To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what sum it is proposed to allot to Scotland as an equivalent for the increased grant to elementary education in England and Wales directed by the Education Act of last session; and what form this grant to Scotland is to take having regard to the fact that no Bill for dealing with Education in Scotland is announced in His Majesty's Gracious Speech as intended to the brought in during the present session. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The amount of the grant is still under consideration between the Treasury and the Scotch Education Department, but will, I hope, be settled very soon. The method of allocation must depend upon the amount of the grant, and it is not yet possible to say whether it will involve any legislation.

To ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the post office in Belturbet, county Cavan, was condemned over two years ago as being in an unsuitable position and incapable of affording proper accommodation to the public and officials employed there, and can he state the reasons why nothing has been done towards erecting a new post office as promised in March 1901, and when it is proposed to commence building on the site that has been secured. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No funds have as yet been available for building the new post office at Belturbet: but it is proposed to make a beginning next financial year, if Parliament votes the necessary money.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table the Criminal Procedure Code, 1903, promulgated by Lord Milner in the Transvaal. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) There will be no objection to lay the ordinance on the Table as soon as it is received from Lord Milner and considered by the Secretary of State.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what have been the amounts of the expenditure charged on estates in Great Britain for improvements under the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts for the year 1902, in respect of farm buildings, labourers' cottages, and mansion houses respectively. (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The amounts charged in the year 1902 upon estates in Great Britain under the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts (including the Limited Owner's Residences Acts) for the works to which the hon. Member refers, were as follows:—Farm Buildings, £54,438; Labourers' Cottages, £22,612; Mansion Houses and other Residences, £29,604.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Report of the Commission on Tuberculosis will be issued. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have no later information on the subject than that given in my reply to the hon. Member on the 17th December last.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he can state the quantities of coal shipped quarterly during 1902 not exceeding 6s. per ton, exceeding 6s. but not exceeding 6s. 3d. per ton, exceeding 6s. 3d. but not exceeding 6s. 6d.,

† See (4) Debates, cxvi., 1501

exceeding 6s. 6d. but not exceeding 6s. 9d., exceeding 6s. 9d. but not exceeding 7s., and exceeding 7s. per ton. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The quantities of coal not exceeding a value of 6s. the ton free on board shipped from the United Kingdom during each of the four quarters of 1902 were as follows:—1st Quarter, 509,652 tons; 2nd Quarter, 781,756 tons; 3rd Quarter, 951,639 tons; 4th Quarter, 1,033,386 tons; Total, 3,276,433 tons. No record is kept of the quantities at intermediate values between 6s. and 7s. the ton. The figures for shipments exceeding 6s. and not exceeding 7s. the ton in value, and those for shipments exceeding 7s. the ton, are being made up, but will not be completed for two or three days.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether commercial firms, whose Income Tax returns have been independently certified by a professional accountant and auditor, are liable to be surcharged by the Income Tax Commissioners, or to send in their accounts to be examined. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) If the District Commissioners are not satisfied with the return rendered by any person for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax (whether certified by an independent accountant or not), they have power under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act of 1842 to make an assessment according to their own judgment subject to an appeal. On appeal the Commissioners are authorised by Section 120 of the same Act to require at their discretion any particulars or accounts which they may deem necessary.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the new form of the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns, any definition of small coal has been laid down for the guidance of exporters in declaring the description of their shipments, or whether it is left to their discretion; and, in the latter case, will he consider the advisability of prescribing a maximum distance between the bars of the screen through which coal must pass in order to constitute small. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The distinction now drawn in the official Trade Accounts between small, large, and "through and through" coal has been made experimentally to meet the wishes of exporters, and on the understanding that these descriptions are, generally speaking, well understood in the trade, although the precise definitions may vary somewhat in the different coalfields. These statistics are based, like all the export Returns, on the declarations of exporters, subject to check when necessary. It is not thought desirable to prescribe a hard and fast rule, at least until more experience has been gained.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state upon what grounds he based his objection to the education scheme originally submitted by the Leicestershire County Council in accordance with the requirements of the Education Act, 1902. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The County Council of Leicestershire has not as yet sent to the Board of Education a scheme for publication under Section 17 of the Education Act. A draft scheme framed by a Committee of the Council has been sent to the Board with a view to the informal discussion of its provisions. The Board does not yet know whether the suggestions made in the course of that discussion have been favourably considered by the County Council.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to the circulation amongst Members this morning of a letter which has been published in The Times on the subject of a recent incident in the Grenadier Guards. It is an es parte statement on a case pending and makes serious allegations against officers in high positions. In these circumstances, and seeing that those officers are not in a position to protect themselves and make a counter statement, I desire to ask you whether this proceeding is consistent with the privileges of Parliament.

