the great Budget of 1909, for which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be long and variously remembered and increasingly respected. The financial aspect of the Naval Estimates is not cheerful. All the world is building navies, and everything connected with every navy is constantly increasing in size, complexity, and cost. Naval finance cannot be conveniently studied on the basis of a single year. Annual Estimates, however useful they may be for certain purposes of Parliamentary control, do not give the House of Commons a fair chance of understanding or of measuring naval expenditure. Capital ships affect the Estimates of three successive years. The
  1550
  Estimates I present to-day are almost entirely governed by what was settled last year and two years before, and the Estimates and war strength of two years hence will be mainly decided by what is determined this year by the House of Commons. So far as possible, I have tried to look ahead, and the effect of every measure which I shall propose to-day has been and is being worked out on the various Votes for three, four, and five years ahead. It may be, though of course I do not make any pledge on the point, that during the course of the present year we shall find ourselves able so far to forecast future naval finance as to be able to present in the House of Commons next year the Estimates not of one but of a series of years. For the present, however, my study of this immense business does not enable me to go beyond certain general indications in regard to prospective finance which are given, and will, I trust, be taken strictly without prejudice.
  Owing principally to labour troubles, which have involved delays in shipbuilding, there has been an under-spending on the Votes for shipbuilding, repairs, and maintenance of £1,600,000. The bulk of that sum has to be at once surrendered to the Exchequer, although the liability to meet which it was voted for Parliament still continues. In consequence the Estimates of 1912–13 are artificially inflated by £600,000, and those of 1913–14 by about £1,000,000. It has been found necessary, with Treasury sanction, to dispose of £300,000 of this under-spending, so as to provide for urgent services, and this has had the effect of relieving by that amount the Estimates of 1912–13. The extra burden on the Estimate of 1913–14 is, however, irremediable. Since it is most desirable, both for home and foreign services, that Naval Estimates should, if possible, exhibit a continuous downward tendency, apart from measures consequent upon new increases abroad, I have endeavoured to bring as much expenditure forward into the year 1912–13 as possible in order to lighten the burden of succeeding years. A rather larger proportion than usual of the new programme is to be taken in hand during 1912–13, and all reserves of guns, ammunition, and torpedoes are to be brought up to their full level. These measures, which are justifiable and even necessary on other grounds, will, I hope, have the effect of securing for Votes 8 and 9—the two principal index votes an naval finance—a continuous decline aggregating in the three

  1551
  years in prospect about £2,300,000. This diminution would continue to the extent of another £300,000 if the survey were extended two years further.
  The progressive reduction and improvement in Votes 8 and 9 will be very largely counteracted by the growth of automatic and uncontrollable charges, charges which accrue on Votes other than Votes 8, 9 and 10. The Accountant-General estimates that even if no addition to numbers were necessary beyond the 135,000 expected to be borne on the 31st March, 1912, there would be an increase, through the mere maturing of obligations which the State has already contracted in pay, pensions, etc., of £250,000 in 1912–13, and £415,000 in 1913–14. If the numbers increase at the rate of 2,000 a year, which is the lowest possible increase which can be contemplated on the basis of the programme of other countries remaining as they are now disclosed, then the automatic augmentation of the Votes over which the Accountant-General provides, would in the five years I am taking into consideration amount to £1,700,000. The second source of certain and uncontrollable increase lies in the consumption of fuel, coal and oil. That is due to the rapidly increasing horse-power of the Fleet. Ships are joining the Navy of 70,000 horse-power, and, of course, they consume, for an equal amount of movement, a greater quantity of fuel than the vessels from 15,000 to 20,000 horse-power which they replaced. The increase due to the automatic augmentation of coal and oil consumption will not be less in the next five years than about £900,000 a year. Thirdly, there is the ever-increasing size and cost of ships of all types and classes, necessitating larger docks, wider dock entrances, and more complicated and extensive repairing plant. Lastly, there is the ordinary labour pressure in the dockyards and the general advance in prices. The House will see that the relief we may expect on one set of charges is likely, on the figures I have adduced, to be very largely neutralised by automatic increases upon other portions of the Estimates. The requirements of 1912–13, after all possible reductions have been made, including relief by expenditure of the surplus in 1911–12, present the following principal features: an increase of personnel of 2,000, an increase in the pay, non-effective pay and other automatic charges of £280,000, an increase in the cost of fuel of £125,000, an increase in the Vote
  1552
  for armaments and ammunition of £200,000, and an increase of the expenditure upon works due wholly to the execution of existing contracts at Rosyth and Crombie of £450,000, making a total increase of £1,055,000, against which I have been able to show a reduction of about £1,100,000 in respect of new construction, and of about £250,000 on other services under Vote 8. The nominal net decrease upon the Estimates is, therefore, just over £300,000, and the true decrease is £600,000.
  I propose, with the permission of the House, to lay bare to them this afternoon, with perfect openness, the naval situation. It is necessary to do so mainly with reference to one Power. I regret that necessity, but nothing is to be gained by using indirect modes of expression. On the contrary, the Germans are a people of robust minds, whose strong and masculine sense and high courage does not recoil from, and is not offended by, plain and blunt statements of fact, if expressed with courtesy and sincerity. Anyhow, I must discharge my duty to the House and the country. The time has competition both nations ought to understand, without ill-temper or disguise, what will be the conditions under which naval competition will be carried on during the next few years. The cost and strength of a navy depend upon two main things: first of all, there is the establishment of ships and men maintained in the various scales of commission; secondly, the rate and amount of new construction by which the existing fleets are renewed or augmented. An increase in the establishment of great Navies like the British and the German Navies does not involve such heavy additions to the annual expenditure as an increase in the new construction. On the other hand, the cast of increases in new construction is confined to the years in which it takes place and names to an end with the completion of the ships, while increases in the number of men, although comparatively small so far as the cost is concerned in one year, involve charges in pay and pensions which recur year after year for a whole generation. Increases in new construction mean increased strength for fighting, through having better military plant. Increases in establishment mean increased readiness for fighting, through being better organised and better trained. It will be convenient for the House to bear these distinctions in mind.
  Before I discuss the actual standards of new construction which we should take as

  1553
  our guides in the next few years, there are three general observations which I shall venture to make. The first is, that in times of peace we measure the relative naval construction of two navies by percentages, and that is perhaps as good a way as any other. In naval war, and especially in modern naval war, another system of calculation becomes dominant. Battles are not decided by ratios or percentages. They yield definite and absolute results, and the strength of conflicting navies ought to be measured, and is measured, not as in peace by comparison, but by subtraction. We must expect that in a fleet battle between good and efficient navies equally matched, tremendous damage will be reciprocally inflicted. Many ships on both sides will be sunk or blown up. Many more will sustain injuries which will take months to repair. Others, again, will not come out again during the whole of the war. Indeed, the more we force ourselves to picture the hideous course of a modern naval engagement, the more one in inclined to believe that it will resemble the contest between Mamilius and Herminius at the Battle of Lake Regillus, or the still more homely conflict of the Kilkenny cats. That is a very satisfactory reflection for the stronger naval Power. It will always pay the stronger naval Power to lose ship for ship in every class. The process of cancelling would conduct us, albeit by a ghastly road, to certain victory, and to a condition, not of relative, but of absolute superiority. Further, with a reciprocal destruction of the newer ships, the older vessels will rise swiftly in value. When the Ace is out, the King is the best card, and so on. We possess more "Dreadnoughts" than any other two Powers in the world today, and if all the "Dreadnoughts" in the world were sunk tonight, our naval superiority would be greater than it is at the present time. We cannot imagine the course of a naval war which would not tend steadily to increase the relative fighting value of the large resources we possess in pre-"Dreadnoughts," until, as time went on, quite old vessels would come out and play an important part. We are, therefore, keeping such vessels carefully in a material reserve, and arrangements are being perfected by the War. Staff to bring them into commission at the sixth, ninth, or twelfth month of any war. All this must be considered in judging the standards of new construction which are appropriate to our needs.
  1554
  The second observation which I would wish to make is this: It is very easy to make rapid increases in new construction, so long as you are not burdened by the expense of maintaining a great establishment. Our German neighbours have not yet begun to feel the weight of maintaining year after year a gigantic naval service. These charges mature slowly, but remorselessly. The expense of maintenance, apart from the new construction, must grow irresistibly with every year, and therefore it may be found that, as time passes, the very rapid rate of new construction which we have seen elsewhere may, to some extent, be abated by the deadweight drag of increasing maintenance charges. We have a very wide and long experience in the Admiralty. We know the forces that are operative upon the finance of a great Navy, and we are not yet convinced that they will not be found, sooner or later, to operate elsewhere. My third observation is this: It is wrong and wasteful to build a single ship for the Navy before it is wanted. Up to the moment when the contract for a battleship has been definitely signed, the vessel is the heir to all the expanding naval science of the world, but from the day when the design has been finally fixed, she becomes obsolescent, and she has become a wasting security. Nearly three years of her brief life have been lived before she is born. Before she is even launched, the vessels which are capable of destroying her have been projected. It is an ill service to the Navy and to the State to build a single ship before its time. We have to sow each year for the harvest we require two years later—as much as we require and no more. What I might venture to call "the more the merrier" argument is detrimental to efficiency as to economy. The only safe rule which the British Admiralty can follow is to maintain the minimum consistent with full security.
  Having reviewed our existing naval resources in the light of the foregoing-observations, we are not prepared to recommend at the present time the two-keels-to-one standard in new construction against Germany. The time may come when that will be necessary, but it is not necessary now. I will, however, state precisely the standards which we regard as appropriate to the present situation. Before doing so, I should like to make it clear that, as a result of the measures, taken by my right hon. Friend the Home

  1555
  Secretary, there is no cause whatever for alarm or despondency. 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, and if the House will grant us what we ask for the future, that prospect may be indefinitely extended. I propose first of all to deal with new construction, and to leave the establishment of the Navy to the last. Standards of naval strength must vary with circumstances and situations. Adequate naval superiority is the object, and the standards which we adopt are necessary, though arbitrary guides for securing it. When the next two strongest naval Powers were France and Russia, and when those two Powers were also what one might call the most probable adverse diplomatic combination, the two-Power standard was a convenient rule, based upon reality, for us to follow as a guide. The passage of time and the rise of the Navy of a single Power to the first place upon the Continent has changed this. We have no longer to contemplate as our greatest potential danger, the alliance, junction, and co-operation of two naval Powers of approximately equal strength, with all the weakness and uncertainty inherent in such combinations, but we have had for some time to consider the growth and development of a very powerful homogeneous Navy, manned and trained by the greatest organising people of the world, obeying the authority of a single Government, and concentrated within easy distance of our shores. In consequence the two-Power standard, if applied to Europe alone, would be quite inapplicable, because wholly inadequate. On the facts of to-day, the Navy that we should require to secure us against the most probable adverse combination would not be very much greater than the Navy we should require to secure us against the next strongest naval Power. In order, therefore, to provide a reason for the necessary measures which have been taken during the last few years, it has become customary to extend the two-Power standard so as to include the United States of America, and thereby, I think, the two-Power standard has lost much of its good sense and its reality. The time has come to readjust our standards in closer accord with the actual facts and probable contingencies. The actual standard in new construction—I am not speaking of men or establishment—which the Admiralty has,
  1556
  in fact, followed during recent years, has been to develop a 60 per cent, superiority in vessels of the "Dreadnought" type over the German navy on the basis of the existing Fleet Law. There are other and higher standards for the smaller vessels, with which I will not complicate the argument, as they do not greatly affect finance.
  If Germany were to adhere to her existing law we believe that standard would, in the absence of any unexpected development in other countries, continue to be a financial guide for the next four or five years so far, that is to say, as this capital class of vessel is concerned. Further than that it is idle to speculate. This, however, I must say. I must not be taken as agreeing that the ratio of sixteen to ten could be regarded as sufficient preponderance for British naval strength as a whole above that of the next strongest naval Power. Even if we possessed an Army two-thirds as strong as that of the strongest military Power, we could not agree to that. We are able for the present to adhere to so moderate a standard because of our great superiority in vessels of the pre-"Dreadnought" era, among which the eight King Edwards and at, least eight of the armoured cruisers are quite unmatched among contemporary ships. As these vessels gradually decline in relative fighting value, our ratio of new construction will have to rise above the 60 per cent, standard. Every addition which Germany makes, or may make, to the new ships she lays down each year must accelerate the decline in the relative fighting value of our pre-"Dreadnoughts," and, therefore, requires special measures on our part. Applying the standard which I have outlined to the existing German navy law without any addition, that is to say, two ships a year for the next six years, for that is what the law prescribes, and guarding ourselves very carefully against developments in other countries which cannot now be foreseen, it would appear to be necessary to construct for the next six years four ships, and three ships in alternate years, beginning this year with four. That is a little above the 60 per cent, standard, it is over seventeen to ten, but that is the least which will maintain a 60 per cent, standard, and that is what we have had in our minds when we framed the Estimates which are now presented to the House of Commons. If we are now, as it would seem, and as I fear it is certain to be, confronted with an addition of two ships to German construction

  1557
  in the next six years—two "Dreadnoughts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Annually?"] No, two ships spread over the six years, we should propose to meet that addition upon a higher ratio of superiority by laying down four ships in the same period, spreading them, however, conveniently over the six years so as to secure the greatest convenience in our finance. If, of course, we were confronted with three ships additional we should lay down six, and the forecast of new construction, which I now make under all reserve, would become four, beginning with this year, five, four, four, four, four, as against the German construction of two, three, two, two, three, two. So alternatively, if three were laid down by Germany in the six years, our construction would become five, four, five, four, five, four, as against the German alternation of three's and two's. It is clear that this number could be varied to suit the circumstances.
  Let me make clear, however, that any retardation or reduction in German construction will, within certain limits, be promptly followed here, as soon as it is apparent, by large and fully proportioned reductions. For instance, if Germany elected to drop out any one, or even any two, of these annual quotas and to put her money into her pocket for the enjoyment of her people and the development of her own prosperity, we will at once, in the absence of any dangerous development elsewhere not now foreseen, blot out our corresponding quota, and the slowing down by Germany will be accompanied naturally on our larger scale by us. Of course both Great Britain and Germany have to consider, among other things, the building of other Powers, though the lead of both these countries is at present very considerable over any other Power besides each other. Take, as an instance of this proposition which I am putting forward for general consideration, the year 1913. In that year, as I apprehend, Germany will build three capital ships, and it will be necessary for us to build five in consequence. Supposing we were both to take a holiday for that year. Supposing we both introduced a blank page in the book of misunderstanding; supposing that Germany were to build no ships in that year, she would save herself between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 sterling. But that is not all. We should not in ordinary circumstances begin our ships until she has started hers. The three ships that she did not build would therefore automatically
  1558
  wipe out no fewer than five British potential super-"Dreadnoughts," and that is more than I expect them to hope to do in a brilliant naval action. As to the indirect results, even from a single year, they simply cannot be measured, not only between our two great brother nations, but to all the world. They are results immeasurable in their hope and brightness. This, then, is the position which we take up, that the Germans will be no gainers, so far as naval power is concerned, over us by any increases they may make, and no losers for the basis I have laid down by any diminution. Here, then, is a perfectly plain and simple plan of arrangement whereby without diplomatic negotiation, without any bargaining, without the slightest restriction upon the sovereign freedom of either Power, this keen and costly naval rivalry can be at any time abated. It is better, I am sure, to put it quite frankly, for the Parliaments and peoples to judge for themselves.
  As to the minor vessels in the new programme, I must say a few words. The programme of minor vessels is strictly within the limits of the normal expenditure on this class of ship. We ask the House to sanction the building of twenty torpedo-boat destroyers and to enable us to lose no time in pressing forward with their construction. Upon the information before me in December I thought it proper to send out the tenders for the whole of the flotilla this year, feeling confident that Parliament would approve of them when the time actually came. The tenders have been received, their examination was completed a few days ago, and we shall be able to locate the vessels for immediate construction as soon as the House gives us the necessary authority. Provision has been made in the Estimates for their immediate and continuous construction. We are asking about £700,000 this year for the construction of submarines. We do not propose to state the number, because that would indicate with unnecessary precision the type which these vessels would assume. Submarines are in a state of transition. We have in submarines an ample preponderance, and we can afford to lie back to the last moment so as to secure the very latest developments.
  The only novel feature in the minor programme is the small cruiser. If we had repeated the programme of recent years we should have built four "Chathams," of about 5,400 tons, and one "Blonde." We have been considering, however, the

  1559
  cruiser problem as a whole. We observe that the "Chathams" grow larger each year, and that they tend, under the rivalry of type, to approach ever more closely to the armoured cruiser class of ten and fifteen years ago. This would be a very expensive development if it were to continue, and we are by no means satisfied that it is a development based upon a sound appreciation of naval tactics. Numbers also are very important in this sphere, and we propose therefore to hark back to smaller vessels and to build eight of these new light armoured cruisers instead of the four "Chathams" and the "Blonde" which have hitherto figured in our programme. I do not think the House would wish me to go too much into detail about the dimensions and qualities of these vessels—they are to be described as light armoured cruisers, and they will, in fact, be the smallest, cheapest, and fastest vessels protected by vertical armour ever projected for the British Navy. They are designed for attendance on the battle fleet. They are designed to be its eyes and ears by night and day and to watch over it in movement and at rest. They will be strong enough and fast enough to overhaul and cut down any torpedo-boat destroyer afloat, and generally they will be available for the purpose of observation and reconnaissance.
  I have dealt with the programme of the year; and, before I come to the important question connected with the establishment which we should maintain, there are four topics connected with shipbuilding to which I must refer—docks, oil, aviation, and shipbuilding capacity. The docking accommodation available for the Fleet, actual and prospective, is not at all unsatisfactory. Indeed, I may say I was very agreeably surprised by an inquiry I undertook into it. We possess at the present time nine docks which can take "Invincibles," "Lord Nelsons," and all earlier ships, and five of these are suitable for our latest battle ships.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Not in England.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, one is at Haul-bowline. In a few months there will be two floating docks capable of taking the largest size of ships which exist at present, and these two floating docks will be put one in the Medway and the other possibly at Portsmouth. Early next year
  1560
  a new lock, capable also of being used as a dock, will be ready at Portsmouth, and another also of the largest size will be ready in January, 1914. In 1916 the three docks and the lock at Rosyth—four in all—will also be available. Meanwhile there are five private docks wide enough to contain the largest vessels ready and two others now in the course of construction. In addition to these there are four others which will take vessels of the "Invincible" class. That is, in the opinion of the Admiralty, sufficient provision for our needs at the present time. The question is being considered carefully whether pending the completion of the docks at Rosyth, one of our floating docks, when ready, should not be towed to Cromarty and used there as a subsidiary base with floating workshops, pending the creation of the large base which is being developed on the north-east coast. Therefore further provision for docks will be necessary in 1916 for the needs of 1920, because we have to look four years ahead in regard to docks. But there is no cause for anxiety or complaint so far as the immediate future is concerned.
  The adoption and supply of oil as a motive power raises anxious and perplexing problems. In fact, I think, they are among the most difficult with which the Admiralty have ever been confronted. Oil as a fuel offers enormous advantages to ships of all kinds, and particularly to the smallest kind. In speed, convenience, cleanliness, economy, and in the reduction of personnel, oil is incontestibly superior to coal, and if internal combustion engines of sufficient power to drive warships could be perfected, as may be hoped for within a very reasonable time, all these advantages of oil will be multiplied, and some of them will be multiplied three or four times over. But, on the other hand, can we make sure of obtaining full supplies of oil at reasonable prices in time of peace and without restriction or interference in time of war? Can we accumulate and store a sufficient reserve of oil to meet our ever-growing requirements, and can we make that reserve properly protected against attack either by aeroplanes or sabotage? All these matters are receiving continuous attention.
  So much has been said during the Army Debates in the last few days on the subject of aviation that I purpose only to make a passing reference to its naval aspect this afternoon. Early in November my Noble Friend the Secretary of State

  1561
  for War (Lord Haldane) and I agreed together that the War Office and the Admiralty should work together so far as possible in the development of this vitally important new Service. A sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was set up, which, under the guidance of the Under-Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) has produced a bold, far-reaching, and carefully-considered scheme. The Admiralty are very much indebted to my right hon. Friend for the service he has rendered in this connection. We have now acquired some land at Eastchurch, adjoining that of the Royal Aero Club, who courteously gave us the use of their aerodrome for flying purposes. The buildings and sheds for a naval aviation school are in course of erection. A considerable number of aeroplanes both for training and experimental purposes have been purchased, principally in England, and some of these are being adapted to the special needs of the Navy. We do not, of course, require in the Navy to develop aviation on the same great scale as in the Army. We have already a certain number of good naval aviators, and we are going to increase them as rapidly as possible during the year, and I hope it will not be many months before regular nights of naval aeroplanes can be attached for ordinary service to the various squadrons and commands of the fleets. I can assure the House that the greatest importance is attached by us to a thoroughly good and effective development of this service, and money will not stand in the way of any necessary steps.
  Mr. LEE: How much?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We have taken in the Estimates as much as we can spend. Although there is no money taken in the Estimates for the purchase of dirigible balloons or dirigible airships, it ought not to be supposed that that subject is not also engaging unremitting attention, especially the latest developments. Lastly, the House is entitled to be relieved of any anxiety which they feel in regard to the expansive power of the shipbuilding resources of the country. It is not possible to say whether our most prominent competitors can build as fast as we do. What is certain, is that they do not in practice do so, and it is also true, I am pleased to say, that we can build, arm, and equip great ships each year—and continue the process year after year—upon a scale largely in advance of any other single Power in the world, according
  1562
  to its present resources. The House may take it for certain, therefore, that there is absolutely no danger of our being overtaken unless we decide as a matter of policy to be so. I leave new construction and now turn to our establishment. Upon the establishment of ships maintained in full commission, and upon the number of active service ratings permanently available, depends our immediate readiness for war. The growing strength in the establishment of foreign navies, and the increases, actual and prospective, on which we must reckon in their personnel, makes it now necessary somewhat to strengthen the force which we keep constantly ready for immediate service in home waters. I do not think it would be particularly useful at this juncture for me to enter into detailed comparisons between the force which we keep immediately available and the forces which are at the disposal of various foreign Powers, and I hope I shall not be pressed to do so. I would prefer to pursue a general argument. We ask Parliament to assent to large margins of safety. That is not because we do not believe our Fleet man for man, ship for ship, would not acquit itself with credit and to the satisfaction of King and country. There is, however, a very practical reason which any layman can understand. We stand as a nation upon the defensive. It is inconceivable that we should make a surprise attack upon Germany or any other European Power. But apart altogether from the moral aspect, which I am not now discussing, what would be the use of it. We have no means of following up such an attack, even if it were successful, and no means of bringing the war to a speedy conclusion. Therefore, I say we are relegated to the defensive.
  This entails certain obvious consequences. There is a considerable difference between the number of ships which are available any day taken at random throughout the year by chance, and the number which could be got ready for a particular date or period marked out in advance. For instance, if the House of Commons sent a Committee to Portsmouth to-night, and orders were given to mobolise all the ships in the harbour, we could produce a certain number, but if we were told privately that the Committee were going down to see how many ships we could turn out on short notice on 1st April or 1st May, we could produce from twentyfive to thirty per cent. more. That is a