I do not see what the suggestion of privilege is. There is no breach of privilege.

said that in dealing with the important matter raised by the Amendment he would speak temperately. In his opinion the House ought to look at this matter from a lofty standpoint. Hon. Members were sent there to protect the weak rather than to increase the power of the influential. He was rather surprised last night at the levity with which some hon. Members appeared to regard the subject. They did not seem to realise that the honour and dignity of the House in the matter of legislative impartiality were to a certain extent involved. The question, in his opinion, involved the fundamental principle of equity, because this House was recognised as a judicial authority from which all legislation emanated. They were charged with the duty of making impartial laws in the interest of public utility. He submitted that if legislators, and especially if they sat on the Front Ministerial Bench, had private interests in connection with the subjects which were brought under the consideration of the House, it was only natural that they should have biassed minds. He would give an example from the past. It was in a Parliament composed of landlords that the Land Laws were made, and it was seen from the Statutebook that the measures which were passed were framed for their profit, and to protect them in their privileges. We lived now in a commercial age when limited liability companies existed in unlimited numbers. He held that it was quite possible, in connection with measures which tended to public utility, such as those promoted by railway companies, shipping companies, gas companies, eletric companies, and water companies, a policy might be followed which was opposed to the general interests of the community. He held that right hon. and hon. Members should not be permitted to remain or to become directors in a concern which was a State protected monopoly. That was a very plain proposition which would commend itself to the commonsense of everybody. They were all elected as the custodians of public and not of private interests. He should like to know whether any Member of that House would try to defend the present system, and appeal for the support of his constituency as the director of a railway, shipping, or water company. He admitted that hon. Members were directors before they became Ministers, but those positions should be relinquished, because their full time should be given to the performance of their public duties. In the course of his Parliamentary career he had had many opportunities of assisting at deputations on very important matters, and it was almost invariably urged by Ministers that pressure of time would not enable them to go fully into the subjects. The resuly was that the deputations were generally dismissed without receiving that consideration to which they were entitled in regard to matters of immediate public interest. It was quite evident, from the experience of hon. Members in commercial matters, that Ministers had more than sufficient to do to fulfil their public duties without attending to pressing private affairs. But in addition to those public utility companies, there was another class of companies which might be termed dangerous—for instance, Stock Exchange Syndicates. They all knew what a rush there was on these during the war. There were also companies which constructed war vessels and contracted for armaments and war material. Directorships on such companies should not, in his opinion, be held by any hon. Member of this House, and that opinion was more emphatic in regard to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He was sorry to see that Ministers were not in their places, for this was a matter in which they were directly concerned, and they ought to attend a debate in which their conduct was being discussed. His was a view which had been put forward by many high-minded English statesmen in the past. In the case of Ministers especially, private interest should not clash with public duty. It would be advisable if the House should not allow this occasion of temptation to continue in perpetuity as a possible cause of friction between this House and the people. Some hon. Members might think that no temptation existed. Let him give an instance. Since he became a Member of Parliament he had had more than one offer of the necessary amount of shares in a company to qualify him for a directorship. He was to receive a modest salary, and need not attend the meetings of the directors. If this form of temptation was put forward to private Members, what temptation, amounting to thousands of pounds, might be offered to a Minister who wielded a power in Society and in the State? Therefore, he held that it ought to be the duty of the First Lord of the Treasury to consider this matter seriously and take away that temptation from his colleagues. They all knew—those at least conversant with public affairs—the revelations which took place in regard to the Panama Canal; and they were also aware of the allegations of American lobbying and the manner in which legislation was there carried on. They likewise knew that the system of American lobbying had been transferred to a large extent to Westminster. He held that under these circumstances a condition of public affairs existed which ought not to be permitted to continue. He was certain that any Member of this House would deplore the adoption of the methods pursued in other countries; and he held that prevention was better than cure. He did not intend to make any personal attack on any hon. or right hon. Member of this House. He put his argument in a temperate manner and entirely from the point of view that they in this House were public men, there in the interest of the public, and not as private individuals doing private work which should not belong to a public position. He submitted, therefore, that the practice of directorships being held by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and their subordinates, or even by hon. Members of the House, should be discontinued unless in the case of purely commercial competitive concerns. With regard to directorships in companies dealing with public utilities which were State protected monopolies—these should be held by no Member of the House. He wished the House to note the distinction he made. Now this was a perfectly plain business-like proposition that would bear examination and could be discussed without heat or loss of temper. He would give a notable instance of what had occurred in the House. In was said that there were seventy railway directors in this House, and fifty in the House of Lords. Now, when a Railway Bill came before the House, the directors always voted solid for it, no matter what side of the House they belonged to, unless where the interests of one railway company clashed with another. With respect to the London and North Western Railway Company's Bill alluded to the previous night by his hon. friend who introduced the Amendment, that Bill was only under discussion for three hours—that was before the new Rules were passed—when a director of that company actually stood up and moved the Closure, which Mr. Speaker accepted. He did not know whether Mr. Speaker was aware of the fact that that hon. Member was a director of the company under discussion. At any rate that was a position which ought not to be taken by any Member who was a director. He maintained that a director should not have the power to stand up and move the Closure in the discussion of a matter of public interest. If such a method of conducting debates on transit affairs were continued, it might menace the welfare of the community, and impede the commercial progress of the nation. That fact was beginning to be recognised by the non-official Members of the House, and to be accepted by the Press and the people outside. Public opinion should be the breath of the law, and public opinion said that some change in this direction was necessary. He would suggest to the Prime Minister, whom they all respected, although they might differ from him on many matters, as the trusted guardian and custodian of the rights and privileges of this House, that he should takesome measures quietly, but effectively, to put an end to the continuance of this objectionable system. He was aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had shown a good example by not being a director of any company. He granted that it was not reasonable to expect that the right hon. Gentleman should, at the close of this debate, abandon his colleagues in office. No; the right hon. Gentleman was the chosen Leader of a great Party, and he would be, as he ought to be, loyal to his official colleagues. But they were in an age in which precedent did not sanctify an abuse. He knew there were difficulties in the way, but the right hon. Gentleman could surmount them. He was aware that heroic remedies or drastic measures were not popular; nor perhaps probable, in the House as at present constituted. They lived in an age of expediency, and when a large question came before the House and was discussed at length and promises given, nothing more was done. However, he trusted that the annual recurrence of this Amendment would impress itself on the minds of those who were responsible for carrying on the business of the House and country. His conviction was that the people outside the House, and many Members inside, were determined that the present state of things should not continue. No worthy effort had ever been attempted without sacrifice, and he hoped the Prime Minister would, at the close of the debate, give some satisfactory assurance that the present system was about to be ended.