  1563
  very important fact which anyone can appreciate. It is a fact which makes it necessary for us to have a sufficient margin to be able to meet at our average moment the naval force of an attacking Power at their selected moment. The second reason why we should have an ample margin is that the consequences of defeat at sea are so much greater to us than they would be to Germany or France. There is no similarity between our naval needs and those of the two countries I have mentioned. There is no parity of risk. Our position is highly artificial. We are fed from the sea; we are an unarmed people; we posses a very small Army; we are the only Power in Europe which does not possess a large army. We cannot menace the independence or the vital interest of any great continental State; we cannot invade any continental State. We do not wish to do so, but even if we had the wish we have not got the power.
  5.0 P.M.
  These are facts which justify British naval supremacy in the face of the world. If ever any single nation were able to back the strongest fleet with an overwhelming army, the whole world would be in jeopardy, and a catastrophe would swiftly occur. People talk of the proportion which the navies of different countries should bear to the commercial interests of the different nations—the proportion of France, the proportion of Italy, the proportion of Germany—to their respective mercantile marines; but when we consider our naval strength we are not thinking of our commerce, but of our freedom. We are not thinking of our trade, but our lives. Nothing, of course, can make us absolutely safe against combinations which the imagination can summon up. We have faced combinations again and again in the past, and sometimes at heavy odds, but we must never conductour affairs so that the navy of any single Power would be able to engage us at any single moment, even our least favourable moment, with any reasonable prospect of success. If this is insular arrogance, it is also the first condition of our existence. I am glad to be able to assure the House that no difficulty will be experienced in making arrangements to maintain our relative positions in the near future, and to secure as quickly as we need them adequate margins of safety. I am glad also that these measures will not involve any excessive or disproportionate expense. We do not, of course, require
  1564
  to build any more ships other than those I have referred to under the head of "new construction." All we should need to do is to bring, as we require it, and no sooner, a larger proportion of our existing Fleet into a higher status of commission, and consequently of greater readiness. We propose also at the present time, in view of the increases which are in progress, tore-cast completely the organisation of the Fleet. Under the new organisation the ships available for home defence will be divided into first, second, and third Fleets, the whole three Fleets, comprising eight battle squadrons of eight ships each, together with their attendant cruiser squadrons, flotillas, and all auxiliaries. Each of these three Fleets will represent a distinct administrative status and standard of commission. The First Fleet will comprise four battle squadrons of fully commissioned ships, together with one Fleet flagship. It will be found as follows.
  The battleships of the First and Second Division of the Home Fleet will become the first and second battle squadrons. The Atlantic Fleet will be based on home ports instead of Gibraltar, and will become the third battle squadron. During the course of the present year, as new vessels join the Fleet at the top of the list, this squadron, which now consists of six battleships, will be increased to eight. The fourth battle squadron will be formed from the battleships now stationed in the Mediterranean, which will step into the place of the Atlantic Fleet and be based on Gibraltar instead of on Malta. This battle squadron will also be raised ultimately, and, if necessary, to a strength of eight ships from six at which it stands at present. This fourth battle squadron will, from its strategic position at Gibraltar, be able to give either immediate assistance in home waters or to operate in the Mediterranean, should naval combinations in that sea render its presence necessary or useful. Its movements will be regulated by the main situation. These four squadrons, comprising in the aggregate, with the Fleet flagship, thirty-three battleships in full permanent commission, will constitute the First Fleet.
  The Second Fleet will be composed of two battle squadrons with their attendant cruiser squadrons, on what is called the existing third division scale. I hope that the House will realise exactly what this third division scale means. Ships maintained on what has hitherto been called

  1565
  the third division scale, or in what will in future be called the Second Fleet, are vessels which have full complements of active service ratings always provided. They do not require any mobilisation of the reserve which is in civil life. Half of their crews, including a large proportion of special ratings, are always on board, and the other half, roughly speaking, are in the schools and barracks on shore, going through the courses of instruction, a regular crculation of which is essential to the good organisation and training of the Navy. Ships in the Third Division cost practically just as much to man each year as ships in full commission, so that no considerations of economy, but solely considerations of efficiency, have led to the adoption of this system. I hope that the scale of these ships will not be under-rated because they are called vessels maintained with nucleus crews. They are vessels for which full crews of active service men are constantly provided. The system has been adopted in order that the courses of instruction may be performed, and active service ratings may have in rotation a fair share of time on shore instead of always being engaged on service afloat. There is only one serious respect in which ships of the Third Division are at a disadvantage as compared with the full-commissioned vessels. It is possible that they might be cruising away from the home ports with only their half nucleus crews on board when the emergency came. Then they would have to go back to the home ports and take on the rest of the crew, who would be in the schools and barracks, and consequently some delay would at certain times of the year be caused in their readiness for active service. It might be two or three days. We propose to reduce, if not wholly to remove, this disadvantage by the following arrangement.
  At present the Third Division consists of eleven battleships. We propose to raise the number to sixteen, and to divide it into the fifth and sixth battle squadrons forming the Second Fleet. The movement of this fleet will be so arranged that one of its two battle squadrons will always be present in the home port, and consequently one will always be ready to move as soon as steam can be raised. The other will usually be in that condition, and it will only be during a portion of the year that it will be cruising. The division of the Second Fleet in the two battle squadrons will take place at once, but the full strength of these squadrons will not be
  1566
  realised for several years unless circumstances render an acceleration of the process necessary. When the process is complete the First and Second Fleets will together comprise forty-nine battleships available at the shortest notice and completely manned by the regular active service ratings of the Navy. By the time that this is completed we may expect that the next strongest naval Power will possess twenty-nine battleships, ready immediately, without mobilisation, for war. Of these twenty-five will be in full permanent commission. At present we have only twenty-two battleships in full commission in home waters, even including the Atlantic Fleet. So it is quite clear, in view of these developments, that a very large expansion on our part is necessary. I hope that the House will realise the full scope and simplicity of the measures which we propose to take to give us the power which we shall need. The Third Fleet will also consist of two battle squadrons together with the remaining four Cruiser Squadrons. It will be manned on what is called at present the Fourth Division scale, that is to say, it will be manned with reduced nucleus crews, and on mobilisation there will be added an additional proportion of active service ratings, and the rest of the ships' complement will be made up from the mobilisation of the Reserves now in civil life. A proclamation is required in due form before the Third Fleet can in its entirety proceed to sea, and although every effort will be made to accelerate the process of mobilisation—I am having special inquiry made into that—a few days' delay will certainly be inevitable before the Fourth Division, as it is now called, or the Third Fleet, as it will be in future, can be ready for sea.
  With a view to securing at any rate a portion of this Fleet in an emergency at very short notice, we propose to institute and develop a new class of the Royal Fleet Reserve to be called the Immediate Reserve. This force, which will be limited for the present to about 5,000 men, will be analogous in some respects to Section A of the Army Reserve, that is to say, it will be composed of men who volunteer for this service. They will receive 1s. a day reserve pay instead of 6d., and they will be liable to be called out on any serious emergency without the need of a general mobilisation. From the inquiries which we have been making, we have reason to believe that a very considerable proportion of the men of the

  1567
  Royal Fleet Reserve will be willing to give us their services and the House knows well that they are one of the most magnificent lots of men in the country, having all served in the Navy from five to ten years, and being, most of them, persons of the highest character and substantial position. A large proportion of these men will be drawn from those who are already in Government employment, in the dockyards, the Post Office, the fire brigades, and elsewhere, but it will be necessary, in order that real efficiency may be secured to the ships manned by a proportion of this Reserve, that the Immediate Reserve should go through twenty-eight days' training in each year upon the actual ship on which they 'will serve on mobilisation. They will not, as at present, be a large pool of Reserve men who are distributed anyhow through the Fleet according to the needs of a particular mobilisation. They will all know exactly what ship they will be allocated to and where they will serve on that ship in their annual twenty-eight days' training. They will know exactly what gun, what ammunition, or torpedo tube they will serve at and whom they will serve with. In future entries into the coastguards—that great and often cheaply won prize which is offered by the British Government at the present time to sailors—will be mainly confined to men who have given this special service in the Immediate Reserve. Then we shall have to rely upon the patriotism of the employers—who are not a very large number at all—and I am bound to say that very satisfactory replies have been received from many employers—to facilitate the development of a Reserve so necessary, and arrangements will be made, if necessary, and where desired, through the Labour Exchanges, to provide suitable and competent substitutes during the time the Reserve men are doing their annual training.
  The Immediate Reserve men will enable us to mobilise and man the Seventh Battle Squadron, and another Cruiser Squadron, at very short notice, and we should expect that the standard of efficiency of these two squadrons will be far above the ships in the present Fourth Division scale. The present Fourth Division scale will now for the future only apply to the Eighth Battle Squadron and to the remaining Cruiser Squadrons, which will consist of the oldest ships which we have. We do not propose to provide crews for the Eighth Battle Squadron,
  1568
  even on the Fourth Division scale, unless it becomes necessary, until a better class of ship filter down in consequence of new ships joining at the top of the list. There is no use manning the "Royal Sovereign" and vessels of that class, they are better laid up; and vessels for which no crews are provided will be cast into the material Reserve, and can be taken care of and kept in readiness, so as to replace ships which will be lost in action, but whose crews are saved when the vessel is destroyed. Thus we assemble for the purposes of comparison a total mobilisable fleet of fifty-seven, or, if necessary, sixty-five battleships, as compared to the thirty-eight of the next strongest naval Power. This proportion of fifty-seven to thirty-eight would not be sufficient if numbers were the only test and measure of naval superiority, but it must be remembered that our superiority, ship for ship and squadron for squadron, can be traced all down the line, and that it is very great where the older classes of vessels are concerned. In proportion as our superiority in the earlier ships gradually passes away and as what, if the House will allow me to coin an odious expression, I may call the "Dreadnoughtisation" of other navies progresses, it may be necessary to raise not merely the quality, but the scale of our Fleet. But the new organisation which I have unfolded to the House would lend itself readily to any further requirement, and it would be quite simple, if need be, to increase the squadrons from eight ships apiece at first to nine and afterwards to ten vessels. This, however, is looking to a period beyond the four or five years which bound the utmost horizon of naval policy. Let me repeat, however, that, just as in the case of new building, we shall proceed in the development and perfection of this new organisation step by step, as may be necessary, and the rate of our development will be slowed down if we are convinced that a corresponding retardation has begun elsewhere.
  With regard to the flotillas of torpedoboat destroyers, it will also be necessary to make some expansion. We are forming a seventh flotilla of twenty destroyers this year. We propose to form an eighth flotilla next year, and it may be that we shall have to form a ninth flotilla in 1915. These flotillas will be formed simply by maintaining the older vessels in commission with nucleus crews, instead of striking them off as new destroyers of each year are commissioned. In connection with the

  1569
  flotillas we propose to institute a new command. At present three flotillas manned by nucleus crews and certain submarines are provisionally assigned to the duties of coast defence. They are now placed under the control of the Vice-Admiral commanding the Third Division. With a view to their better training in peace, it is now thought necessary that they should be placed under a special admiral. In war they will be controlled through this officer directly by the Admiralty, so as to enable the battle fleet or fleets to operate with the utmost freedom and confine themselves to the prime business of defeating the enemy's battle fleet without being diverted by the necessity of protecting the British coasts from any minor raid or descent, whether naval or military. The officer in charge of this new command will be called the "Admiral of Patrols," and, of course, the vessels at his disposal will be available for all purposes besides those which I have indicated as being in the forefront of their most obvious duties. As I have already told the House, the immediate cost of these measures will not be great, though the charges will gradually augment and will be recuring. The principal item is the increase of personnel.
  The rate of increase under the existing German Law is 3,500 a year. This year they have added 3,712 men. Against that we are asking now—I think the House will believe with great moderation—for an increase of no more than 2,000 men on the average, which means that we can recruit up to 3,000—in fact, by the end of the year. If there are any additional increases elsewhere we shall find it necessary, in order to man the war fleets at the various dates in the future, and to develop the Fleet organisation, to immediately ask a substantial addition. After the House has listened to these important proposals, a very few sentences will suffice to explain certain subsidiary points which will be entailed by them. It takes a long time to train men for the Navy, but it takes still longer to train officers. On the other hand, we require at once to have a substantial increase in the lieutenants' list. The pressure at the present time upon the officers of the Navy is very severe, and it is not always possible to allow them the full amount of leave to which they are entitled in the course of every year, small us it is; and with the development of the new Fleet organisation this strain will, in ordinary circumstances, be greatly increased. It is therefore necessary for us
  1570
  to have more commissioned officers, and to have them as soon as possible. I propose, therefore, to take two steps, which I hope will commend themselves to the House and to the Service. Everyone acquainted with the Navy must have been struck by the extraordinary high qualities of discipline and intelligence which are displayed by the best class of warrant officer. These are the days when the Navy, which is the great national service, should be opened more broadly to the nation as a whole. The question, as the House knows, is fraught with difficulties. We have thought them well over, and we are agreed in believing that there are no difficulties which, in the public interest, cannot be and ought not to be overcome. We propose, therefore, to select a considerable number of the younger warrant officers, by yearly instalments of twenty-five to thirty up to a total of 100, possibly more, for promotion to the rank of commissioned warrant officer, a rank which already exists and which is equivalent to that of sub-lieutenant.
  After duly qualifying for their new duties, these officers would be appointed to ships, and be available for all executive duties of sub-lieutenants. They would, of course, be eligible for promotion, strictly according to their merits, to the higher ranks. As, however, they will start as commissioned officers some years later than those who enter the Navy through the naval colleges, it is probable that the great bulk of them will retire content with a career which will have carried them from bluejacket to commander. If this should in practice result from the departure we shall have made the necessary additions to the lieutenants' list without producing that block in promotion to the higher ranks which would otherwise be inevitable, and which would be deeply injurious to the Service as well as unjust to the individual. Such a block would produce aged captains and venerable admirals—
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would prevent men reaching what are, perhaps, commands of the most direct responsibility in the world while they are still in the prime of their manhood, and, otherwise, it would injuriously affect the efficiency of a fighting service. As the promotion of a number of the younger warrant officers may be thought to affect somewhat hardly the warrant officer of many years' service, it is

  1571
  proposed to concede to them what they have so long desired—namely, promotion to the rank of commissioned warrant officer after fifteen years' service as warrant officer, instead of after some twenty years as now, provided they are found fit, so that there are really two careers which the warrant officer can embark on, one of which will lead to promotion after fifteen years' service and probably employment on shore, and the other of which will carry with it much speedier promotion as warrant officers and continuous employment on fully commissioned ships. The details of this scheme are now being carefully worked out.
  We have also been struck with the age and size of the senior midshipmen. I am strongly of opinion that a young gentleman of nineteen or twenty who has been trained for six years or more exclusively to the profession of arms, and who has qualified in every way required of him, deserves advancement to the rank of commissioned officer. We shall, therefore, allow midshipmen to qualify in navigation and seamanship at the end of two years and four months. It is better to split up the examination into two parts instead of giving them the long and exhausting three weeks' trial they are put to at the present time. If they are successful in qualifying in navigation and seamanship they will at once be promoted to the rank of acting sub-lieutenant, and will be available for all the duties of that rank. Eight months later they will have to pass in the remaining subjects of their course, and then receive their regular commission as sub-lieutenants. We propose to make a change forthwith in the system which now regulates the commissioning of ships. Under the present system of two-year commissions, the Admiralty has sought to keep the captain, officers, and men of a ship's company together, if possible, without any change, for the whole period of the two years. This has not, however, been possible in practice. Death, illness, retirement, promotion, the necessity for qualifying, or requalifying in ever more numerous courses of instruction, are always producing large and inevitable changes even during the short period of a two-year commission in every ship's company. On the other hand, there is a grave loss in efficiency and war power and a serious waste of human effort involved in the process of killing the live ship every two years, dispersing officers and crew far and wide and
  1572
  deliberately destroying the efficiency as a fighting ship which has been gained with so much trouble, and has now to be started afresh next morning under a completely new regime. We have come to the conclusion that it is far butter to keep the ship continuously in commission at the same high level of efficiency, and we therefore propose to revert to the system of continuous commissions which was in force before the two-year commissions were introduced, but to effect the change's in personnel more systematically and at regular intervals.
  The system of continuous commission will be extended to all ships manned with nucleus crews. Up to now these ships have not only had to make themselves efficient with half a crew instead of a whole one, but they have had to hand over those nucleus crews on an average every eight months to a fully manned ship about to recommission and to start afresh themselves with a new half-crew selected from the barracks and schools. The system cannot, of course, be applied to ships on foreign stations nor to torpedocraft in home waters. Three-year commissions will therefore be adopted on foreign stations, and two-year commissions will remain in force for torpedo craft. Three inquiries into very important subjects of naval administration have been or are being held at the present time. The first has been into the gunnery of the Fleet, and into the methods of training and testing the officers and men in this, supreme and paramount service. That inquiry is now completed, and the results are being carefully weighed. It has been a conference as well as an inquiry, at which a large number of the best sea-going officers have been present. It is possible I may have to make a slightly larger request to the House for practice ammunition, and I shall not hesitate to do so if that is necessary. A second inquiry which is to be instituted will deal with the whole system of the entry and education of cadets and midshipmen. I must make it clear, however, that this inquiry implies no departure from, or reversal of, the policy of naval training instituted in 1902, but, rather, is calculated to give full effect to it. The House will be glad to learn that Sir Reginald distance has accepted my invitation to preside over this Committee, which will commence its labours at once. Thirdly, the time has come when there must be a full inquiry into the system of summary punishments

  1573
  which are now in force, including their consequential effects as regards pay, position, badges, and pension. It is of high importance to the interests of the Navy that the system of punishments should be physically and morally beneficial as well as corrective, and that they should be so devised in regard to offences where no dishonour is involved so as not to wound the self-respect of fighting men. I hope the House will discern from the account I have given the general principle of naval administration to which we adhere—homogeneity of squadrons; simplicity of types and classes; modernity of material; concentration in the decisive theatres; constant and instant readiness for war; reliance upon gun power; reliance upon speed; and above all, reliance upon 136,000 officers and seamen, the pride of our race, and bred from their boyhood up to the permanent service of the sea. These are the principles which we ask the House of Commons to approve. For the rest I have only a word to say.
  The spectacle which the naval armaments of Christendom afford at the present time will no doubt excite the curiosity and the wonder of future generations. Here are seen all the polite peoples of the world, as if moved by spontaneous impulse, devoting every year an immense and ever-growing proportion of their wealth, their manhood, and their scientific knowledge, to the construction of gigantic military machinery, which is obsolescent as soon as it is created; which falls to pieces almost as soon as it is put together; which has to be continually renewed and replenished on a larger scale; which drains the coffers of every Government; which denies and stints the needs of every people; and which is intended to be a means of protection against dangers which have perhaps no other origin than in the mutual fears and suspicions of men. The most hopeful interpretation which can be placed upon this strange phenomenon is that naval and military rivalries are the modern substitute for what in earlier ages would have been actual wars; and just as credit transactions have in the present day so largely superceded cash payments, so the jealousies and disputes of nations are more and more decided by the mere possession of war power without the necessity for its actual employment. If that were true the grand folly of the twentieth century might be found to wear a less unamiable aspect. Still we cannot
  1574
  conceal from ourselves the fact that we live in an age of incipient violence and strong and deep-seated unrest. The utility of war even to the victor may in most cases be an illusion. Certainly all wars of every kind will be destitute of any positive advantage to the British Empire, but war itself, if ever it comes, will not be an illusion—even a single bullet will be found real enough. The Admiralty must leave to others the task of mending the times in which we live, and confine themselves to the more limited and more simple duty of making quite sure that whatever the times may be our Island and its people will come safely through them.
  Mr. LEE: I need hardly say that I do not rise on this occasion for the purpose of attacking the Estimates which the Government have laid before the House, and, still less, of denouncing the right hon. Gentleman after the speech to which we have just listened. That speech seems to me to be the logical sequence to the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made on other occasions at the Guildhall and at Glasgow, in and conjunction with the Estimates they suggest to us that the present Board of Admiralty is determined to pursue a clear, steady, and resolute policy with regard to our naval affairs. Perhaps the House will excuse me when I say that it is the first speech by a First Lord of the Admiralty since the present Government have been in office to which I have listened with pleasure, and I am not sure that it is not the only speech proceeding from the Treasury Bench on any subject to which I have listened with pleasure for the last few years. At any rate, it has given a great deal of satisfaction, and when the words, the strong words that the right hon. Gentleman used, are translated, as I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman intends to do, into deeds, they will give great satisfaction to all of this country, irrespective of party, who recognise that our sea supremacy is our first and most vital interest. The right hon. Gentleman caused me some slight misgivings in the earlier passages of his speech. I do not wish to say much about his unfortunate reference to the Budget of 1909. Conscious, no doubt, of certain opposition that he has to face not from this side of the House but from the benches behind him, his exordium consisted of faint pious hopes that naval reduction in the future would be largely increased. He said that Naval Estimates should show constantly decreasing tendencies, and he

  1575
  spoke of the decrease in the Naval Estimates as being of importance. If necessary I should have been willing to follow the right hon. Gentleman into that suggestion, and to disagree with him, but it is not necessary. Those few remarks were only thrown just as a traveller would throw a bun to a pack of pursuing wolves when he knows that the wolves have no longer any power to hurt him. [Mr. CHURCHILL made a remark which was inaudible.] That is quite true. I wish to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was not treating the wolves seriously.
  The right hon. Gentleman proceeded from that point, in every single phase of his speech, to show that not only were decreases not possible, but that large increases in Navy Estimates in ensuing years were absolutely inevitable. We all have known for a long time that this must be the case. Hopes were held out to us last year by the First Lord of the Admiralty that there would be great reduction in the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to save the face of the Government, and in view of the new circumstances, has produced a small nominal reduction this year, but he has made it absolutely clear to the House and the country that in the future there must be enormous increases in our naval expenditure. But I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone further than that, and has shown that those increases are absolutely necessary. No one, not even the maddest Jingo, wishes for expenditure for the sake of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, point by point proved his case that large increases are not only inevitable but necessary. I would only say with regard to the Estimates generally that, taken in conjunction with his speeches and with the announcements he has made today, that those Estimates must be taken as being on the whole satisfactory. They are admittedly provisional. There is no doubt about that. The right hon. Gentleman is looking forward, and in his subsequent remarks he has shown that, in the future and possibly in the present year, they must be open to considerable modification, because they are based all through upon the supposition that there will be no increase in the published programme of foreign Powers. He has shown, as regards Germany at any rate, that that supposition, that hope, is a very faint one.
  I do not think he need have apologised for using the plain language that he did
  1576
  in facing the situation. After all, there is no one in this world who does not know what Power, above all Powers, we consider when, we are framing our naval policy. It must be the next strongest Power, and I think, in a case like this, plain, honest words are best, and, therefore, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for using them. They will not be half as much misunderstood or resented as language which is not plain, which ignores the obvious facts of the situation and yet by implication gives offence. I think the Government have been wise in stating clearly what the position is, how they intend to deal with it, and, coupling with it as they have, a fair and conciliatory spirit and an offer, a distinct offer, that if mutual reductions are agreed to, they will welcome them and that our naval expenditure will be modified accordingly. These Preambles, such as have, been attached to the First Lord's Memorandum this year, and, if I may say so, the far more provocative one, if they are provocative, to the German Navy Bill, after all are comparatively of small importance as compared with facts, and in dealing with foreign programmes, and especially in dealing with a great Parliamentary instrument like the German Navy Bill, we have got to bear this in mind, that we are not building against a perfectly definite thing which anybody could have understood from the first. We are building against an instrument which is indeed called by its authors—I think the words used were "fixed and immutable," but which, as a matter of fact, is the most elastic instrument that any human being could ever devise. When we consider that by the German Navy Bill, for example, when it was introduced it was accepted that the expenditure under it in the year 1911–12 would have been £11,000,000, whereas now it is £22,000,000, when we consider the great increases that have been made in the German programme, all within the provisions of that Bill, then it is more important that we should consider from year to year the facts of the situation and deal with them in the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman is doing. I noticed that his remarks were not received with any great enthusiasm from his nominal supporters below the Gangway opposite.
  Surely the facts, the plain, international facts, of the last nine months, must have convinced even the most ardent pacifist that the very existence of our Empire depends upon our sea supremacy, and that without it we should live on sufferance,

  1577
  On this point the teachings of history are absolutely plain, and it would be indeed the greatest of great illusions to ignore them. We do not have to go back to ancient history in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in the peroration of his speech, bewailed the apparently demoralised condition of the civilised world at the present time. There has been no change whatever in the condition of the civilised world from the time of the flood. It has always been the same. We have it, however far back you go in history or however recent the illustration, and I will take the most recent, the case of Tripoli, which must be present to everyone's mind. From that illustration the civilised world has been reminded of three eternal principles. The first is that unreadiness for war does not secure peace. The second is that insufficient strength invites aggression, and that in spite of the theories of Mr. Norman Angell, great civilised Powers will still in this twentieth century of the Christian era go to war for the sake of gain, either of territory or of something else. The third lesson that we learn from that illustration is that the Power which commands the sea is itself immune from attack. These are very old theories, but they are ones which we must never forget. Bacon, three hundred years ago, said:—
  "This much is certain, that he who commands the sea has great liberty, and may take as much or as little of the war as he will."
  Surely after the events of the last nine months, no one, however devoted to peace and the reduction of expenditure on armaments, can fail to read the lessons which have been put before us. Sea supremacy being so vital to us and our first care, I do not think that any reasonable man can suggest that we are overdoing it. Certainly it cannot be suggested that we are forcing the pace. The only doubt possible is whether up to the present and at the present time the basis of our naval policy—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own phrase—that it should be the bare minimum consistent with full security—has been sufficiently provided for. Three tests may be applied, namely, men, ships, and money. First, take men. The right hon. Gentleman showed—and I think it cannot be denied—the absolute necessity there is for a large increase in our personnel. The increase is to be 2,000 this year, and probably 2,000 in succeeding years. Our increase of personnel has been of the most moderate character during recent years. The German personnel has increased in the last ten years by no less than 95 per
  1578
  cent., whereas ours in the same time has increased by only 16 per cent. We are adding only 2,000 this year, while the Germans are adding nearly 4,000. It is clear that we are not forcing the pace in that connection. Next take ships; and for the purposes of this test I take only capital ships. Our present strength in ships of the "Dreadnought" era, as compared with that of Germany, is only three to two. Surely that is not excessive in view of our position in the world. Many of us think it is quite insufficient. Then take the test of expenditure. For the purpose of comparing our Estimates with foreign Estimates there are so many factors which enter into ours that have no corresponding factors in theirs, that the only fair test is to take the amount of money spent upon new construction and armament. Taking that alone, we have in the last three years spent £41,000,000, while Germany and Austria—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] An hon. Member asks why I take two Powers. You must for this purpose consider two Powers who are absolutely bound in an offensive and defensive alliance. Germany and Austria together have spent £40,000,000 to our £41,000,000, and the Triple Alliance have spent £46,000,000. Take the position in the spring of 1915, which is the point we have to consider, as affected by these Estimates, which will then mature. We shall have available in European waters only thirty-four ships of the "Dreadnought" type, as compared with twenty-seven possessed by Germany and Austria. That is a superiority of only five to four. Surely it is not to be suggested from that that we are forcing the pace or being provocative. If the hon. Member opposite still wonders why I should consider these other Powers, perhaps he will remember the words of one of the greatest of international authorities upon naval discipline and strategy, namely, Admiral Mahan, who I am afraid is more responsible than any other living man for the great increase in naval armaments all over the world. Only the other day in an article in reference to the position between England and the Triple Alliance, he said:—
  "For the safety of the British Empire, it is vital that its naval force should be indisputably superior to that of the Triple Alliance."
  If we examine our position under any one of these test heads, I do not think that any reasonable man can deny that if the bare minimum consistent with security is maintained it is only just maintained, and that we, at any rate, are not the Power that is

  1579
  occupying a provocative position. For these reasons many of us have thought that the programme of shipbuilding for the present year should have been larger, but I am not prepared to press that in view of the forecast which the right hon. Gentleman has made in regard to future years. That, I think, was in many ways the most important and interesting portion of his speech. He told us truly that it was important that we should look ahead, and that we should consider, not only the present year, but what the general position would be over a considerable number of years to come. As I understood his speech, he laid it down that the policy of the Admiralty in future is to be that we are to maintain a superiority over the next strongest Power of 60 per cent, under normal circumstances. That is, if existing naval programmes are adhered to in foreign countries; but if there is any increase over those programmes our reply will be on the basis of two keels to one. Speaking of the present time, he said that a superiority of sixteen to ten in "Dreadnoughts" over the next Power is not sufficient. In an answer to a question only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman shows that next month—April—we shall have a superiority of only sixteen to eleven as compared with Germany.
  I think I have made it clear that our minimum security is barely if, indeed, secured. Further, the advantage which we held for so many years in the matter of greater speed of building is by no means as marked as it has been in the past; and when we remember what has happened to our shipbuilding programme during the last twelve months; when we see that even Powers like Austria, who have not had great experience in building warships, expect to complete their first "Dreadnought" in two years and four months, it is clear that we shall not be able to rely on that superiority for any length of time to come. It is necessary to say a few words with regard to the delays in our shipbuilding programme during the last twelve months. There have been more delays in that period than at any other time in my remembrance. There has been a sum of over £1,500,000 voted last year unspent within the financial year. It is suggested that the conditions which have led to this state of affairs has been exceptional, but the exception has only been that there have been strikes. Does anyone suggest that we are likely to have
  1580
  fewer strikes in future? I am afraid we have always to consider the possibility of these delays. The delay has been increased by the Government themselves, at any rate in one case. I refer to the political coquetting that has been going on between the Government and the Thames Ironworks Company. Here is a case where, in regard to ships that are urgently needed, of a class that is perhaps the most urgently needed in the whole naval service, there has been a delay of over two months, and the question is still unsettled, because the Government is anxious to meet the wishes of the Thames Ironworks Company and the people of the district concerned. There may be social justification for that, but there are no justifications from an Admiralty point of view. The Admiralty has no right to inflict either upon the nation additional cost or upon the Fleet delay in building, and still less to become a kind of outdoor relief agency. I hope at a later stage the representative of the Admiralty will tell us what is going to be done with regard to the cruisers that have been held up for so long.
  6.0 P.M.
  It must be remembered that this abnormal delay during the last twelve months will seriously affect our relative position, as compared with other Powers two years hence. It is true that there is an increased instalment of money for commencing the new programme in this year's Estimates. I saw that with great satisfaction. We now find, however, that that increase is for the purposes of the destroyers only, and that the battleships and cruisers in the programme are to be even more belated than usual. None of the battleships are to be commenced until 1913, and the two contract ships are to be so belated that they will really hardly be begun within the financial year at all. I think that for one "Dreadnought" there is about £2,000 provided for the next twelve months, or about a thousandth part of the cost. In addition to that, three of the five ships of last year's programme have not yet been commenced. They have been provisionally ordered. We know what that means—that they have not yet been commenced. Therefore I do not think the Admiralty can base its forecast of the future upon any hope of our greater rate of building as compared with foreign Powers. I think we have a certain grievance in this matter, because I remember very well two years ago the then First

  1581
  Lord of the Admiralty promised reform in this connection. He told us that in future the Shipbuilding Vote should be taken earlier, not merely for the sake of discussing it, but in order that the money might be voted and the programme commenced in the summer, instead of being put off until the early months of the following year. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why that has not been done. I come to another point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was of surpassing interest and importance. That was with regard to the new distribution of the Fleet. His intention and aim, I understand, is to strengthen the naval force immediately available for war in home waters. That certainly is a most desirable object. He made a remark which I think will attract attention when he said that we have to consider, not merely a sufficient margin on the day which might be selected by us if we were going to attack a possible enemy, but an ample margin at all times, even on the day that a possible enemy might choose to attack us. I believe it is the case that under our institutions it would be practically impossible for any Government in this country, however bellicose, to take the initiative and make an unprovoked attack upon another Power. It is an impossibility. Therefore, speaking from a strictly military point of view, it is hardly possible that we should ever possess the initiative. That must lie in the hands of possible enemies. Therefore I do welcome most heartily that particular assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that we must have a margin which will be sufficient even on the day when another Power might think it desirable to attack us. There are seasons of the year in which many of our ships axe in docks. At such times, according to the right hon. Gentleman's policy, we are always to have a sufficient margin. That I think is a most important statement.
  I do not propose on this occasion—it is impossible at such short notice—to deal in detail with the account which the right hon. Gentleman has given, of the redistributed Fleet; of its division into three great fleets, the first two of which may be called Active Service Fleets, consisting of forty-nine battleships, all manned with active service ratings, and a Third Fleet, which is in the nature of a reserve, and which as I understand it, is to bring up our total strength, if every ship should be mobilised, to fifty-seven
  1582
  battleships as compared with thirty-eight of the next strongest Power. That distribution marks, a great advance upon anything which exists at the present time. It will have to be most carefully examined, but speaking within a few minutes of hearing of it for the first time, I say that it is an announcement upon which I think the House and the country may congratulate themselves. I must pass on, for it is quite impossible, in view of the magnitude of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, to deal with the details as they will have to be dealt with before these discussions come to a close. I do not therefore propose at present to attempt to deal with the details of the shipbuilding programme for battleships, cruisers, destroyers, or submarines, because we shall have a better opportunity for that on the Shipbuilding Vote. I will only say, in passing, that I heard with great interest the outline the right hon. Gentleman gave of the new class of cruiser. This is to be small and cheap, and, above all, numerous, and is to be designed specially for service with the Fleets. There has been a great shortage of cruisers for service with the Fleets, and the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman in that particular is very welcome. With regard to destroyers, the action of the Government in laying down twenty at once is satisfactory, and it shows that we were more than justified in the protest we have made in past years as to the lamentably dangerous shortage that existed in that particular class of craft. We will be able to discuss the question of docks on Vote 10.
  The right hon. Gentleman said something about aviation. I am glad to know that that is receiving attention, and that measures, if possible, will be taken, according to the Memorandum, but I have been unable after the most diligent search, to find any provision whatever in the Estimates for this. No doubt the provision is there, but everyone knows how difficult it is to find one's way about in the Estimates, even after many years' experience. I hope the representative of the Admiralty will tell us later exactly what is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of several Committees that he was setting up. There was one Committee on gunnery and one on naval punishments. This latter, if I may so describe it, will supply a long-felt want. I could have wished that he had set up a Committee also to inquire into the question of pay of the Royal

  1583
  Navy. I express no opinion at present as to whether it is sufficient or insufficient. The question, however, has reached a point when it requires investigation. I must say one word in regard to a point which is dealt with in the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum, but about which he has told us nothing to-day. I refer to the appointment of the new Member of the Board of Admiralty who is to be called an Additional Civil Lord. This official, as we gather from the Memorandum, is to occupy the position of business manager at the Admiralty. Apparently all matters dealing with contracts, purchases, and negotiations with outside firms are to be conducted through him. Speaking with some little knowledge of Admiralty affairs, I should like to use the same phrase as I did a moment ago, and say that this appointment will meet a long-felt want. Although everyone at the Admiralty has done his best under every Administration to economise so far as was consistent with safety, there are still further economies possible. These will, no doubt, be discovered and acted upon by a man who has nothing else to do except to look after the business side of the financial business of the Admiralty. I will only give one illustration. I have always been impressed by the amount of money which has been spent not only under this Administration but under every Administration at the Admiralty upon the repairing of ships which are in reality obsolescent. Ships come back after many years' service, and enormous sums, £70,000 or £100,000, are spent upon them almost as a matter of routine to refit them for service. If we look back we find that in many cases these ships after refitment have never done effective service. That is a matter where economy might conceivably be usefully employed. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the War Staff in his speech—although perhaps he was quite justified in view of what he had to tell us—and he could not deal with everything. It has been truly said—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood we were to have a special discussion on that subject later.
  Mr. LEE: Are we not?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
  Mr. LEE: As we are not, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I think rather too much has been
  1584
  made of this creation of a War Staff; it is as if it was some entirely new thing evolved within a few weeks by the unaided genius of the right hon. Gentleman since he went to the Admiralty.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: So it has.
  Mr. LEE: My Noble Friend says "So it has," but I thought it was in some measure due to himself.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: But it was not there.
  Mr. LEE: It is not entirely new in the minds of men, nor is it an entirely new fact. But the right hon. Gentleman deserves great credit, no doubt, for having expedited a process of evolution which was gradually going on, perhaps going on much too slowly, but none the less proceeding. He has no doubt put the finishing touch to that process, and has told us all about it in this very interesting and characteristic Memorandum, which, perhaps he will allow me to say, has had such an excellent Press. The War Staff, as he describes it, consists of three divisions, two of which existed before—the Intelligence and the Mobilisation Divisions. The right hon. Gentleman has added to it an "Operations Division." He has co-ordinated the three, and has placed them under a Chief of Staff, who is an admiral. No doubt the work that he has done is very much needed, and ought to have been done some time ago. While I cannot perhaps share the opinion of my Noble Friend behind me that the whole thing is absolutely new, and is entirely new to the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, although I do think it was very much due to my Noble Friend's, efforts and persistency during the last few years, the great value of the staff, as I see it, is that it is going, for the first time, to make a real connecting link between the Navy and the Army. I will not dwell upon the rumours that we heard about the extraordinary differences of opinion in the course of last summer; I hope that under the new arrangement such differences of opinion will become impossible in future. There is one fly in the ointment with regard to the War Staff. I hope that on some future occasion the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us in regard to a point winch has been considerably discussed. In his Memorandum, page 16, it is clearly suggested that naval staff officers in future will be a class apart, will be segregated from the general body of the naval service, will become what in

  1585
  my military days was the special bête noire of the military officer, what is called the brass-hatted brigade. They are a class of professional staff officers who, although they may go back occasionally to ordinary duty—for ever-diminishing periods in the case of the Army—are none the less necessarily out of touch with the Service and are looked upon as a privileged class, bound to get all the plums. I think it will be a very great mistake in the case of the Navy if anything were done that would have the tendency to discourage the ordinary executive officer, who, after all, is the backbone of the commissioned ranks in our Fleets. The right hon. Gentleman might explain exactly what is proposed in this matter at some future stage, when I hope he may be able to give the assurance which is much looked for by what I call the average executive officer of the Fleet. I will only say in conclusion that we listened with a great deal of satisfaction to the greater portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I think it has come at an opportune moment. This country at the present moment is passing through a great phase of social unrest, of which I am afraid we have by no means seen the last as yet, and this internal disorder, with its accompanying paralysis of the Government and of our national and our international activities, is, as a matter of course, being watched by friends and foes in all parts of the world. There are, I hope, some who are grieved, but there are, I am afraid, some who might rejoice if this internal disorder developed to a point where we should be more exposed to perils from without. This being so, our Navy at the present time is of even greater importance to us than ever it was before. It is important that it is not politically concerned with any of our internal or domestic disputes, but, so long as they continue, it is our first paramount duty to secure ourselves against all possibility of risk from any outside embarrassment or interference. If the nation is divided against itself and is suffering from internal paralysis, then surely it is more than ever of vital importance that our Navy should be of overwhelming strength, that it should be more than ever watchful, and that it should be instantly ready at any conceivable emergency, and so far as we can judge from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and particularly from his speech to-day, and so far as we can judge from the published Estimates, it seems to me that the Board of Admiralty is alive to the specially heavy responsi-
  1586
  bility which lies upon its shoulders to-day, and in that belief, and assuming further examination shows that belief is justified, we shall be prepared, I believe, on this side of the House, to support the Government in whatever steps it may be necessary to take to preserve the safety of the country from any perils from without.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is not my intention to enter upon any examination of the technique of the Navy, or to delay the Estimates now before the House. I rise in the name of those with whom I am associated to renew the protest we have deliberately made on these occasions against this continued enormous expenditure of such large sums upon the maintenance of the Fleet and upon the Navy. The fact that for three years in succession we have been estimating for and spending over £40,000,000 a year on the Navy as a whole, constitutes a great menace to our peace and national security. I know that the reverse is meant to be the case, yet anyone with experience of mankind is aware that the continual challenge which we throw out to other Powers is bound to be accepted by them, and may quite easily lead to an outbreak of hostility where no such need exists. And there is this further point; the growing expenditure not only of this country but of Europe generally, upon Army and Navy, is tantamount to a confession of failure of our whole diplomatic service, and of our statesmanship. The interest which now rules Europe evidently assumes that peace cannot be maintained unless each nation is armed to the teeth. We hold the old-fashioned or the new-fashioned ideas, whether behind the times or ahead of the times, that the business of statesmanship is not to prepare for war, but to make war, if not impossible, at least very unlikely, and every pound of increase spent upon either the Army or the Navy, is a confession of the failure of statesmanship to rise to the occasion.
  One thing I think must have been obvious today, and that is that the tension between this country and Germany is not yet relieved. There is still an atmosphere of suspicion which darkens counsel and distorts vision, and one strong reason for that is so many interests both in this country and in Germany are concerned in maintaining the present tension, between the two countries. The great armour plate interest in our own country and in Germany have a direct interest in encouraging wasteful expenditure upon

  1587
  the building of ships. In Germany and here in this country, that interest owns newspapers or controls newspapers whose effort is to keep the public mind inflamed and alarmed. Behind this we have the clear mistakes and blunders of our statesmen. The last illustration of that is from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty at Glasgow, only a few weeks ago, when he seemed to go out of his way to accentuate the friction supposed to be existing between this country and Germany. He said:—
  "The present estimated expenditure is being framed on the assumption that the existing programmes of other naval Powers will not be increased. In the event of such increase, it will be necessary to frame Supplementary Estimates both for men and money."
  Who are the other Powers there referred to? What other Powers had the right lion. Gentleman in his mind? What other Powers are prepared to estimate upon our Estimates now being framed? We heard his comment today on the Glasgow speech. Formerly the rule of this country in regard to naval matters was two keels to one. In a general way that was held to be a good working agreement, but no individual Power was singled out for special comment and special treatment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two keels to one against the next strongest Power would be the proper arrangement?
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that hitherto the statement was two to one. To-day Germany has been singled out for special treatment. The opening portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to what Grmany was doing and to what we were required to do in consequence. We were told that the proportion which we must build to Germany was a sixty to forty.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; 60 per cent, increase.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Then I want to ask why Germany was specially singled out for mention in this connection. We are not now building against Europe, we are building against Germany, and all through that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there appeared to be a girding at Germany, which can only emphasise the difficulty between the two countries. I admit quite frankly that this
  1588
  country cannot afford to go too far alone, and I deplore the fact that Germany should be adding to its naval expenditure, but I would remind the House that if the German Government is pursuing that policy it is doing so at the cost of increasing loss of confidence of the nation. In the elections concluded the other day, the party which gained most and added 1,000,000 to the number of its voters, which increased its membership of the Reichstag from 57 to 110, was the Socialist party, which all through has been fighting against this increase in the German naval expenditure. Therefore the people of Germany, whatever its Government may be doing, are obviously not in favour of the policy which has been pursued, and therefore it is said we might well go much further than the First Lord of the Admiralty went to-day in giving Germany a lead in regard to mutual reduction of expenditure. We are to follow in the wake of other nations in reducing our naval expenditure. If Germany will issue an order wiping out the three ships she proposes to build, we shall wipe out our Jive; but surely in a matter of this kind, with so much at stake, the bold offer I submit should come from us, that for this year our "Dreadnought" programme would remain blank, which would have produced instantaneous effect in the German Empire. We always pride ourselves in being in the forefront of the world's programme. Why in this respect are we content to follow in the rear? Our position as an island demands a Navy, that is not in dispute, but we must not forget that Germany's position now as a great commercial nation also demands a Navy, if not for the protection of her home, at least for the protection for her commerce. The only question at issue is what proportion the two Navies should bear. I submit that had the Admiralty acted in the way I have suggested, they would have aroused enthusiasm at home and abroad, and would have given the cause of peace an impetus which might easily have led to an early and substantial reduction in the unnecessary, wasteful, and harmful expenditure which is now going on. Speaking on behalf of the Labour party, we once more enter our protest against this kind of wasteful expenditure of public money, and we shall join our forces, not with the Government of Germany, but with the growing working-class movement of Germany and other nations in terminating this expenditure, so that the national

  1589
  wealth may be used for better and more fruitful purposes than it is being put to at the present time. Armies and navies are costly monuments to the folly, ineptitude, and the incapacity of those who aspire to the title of statesmen and rulers. Fortunately the new spirit now coming into being here and elsewhere, which is manifesting itself in the unrest to which the last speaker referred, is a powerful message of peace to the whole civilised world, and if this country persists in spending money at the increasing rate which it has been doing in the past, far from that unrest being allayed, it will be increased and the progress of Socialism very much accelerated. We, at least, enter our protest, and we hope our comrades in Germany will maintain their anti-military attitude there, and we shall endeavour, as far as in us lies, to co-operate with them in bringing about the result which we and they alike have in view, not the armed peace of Europe, but a peace founded upon agreement and mutual understanding amongst the respective peoples.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not agree with that part of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), in which he spoke about the nations not being properly armed. I think the fact of a nation being properly armed is more likely to secure peace than if it is not properly armed. The hon. Member suggested that we should ask Germany if we reduced our armaments would she do the same? The hon. Member only needs to look back to the year 1908, and he will see the effect of that policy. We did what lie has suggested in 1906, and Germany increased her navy law by six armoured ships, and in 1908 shortened the lives of all her battleships from twenty-five to twenty years. The policy suggested by the hon. Member has been tried, and has failed very miserably. With regard to the interesting speech which has been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, some parts of it were eminently satisfactory and some parts I did not agree with at all. I think it will be better for me to point out first the parts which I think are satisfactory, and reserve my other criticisms for the latter part of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman said the foundation of naval policy was finance. Surely the foundation of naval policy is not finance, but requirement. Our life depends upon our Navy policy, and we are prepared to pay anything to protect our life, and finance is only a secondary con-
  1590
  sideration. I agree that we have to economise, but to economise, as the Government have been doing, means that later on you have to pay three times as much to get your defence back to its proper strength.
  I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's cancelling process, and he seems to have based the whole of his idea of what is necessary for the defence of this country on the battleships. He appears to have forgotten our weakest part, and that is the trade routes. Cruisers are necessary for the defence of our trade routes, and we require a different strategy and tactics altogether. Our danger is starvation through not having our trade routes properly protected. The right hon. Gentleman speaks far too cheerily about the three "Dreadnoughts," and he must not forget that by the time he mentions, they will have deteriorated very much. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it will be the first battle that will settle the action, and not anything that may come afterwards. We want a Fleet that will be absolutely certain of beating any Fleet we have to meet, and we cannot trust to our reserve of old ships. The First Lord's remarks about small cruisers were very excellent, but why he has only put down eight when he knows we want thirty-six I cannot understand. We may see something of this demand on the Supplementary Estimates, or in a larger Estimate next year, and if we do not see it we ought to. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about oil. He should not forget that oil is very easily destroyed, whether under the water in tanks, or whether it is in tanks above, and he must be very careful before he adheres to the doctrine that oil will supersede coal. The advantages he claims for oil are quite true. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman's plan of putting the men in the Fleet Reserve is quite excellent, and I hope he will get all that he requires. It will be an immense improvement, and far greater than any other reserve in the country, if you get those men who have been in the Fleet and who know it while they are in the prime of their life.
  It is very curious, but a good few of these suggestions are exactly those which I made myself before I had my flag hauled down. I suggested that the torpedo craft should be put under an admiral and properly organised. I brought that before the Admiralty in a most respectful manner, and it was also brought before

  1591
  the Committee of Defence, and had the Prime Minister been present I think he would agree that this was the case when he inquired into my letter as to the organisation of the Fleet. As for the two years commission the right hon. Gentleman has given an excellent reason why it should be done away with. I supported that Commission heartily at first, but I admit it has not been successful. My object was that these ships should be docked three times in two years, and then they would not run the danger of being hampered by a foul bottom. With regard to the necessity of altering the two years' commission and going back to three, I am not quite clear as to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Will the officers and men always remain in one ship?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Three years.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: They will remain three years and two years for the torpedo-boat destroyers and email cruisers. I was pleased to hear the announcement about warrant officers being made into sub-lieutenants, for that is an excellent plan. That is a proposal which many of us have supported for many years. It is quite a reasonable plan. To say that you cannot find any officers among 134,000 seamen is ludicrous, and I have said so before in this House. As a matter of fact they will be received with open arms by the officers in the Fleet, who will welcome their friendship and good comradeship, because the warrant officers appreciate their great qualities. Therefore I am very pleased the right hon. Gentleman has taken that view. I am also pleased that he has not forgotten the older men whom it would not be possible to put into the ranks by giving them an extra rank. I will now turn to the general policy in this country with regard to the Navy. I shall confine my remarks to the naval policy and not to any details except such as are necessary to prove my case. First of all, I deplore the original paragraph in the First Lord's statement, where he says:—
  "These Estimates have been framed on the assumption that the programmes of other naval Powers will not be increased."
  I regarded that as an indirect threat, and I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman could perfectly well, with his War Staff which is now created, have set out what was necessary for the defence of our Empire as a whole
  1592
  without mentioning Germany or any other country, and in that way he could have done exactly what he has done now without causing any irritation. The right hon Gentleman said these Estimates were not provocative. I say the language used by the right hon. Gentleman was very provocative, and it will bring about the state of affairs which evidently the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid. I do not say that he wished to make things disagreeable, but he went a long way in that direction. With regard to this irritation and the necessity for increasing our Naval Estimates, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman has not acted in a statesmanlike way. I will read directly the effect of what he put in his statement. What the effect of his words to-day will be in Germany I do not know, but the whole thing could have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had made out his Estimates on the question of Imperial defence and loft Germany alone altogether. I have always said it was a mistake ever bringing Germany into such questions. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is our country that causes all the irritation in Germany. We begin it, and I will prove it directly. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The right hon. Gentleman approached Germany with an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other, but he took good care to keep the olive branch in his trouser's pocket, so all the Germans saw was the sword. I have always said, "Leave other nations alone; look after ourselves," and that is what the German Press has said over and over again. "Why cannot England make out what is necessary for her requirements without referring to us, and let us do the same." Surely that was the common-sense way of doing things without causing all this irritation that at present exists. The First Lord of the Admiralty has also put himself in a rather difficult position. Supposing he has to increase his Estimates, he will have to point out to his supporters what governments are increasing their Estimates, because although he says "other countries," he knows perfectly well it is Germany that is meant. He had much better have left "other countries" out altogether.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is in deference to your point of view.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman want this irritation to continue with Germany? I want to stop it. He is going the right way to continue it.

  1593
  The right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Lee) says it was Germany who created the trouble, and that we did not. I will soon settle that. I have just got some German papers and taken out what the Press says with regard to the First Lord's paragraph. If he says the Press does not count, that is very unlike the sentiments of his own party. Here is what they say with regard to his initial paragraph:—
  "They ought to know in London that threats have no effect upon us."
  This is your peaceful propaganda as exhibited in your original paragraph:—
  "Britain's latest irritation to Germany."
  "British threat."
  "British irritation."
  "Impudent British bluff."
  These are all different papers:—
  "British naval ratio suggested, Two to one. Insulting to Germany."
  I will deal with that two-to-one programme directly. I think it has the support of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lee).
  "The programme fixed by Great Britain would allow Germany to secure any estimate that she put before her country.
  "Great Britain desires peace. She goes the wrong way to work by threatening.
  "Germany has a right to build as much as England. She admits Britain has the same right; but why cannot Britain build what she requires and leave these threats to Germany out altogether?"
  That is the point I wish to make on this question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What paper are you quoting?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Thirty papers. What is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Press of this country? They never thought of "any countries." The British Press made a bee line for Germany at once, and some of the papers made use of language that I consider far too strong. The basis of their contention is the same as what the right hon. Gentleman said tonight. If Germany increases by any ship or any proposal, or alters her Navy Law at all—which she has a perfect right to do—we will at once build two to one. I have always opposed the two-to-one proposition. I consider it insulting and irritating to Germany, and I am going to give the House my objections to it. First, it takes only one Power, and not Imperial defence as a whole. It is not nearly strong enough, looking at it from the point of view of Imperial defence. I must go back to 1909 When the two-to-one-men—I described them as wild men then, and I still think them wild men—were in a state of excitement bordering on insanity. They wanted
  1594
  us to build two ships for every "Dreadnought" that Germany was building or projecting. That was their proposal. Therefore, as Germany was to have twenty-one "Dreadnoughts"—
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): Who said it?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The two-to-one-men.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Who were they?
  Lord C. BERESFORD (pointing to Mr. Lee): Here is one of them.
  Mr. LEE: As the Noble Lord is alluding to me, I would remind him that I spent the greater portion of that year in advocating the maintenance of the two-Power standard, which we were supposed to have maintained in this country for a great many years.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Then I misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman once said to me. He told me he was strongly in favour of two keels to one. That was a private conversation, and I ought not to have mentioned it. I am very sorry. I am rather of the idea, however, that my right hon. Friend said so in public. I object to the two keels to one for that reason. They wanted to lay down eleven "Dreadnoughts" in 1910–11 and eleven "Dreadnoughts" in 1911–12. That is what they would have had us do to get the two keels to one by that period. That was absolutely impossible, as I pointed out at the time. It could not be done; it would have cost £20,000,000 more than the suggestion of a shipbuilding Vote made to the London Chamber of Commerce in 1909, for one class of ship alone, without any cruisers, men, coal, torpedo-boat destroyers, or anything necessary to make these ships effective. If that programme laid before the London Chamber of Commerce had been carried out, we should have had none of this competition; we should have had a Navy Vote suitable in all details, some of which, not very many, have been carried out since, although the necessity was denied at the time. We should have had our slips clear and the manufactures and all industrials ready, provided we wanted a new naval programme, which I pointed out might be necessary, in 1912–13. We should have stopped the competition, this irritation would not have been here, and we should have been in a proper position with regard to defence without the irritation and competition going on at this moment. We are

  1595
  always niggling at Germany. Instead of going ahead and looking after our Imperial defence we are making all this disagreeableness. It could have been avoided if we had gone at a time when money was cheap and trade booming. Now this irritation will go on, holding to this crabbing policy year after year just as we have been doing for the last five or six years, instead of putting down a big Defence Bill and showing Germany it was absolutely impossible for her to go on. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is laughing now, thinking he has shown Germany that. I will show how utterly wrong that is.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Please do not attribute that sentiment to me. It will do much more harm than the Noble Lord thinks.
  7.0 P.M.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I am merely saying the right hon. Gentleman has told Germany distinctly that he will lay down two keels to every one she does. Does he object to that? It will be read so in Germany and in this country to-morrow. Whatever Germany lays down from now, the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, said he would lay down double. If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me. That is what I understood him to say, and that is what I object to. I say that is a distinct threat made to Germany in this House, and that is not the way to promote peace and curtail armaments. If the right hon. Gentleman would base his Shipbuilding Vote and Construction Vote on what is necessary for us and let Germany alone, it would be a great deal better. On what is the Government policy of construction based? It has been based entirely on the German Navy Law. The German Navy Law was laid down in 1900 for the whole world to see. We, on this side of the House at any rate, had an Imperial policy. We did not pick out Germany; but the party opposite did pick out Germany, and, having picked out Germany and knowing the German Navy Law of 1900 perfectly well, the first thing they did was to reduce in 1906–7 the armoured ships from four to three. That was the year I pointed out that Germany increased her armament by six, after our reduction. In 1907–8 the Government reduced them from four to three again. In the year 1908–9 they reduced them to two, but in the year 1909–10 they laid down eight ships. If their construction was based on what Germany did, why did they
  1596
  lay down two one year and eight the other? Now I come to a point where I take issue with the Front Bench. The Government held up Germany as a bugbear—and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) laughs when I say it was our fault—saying that she did something she did not do. They were taken to task for that by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Germany had not then touched her Navy Law as far as additions were concerned. That is the way the great irritation began in that country. I know a great many distinguished Germans, and that is what they have told me. I believe them, and I have seen it in the German Press. What was the real reason? The public got anxious in this country; the Opposition called attention to the weakness that would accrue in two or three years, and they began singing, "We will have eight, and we won't wait." The Government saw they had effected false economy. What did they do? It is within the recollection of the House. I was at sea at the time, and I got it by wireless. I thought there would be war in a week. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the First Lord of the Admiralty came down on that Bench and made scare and panic speeches. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I thought we were going to war in a week, for they could not have made speeches of a stronger character. It was all based on what was going to happen in Germany. I maintain that Germany had not made any alteration whatever, and what happened was that the Front Bench suddenly made a discovery in connection with the Coventry works.
  The Germans could have accelerated, but they did not accelerate—from May, 1908, till November, 1908, they did not accelerate their programme. It was that discovery that induced Members of the Front Bench to make those speeches. Otherwise can anyone tell me why those speeches were made? The real reason, as, I say, was that the country got anxious. This bench below me called the attention of the people to the fact, and that bench opposite came down and made these speeches in order to increase the Naval Estimate. They made them in the faith that the people would believe that Germany was the bugbear. I object altogether to that. I say that they are taking an un-statesmanlike attitude. We have no right to take these other countries in comparison. We are perfectly well able to make

  1597
  out what is necessary for our Empire, and we need not trouble and mess about these other countries.
  I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that we were infinitely superior ten years ago to what we are now. We were infinitely stronger ten years ago. Our Fleet was predominant all over the world. There were no other fleets near it; we had naval bases all over the world; we had guns and ammunition in every part of our Empire; our naval bases were well stored, they were properly garrisoned and gunned, and our trade routes were protected. But all that is gone. We have recalled our squadrons from abroad. We have twenty cruisers on our trade routes where we had sixty. We have reduced our garrisons abroad. We have dismounted a number of guns abroad, and, in addition to that, we have got a tremendous amount of "military shipping" produced by the other Powers mainly because we threatened them in the early stages of the "Dreadnoughts." It is no use hon. Members growling—this is the fact. I am making the statement, it is for the representatives of the Government to knock it out. One of them says he has not to do so, well it is lucky for him he has not to try it. But these are the facts, and I call the attention of the House to them. Can anybody deny we were predominant all over the world ten years ago, and that our naval bases were excellent? I saw two of them last year without any guns and with grass growing on the platforms; there were no troops there, machinery which had cost £58,000 had been sold, the spanners, the straps, and the bellows had been sold, and sold for nothing£[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]£well I mean comparatively nothing. Was that a sensible thing to do? I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly to what extent Malta, Gibraltar, and other garrisons were reduced, and how many men and guns were taken out. Is it a sensible thing to reduce your garrisons? I tell you you will have a serious time if you get war. If you are strong enough you will not get war, but I say we were stronger ten years ago than we are now. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech just now spoke of "looking ahead." What is he looking ahead at? In January, 1915, Germany can have twenty-four "Dreadnoughts." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I am obliged to say Germany. I do not think it is inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument on Germany. I object to that, but I want to
  1598
  knock out his argument, and therefore it is surely consistent for me to take this line. In January, 1915, Germany can have twenty-four vessels of the "Dreadnought" class, Austria can have four, and we can have no more than thirty, therefore there is a majority of two. Is that the margin involved in "looking ahead"? There is talk of the old ships coming out, but that is of no use, that does not help us in looking ahead. I further blame the right hon. Gentleman for not spending £1,600,000 which has to go back to the Treasury. Why did he not spend them? He could have spent the money perfectly easily. This was one of their economies.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is absolutely untrue.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I say it was economy. Why did you spend £18,000 more on the "Monarch" than you were allowed, and why did you spend £67,000 more on the "Hercules"?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We have endeavoured to spend during the year every penny of money voted by Parliament that we possibly could, for the purpose to which it was assigned. If we have failed to do so it was altogether beyond our control. We had no idea of saving the money. I wish to goodness we could have-spent it, for I shall have to get it again, from Parliament.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That all sounds very well, but why was not the "Tiger" laid down? How is it you have fourteen ships, including four "Dreadnoughts," which ought now to be in commission, but will not be in commission till August? It is all very well for the representatives of the Admiralty to shake their heads and say it is the fault of the contractors. The facts ought to be explained to this House. The right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is "looking ahead" is not consonant with the facts. It is not looking ahead if we are only to have a margin of two ships in January, 1915, and if you cannot possibly have a greater margin than six ships by August, 1915. Is that the Navy in these days of modern ships upon which the safety and life of our Empire are to depend? I have made my statement. The right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me in any thing I have said. I do not want him to. I want him to prove I am wrong. He will have to prove it. I admit I have no sympathy from the benches on this side of the House—from the experts on this bench

  1599
  below me. I do not want it. I am only thinking of one thing. I have never taken a party line on these matters. I think we ought to have a Navy as strong as it can be. That may be a platitude, but we have to see that it is strong, and we can go into details on the floor of this House. I maintain that as far as details go the right hon. Gentleman will find when we come to the Votes in Committee we shall be able to make some of his remarks to-day appear not to be very clever. I am sorry I have detained the House so long, but I have to say a few more words in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have endeavoured to be fair. What he has done well he has done excellently, but I do not agree at all with his remarks about Germany. Read the German Press to-morrow and see if I am not right. He could have done everything he has done without mentioning Germany at all. As to my proposals, I am certain I am right. We have a War Staff now. It is necessary for the sake of the Empire to put all these things right, and I maintain that we are far from being safe at this present moment.
  I am disappointed the right hon. Gentleman had not something to say about the pay and pensions of officers and men of the Fleet, and more particularly with regard to the case of the widows and children. I will not enter into details of that. I am sure the House will listen sympathetically to this point, which will be brought forward by another of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman might have cleared up the breach of faith affecting the engineering branch—one which created great dissatisfaction—and I hope that even now he will pay some attention to it. Then there is a long-standing grievance of Greenwich pensions. I hope he will look into that. There is, too, the general question of the pay of the Navy. The House may not be aware that the pay of the Navy has not been increased for nearly sixty years, at any rate so far as the men on the lower deck are concerned, and in the last sixteen years prices have risen 30 per cent. While other workers under the Government have had their pay and positions improved in recent years the Navy alone has stood still. It is a silent service, it is a loyal service, it never makes complaint, but that is no reason why it should not be perfectly justly and fairly treated. Then there are questions affecting discipline.
  1600

  am glad to think the right hon. Gentleman has come to a wise decision in having a committee on that point. There is no doubt that the punishments laid down are not suitable to grown men of the present day. I hope success will attend that inquiry. Then there is the leave question, and the kit question. I had made representations on these points to the Admiralty, and they have always received my requests courteously and have agreed to some of them. I hope they will look into these questions. The House will agree with me that our first question should be the efficiency of the Fleet and the fair dealing with and just treatment of officers and men. These matters should be looked into most carefully. There are questions that are causing unrest on the lower deck. They should be inquired into by the authorities. Let them remember that the Navy cannot give expression to its views. It is under discipline. It is loyal, and therefore it is all the more desirable that these matters should be looked into and that questions which are causing unrest should be put right.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: The House has no doubt listened with the greatest delight to a very interesting passage of arms between the Noble Lord who has just sat down and the wild men upon his own side. This is the third year in succession that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Lee) has got up in this House and defended himself against the charge of ever having advocated a standard of two to one. The Secretary to the Admiralty has, like myself in a more humble way, put him time after time through a cross-examination. I am sorry that I have not come down this evening prepared with actual passages, and I shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw this in a moment if the hon. Gentleman contradicts me, but according to my recollection, and I was reading the Naval Debates only the other day, the hon. Gentleman said that the two-Power standard would be best interpreted in his view as a twice one standard, and I believe he said it in this House.
  Mr. LEE: My position is perfectly clear. I am in favour of two keels to one, and I have never denied that. When my Noble Friend stated that in the year 1909, when I was speaking on behalf, of my party, that I was advocating a two to one standard, I said I was not. I was then advocating and supporting the policy of

  1601
  the party in its full and generally understood sense of a two-Power standard. If anybody looks up the Debates, he will find that is so.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: I am glad to have the assurance once again that the hon. Member (Mr. Lee), and the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) are all thrown over by the Noble Lord. I am equally glad that the Government themselves have not given in to this new and extraordinary standard which is being pressed upon us from the outside. I am equally glad that the right hon. Gentleman in definite terms has for the first time—although this has always been the idea of the Liberal party—cut out America from the two-Power standard. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C.Beresford) brought what I think is the most unfair charge that could possibly be brought by a man in his responsible position against His Majesty's Government. He accused them, as I understood it, of hostility to Germany, or at any rate of constantly bringing Germany into the discussion. At almost every word the Noble Lord himself was mentioning the name of Germany.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I had to do that to knock out the arguments of the other side. I never mentioned Germany in a speech of my own. I have always deplored it.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Did the Noble Lord never mention Germany in the speech he made at the London Chamber of Commerce in 1909, when he went into the greatest possible particulars comparing the position of the two countries? In the interesting book, "The Betrayal," at page 134, he has gone into a long and interesting calculation of the ships laid down by Great Britain and Germany from 1906–7 to 1911–12. It appears to me that if my right lion. Friend is to be blamed that the Noble Lord is himself open to precisely the same charge. With all respect to his great authority, I think the Noble Lord was wrong in contradicting the statement of the First Lord that the Navy depends ultimately upon finance. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that my right hon. Friend made a perfectly right and proper observation. Speaking from this side of the House as one who has a certain sympathy with Chancellors of the Exchequer, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend remembers sitting under the Gallery with
  1602
  me—two boys in round collars—on either side of the present Colonial Secretary, listening to Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir William Harcourt when as Ministers they were faced with large charges for the Naval service. Lord Randolph Churchill invented the Death Duties and resigned his office. Sir William Harcourt passed the Death Duties and did not resign his office. The reason why I mention that is that I saw in the papers this morning something as to the resignation of a German Lord Randolph Churchill. One proposition seems broadly true; "no Death Duties, no Navy." Herr Wermuth's resignation is a notable fact. It reminds us incidentally that they have a Land Union in Germany which is powerful and, apparently, irresistible. The hopes for those who look for moderation in our shipbuilding are not the less to-day when we see German Minister after German Minister warned off the hen-roosts from which, in our opinion, this new construction can only be financed. There was a very interesting passage in the message from the Berlin correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph." He referred to the ships and the soldiers which at least a quarter of the nation desired if they could only be paid for out of somebody else's pocket. The policy "we won't wait and we won't pay" is not, happily, confined to a single country.
  The First Lord made a deeply interesting statement this afternoon. It was certainly the ablest statement I have ever heard on Naval policy, and I have no doubt that those who are older in this House can date it back further still. I think it is the ablest statement we have had in this House for many years past. We heard a good deal last year about the economy of the "Dreadnought" type. I ventured to say something then about docks rather modifying that happy idea. The First Lord added something about the increasing cost of coal. He might have mentioned also the increased cost of the complement of these enormous vessels. We can scarcely lay the flattering unction to our souls that, although the ships have been built economically, they really in their upkeep result in any substantial reduction. The First Lord took a very novel course this afternoon when he outlined the programmes for a series of years. We used to hear a good deal about the Cawdor Memorandum, and this afternoon we have a kind of Churchill Memorandum, indicating the necessities for the future.

  1603
  It is an interesting departure, and speaking on the spur of the moment, I should be inclined to say it is of rather doubtful advantage. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have always been pressing upon us the idea of a fixed programme. The Noble Lord himself wanted a Naval Defence Act. I remember last year the point of a fixed programme was raised by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Eyres-Monsoll), and the Home Secretary made what I thought was a perfectly just reply. He said:—
  "I rather fear that a definite programme would amount to this: that we should always build the number of ships contained in the definite programme as a, minimum, regardless of what foreign nations did, and if they increased their programme we should find it incumbent upon us to increase our programme also, and I hope the Committee, tempting as this method appeals, will not be misled by it."
  I think it necessary to put in that saving clause, because although it is interesting to know what may be the prospective needs of the country some years in the future, I think the proper broad principle is to stick to the Estimates for the year and to those alone.
  I do not want to go into ancient history or to indulge in any sort of recrimination, but of course the Admiralty were wrong as to the number of German units which will be completed in March, 1912. What I think is important, and there is no harm in saying it, although they were not to blame for it, is that they were equally wrong with regard to the number of completed British units at the present time. The ships of 1911–12 are delayed and if we look at the supplement to the Estimates, which we only got a day or two ago, we find also in the case of the "Audacious" she was to be completed in 1912–13, but we are told there is to be delay, and that she will not be completed in that financial year. I believe that the Home Secretary last year rather unnecessarily minimised the value of the latest British types, and exaggerated the value of the contemporary German types. When he abandoned the idea of German acceleration, and still asked for the four contingent ships, he did so—and this is my cause for going into the question again—on the ground that the four German ships of 1908 and the two of this year's programme, although they would not be commissioned for three years or more, were of a greatly superior type, which must be answered. It seemed to be a necessary corollary to that statement that the "Neptune," the "Indefatigable," the
  1604
  "Colossus," and the "Hercules." were not a proper answer. I tried to deal with that last year, but I never got a complete reply. It is not a question of being wise after the event: it is a question of our future standard, when what we call the "Orion" type begins, and how many we have got in hand, and how many or how few Germany has in hand. If you take the existing: situation, if we say these German ships are the equal of ours, and that we have only one, whereas the Germans have four, we shall have in March only two, whereas Germany will have six. The Home Secretary told us last year that we must have six to six. On the other hand, I think it is perfectly obvious, having regard to our new 13.5 gun, of which the First Lord was properly proud in his speech on the. Clyde, and to the fact that not a single German-ship which has already been laid down carries that gun, that we have an incomparable greater weight of broadside in the ships we have completed. We have this year's six; in 1913 we shall have eleven, and in 1914 we shall have sixteen of these vessels, of which I believe Germany will not have the equal. The First Lord dealt this afternoon with the question of the rate of construction. Of course, you can only take a comparative rate. In the Admiralty statement of 1905 it was said that it must be remembered that, however formidable foreign shipbuilding programmes may appear on paper, we could" always overtake them in consequence of our resources and powers of rapid construction. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) quoted that in 1909, and he said it was then true no longer. I put a series of questions to the Admiralty on that particular point, and I remember a phrase used by the Home Secretary in the Debates of 1909. It was, of course, an interruption, and we have to allow for that. He certainly said the German rate of construction was almost, if not quite, equal to our own. I put a question to the First Lord the other day, and he made the very proper reservation that in his view the Home Secretary meant, not actual construction, but potential construction. I presume that is what he meant, though if I had him at that box, like Mr. Midshipman Easy, I might be inclined to argue the point. I presume the potential capacity rests upon some basis of realised facts, otherwise, after all, where would you get? I think it is fair to say that when the facts suit the advocates of a big programme, they are always emphasised and potentiality is only a second string. The Home

  1605
  Secretary was always trotting out the "Nassau" and the "Westfalen," saying they were built in two years and two months, whereas they belong to the programme of the previous year, and I believe a fairer period to take would be three years and six months or four years from the date of order to the final completion.
  What I cannot get at is the actual period which the Admiralty think it necessary to take. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), in his book "The Betrayal," said it was an absolutely false date in the case of the "Dreadnought" to take the date of the laying of the keel, and that you ought to have allowed for the collection of material and so on. I quite agree. The very able young naval officer who was in this House for some time, the younger Mr. Bowles, said the laying of the keel is a meaningless date. There are only two dates which have any reality in the construction of ships, the date when the design is completed at the Admiralty and the first orders are given and the date when the ship hoists the pennant and is commissioned and is ready for action. I only want to get the comparative power of construction of the two countries. There is nothing offensive in that. If you take the "Rheinland" and the "Posen"—there is a period of three years. The "Von der Tann" was an exceptional ship—two years and six months, on the statement given me by the First Lord, which formed the subject of comment by the "Times" naval correspondent. That period was taken from the date of the laying of the keel. It was three years from the date of the official order. In the case of the last four which are complete, they seem to have taken three years and some months from the date of order to the date of trial and up to three years and six months for full commission. Of course, forty months may be a false date. Labour troubles may have to be allowed for, but there is surely a vital difference between forty months and twenty-six months, which we used to be told was the proper period to take for German construction. With regard to our own powers of construction, take the worst possible case of the fifteen ships that you have there—the "Invincible," three years and four months. I believe that is entirely an exceptional case, just as exceptional as the "Dreadnought" was in the other direction, but I think it seems to be fair to say, from the table furnished to me, that the British period is from two years and one month to two years and six months,
  1606
  whereas the corresponding German period would be three years to three years and six months. Surely that is of very vital importance, because if it is true it puts you back into the same fortunate position that you were in before.
  Take, for instance, two ships in Germany and in this country. Take the "Ostfriesland" of the 1908 programme, which was ordered in April, 1908, laid down in October, 1908, and complete for trial in August, 1911, and commissioned in October of that year. The "Hercules," a British vessel, of the following year's programme, was ordered in March, 1909, a year later, was laid down in July, and yet was ready for trial in February, or about five months earlier than the German ship, which belonged to the programme of the previous year. Therefore it seems to me superficially, as a non-expert person, that we could be in a position, which would be an enormous advantage, to lay down our ships as an answer to the programmes of foreign Powers in the year after they were commenced in other countries. That may be right or it may be wrong. I know there is a great deal of mischievous stuff which is written by navy leagues in the two countries, though I should, like to make an exception to the vary able Navy League Annual, edited by the hon. Member (Mr. Burgoyne), which is both valuable in information and moderate in tone. I saw a statement in the "Daily Telegraph" that a very violent hostile publication had been issued by the German Navy League. I have not got it yet, though I intend to wade through it sooner or later, but I have read in the last day or two a very interesting book, by a German General, General Bernhardi, and it bears out a good deal that the Noble Lord said. It is not a piece of Jingo pamphleteering, but a serious military consideration of what the writer calls in his title, "Germany and the Next War." It is far more depressing than the worst Chauvinistic literature, because it gives a feeling of hopelessness in the unshakable conviction of a representative German that we are inspired by active and aggressive animosity against his country. I only take a sentence or two from that book. He says:—
  "The Morocco negotiations of the summer of 1911 gave an irrefutable demonstration of the unqualified hostility of England against us. It was clearly shown that England is determined to prevent by force every real extension of German power. One can scarcely doubt that England is thinking in dead earnest of attacking Germany in certain circumstances."

  1607
  He speaks of the increase of the English Fleet as a preparation for aggressive war, and he says:—
  "It is impossible to regard the English preparations as merely measures of defence. The English Government knows well that Germany cannot think on her side of attacking England, because such an attempt is in itself hopeless."
  He points out that the entente with France is really a warlike alliance against Germany, and, as to a land war, he points out that probably Germany will be supported by Austria, though nothing is said about Italy, but he specifically says that in a sea war it is practically certain that Germany will stand absolutely alone, and he repeats again, writing, I presume, for the German public, that he regards an attack on England, as absolutely hopeless. That incidentally is not to prevent our continuing to build ships against Austria as well as against. Germany, as a deliberate policy, and we have a situation, which would be laughable if it were not so ruinously pathetic, of two great nations, each, as I believe, genuinely reluctant to assume the aggressive, not because they lack anything in strength or courage, but because each believes that even a successful war would bring utter exhaustion and barren victory, with 100,000,000 citizens in the two countries forced into a stale-mate of perpetual preparation and of unworthy suspicion. I do not go as far as the Noble Lord in his book, "The Betrayal," and say that since 1908 Great Britain has been the bully of the seas, but what after all has been the result of all these firm resolves and panic programmes? Have we frightened Germany out of building. Have we even convinced her of our sincerity? "We have only, apparently, unhappily produced the impression, false, as I earnestly believe, of bitter and unrelenting hostility. She is firmly convinced that we are forcing her deliberately into a position of isolalation. We shall vote these Estimates, the men, the money, and the ships, but I regard as more important even than that, the grave and just words which fell from the First Lord of the Admiralty at the conclusion of his speech as to this folly of the twentieth century. I believe in all this marching and counter-marching we are perpetuating a load of anxiety and strain, that some day perhaps a generation ignorant of warfare may think worse even than war.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I can agree with one statement certainly that the hon.
  1608
  Member has made. I have been some years in the House and I am not in the habit of over complimenting my opponents, but I say quite sincerely that it was a pleasure to anyone who wanted a clear statement of policy to listen to the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day. That statement has many qualities which ought to commend it to this House, and particularly to the party opposite. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party who, when they came into power, raised what the First Lord of the Admiralty then called the tattered flag of economy. I believe the party was sincere in desiring economy. I cannot imagine that the present Government would lay itself open to attack and unpopularity among those who support it if the logic of facts had not convinced them that the naval programme which they were and are pursuing, was absolutely necessary to the safety and security of this nation. It is a very popular thing to be economical on the part of Governments, and I remember when this Government came into power that Members of it like the Chancellor of the Exchequer were firmly convinced that our naval policy was the result of a desire for national aggrandisement. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the late First Lord of the Admiralty found it necessary two years ago to make the speeches they did, however late, however overdone, was at any rate a proof that the information which came to their hands from the inside was such as to necessitate doing that thing which was unpopular with their own party, and that is to make those speeches which the Noble Lord has condemned in such vigorous terms to-night.
  The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) enjoys a peculiar and a natural popularity in this country, but I do not understand his position. I do not know anyone who has stimulated me more to interest myself in naval policy than the Noble Lord. I do not know anyone who has impressed upon me more the necessity for having an adequate Navy than the Noble Lord. What has he to complain of if the Government has done what I believe the First Lord did properly to-day, and that was to make absolutely clear the reasons for their policy? Members who support the Government and Members on this side of the House have too often listened to mysterious speeches made by Ministers of War and First Lords of the Admiralty,

  1609
  vague general talk about what we ought to do, and what is necessary for the defence of the country, often portentous and sometimes pretentious. At any rate, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is right or wrong, he has given the country reasons for the policy which he has advocated. The very Members who sit beside him would be the first to condemn him and any Government of this country who merely talked in general terms. Our naval expenditure is enormous. It is something to appal those who have watched its growth. I do not say it is not necessary. I think it is necessary, but I say that the day has gone by when the First Lord of the Admiralty can come down to the House, and, without giving explicit statements of the reasons for their policy, secure the confidence of the House as to the Estimates placed before us. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) I am afraid hardly did justice to himself when he first condemned the Government and then afterwards put forward reasons for making our Navy strong.
  If there are Members of this House who believe that the people of England, or the Government, have been aggressive in this matter of naval policy they have only to remember the German Navy Law of 1900. It is not possible for Germany to decide that this year she is going to reduce and next year increase her shipbuilding. She has a Navy Law, made in 1900, to regulate her policy in that matter. She knew then what our position was. Our position was one of unassailable superiority. What is she building for? We believe that she is building not only in order to protect her trade, but to give herself a greater position in the counsels of the world, in order to make herself a rival, or, if she wishes to be—that is a national ambition she is entitled to—in a position of superiority to this country in influence upon the policy of Europe. But to suggest that we stimulated Germany's naval programme is not in accordance with fact. At any rate, the Noble Lord, before the German Navy Law of 1900 was passed, said there was nothing of this aggressive spirit.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The point I wanted to make was that until we began to build "Dreadnoughts" there was no irritation between us and Germany.
  Sir G. PARKER: There seems to crop up out of this the Noble Lord's ancient opposition to the "Dreadnought."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I never objected to the "Dreadnought." I objected to the advertisement of the "Dreadnought."
  Sir G. PARKER: I was under the impression that the Noble Lord was quite satisfied with the type of ship which had already been built. But surely this country does not think because we build "Dreadnoughts," superior instruments of war, that that stimulates Germany into this extraordinary activity of building? The Noble Lord complains of our mentioning Germany. I can remember speeches the Noble Lord made more than ten years ago, when he was previously Member of this House, in which he talked often of France and Russia, and of the necessity of preserving the two-Power standard. He did not hesitate then to advocate a strong Navy. After all, France and Russia were rival Powers of ours, and we were contending with them. There were dangers then upon the borders of India, in Egypt, and in Newfoundland. These were questions of great acuteness, as the Noble Lord is well aware, and every word said in this House was quite as likely to stimulate France and Russia to unusual activity as anything said with respect to the two-keel standard or the mention of Germany constantly in these Debates is likely to stimulate Germany. I wish to speak about an aspect of naval policy which, I think, is neglected in the speeches of the First Lord, neglected by the Press, and neglected by Members of this House. I would like to see again in this House men like Sir John Colomb and Mr. Arnold Forster. They were men who not only took the view that the safety of this nation was a necessity, but who were keen to make the House and the country understand what was necessary in connection with our overseas Dominions.
  I regret extremely that the First Lord in his otherwise remarkable and lucid speech should have omitted to say one word of an aspect of policy which I consider to be of as great importance as the building of "Dreadnoughts," and that is the co-operation of our overseas Dominions in our naval policy. I was never one of those who advocated a contribution. I believe you can only get a proper contribution to the naval strength of this Empire when they build their own navies under the direction of, and in sympathy and consonance with the policy of our Admiralty—navies not corresponding with the great central Navy as regards "Dreadnoughts," but small navies, such as Lord

  1611
  Tweedmouth referred to in his statement in 1908 when he said that you cannot take small craft such as torpedo boats and submarines across the seas, and that small flotillas provided by the Dominions would be an admirable means of coast defence, and for avoiding the dangers that might have to be met from cruising squadrons. You never would have been able to secure the support of the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions, since every Government is responsible to Parliament and the country for the money spent. As they have no control over what is spent by our Admiralty, the system of contribution could not have gone on for any great period of time, or been developed in a satisfactory manner. I welcome the scheme, which the overseas Dominions are carrying out. That policy was accepted by Australia and New Zealand, and Canada did, in fact, accept it, at all events, up to the time the last Government passed out of existence. I do not know whether the present Government of the Dominion accept it or not.
  8.0 P.M.
  There will be within a very few years a contribution to the naval efficiency of this Empire, as well as to the naval strength, which cannot be over-estimated. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in his reply he will not give the House some information concerning the position of Canada—whether he will state if the Government has any further information as to the intention of the present Prime Minister of Canada and his Government. We know what Australia is doing. It has accepted a scheme which involves practically a contribution to the Imperial strength of £600,000 a year. According to her commerce, she ought, to contribute £1,200,000, but £600,000 is a large sum in the circumstances. But if it were one-third of that amount, the policy itself is so full of hope for the future and suggests so strongly a sense of responsibility, that I cannot imagine any Member of this House or any citizen of this country being uninterested in the tremendous developments that are likely to ensue from that policy. The Australians are an island people, and they have the sea sense in a greater degree than the people of Canada. New Zealand is in the same position in that respect. The only way to secure a broad national naval spirit is to see that money is voted by the local Parliaments, and that that money is expended in the necessary armaments, dockyards, schools of instruction, and repairing establishments, and in the provi-
  1612
  sion of cruisers and small craft, such as torpedo boats. This is in order to make the people of the countries understand that their naval forces are the product of their own activity and the result of their own financial efforts. I had a feeling of intense disappointment when the First Lord made no reference to this matter. I need not assure the House of the interest I take in Imperial affairs. I say there ought to be always in any statement made by the First Lord or the Prime Minister of this country regarding the Empire a reference to the participation, co-operation, and alliance of the Colonies in the national and Imperial schemes of defence. It is that kind of neglect which in the past, if it has not alienated, has damped the spirit of the peoples of our overseas Dominions again and again. They know they are small; they know, perhaps, that in some respects they are crude in their developments, but that crudity, the paucity of their populations, and the smallness of accomplishment on their part, has nothing to do with the resources of the Dominions and the belief which these young peoples have in the great future they have before them. This Government, or any other Government in this country, will do well, when they discuss either the Army or the Navy, always to take into consideration what those Colonies are doing. If it is the Army, what their Militia or their Volunteers are doing; and if it is the Navy, what their navies are doing. Believe me, if you would give that importance to your discussions on these great occasions to the activities of the Colonies, you would get treble the result that you get now. It is owing to the feeling that they think their offerings are despised or held in slight regard—in the past it was so—that they have not given more, that they have not co-operated in a more active and more substantial form. I believe the time has now come when every one of these overseas Dominions, even the Dominion of Canada, with its one-third French population, has arrived at an understanding of the awful responsibilities that rest upon this country, of the burdens she carries, and of the struggle that some time or other, with the ambitions of mankind, she must face.
  In the light of that fact, here in this House we should do everything that is possible to encourage that sense of responsibility. Every dollar, every pound, contributed to necessary defensive naval purposes in our Colonies will bring forth

  1613
  future further activity a thousandfold. And they are not in favour of national aggrandisement. They believe in conserving every ounce of energy and every pound and every dollar for industrial purposes, if it is possible, and when they awake to these responsibilities it is because a great Imperial policy has taken hold of them and a great necessity has induced them to become active and responsive, not to the demand but to the claim of Imperial responsibility and of the part which every portion of the Empire must play if the Empire is to stand in the future co-operative, taking advantage of the benefits which its various populations and the development of its resources have given. To-day has been, except for this one thing, a very satisfactory day. I am not going to enter into the slightest detailed criticism. Those who are experts will do that. But I do say that, if what the Government believe is true, and if the logic of facts is as they represent it, then this clear exposition of policy, vigorous as it has been, sweeping and illuminating as it was in every paragraph, was necessary for the people of this country to understand the necessities of this nation.
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I wish to express agreement with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker). I agree with what he said in the earlier portion of his speech, that it is not possible in the state of affairs which we have reached in naval armaments to avoid referring to the developments in other countries. From constant travelling in various parts of the world, I do feel sure that the clear, precise and definite statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty which we have heard from the Government Benches thin afternoon will go a long way to restore not only confidence in us, but also the general belief throughout the world that we intend to maintain the supremacy which is of such vital consequence to us. It is my good fortune to be constantly in many parts of our Empire and there is undoubtedly a belief in existence, perhaps because sufficient mention is not made of it here, that co-operation by the Dominions in contributing to our Navy is looked upon as a matter of very small consequence. I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—indeed, I would almost beg him—before this Debate closes, to make some clear statement that we do look to the co-operation of our Dominions, that we not only welcome it, but that we desire it. They are young
  1614
  nations, but they get very little news, and as far as one can gather in Canada it is very seldom that they hear of Debates that come on in this House; but if particular reference is made here to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our other Dominions the Press agencies will then take particular pains to circulate it. References coming from such a high person as the First Lord of the Admiralty would be cabled out and would do a vast amount of good.
  One often hears in Canada and elsewhere that if we desire co-operation with the Dominions they should have representation. It might be instructive to the House if I were to quote a headline from the "Montreal Daily Star," of 20th January. I was recently in Canada, and followed up very closely, as far as I could gather by personal intercourse, the views of various Members of the new Parliament, and the view generally held as represented by this headline:—
  "Canada should no longer lie treated as a spoilt child, but should be told what is wanted and be accorded whatever measure of representation she desires."
  I have seen similar headings in nearly all the leading papers in Canada including the "Winnipeg Daily Telegram," the "Victoria Colonist," the "Toronto Daily Mail and Star," and others. They have all had words more or less to the following effect, I quote from the Montreal "Daily Star":—
  "If Canada really means business she should expect the Admiralty to tell her exactly how Canada and the other Dominions may most usefully contribute towards the general security. Mr. Bourassa puts this point with emphasis when he says, 'it seems rational that before the self-governing Colonies are called upon to take any steps the authorities of the United Kingdom should express clearly what they want from the Colonies in the way of help, and what they are prepared to give in the way of control and authority.'"
  Later on it says:—
  "Mr. Bourassa declares that Canada, and especially French Canada, must demand an 'adequate proportion of authority and effective control in the event of the people of Canada deciding to co-operate cordially in defence of the Empire.'"
  This is particularly interesting, because it quotes Mr. Bourassa, the leading nationalist of French Canadians, which shows how extremely Canada desires cooperation in a great Imperial Navy, if only she is accorded representation in whatever measure she contributes. I have another similar quotation with which I will not trouble the House. This question is of vital importance just now because it has been stated publicly that we shall have one if not two of the Ministers in the new Canadian Government in England within

  1615
  a few weeks. The Minister of Marine, and I believe the Minister of the Interior, are visiting this country to confer with the Government, and if they come, as I am sure that they are coming, with a firm intention of co-operating effectively—some of their papers have said even to the extent of three "Dreadnoughts"—if they could be sent back with a message that the Government of this country, the Board of Admiralty, want their co-operation and would give them some representation, it would make it much easier for them among their own people to get the whole country behind them to support them in contributing in the manner described. A few years ago I had the pleasure one evening of speaking to one of the Lords of the Admiralty, and I said, "Suppose the Dominions were to come to this country collectively and say we will contribute to this Imperial Navy on the one condition that you give us representation in proportion to the amount contributed, what would be your view?" His answer was, "We have many secrets great and important to guard, and we should have to be very careful." That implied that there was a danger in giving representation on the Board of Admiralty.
  I do not believe that feeling exists now, and I think that that was an isolated case, but if that spirit did exist we should never get to the end which will do more to curtail the ruinous competition in building "Dreadnoughts," that was referred to this afternoon, than any other means. And that is the co-operation, as one country almost, of our Dominions with us in coming into line to make up our minds collectively as to the supremacy to be maintained of an Imperial Fleet. I am convinced, if we could only come to some working arrangement by which we could act collectively, that we should do more lo bring about the limitation of the building of "Dreadnoughts" than would be possible by any other step which you might take. Before leaving this question, I would like again to emphasise that the Dominions not only desire, as far as I can gather in my travels, but to my mind are entitled to representation, and I think it of very great importance indeed, in view of the fact that the representatives of the leading Dominions in our British Empire are coining as they are in a few weeks to confer with the Admiralty, that we should do everything we can to try and go one step further than the last Imperial Con-
  1616
  ference did. The general view of the Dominions is that the Conference did not go far enough; it did good work, but in these days everything inarches so rapidly that we cannot afford to wait for another three years for another conference. Some active steps should be taken perhaps by calling another special Naval Conference, asking representatives from the Dominions. Even now that could be done with reference to the visit of the two Canadian statesmen.
  Some steps should be taken to call together the naval experts of our Dominions with a view to considering whether it will be possible to give them representation on the Board of Admiralty, or whether or not it will be advisable to organise a special Imperial Naval Defence Committee—I know there is a Defence Committee already—on which they would have representation. Such a conference of representatives of the Empire might lead to some definite working basis being established in connection with their contributions to the Navy. From that point of view this proposal is of just as much importance to them as to us. It is right that they should contribute; they have got beyond the state of childhood as communities; they are active and wealthy nations, and I believe they would joyously enter into combination with us to establish an additional squadron of "Dreadnoughts" and join with us in its control. One other point of importance which I have not frequently seen referred to: It is as to the supremacy of our Fleet and the influence which it has exercised upon our trade, in the past as at the present time. I think that anything running from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of the trade coming to this country has been influenced by the strength of our Navy. Last year I put a question to the present Home Secretary (Mr. McKenna), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, at the request of very many people in South America, as to whether our Fleet should be represented by one of our most modern battleships at the Argentine Centenary, and whether a similar model battleship should visit Chili. I had the honour of an interview with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and afterwards with the then First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject of sending, if possible, a "Dreadnought" to South America. After the question which I put in the House, I received cables from 100 British merchant traders and British-speaking people in both Chili and the

  1617
  Argentine, asking me to press the matter for all I was worth.
  But the answer which I got to my question was a very unsatisfactory one, I may say it was a brutal naval answer; that the Navy had enough to do, and that they could not consider such questions as sending some of our best ships to these countries. At any rate that is the inference I drew, though I have not the actual words which were used. However, I do not wish to harp upon that point, but I do submit that it is of vital importance to us to send a representative ship in the way which has been suggested. Germany and America have done so. Germany sent one of her most modern productions in shipbuilding to South America, and we should do so, too. The trade of this country demands it, and its effect would be extremely good. Our not having done so on that occasion offended the sensibilities of the Argentine people very greatly indeed. The point which impressed me at the time was that it was deemed inadvisable or inexpedient to allow a "Dreadnought" cruiser to go so far away. The reason why it did not go was obvious. At any rate, I may infer that one of our ships could not be spared. On the ground of the trade of this country with South America alone the Admiralty would be justified in building a special "Dreadnought" cruiser, because it is necessary that some provision should be made in this direction, in order to show foreign countries what we can produce in the shape of modern war vessels. The Americans have secured orders to the amount of £3,000,000 from the Argentine, and the idea of giving those orders originated wholly from the visit of the American squadron which went all round South America. I state that on very high authority.
  Not only is the visit of a modern ship most advisable from our point of view, but I think it is necessary, because I have noticed right throughout South America that a belief exists there that the British Navy is not what it used to be. We know that that belief is founded on anything but facts, and after having heard this afternoon the most reassuring speech that has ever been delivered in this House we know that there is no foundation for that belief. Still, that belief does exist, and the visit of a modern war vessel to South America would do an enormous amount of good there, just as much good as the speech this afternoon will effect. I ask the
  1618
  First Lord of the Admiralty to go out of his way to try and devise some means by which we can encourage the Dominions to join us, and the only way in which we can encourage them effectively is to try and evolve some way by which they shall have representation on the Board of Admiralty, or on a special Imperial Naval Defence Committee if need be, or some step of that description, further and more far-reaching than that on which the Imperial Conference resolved. If something in that direction be done, you will send those two Ministers who are to visit this country back to Canada in a position to do far more than otherwise they would be able to accomplish. If you want their aid you must give them some form of representation, and if once you establish some such basis of common action you will have their whole-hearted co-operation, whether it be in the case of the present Government or one coming from this side of the House. It is by such means, that you will obtain in the most effective way the co-operation and support of our Dominions in the maintenance of a strong Imperial Navy.

  DOCKYARD AND NAVAL EMPLOYMENT.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to move as an Amendment to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in odrer to add instead thereof the words, "this House is of opinion that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the system of employment, pay, and pensions in His-Majesty's Dockyards and Navy."
  In rising to call attention to certain matters regarding the system of employment, pay, and pensions in the Royal Navy, to move the Amendment, the terms of which, I venture to hope, will meet with support from all sections of the House, I do not think that the House will expect mo to present a full and complete case for a Royal Commission. In the first place, were I to attempt to do so I am afraid I should still be speaking at eleven o'clock; and secondly, there arc, I believe, many speakers who are to follow, and who would, no doubt, fill up some of the many gaps which I am compelled to make. In dealing with the system of employment in the dockyards, I should like to make a few observations as to the recent Admiralty Order requiring all labour to be engaged through the Labour Exchanges. Until this idea sprung up in the fertile brain of the Financial Secretary, it

  1619
  was the custom of the yard officials to keep their own lists, and when they wanted extra labour to select their own men. What happens now? The yard officials naturally objected to the possibility of inefficient workmen being foisted upon them from outside sources, and so, by way of compromise, they are allowed to send their lists to the Labour Exchanges, and when vacancies occur to send to the Exchanges for the men they know and the men they want. Not only then does the selection, but the actual nomination remains where it was. All the Admiralty Order has done is to transfer a small amount of responsibility which the yard officials have always been ready and willing to bear. I was informed, I do not say officially, that one of the results expected from the new system is that labour can be more easily and more promptly supplied. My answer to that is, Can the First Lord of the Admiralty name an occasion when it has been necessary to import Government labour from one dockyard town to another, and would he undertake the responsibility for such an employment, knowing as he does, and as hon. Members opposite know, the extreme uncertainty for this kind of labour in Government yards? Not long ago a special kind of workman was required. The yard official himself supplied the man, and the man, who lived some distance off, when he arrived went straight to the yard and was taken on. Then, and then only as a mere matter of form, did the man register his name on the Labour Exchange. That instance will serve to show the absurdity and the overlapping of the new system. I fully appreciate the anxiety of the Government to find business for an undertaking which cost the country a quarter of a million to set up, as well as to find work for their twelve hundred nondescript officials; but I protest against an Admiralty Order being used for that purpose. The new process entails additional expense to the country, is of no service whatever to the officials, does not make for greater efficiency, and is of no use whatever to the working man.
  I pass on to the question of establishment. Prior to the year 1907 the number of established men authorised for the Royal dockyards was 7,000, and the number of men employed in 1906–7 was 25,240, so that of the total number of men employed during that year 28 per cent, were established. This year the total number of men estimated to be employed is 34,000,
  1620
  and the authorised number of established men is cut down to 6,000, or 19 per cent. In six years, therefore, we have seen a reduction in the establishment of 500 men, and on the lowest scale of 9 per cent. I say on the lowest scale, because the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary told me, in answer to a question last year, that there were 4,000 more men employed in the dockyards than had been estimated for at the beginning of the financial year; and so I have no doubt it will be likewise this year, and that you will find several thousand more men employed in the yards. Thus the deficiency, instead of being 9 per cent, will, I have no doubt, come up to 12 per cent. As I understand, the object of the establishment is to have ready in the Royal dockyards a sufficient number of skilled workers in all the technicalities of shipbuilding on whose services the Government may call in any emergency. The question that we have to ask ourselves is—have we got that number. I submit that we have not, and I ask the House to agree with me in stating that, instead of cutting down the establishment, the safer policy would be to extend it. You are building more ships; you are increasing the personnel of the Navy, and, on the other hand, you are cutting down the building and repairing reserve. To my way of thinking that is a very shortsighted policy. The greater the number of ships, the greater the personnel, the greater the establishment should be. Apart from the general question, there are individual cases in which the workmen are prejudiced by the cutting down of the establishment. For many years it was the custom to establish the shipwright apprentices two years after they had served their time in the yards. That custom, I regret to say, has fallen into disuse, and an injury is thereby done to a splendid set of workmen; and workmen who entered the yards believing that the custom would be continued. Again, on this point I would specially call the attention of the Financial Secretary, because I believe it is one which has escaped, if not his notice, at any rate the notice of a good many people at the Admiralty. After twelve years' service afloat, I think I am right in saying that naval shipwrights can claim to be established in the yard. I ask the Financial Secretary how can this be done in present conditions without inflicting a further hardship on those dockyard shipwrights who are now waiting for establishment? Let me recall to the memory of the House a speech made in

  1621
  1882 by the late Sir George Trevelyan, who was then Secretary to the Admiralty. He said:—
  "The shipwrights of the dockyards appreciate being Government workmen, and the Government encourage them in that view, because, to speak quite plainly, it is a matter of life and death to the country to have in the crisis of a war a great body of skilled workmen on whose services the nation may count as it counts on the services of its Bluejackets and Marines."
  So it is with the shipwrights to-day. They appreciate being Government workmen, bat, alas, the policy of His Majesty's Government does not encourage them to take that view. I know the official argument that in time of war men can be got from the private yards and taken from other jobs in the Royal dockyards; but that does not reassure me. It does not even move me. In time of war all dockyards, private as well as national, would be full of work. The First Lord told us this afternoon that after an engagement many vessels would require repairing, and the Admiralty may not find it quite so easy when the time comes to retain, much less to secure, the services of a sufficient number of properly qualified men. The First Lord also said to-day, "We are asking Parliament to sanction large sums for safety." We are asking Parliament to sanction large sums for safety! Then why cut down the establishment on which that safety depends? That is the question to which I should like some answer from the First Lord before these Estimates are through.
  I now turn to the question of pay. On this question I can allude to only a very few matters. In 1907 the rates of pay in the executive class of the Navy were revised, but there still remain many anomalies to adjust. Take, for instance, the case of naval shipwrights. The pay and status of these men are altogether inadequate to the services they render and the position they occupy. The shipwright begins with a disadvantage. Two boys sit for the same examination. Both obtain the same number of marks; both are allowed to choose their own trade. One selects the trade of the shipwright, the other that of engineer. On completing their apprenticeship they both decide to join the Navy. The engineer enters as an engine-room artificer, with the rank of chief petty officer, receiving 5s. 6d. a day. The shipwright enters with the rank of leading seaman, receiving 4s. a day, and has to provide his own tools. I ask is this fair? Is it justice? But mark the sequel. The engine-room artificer passes upward to the rank of warrant officer by stages that bring him in from 5s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. per day. The
  1622
  shipwright proceeds to the rank of carpenter warrant officer by stages that bring him in only from 4s. to 5s. 6d. a day. That is to say, the shipwright ends where the engineer begins. The highest pay the carpenter can get after serving ten years from promotion is 8s., compared with 10s. 6d. obtained by the artificer engineer, and yet not only must the carpenter have a thorough knowledge of the construction of his ship, but he is also a responsible store officer, and is frequently called upon by the captain of his vessel to make sketches and additions to the ship. In fact, many faults in the construction of our great battleships owe their discovery to the carpenter, and yet the carpenter is the worst paid warrant officer in the Navy. It is, I believe, thirty-five years since the shipwright ratings have had a rise of pay. How can the Government expect to get a continuous supply of good shipwrights when all they offer them is 28s. a week of seven days, when outside the average price for 5½ days' labour is £2? On these grounds I would appeal to the Admiralty to place carpenter warrant officers and other shipwright ratings as regards both pay and status on the same footing as the artificer engineer.
  Then I come to the pay of the lower deck ratings. I think I am right in saying that the pay of seamen has not been raised since 1853. The ordinary sailor still gets his Is. 3d. a clay, the A.B. Is. 8d., and the leading seaman Is. 10d., rising after three years to 2s. Of course, there are badges and S.G.'s which give the A.B. and the leading seaman another 4d. I readily admit that it is possible for both these ratings to rise and to obtain even as much as 2s. 4d. and 2s. 11d. respectively. But, after all, what we have to deal with is the great majority of the seamen, and the great majority are A.B.'s. It may be said that the cost of living argument does not apply to the lower deck, as the men are supplied with board and lodging. On the other hand, a large number of A.B.'s—I think I am right in saying that the strength is well-nigh 21,000—and leading seamen are married. In the Army a married man on the strength receives an extra allowance, but it is not so in the Navy. Yet I submit that a married sailor has the same responsibilities as a married soldier. He has to keep his wife, and possibly several children, and he has also to pay for their housing. I ask the Financial Secretary how can an A.B. do this properly on £2 a month, or a leading seaman on £2 5s.? Here, I think, the House will

  1623
  agree with me that the cost of living argument comes in with full force. I do not think I need labour that point. Then there is the cost of the men lent to the Australian Navy. They, I think, are to receive the rate of wages current in Australia, a matter which is bound sooner or later to bring the whole question of pay and also of deck ratings to the front. I should like to suggest to the Financial Secretary that the pay of these ratings be at once reconsidered, and that the gift of their kit and replacements be extended to include the first twelve years of a man's service.
  I pass on to dockyard pay. Here the inequalities are very many. I can only mention one or two. I have to admit that the Financial Secretary has done a great deal for the benefit of the men in the Royal dockyards. He has met every suggestion "with sympathy, and has done his best to see if he could not agree "with it. In spite of all, I can assure him that there are still many inequalities outstanding in the dockyards, that there are many men who are paid far lower than they ought to be paid, that many men who are giving the best part of their years for their country's service cannot get anywhere near the wages paid toy outside firms. I am not going into that matter to-night. I shall probably have another opportunity, as the Estimates are going through the House, to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to many cases which I have already had an opportunity of discussing with him. But I do think that the case of the ordinary labourer in the Royal dockyards requires immediate attention. When you remember the rise in the price of food and lodgings of recent years, especially in dockyard towns, it is idle to say that a weekly wage of 21s. is sufficient to meet the daily requirements of a married man with a family. I know I shall be told, as I have been told over and over again, that all men are not married, and that the Admiralty cannot take into consideration the fact whether or not a man is married, or whether or not he has a family to keep.
  Human nature, however, being what it is, you must look at the case in that light and must consider the question of the married men when you are considering the question of the wages in the dockyards. I have here a copy of the weekly expenditure of a family of three, drawn up by a dockyard man whose wages are 22s. a
  1624
  week. It was not drawn up for the purposes of this Debate, and it was not sent to me; but I have had an opportunity of perusing the document. I find, after paying 5s. 9d. for rent, and for the bare necessities of living, that only Is. 3½d. remains to cover the cost of clothing and other incidental expenses. I have no doubt that I shall be told by the Financial Secretary that if the pay is not good it at any rate compares favourably with the wages paid to unskilled labour in the same localities. That does not tally with my information. I am told, and told on most reliable authority, that many municipal authorities in dockyard towns pay their labourers as much as 24s. per week. Ay, and give them more holidays than are given to the men in the Royal dockyards, even with the four hours' additional work which is demanded sometimes from the municipal labourer. The average wage for labour paid in many local undertakings exceeds that paid to the ordinary labourer in the dockyard. The argument of hours of work is not permissible to the Financial Secretary, because it was not the men who demanded the eight hours' day; it was the Government who compelled them to accept it.
  An important petition is now, I believe, before the Lords of the Admiralty from the skilled labourers in the Royal dockyards. I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than to urge upon His Majesty's Ministry to give their urgent and very careful consideration to the points raised by those skilled labourers. I now come to the question of pensions, a large and intricate subject, but one which I must only touch upon very briefly. Closely allied to the question of pensions is the question of compensation. This, I think, I may safely leave in the hands of the hon. Member for Chatham who will Second this Resolution. He has made a special study of compensation cases, and from what he said in the Debate on the Estimates, last year, I think that he will be able to-night to give the House some further instances of the way in which the Admiralty deal with the question of compensation with regard to the men in the dockyards. I would appeal to the Government to remove the very just grievances of the hired workmen in the dockyards by formulating and guaranteeing a pension fund in which these men can participate. The Financial Secretary once said to me in this House when impressing upon him the hard case of the hired men in regard to establishment,

  1625
  that some must be disappointed; all could not be established, seeing that the establishment numbers are limited. That is so. Can he tell me—and this is very important—on what equitable ground the Admiralty continually refuse to recognise the claims for pensions for one set of workmen in the yards, while granting pensions to another set of workmen, both doing the same work and both equally qualified? To say some men must be disappointed is merely playing with the question. The national shipbuilding work of this country should not be carried on on lines of hazard; that is how it is carried out. Of two sets of men, equally liable for pension, one set is taken over and the other set is not. We know that all hired men on leaving a yard are entitled to what are called gratuities equal to one week's pay for every year of service, together with some other small concession. Why should not the Government propose to the hired men to forego this concession of one week's pay and allow them to enter into a scheme, formulated and guaranteed by the Admiralty, giving them the same privileges as are allowed to established men, that is, to count half their hired time and to make it a condition that any extra money required to work a scheme should be found by the men themselves. In order to entitle a man to unemployment benefit under the Insurance Act, a hired workman is required to make contributions of 2½d. per week to the common fund—not a large sum I admit, but still something—the Admiralty making a similar contribution, and I believe certain other moneys are to be voted by Parliament. I do not think the Secretary to the Admiralty will disagree with me on this point, that some 80 per cent, of the hired men in the Royal dockyard, excluding the ordinary labourers, remain in the yard all their lives. They are, therefore, never unemployed.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Roughly, about 75 per cent, are fairly certain of work.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Well, 75 per cent. are never unemployed. I would suggest that these contributions should be used in assisting in financing the scheme I venture to propose. Of course, it would be necessary to stipulate that no man should come in unless he served, say, five years, and that a proportionate return of his contribution should be made if he happened to be dismissed on reduction. That
  1626
  could easily be arranged by giving him a bonus when he is dismissed, and requiring him to return it upon re-engagement if he wished to have his past time counted for pension. I admit there will be difficulty in meeting the case of the men now in the yards who have been working there, some for more than five years, and some for perhaps twenty years. But if the Government could, as apparently they have done, overcome that difficulty in the case of insurance against sickness, I submit they could if they chose overcome it in the case of pensions for hired men. There is another matter which I should like to mention, and that is that apprentice time should be reckoned for pensions or gratuities. This grievance is a very genuine one; it involves the loss of two years' service to the ex-apprentice and the privilege has always been allowed to those men entering as yard boys and afterwards becoming established. I believe the Lords of the Admiralty have had this matter under consideration for two years. Perhaps it would not be too much to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the First Lord to give some answer to this question before the discussion on the Navy Estimates has concluded.
  A word or two as to the Admiralty Regulations governing pensions for men injured in the dockyards. If the Admiralty doctor certify a man's health to be partly impaired, but that he is able to contribute in some measure to his support, his pension is accordingly reduced. I find no fault with this, but surely the Regulation as it stands is an anomaly, for while the injured man may be able to contribute in some way to his own support, no one will employ him because he cannot be insured against the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Probably a man earning good wages suddenly finds himself, through no fault of his own, in the same condition as a man who is temporarily disabled, and he has to maintain a wife and family on a pension which, taking the most favourable view, does not amount to more than 4s. a week. If this Regulation is to be continued, I hold it to be the duty of the Admiralty to find a man, so situated, some light work in the dockyards, and to pay him not only such a weekly wage as he could earn, but to allow him to continue to draw his pension. In conclusion, I should like to offer a few remarks in regard to what I have no hesitation in describing as a national scandal. I allude to

  1627
  the position of the Greenwich Age Pensions. These pensions amount to 5d. a day at the age of fifty-five, and an additional 4d. at the age of sixty-five—9d. in all. When the Greenwich Hospital Act was passed in 1865, it was thought that 5,000 pensions costing £48,000 a year would be sufficient provision, but in 1892 the men eligible had become so numerous that the Government of that day, I think it was a Conservative Government, appointed a Select Committee of this House to consider whether steps could not be taken to provide for a larger number of pensions. Following on the suggestions made by that Committee the rent of the hospital buildings was raised, and the contribution from the Consolidated Fund, which had fallen from £20,000 to £4,000, was re-voted. In all, an additional Grant of £22,400 was made from naval and Greenwich Hospital funds, bringing the actual total available for age pensions up to £100,900, at which figure it stands to-day. There are some 8,500 pensioners in receipt of age pensions, and 3,500 eligible for the 5d., but they cannot get it owing to the insufficiency of funds. To meet this extra liability so far as the 5d. is concerned, an additional Grant of £30,000 to naval funds will be required, while to meet the 4d. probably £40,000, or even more, would be necessary. Moreover, with the growth of the personnel of the Navy this liability of the Government must be an accruing rather than a vanishing quantity. The Govern are aware that all is not well, and this is shown by the following paragraph in the First Lord's statement for the current year:—
  "Prior to April, 1910. the cost of the naval age pensions of men of the Seamen Pensioner Reserve was, on their attaining fifty-five years of age, automatically transferred from naval to Greenwich Hospital funds. This transfer is now deferred until the men would obtain an award of the Greenwich Age Pension in the ordinary course of selection, with the result that a substantial sum is set free each year for distribution among older and more necessitous men."
  I notice that the Financial Secretary nods his head approvingly, and so say I. But curiously enough a similar paragraph appeared in the First Lord's statement last year, and evidently the Admiralty are most anxious to persuade the pensioners that something is being done for them. The fact, however, that the concession referred to came into force two years ago takes away from it any idea of novelty. In order to understand the real nature of this highly prized paragraph we must go back a little. In 1870 the Seamen Pen-
  1628
  sioner Reserve was started, and as an inducement for the men to take their drills in the Reserve the Government of the day promised them age pensions at fifty, instead of fifty-five. This arrangement continued till 1892, when a change was introduced, and, while the Reserve man was still to obtain his pension at fifty, the years intervening between fifty and fifty-five were henceforth to come out of the Naval Fund; but on the man reaching fifty-five the liability was again transferred to Greenwich funds. It was not until 1st April, 1910, that this transfer was made. It will, therefore, be seen, and I challenge the Financial Secretary to deny it, that from 1870 to 1892 the Admiralty financed the Reserve pensions for five years between the ages of fifty and fifty-five out of Greenwich funds, and that for the whole period between 1870 and 1910, when occasion required, Greenwich funds had also to bear the cost of the years between fifty-five and the time when the pensioner obtained his reward in the ordinary course of selection, which, I think, the Financial Secretary will agree may be taken at the present time between sixty-two and sixty-three.
  Again, in the Naval Estimates for the current year there appears a sum of £2,500 allocated for augmentation of Greenwich Hospital Pensions to seamen and marines through deaths attributable to the Service, but not in warlike operations. That is the only money paid out of the naval funds for this purpose. The remainder of the sum required to meet the widows' pensions, amounting to £6,000 a year, is drawn from Greenwich funds. If these men were available for age pensions it would enable 780 men to get their 5d., and 600 men to get their 4d. This is not the only drain on Greenwich funds for widows' pensions. Where a ship goes down in time of peace the pensions for the widows of seamen come in like proportion from Greenwich naval funds, as also do the pensions awarded to widows of men of the Royal Naval Reserve killed or drowned in the service of the State. Equity demands that all moneys taken from Greenwich funds to enable the Admiralty to meet their obligations to the Reserve pensions should be replaced from naval funds, and if to this be added the sum now paid out of Greenwich Funds towards defraying the cost of pensions to widows of seamen and Marines, a considerable addition would be made to the fund available for age pensions. Even if all the men now on the waiting list could not

  1629
  be satisfied, the Government would have done something towards putting an end to a national scandal and ridding themselves of the stigma of remaining quiescent while many of Britain's best sons are passing away, if not in actual want, at any rate in circumstances of unnecessary privation.
  Mr. HOHLER: I beg leave to second the Amendment. I do so because I think if this Commission were appointed some method would be devised, and should be devised, more properly to deal with these questions of pay both in his Majesty's Navy and in the dockyard, and that might once for all, or nearly once for all, remove those questions from the purview of this House. It is regrettable, but it is beyond question, that these matters raise but little interest amongst hon. Members of this House. I find in my dealings with the Admiralty and other Government Departments that, however willing the particular Department may be to grant the justice of the request I make or to improve the condition of the men, one is invariably met with the difficulty of getting the sanction of the Treasury. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will bear me out that constantly, in cases I have presented on behalf of the men he has been with me in the view I have taken, but the difficulty has rested with the Treasury in refusing to sanction what has been proposed. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that until we can obtain the appointment of some independent body on whose recommendation the Treasury will be bound to act we shall do nothing really to improve the conditions of labour in His Majesty's Dockyards and Navy.
  I do not propose to go at any great length into particular cases, but I do propose to refer to a few matters which illustrate the argument I am presenting. I am satisfied that the whole system of petitions is out of date—they are wholly unsatisfactory. In the first place, the men have little opportunity of lodging their petitions after the date at which the answers to their earlier petitions are received. Further than this, these answers are never given until the Estimates are over, so that we can never call into question the conduct of the Admiralty as to whether or not it was proper to grant or to refuse the request. Lastly, almost the universal answer one finds to these petitions is: "This request cannot be acceded to." This happens year after year. I will give one point in regard to the conditions in the
  1630
  dockyards. Take the question of equality of pay in the Trades Department. There you have about 10 per cent, who get 1s. 6d., and the rest of the men so employed get only 1s. For years questions, have been put in this House, and hon. Members who put them have been told that the matter is under consideration. It is under consideration now. You have not advanced one jot or iota in that respect. There is no justice in what is being done. I speak with knowledge when I say that when the request has been put forward by the men that they should be paid at the rate of 1s. 6d. it has been forwarded with a strong commendation of the head of the Department in favour of granting this equality among the men employed. The responsibilities are the same, and the only result of refusing what is just is that it tends to lead to favouritism, which is the-last thing that is desirable. I am quite satisfied if these matters could be dealt with by an independent Advisory Board on whose decision the Treasury were-bound to act, there would be no difficulty at all. One other point that has struck me is in regard to the men principally worst paid in His Majesty's service in the dockyards, and in considering this one must bear in mind that these men are all discharged at sixty. I ask myself what reasonable chance is there of these men getting employment with a third party at the age of sixty. Speaking of the old dockyard town I have the honour to represent, it is perfectly lamentable the distress there is by virtue of that condition. Something ought to be done in order that this service under the Crown may be rendered tolerable. I defy the wit of man to suggest how a labourer in receipt of 21s. per week can put by sufficient to provide for himself and his wife at old age. That is a condition of things that ought to be remedied. I have protested, as I do protest emphatically, that the wages of those employed in the Ordnance depôt at Chatham ought to be increased. They have been increased in other towns, and yet nothing has been done in dockyard towns. I protest that in view of the increased cost of living and the rents these men pay, five and six shillings a week, their wages of 21s. per week are too low, and something ought to be done at once to improve their condition. All the labourers should receive some reasonable increase in their wages. The corporation of Gillingham, which is part of the-borough of Chatham for Parliamentary

  1631
  purposes, has increased the wages of their men to 24s. with a forty-eight hour week, and the wages of the men employed by the corporation of Chatham have also been increased to 26s. per week, though they do not limit the hours to forty-eight. These matters should be dealt with by some independent body; but so long as we can only deal with the Admiralty, and deal with it in an empty House, because these matters do not interest other hon. Members, these men get jockeyed and do not get justice in regard to their employment or the service they render.
  There is another point I want to make in regard to employment in the dockyard naval hospital. Those men have for years asked that their hours of employment should be the same as those in the dockyard. They are only employed as the labourers and painters in the yard are employed, and yet their simple request cannot be granted. I have investigated their case, and I have wholly failed to find anything which warrants the present state of affairs. I am not in a position to say what has happened since last year, "but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to inform us if any improvement has been made. I will give a case which illustrates the way the Treasury deal with these claims. Some few years ago the naval writers on the Civil side used to have an allowance of £100 if they were transferred from the dockyard to London.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no.
  Mr. HOHLER: I venture, with great respect, to think I am right. It was originally £100. In 1899 it was reduced to £50, and then it was further reduced to £40, with the result that it was found volunteers for employment in London did not come forward. Last year an inquiry was being made in regard to improving conditions of pay. What I have said previously applied to draftsmen; the inquiry last year was into the conditions and pay of the writers. They recommended that the pay should be increased, but that the London allowance should be reduced to £25. The recommendation also suggested that the draftsmen's salaries should be reduced. The recommendation went before the Treasury, which promptly agreed that the proposal to reduce the London allowance was excellent, but they referred back the question of increase of pay to the Admiralty, so that these unfor-
  1632
  tunate fellows got their London allowance reduced to £25 and received no increase of pay. Whether they have since got it I have not heard. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty will tell us when he replies on this Debate. But this case illustrates the point that the Treasury are not fitted to deal out justice as beween man and man. They think it their duty to keep all the money they can get without regard to a man's just rights.
  It is an illustration of the grievous injustice done to these men. Of course, the Admiralty could go behind the Treasury; they could not get draftsmen to volunteer to go to London, on the £25 allowance, because it was not sufficient to pay the extra expense of living in London. But in order to ensure a supply of draftsmen for London an Admiralty Order was passed, making it a condition precedent to obtaining promotion that these men should, if called upon, go to London, notwithstanding the fact that the £25 they were compelled to accept was wholly inadequate to meet the difference in the cost of living. If that is not shabby conduct on the part of the Treasury I am at a loss to understand what it is. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us exactly what has been done in regard to these men. I sincerely trust the Treasury have seen better of their conduct and will have made good to these men, from the date of alteration, the sums they ought to have received in regard to this matter. This is a sound illustration of the manner in which these things are dealt with, and, in my opinion, until we get an Advisory Board to go into these matters, we shall never have satisfaction If we can get what I am asking for we shall relieve these Debates of much detail. We want some Advisory Board set up whose directions would be equivalent to law in regard to many of these grievances.
  I ask the Government to consider whether or not something cannot really be done to take into serious consideration the matter of pensions. I know it is a matter requiring careful investigation. I have it from the men concerned that they will be only too willing to contribute towards the scheme for pensions at the age of sixty, and when you have got your men desirous of contributing surely it is time to approach them with a view to improving their condition. You have, further, a fund, and I fully appreciate its value, but what I want to point out is if the fund which is available for the purpose when a

  1633
  man has served in the dockyard for fifteen years of giving him a gratuity representing one week's pay for each year's service, that fund would be a material contribution, and I am given to understand that the men would be quite willing to surrender the gratuity and to make a contribution out of their weekly wage if, in the end, the Government would confer upon them a reasonable pension from the age of sixty until the end of their days. I assure the Secretary to the Admiralty that there is great distress among these men. I constantly have them coming to me at the age of sixty years and over in a position of practical starvation or having to face the workhouse, and seeing that many of these men have served the Government in the dockyards from thirty to forty years I do submit that they are entitled to some consideration. In regard to this matter there is another point to be borne in mind, and that is the contribution they are making towards the unemployment fund. It is quite clear that 75 per cent, of these men will be called upon to contribute towards that fund, while they will never receive any benefit from it, because they are steadily employed, and there is little or no chance of their discharge. Could not their contribution in this respect go towards their pensions?
  I would further call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the fact that under the Insurance Act no longer will the Government be called upon to pay both compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and also benefit under the Insurance Act, so you will have another fund set free, and I suggest you can by careful consideration obtain a scheme which would not only give these men the benefit of continuous employment in the dockyard, but will afford an example to other employers of labour. I believe there are no fewer than 34,000 men in this position, and you can make their lives infinitely happier and better if you take this step. I have one or two other words to say. I do not propose to touch on the question of the naval shipwrights. I believe this matter is now before the Admiralty which, I trust, will see its way to remedy the grievance—a serious one. At any rate T intend to raise it on one of the Estimates. It is a very short-sighted policy to refuse to pay the artisan ratings a sum which is approximately equivalent to that which they could obtain outside. I think you are bound to mate the pay something approaching that given in similar outside
  1634
  employment. The men do not lose sight, of course, of the advantage of pensions, but I do suggest that here you have a good illustration of the difficulty you have to face. You have refused for thirty-five years consistently to regard the case of the carpenters, and, of course, all the ratings below them. What has been the result? I think it is under Lord Goschen's scheme that you train shipwrights in the dockyard, because shipwrights from the general trade will not come in because the inducements are not sufficient. That is the condition of things to-day. What does that cost this country? You train them at the Government's expense, whereas the shipwright outside is trained at his own expense. Nobody can deny that this is not an expensive matter. Further than that, you have this position of things, to which I desire to draw particular attention, that every one of the naval shipwrights trained in the dockyard at the Admiralty's expense was trained upon the express terms—and it is a Government agreement which they cannot get away from—that they are bound to take them back into the dockyard at the expiration of their period of engagement if they do not like to continue on, and they are not only to take them back, but to establish them. I suggest that if you do not do something to improve the conditions not only of all the shipwright ratings, but also of the other ratings, such as carpenters' crews, you will have these shipwrights coming back on your hands. I am not putting the matter in a hostile sense. I want to remove these matters from any such arena, and I only want right done as between man and man.
  I will give one other illustration of the way in which the petitions forwarded by the men in the Navy are dealt with. I select a case which, in my judgment, is a very grievous case indeed. In my view the sick-berth attendants are abominably paid. After three years' service they get 2s., and after five years' service they get 2s. 3d. They petitioned for the improvement of their condition. What have you done? You have ingeniously done nothing. You have purported to do something which amounts to nothing at all. If a man is an attendant upon certain zymotic diseases in the laboratory, or at work in the operating room, you give him 6d. a day extra. Apart from that all that you give him is 2d. a day, which is an allowance for dispensing duty to the sick-berth staff employed at the dispensing hospitals. I am

  1635
  credibly informed that this will not average out at the rate of £1 a head. I call the particular attention of the Financial Secretary to this. The sick-berth attendant is under this further disability, that you have altered the regulations, and you now require the examinations to be held at certain recognised centres. A sick-berth attendant may be hundreds of miles away from any of the hospitals or home centres, and he cannot undergo his examination at all. He could undergo a provisional examination, but instead of getting his pay as from the date on which he passes it, he does not get it until he returns and passes his final examination at the home hospital. If the man who has passed his preliminary examination is abroad, and he is invalided or disrated, he loses his pay. You have put this class of men under a greater disability than they were before. I submit these are strong cases which show the unsatisfactory manner in which the Admiralty deal with the questions that come before them, and I therefore have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Major GUEST: Although I think there are a great many matters with regard to the workers in the dockyards that require attention, I am not quite sure that the lion. Member who moved this Amendment is going the best way to get what he desires. Personally, I do not think that the Admiralty are the least bit unsympathetic to the cases of the men who are their workers in the yards, and if representation is made to them there is every belief that the cases will be carefully considered, and that where redress is possible it will be given to them. The last speaker touched on one of the most important points that affect the workers, that is the question of the hired men who are working in the dockyards. At the present moment there is a category of men who are established and of men who are taken on on a hired footing, and the inequality which exists in the status of these two classes is very marked and is very much felt by those men who have not the good fortune to be taken on the establishment. It is with a view to some provision being made for the hired men on leaving the Government service, which they do at the age of sixty or on compulsory reduction, that I intervene in this Debate. There are many cases of men of long service—of thirty to thirty-three years' service—who have been established for a considerable portion of
  1636
  their time, and, having been established, they have the right to a bonus and pension on leaving the service. The hired man, however, only comes in for the bonus, and a bonus which is not so much as the annual pension of the man who is established in the yards. The hired man throughout the dockyards generally, and not only in the dockyard that I have the honour to represent have presented their case to the Admiralty and to the Members who represent them, and they have shown that, although the gratuity is of considerable advantage to them, the gratuity of itself is not what the hired men wish. They are willing to resign that gratuity if the Government will use the money which is thereby resigned as a nucleus for a pension fund. This seems to be a very reasonable contention. I shall be glad to know what view the Admiralty take of this suggestion on the part of the men. The men are willing to contribute to a considerable extent, and some have said they would be willing to give up the additional sum they receive over what the established man receives as his average weekly pay. This, combined with the gratuity, must-be able to start a fund, and there are at present over 30,000 hired workers who are working in the dockyards under the Crown. Those men are drawing annually over £2,000,000 of money, and with that large number of men employed and the amount of money they receive it surely cannot be impossible for the Government to devise some scheme whereby the pension might be given to these men on attaining the age of sixty, or, if discharged, on reduction. They realise perfectly that it is impossible for them to be under the same treatment as the men who have the good fortune to be established, and they are willing that there should be a difference in treatment and that the established men should gain by the fact of their establishment, possibly an increase of pension over the hired man. I believe the Government actuaries could find a scheme which would give the men a possible pension, even though it was considerably below that which was paid to the established men. I sincerely hope the Government will take this matter carefully in hand. I believe the men are in hopes that it is under the consideration of the Admiralty and that their grievances will receive attention as soon as possible. This question is getting more and more important every day. Every year the desire of these men, who are most excellent workers, to insure themselves for the future is increasing, I think laudably

  1637
  increasing, and when the Government inaugurates a great national insurance scheme for the whole country it should certainly try and inaugurate some pension scheme for its own workers.
  The ordinary labourers in the Government dockyards receive 21s. a week. The system of the establishment hits them very hard in this way, that they are the least well-paid of all the workers in the dockyard, and they have the smallest percentage of men who come on the establishment. I know the Government has a difficulty in increasing the number of men on the establishment. I wish it could be increased for the sake of the future of the men when they retire, but I believe something could be done to meet their case by extending or equalising the gift of establishment to some of these ordinary labourers. There is another category—the men who have been promoted from the ordinary labourers to skilled labourers. They start with a wage of 22s. a week, and they get augmented up to 28s. with a special maximum of 30s., but this maximum is just what is causing the trouble throughout the yards. At present men are selected for the maximum wage without being able to understand in the least why any particular individual is being selected. They ask, provided a man is a good worker and a man of good conduct, why he should not have the possibility of coming on to the national rate of wage irrespective of the fact that he may or may not be selected by the authorities of the dockyard. There are two classes in the yard which I represent, the hammermen and the iron-caulkers. In no case in Pembroke Dock has any man in these particular classes been raised to the higher or special rate of pay. This must, and does, cause discontent throughout the yard, and when the men cannot understand the system under which selection is made for these higher rates they natuarally feel that one man gets it either by chance or by favour.
  Then, again, with regard to the skilled and the ordinary men, when slackness of work comes on for some particular skilled work, men are reduced from skilled labourers to ordinary labourers, and up to the present there seems to be no scheme whereby these men are selected for reduction. The contention of the skilled labourers, and I think it is a just contention, is that if reduction is necessary, men who have only recently been appointed from the ordinary labourers scale to the
  1638
  skilled labourers rating should be the first to be reduced. The reduction should be by juniority and not necessarily by selection. The whole system of selection through the yard is causing, and I think will continue to cause, great discontent, very largely because the men cannot see any rhyme or reason why that selection takes place. Then there is another point with regard to the skilled labourers. On compulsory reduction they are discharged and given a discharge paper on which is simply stated the fact that they are skilled labourers. When they want to get back to employment in civil life under a private firm they have got no specialised trade which they can quote to an employer as being that which they are most suited to perform. This affects them very seriously when they are hunting about the world to get employment. If a man has been for seven years in a particular trade he has a much better opportunity of getting back into employment than if he has been simply a skilled worker at any particular trade. If a man could show that he had been an iron-caulker for seven years of his service in the Government dockyard he would be entitled to enter as a member of the Boilermakers' Society, and the effect of being a member of the Boilermakers' Society is enormously to help his chance of getting employment in civil life.
  These cases I have put forward are seriously affecting the men in the Government dockyards, and, though they have a chance every year, when the Lords of the Admiralty come down to state their case, and I know it is most carefully listened to, still they cannot and do not say what they would like to before their official chief. I believe there is considerable discontent which may not entirely be apparent to the Admiralty itself, and it is for that reason I have brought forward these few examples in support of their contention. Then there is the point that I brought forward last year, on which I hoped some change might have been made, and that is the case of men who enter the dockyard at the age of fourteen. Some join as apprentices and some, having failed to pass the competitive examination, enter the yard as what are called hired boys. Both enter at the age of fourteen, and both go through their service until they attain a man's age and a man's rate of pay at the age of twenty, and they may both become established in due course. When the end of the service comes the apprentice can only count his

  1639
  time for pension from the age of twenty while the hired boy can count his pension from the age of sixteen, although he failed to pass the examination which the apprentice passes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I admit at once that this Motion raises a first-class issue—how the Admiralty treats its employés. That is a very proper question to raise. I suppose, apart from the Post Office, the Admiralty is, if not the largest, one of the largest employers of labour in this country. Leaving for the present the men of the Fleet who are involved in this proposal of the Royal Commission and dealing first with the civil side—the dockyard men—let me direct the attention of the Committee to their case. In the home establishment of various kinds we are employing at this time about 50,000 hands, and of these something like 7,000 are established. I am sure it would be the wish of the House of Commons, as certainly it is mine and that of the taxpayers whom we here represent, that as employers the Admiralty should stand creditably in the ranks of good employers. I have had four years' very close and intimate association with the conditions of labour in the dockyards, and, if I may say so, it is part of my particular prejudice that I take considerable pride in the circumstance that I come from the class to which these men belong. Therefore my judgment is irresistably directed by sympathy with the pleas they put before us. I say deliberately—and I hope I shall carry the House with me—that, broadly speaking, we have nothing to be ashamed of as employers of labour in our treatment of the dockyard hands. No doubt it is the fact that time and experience and changing conditions will call for revision and reconsideration, but in point of fact the Royal Commission, which is now asked for in effect, sits face to face with the men in every yard every year. Every year we go down to the yards, and the representatives of the Board of Admiralty sit on one side of the table and the representatives of the men sit on the other side.
  Mr. BARNES: They cannot state their case under these conditions.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure you that they state their case with great ability, and it has given me great pleasure to notice the good temper with which these interviews have been conducted.
  Mr. WILKIE: They complain that they get no redress.
  10.0 P.M.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall see what sort of redress they get. We do not confine the representation to our own employés. Each class can be represented by two members of its own body or by one member of its own body and one trade union representative. I repeat that I am glad to have had the opportunity of being present at these interviews. I have spent a great deal of time on them, and I have taken a large part in the discussions. My hon. Friend says then; are no results. I will deal with the results presently. I say again that our record as employers is thoroughly creditable. I do not expect to be able fully to satisfy the dockyard Member. Not at all. He is the most incorrigible political Oliver Twist I have met. Let us see what are the conditions of labour in the yards. First of all, the men work forty-eight hours weekly, and they get—I do not think the Admiralty are unique: in this—the four public holidays with pay. I do not make much of that. If they are established they get permanent employment. At sixty years of age, or, if the period be extended, at sixty-five, they get, a pension, to which, I at once admit, they have largely contributed themselves. Under the Treasury scheme the modification of the old Pensions Act, which most of them have accepted, instead of sixtieths, they now get eightieths, for each year of service. But they get very important alternatives. They get pensions ranging from £20 to £60 a year. If they accept, as the great bulk of them have done, the new scheme at the moment of retirement, they get a bonus of £50 to £150, and if they die before the pensionable age and have been five years established, then their legal representatives are entitled to one year's pay. I am dealing now with the case of men who are entitled to pensions. That is what their representatives get if these men die before the date at which they would otherwise be pensioned.
  Let me take the case, as regards the conditions of labour, of hired men—non-established men. They are on a different footing, I agree. But even here, of the 42,000 hired men it is perfectly true that the great bulk of them—I put it at 75 per cent.—are fairly sure of continuous occupation, although they are only hired men. These men, if stood off on a

  1641
  reduction after seven years' service, get a gratuity, as the hon. Member for Devonport pointed out, of a week's wages for every year's service. If stood off in the ordinary course after fifteen years' service, they get a gratuity of a week's pay for every year's service. In the last five complete years we have paid to hired non-established men in gratuities a sum equal to £63,000, and recently in order to extend the hired man's chance of becoming established we have raised the maximum age for becoming established from forty-five to fifty years. A curious sidelight is thrown on the attitude of the hon. Member (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) towards Labour Exchanges. We last year, in the Autumn Session, decided that dockyard labour should be secured through the Labour Exchanges, and I say perfectly frankly that the reason was we were asking employers to use the Labour Exchange, and certainly the Government itself should set the example. The hon. Gentleman plied me with questions at the time, and I believe that his anxiety was lest the Labour Exchange, having open to it the whole field of industrial work, should be the means of securing that men from other parts of the country should be sent down to Devonport to the possible prejudice of Devonport men. I hope I quote the hon. Gentleman fairly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I think it is a special case.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If that is so, it shows that the conditions of the labour in the dockyard are not quite so gloomy as the hon. Gentleman tries to represent. The hon. Gentleman was anxious lest the Labour Exchanges should be the means of sending men from, I think, Portsmouth he mentioned.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You are referring to my question.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am indeed.
  Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: If you are referring to my question—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say he might do the House the courtesy of rising.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Without pressing the hon. Gentleman too far, I think I can throw another interesting sidelight on the matter of the conditions of employment in the yard. He wrote me, as Financial
  1642
  Secretary, last August and called my attention to the fact that whilst in Devonport the unskilled labourer got 21s a week, which is a fact, the Devonport Corporation street sweepers got 24s. What happens is that the street sweepers begin at 19s. and go to a maximum of 24s. for a fifty-two hours' week, as compared with 21s. in the dockyards for a forty-eight hours' week. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that in several cases he had been informed that men in the dockyards were receiving about 30 per cent, less wages than were paid by outside firms.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in referring to a correspondence on various questions which I have addressed to him for a considerable time. What I should have liked to have heard from him is a reply to what I have addressed to him to-night.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is replying.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That was my idea. The point was that the hon. Gentleman had been informed that in several cases men in the dockyard were paid 30 per cent, less wages than were paid by outside firms. With regard to the unskilled labour in our yard, the total number of men is 3,800, while there are 10,200 skilled labourers. The skilled labourer can go up in ordinary circumstances to 28s. a week, and my hon. and gallant Friend says in certain special cases to 30s. a week, and 90 per cent., I am sure, of the skilled labourers are recruited from time to time from the unskilled labourers, so that when the hon. Member (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) refers to men in the dockyard at 21s. a week he must remember that they have a reasonable prospect of going on certainly to 28s. a week, and possibly to 30s. The hon. Gentleman stated that he had been informed that in several cases men in the dockyard received 30 per cent, less wages than were paid by outside trades. I wrote:—
  "If yon will quote to me any specific cases where men in the dockyard receive 30 per cent, less wages than is paid by outside firms for the same class of work, I shall be happy to go further into the matter."
  Anxious as the hon. Member may be to improve the condition of these men's wages, he has not replied to that invitation. As to the retiring allowance of the hired men, what happened? At a recent hearing of the petition, the hired men—I think Pembroke was firet—came to us and

  1643
  said that they would be glad if something could be done to help them to build up a retiring allowance which would be something more than the old age pension. I said that I would be glad to see if some figures could be got to show what sort of premium payments they would have to make, and I said that possibly they might be prepared to put their gratuities or their Values into a pool. I understand from the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) that they are in favour of that. I was not aware of that. I said also that possibly without giving direct financial assistance we might collect the premium payments with the machinery at our disposal as a great organisation, and the figures are being looked into with a view to ascertaining what it will cost. But now the hon. Gentleman and his Seconder go a stage further. They say, "So far so good. The men are prepared to pool the gratuities and build up this self-supporting old age pension scheme; but divert the 2½d. per week, which they would pay under Part II. of the Insurance Act, into the pool to help to build up the old age pensions, and thus reduce the charge made upon their wages." And they justify that because 75 per cent.—I admit that is a fair estimate—of the hired men are practically sure of continuous occupation. But what would become of the unemployed benefit of the other 25 per cent, if you take away from Part II. of the Act the contributions of those who are not certain of employment? Under Part II. of the Act, at sixty years of age, any man who has made 500 payments or more can have returned to him the total value of his contributions, minus any unemployment benefit which he may have received, and that amount estimated at compound interest at 2½ per cent. These men, 75 per cent, according to the Mover and Seconder, are not going to get any unemployed benefit at all.
  Therefore there is no injustice done to these men. They are going to get the whole of their payments back again at sixty years of age with compound interest at 2½ per cent. I do not think the suggestion can be put forward that their position will be made worse by the operation of the unemployment part of the Insurance Act. I now come to the boys. There are two classes of boys in the dockyards—the apprentices, of whom there are 1,626; and the yard boys, of whom there are 1,343. The apprentices
  1644
  are very nice lads indeed—very thoughtful, very earnest, very industrious, and very anxious to succeed. I do not know that I have ever met a nicer set of lads than the apprentices in our dockyards. They attend the dockyard school in the evening. It is quite remarkable the number of men of great distinction who began life as dockyard apprentices. I am quite sure the House will join with me in the pride with which I mention their names. The late Sir Edward Reed, who was a Member of this House and chief constructor of the Royal Navy, was a dockyard lad; the late Sir William Pearce, a former Member of this House, was a dockyard lad; Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, late director of naval construction; Dr. Elgar, first director of dockyards; Sir William White, late director of naval construction; Sir John Durston, late engineer-in-ehief; Sir Philip Watts, director of naval construction; Sir James Williamson, late director of dockyards; Sir Henry Oram, the present engineer-in-chief; and Sir James Marshall, the present director of dockyard works—all these men were dockyard lads. Every single ship in the British Navy to-day which is fit to take her place in the first line owes her design to dockyard apprentices.
  The House may take it from me that these boys are very well looked after. I pass from those who are apprentices to the yard boys, of whom there are 1,343. When I came across those boys first I saw that if a helping hand were not given to them it was extremely probable that they would never have anything before them but becoming adult unskilled labourers. I had been associated with education for a good many years, and I said that those yard boys ought to go to an evening school. We offered to place them in the dockyard school, and if there was not room in the dockyard school then to pay the fees for them at some school outside the dockyard. Before I leave the question of the dockyards I must refer to the petitions. It is said that it is all very well; you hear these petitions, but nothing ever comes of them. Take the result since 1906 of hearing these petitions. I will take some of the principal concessions made. The labourers got a rise of a shilling per week in 1906, and on the present numbers that concession costs £9,800 per year. The skilled labourers got a shilling per week in 1906, and on present numbers that means £26,000 per year. They received other advances in 1910–11, which means £11,700 per year on

  1645
  present numbers. The shipwrights got a shilling per week in 1906, equal to an increased payment on the present numbers of £19,000 per year.
  Mr. WILKIE: They got a shilling in 1006 and even then they were below the rate of outside shipwrights. To-day there have been three advances in some places and two in others, so that there are four shillings beneath them now.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be very glad to enter into the figures. What I am saying is in reply to the hon. Gentleman when he states that petitions are merely a farce.
  Mr. J. WARD: The poor navvy never got anything.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The smiths got their scale of pay improved in 1908, and the concession on the present numbers amounts to £2,600 a year. The joiners received a shilling per week in 1908, which cost £2,700 per year on present numbers. The riggers received a shilling per week in 1909, and on the present numbers that amounts to £1,000 per year. The total cost of the concessions since 1906 on the present numbers means £80,000 per year increase in wages. Therefore the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that the petitions yield no fruit. Further than that, recently, in deference to the public opinion of the yards, we have entirely suspended the premium bonus system in the forking of the yards. We have increased the establishment at Greenock, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will be glad to hear this, as he is very keen on increasing the establishment from 200 men in the torpedo factory to 250 men. With regard to the unskilled labourers at the victualling yard at Deptford, their minimum was 23s. per week, with certain privileges, which are estimated and moderately estimated, as worth 6d. per week. We have raised the minimum to 24s., which, with the privileges, totals 24 s. 6d. per week. We are now considering a certain allowance additional in any case where the work gives anything in the nature of responsibility, so that we may carry out fully the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in regard to the London unskilled labourer, that the average should be 25s. 6d. per week. With regard to the petitions for this year and last year, I promised last year to the hon. Member for Devonport, that we would get the replies out early this year. We got them out last year in July, and I was very
  1646
  hopeful that we might have got them out in time for this Debate, but that was quite impossible. It would be a very, very early date to arrive at our conclusions, but I will undertake, or rather express the hope with which I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will agree, that they shall be published and be in the hands of Members before Easter, and certainly Members shall have those replies before we take Vote 8, which deals with dockyard men. I repeat with confidence to the House that those men are treated well as a whole. I do not deny that outside increases have to be taken in account, so that we may be able to say that our men are as equitably treated, taking one thing with another, as men in similar work in the locality outside. We have long claimed that, and that is our intention.
  Mr. WILKIE: Where they do similar work?
  Dr MACNAMARA: I think that is the bed rock. That is what the hearing of petitions is for. We are there to do the best we can, and to see that those men shall be treated as equitably, taking the value of the privileges and all other things into consideration, as those who work outside in the district in which the dockyard is situated. Certainly, for revision and consideration, wherever it seems desirable, machinery does exist for giving proper consideration to those matters. Now for that part of the Motion that refers to the men of the Fleet. Again I admit that the issue raised, the treatment of the men in the Fleet, is of the first importance. It is of vital importance. Certainly the British House of Commons could not be better employed than by seeing whether the British sailor is fairly and considerately treated. The First Lord of the Admiralty earlier in the Debate spoke of these men as "the pride of our race." I agree with that description, and it is laid upon us to sec that our treatment accords with that description. I can give the House, with complete confidence, an assurance that, on the whole, these men are well treated. If it were not so, I should say so. That is my deliberate and impartial judgment. Here, again, I admit that from time to time there will be revision and reconsideration, as circumstances make such necessary. That revision, in which naval opinion at the Admiralty plays a leading part, as it is bound to do, we have been and shall be ready to give on all occasions. I do not

  1647
  think that any hon. Member that listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend has any doubt as to what are the sentiments that inspire us in respect to our treatment of the men in the Navy.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said—and I am sorry he is not now here—for what he said is contrary to fact—that there had been no increase of pay for the sailor for sixty years. That is one of those charming generalisations that is not correct, but it is constantly repeated. Let me detail some of the charges which have been made affecting the pay and promotion of seamen, and the conditions of victualling in particular of the men of the Fleet. Take the last ten years. I claim no party advantage for this. Some of them were under way, some have been accomplished since hon. Members opposite left power. Take the seamen: the statement is that there has been no increase of pay for many years. The substantive pay of the petty officer has been increased from 2s. 2d. to 2s. 8d. per day; the substantive pay of the chief petty officer from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d. per day, and they represent 21 per cent, of the seamen class. I would not quote these figures if they represented a very small percentage, but they represent 21 per cent. Then take that very deserving class, the stokers. We have improved the rates of the stoker petty officer, and chief stoker, and for the clever young stoker, anxious to rise, we have opened the mechanician training, which gives him the possibility of rising to warrant rank and also to commissioned warrant rank. Take the engine-room artificer. Commissioned warrant rank has been introduced. The chief artificer engineer is eligible for the rank of lieutenant; and he is entitled to the rank of lieutenant when he is pensioned if he has had three years in his rank. For electricians we have opened the prospect of warrant rank and commissioned warrant rank. For the armourers we have introduced warrant, rank, and we are now considering the question of their pay. Plumbers and painters have had their pay increased in 1910, ships' cooks in 1907, and in 1909 we created warrant rank for instructors in cookery. We have done something for sick-berth attendants. As to naval schoolmasters, we have gone into their case very fully. We have given a general increase of pay in 1910, and the relative rank of lieutenant to chief schoolmasters after three years' service. I am sure the
  1648
  announcement of the First Lord that announcement of the First Sea Lord that he intended to select every year—twenty-five up to one hundred—of the younger warrant officers for commissioned warrant rank. So much for pay and promotion.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Both the hon. Member for Portsmouth and I referred to the A.B.'s, the leading seamen, and the ordinary seamen, but the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned them.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I said that we had improved the pay in the seamen class, of the petty officer, and the chief petty officer, and that they represented 21 per cent, of that class. That is something—one in five. Then take victualling. Undoubtedly we have made very considerable reforms in the feeding of the sailor in recent years. Standard rations and a daily messing allowance of 4d. have taken the place of the old victualling and savings system, and the canteen system has been drastically reformed. Every step has been taken to secure that the sailor shall get good value for his money. We have put the cooking arrangements on a much more efficient basis. Amongst other things, bakeries have been established in all the large ships, so that the sailors may get fresh bread at sea as well as when in port. With regard to the sailor's kit it was not referred to by the Mover, but another hon. Member mentioned it.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I referred to the kit, I asked a distinct question about it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be very sorry indeed to take away anything from the very full and complete statement made by the hon. Member. I did not know that he mentioned it, but I put the kit to his credit at once. We have simplified the sailors kit and reduced it by striking out certain items in such a way that the upkeep of the kit is estimated to cost the sailors £40,000 a year less than before these changes. The policy of issuing free kits, which cost between £8 and £9, to new entrants, has instead of merely giving them a gratuity of £2 10s., has been extended to the sinkers, the cooks, the sick berth attendants, ships stewards boys, and the boy writers. I quite admit that there is a feeling, as was pointed out by the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, and by the Mover of the Amendment, that the men ought to have reissues of kits free, like soldiers and

  1649
  Marines. You really cannot fully estimate the treatment of the two respective Services by taking one item only. You cannot say a sailor has to replace his kit and a soldier has not, and therefore, on the whole, the sailor is not so well treated as the soldier. You must take all the conditions of Service into account; you must take the number of opportunities for promotion which the sailor has as compared with the soldier, and if you do you will find a considerably larger proportion of opportunities for non-commissioned and warrant ranks for sailors. You must take into account the pay of the sailor including the non-substintive pay which shows an advantage as compared with that of the soldier. I agree there is a feeling that the men should have a free kit, but it would mean a very considerable item of expense, representing something like £300,000 more. As Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, I am bound to tell the House of Commons what the cost would be. Let me repeat, you cannot take a single item in the treatment of the sailor and compare that with a corresponding item in the treatment of the soldier and then say the treatment of the one is better than that of the other. You must take a complete conspectus of the whole Service, and of the whole question of the conditions of the Service. I should like to add this. There is a very excellent agency called the Navy Employment Agency—I have no hesitation in advertising it here to-night—and it does its best to secure employment for time-expired men when they return to civil life. We have granted £l,000 a year for that society from public funds. In the year 1907–8 that agency found places for 739, and in 1910–11 they placed 1,537 men when they left the Service. I ought to add this: that when I am asked for a Royal Commission I have to state there are Committees sitting at the present time, one examining into the carpenter's branch, which includes the shipwrights of the Navy, and the House has already heard that a Committee is sitting upon the very important question of naval pensions and also on the question of boys' training ships. After that statement of what we are endeavouring to do, and are doing, for the dockyard men and the men in the Fleet, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to go to a Division. If he does, I ask the House with complete confidence to reject his Amendment, and I respectfully suggest, whether the Amendment is pressed or not, I confess I hope
  1650
  the hon. Member will withdraw it, that after that we should be allowed to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and then, in accordance with general practice, to-morrow night we can resume the general Debate. I assure the House that at the Admiralty we are only too ready to listen to, and to take up, any point or plan that seems a practical scheme of betterment, no matter from what quarter, inside this House or outside it, it comes, and to give the closest consideration to any practical proposal for the betterment of the great Service with which we have the great honour to be associated.
  Mr. FALLE: I am going to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. Almost every point of interest has been thoroughly threshed out, so much so that I have very few words to say. I want to say a few words about the facilities for bringing forward grievances. Even at the best the present system is not a good one, because the men have to wait a whole year for an answer.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We only finished the petitions in January.
  Mr. FALLE: When were they sent in?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They had to be Bent in last August, but the hearing of them was quite recently.
  Mr. FALLE: It is bad enough for them to have to wait six months for an answer. I might say that all dockyards are almost honeycombed with grievances, and I do not say that specially of Portsmouth, where we have an excellent chief. Where can the men go with their grievances? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, although he replies most courteously to our grievances, we have still to go to the Treasury, and the hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for Chatham know how little satisfaction we get from that Department. There are very few departments in the dockyards where you find the men are satisfied, whether on the establishment or among the skilled or unskilled labourers. My hon. Friend gave instances where outside labour was more highly paid than in the dockyard, and mentioned one case where a private firm paid 3s. a week more than in the dockyard. No hon. Member will be ready to state that 21s. a week is a living wage for any man. In addition to that low rate of pay, many of these men

  1651
  are forced to give up their work if it rains, and often they lose half a day's work, and they cannot afford it. For these reasons we press for the appointment of a Commission or an Advisory Board, and I should suggest a small number, say two for each dockyard, to meet at the end of a short period and then advise the Government.
  I will not speak of carpenters, shipwrights, coppersmiths, and iron and brass-founders, because my hon. Friends have gone into them, nor shall I say anything about the Greenwich Pensions. I should like, however, to urge that the allowance for hazardous employment in the dockyards should be extended. In some cases the allowance is not given unless the man is working at a height of 50 ft., although all over the dockyard the limit is 20 ft., and naturally those in the former case do not Bee that their necks are less valuable than the other men in the yard. The drivers of steam and electric cranes are paid a very small rate of wages. I can tell him the reason privately if he wants to know, but I have no doubt it will engage his attention and possibly be remedied. There is no reason why these men who drive these cranes should not be supplied with suits of overhauls. There are only thirty of them in number. Then there is the pensions to the higher workmen. He says this is the first time he has heard they are willing to give money towards their pensions. Naturally, they are all willing. After thirty-five and sometimes forty years' service, these men are given at the age of sixty a gratuity, sometimes amounting to £80. With care such a gratuity will last three years, but at the end of that time there is nothing for them, although they are self-respecting and respectable men, but the workhouse. In many cases, these men have had small injuries, such as the loss of a finger or the stiffening of a finger, and they have been kept on at the dockyard, but when they are dismissed at the age of sixty there is no possibility of their obtaining work outside, and unless they can live—and they cannot—on the gratuity given them, their home is the workhouse. It is a disgraceful thing if a man who has given forty years to work in the dockyard should, in his old age, be obliged to go to the workhouse. They have, in fact, no option but to go into the workhouse. It is a burning question in the dockyard, and I can assure the right
  1652
  hon. Gentleman the members of the dockyard committee are in earnest in pushing for these pensions to the skilled men of the dockyard, and the skilled men are extremely keen on it. I can understand there are difficulties in the way, but I do not think those difficulties are insuperable. Again, all these men who receive gratuities, and who receive pensions, ask that they should be allowed to receive them at the nearest post office, especially if they are invalids or cripples, and should not be obliged to go down to the dockyard. There is no particular reason why these men, if they are invalided, should go to the dockyard to receive their pensions or gratuities, but they do at the, present time, and you can see quite old and feeble men going down in trams and cabs to get the small gratuity which they have earned. I turn now to the able seamen of the Fleet A statement was made that there their pay has not been materially increased, at any rate during the last sixty years.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The statement was that it has not been increased at all.
  Mr. FALLE: The right hon. Gentleman may pride himself on the fact that their pay has not been increased for sixty years, but they are not well paid, in my opinion, they are not well fed, they have to clothe themselves, and, whenever possible, it appears to me their vote is taken from them. If during the period of their service when they are qualifying for their pensions, they are thrown out as invalids, they are thrown out without any compensation whatever. If they are getting pensions for wounds or for injuries, and they have the fortune to get outside work, their pensions are immediately cut. It seems, to me that is a very disgraceful piece of cheeseparing on the part of the Treasury. These men who have not had their wages raised for sixty years see men, some certainly their equals, but a large number physically and mentally not their equals, striking for higher pay. They see these men earning what is to them an enormous wage: they see them striking for higher pay and obtaining it. They see one of the ornaments on the Front Bench saying, "You have the power why do you not use it." Surely it is trying these men very highly indeed to tell them that although the pay of their class has not been increased for sixty years, and although they see these things going on all round and they know they cannot,

  1653
  because they are under discipline, bring their case forward, yet you mean to do nothing for them. They are loyal and true and it is our duty to see that they are properly paid. We have confidence in them: they have confidence in us, and it is for us to show that that confidence is deserved.
  Mr. WILKIE: The Secretary of the Admiralty always gives us a very fair reply but I want to refer to his statements with regard to the shipwrights. We have got no advance since 1906, and even then the shipwrights in the dockyards were less than the amount paid to men outside. He claims that the Government is a model employer, but is it? It compels the contractors to pay higher rates. The Admiralty should lead the way in these matters. Then there is the case of the labourers. If skilled labourers are doing skilled mechanics' work they ought to have skilled mechanics' pay while doing such work, and no reason has been put forward why that should not be done. I have complained repeatedly in this House of the treatment
  of the lower deck men, likewise the carpenter's crews. We have had no reply to our requests. I want to know what methods we are to adopt in order to secure redress of our grievances. We know there is a Departmental Committee sitting, and we should like some outside evidence to be given before it. I should like to learn from the occupants of the Front Bench what we are to do to-get the Admiralty to move in the matter? Am I to come down and try to do what Plimsoll did, or would they have a coal strike or the transport workers on the road again. Why cannot they, when we are trying peaceful measures, meet the fair requests that we are putting forward. I ask nothing from the Admiralty that the men outside are not getting, and I trust that the respectful requests of the men in the dockyards will meet with some response.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adamson, William

  De Forest, Baron

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Doris, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Armitage, Robert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Beck, Arthur

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hackett, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brace, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Manfield, Harry

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Bryce, J, Annan

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Harwood, George

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hay ward, Evan

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Clough, William

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hodge, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morgan, George Hay

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morrell, Philip

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, s.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wadsworth, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Malley, William

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Waring, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

  Webb, H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Sheehy, David

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Snowden, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (S. Shields)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Roberts, Sir J H. (Denbighs.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

  Nield, Herbert

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Goldman, C. S.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baird, John Laurence

  Grant, J. A

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baicarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. R.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Quliter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyton, James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Butcher, John George

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cassel, Felix

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cator, John

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Tobln, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

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

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke and Mr. Hobler.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Estimates considered in Committee,
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.—VOTE A (MEN).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 136,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st, day of March, 1913, including 17,200 Royal Marines."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Government Departments (Assistant Clerks).
  Government Departments (Assistant Clerks).
  Customs and Excise (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Customs and Excise (Great Britain and Ireland).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MANCHESTER UNITY OF ODDFELLOWS.
  MANCHESTER UNITY OF ODDFELLOWS.
  DURATION OF MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  DURATION OF MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Super-Tax.
  Super-Tax.
  Licence Duties (Apportionment).
  Licence Duties (Apportionment).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Land Valuation (Ireland).
  Increment Value Duty.
  Increment Value Duty.
  Stocks Held by Government Departments and Public.
  Stocks Held by Government Departments and Public.
  Sinking Fund.
  Sinking Fund.
  Ballyvaughan (County Clare) Transit Facilities.
  Ballyvaughan (County Clare) Transit Facilities.
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  New Ross Union.
  New Ross Union.
  National Schools, Ireland (Junior Assistant Mistresses).
  National Schools, Ireland (Junior Assistant Mistresses).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Labourers' Cottages, County Monaghan.
  Labourers' Cottages, County Monaghan.
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Greenwich Time (Ireland).
  Greenwich Time (Ireland).
  Territorial Force (Training Camps).
  Territorial Force (Training Camps).
  New Rifle.
  New Rifle.
  Annual Training (Compensation for Injuries).
  Annual Training (Compensation for Injuries).
  Acting Sergeant-Majors.
  Acting Sergeant-Majors.
  Army Horses.
  Army Horses.
  "Army Review" Editorship.
  "Army Review" Editorship.
  National Reservists.
  National Reservists.
  Rifle Shooting.
  Rifle Shooting.
  Vaccination of Soldiers.
  Vaccination of Soldiers.
  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Parkhurst Prison.
  Parkhurst Prison.
  Isle of Man Constitution.
  Isle of Man Constitution.
  Guernsey Revenue.
  Guernsey Revenue.
  Output of Coal.
  Output of Coal.
  British Consular Service.
  British Consular Service.
  Local Government Acts.
  Local Government Acts.
  Rateable Value (Wales).
  Rateable Value (Wales).
  Seaside Resorts (Sanitary Arrangements).
  Seaside Resorts (Sanitary Arrangements).
  Flour Adulteration.
  Flour Adulteration.
  King Edward Memorial (Park for East London).
  King Edward Memorial (Park for East London).
  Fair-Wages Advisory Committee.
  Fair-Wages Advisory Committee.
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Emigration to British Colonies and Protectorates.
  Emigration to British Colonies and Protectorates.
  Gold Output.
  Gold Output.
  Labour Reserve Men.
  Labour Reserve Men.
  Coal Strike Conferences.
  Coal Strike Conferences.
  Assistant Inspectors of Telegraph Messengers, Dublin.
  Assistant Inspectors of Telegraph Messengers, Dublin.
  Post Office Employment (Ex-Service Men).
  Post Office Employment (Ex-Service Men).
  Marconi Company's Contract.
  Marconi Company's Contract.
  Post Office (Engineering and Stores Departments).
  Post Office (Engineering and Stores Departments).
  Mount Pleasant Parcel Depot.
  Mount Pleasant Parcel Depot.
  Bursaries in Scotland.
  Bursaries in Scotland.
  Parochial Sick Nurses.
  Parochial Sick Nurses.
  Baby Incubator Institute.
  Baby Incubator Institute.
  Moneylenders (Touting Letters).
  Moneylenders (Touting Letters).
  Telephone Engineering Department.
  Telephone Engineering Department.
  Wireless Telegraph Operators.
  Wireless Telegraph Operators.
  Post Office Stores Viewers.
  Post Office Stores Viewers.
  Kew Gardens.
  Kew Gardens.
  Creamery Butter.
  Creamery Butter.
  Stocks of Wheat and Flour.
  Stocks of Wheat and Flour.
Preamble
The Earl of DUDLEY—Took the Oath.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Duke of Devonshire and the Lord Herschell Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl Waldegrave, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Balfour, the Earl Loreburn, the Earl Beauchamp, the Lord Denman, the Lord Colebrooke, the Earl of Granard: The said Commission was read.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Christchurch Gas. [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BAWTRY AND TICKHILL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend Select Committee.
SIDMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAIL LESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
NORTH KILLINGHOLME PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
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 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present session to meet the Committee appointed by this House in Committee Room A on Wednesday next at Two o'clock, as proposed by this House.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

E. Cathcart;

L. Saye and Sele;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.