said that it was unfortunate that this question was raised on the Address, because they could not vote on it since it would be taken as a vote of want of confidence in the Government. In regard to directorships being held by Ministers, it seemed to him to be unfortunate that the rule observed by the late Earl of Beaconsfield and Mr. Gladstone had not continued to be enforced. No one doubted the honour of any member of the Government, or any Member on either side of the House, but it seemed to him that it would be wise if those in charge of the affairs of this enormous Empire should devote the whole of their time to the discharge of their official duties, and not be mixed up with public companies. The real point appeared to him to be that they had a great country to manage, and that as the position of a Minister of the Crown was one of great honour it would be wiser—he would not impute any improper motives whatever, that would be a mistake—not to pass a law, but that the moral feeling and general idea should be that a Minister on taking office should relinquish any directorships he might hold. He regretted the discussion, as it seemed to him to lower the great position of Ministers of the Crown. Further, when they considered the onerous duties which attached to high offices in the Government, it was not reasonable to suppose that men could attend to their public duties as well as to their duties as directors. They could not serve two masters properly, and it seemed to him much wiser that they should relinquish one position or the other. The experience of the last few years showed that occasions might arise which would give the public an opportunity of saying things which it was not desirable should be said of Ministers of the Crown. Their responsibilities and duties might not come into conflict with their private interests, but the man in the street thought they did, and that tended to lower the dignity of a Minister of the Crown. He should however besorry to see a law passed with reference to the matter. He acknowledged that there were directorships and directorships. Some, no doubt, were above suspicion; still, he thought it would be wiser if there was a sort of general understanding that, without it being made obligatory, it should be the general idea — the correct thing—that when a man took office he should resign duties which did not appear to be quite compatible with his duties as a Minister. That was his view, and he believed that many members of the Government held it also. Having regard to the enormous growth of the country and to the development of trade, it was better that those who had the guidance of the State should not be mixed up with large commercial transactions, which were often associated with the expansion of the Empire. He should be glad to see the rule to which he had referred recognised, but, of course, on the present occasion he could not possibly vote for the Amendment.

said he agreed with the hon. Gentleman in regretting that such discussions should occur, but there was a simple remedy, and that was that the Government should adopt what was really the substantial view on both sides of the House. He regretted also that the matter had to be raised on the debate on the Address, as he should have liked to have had an open vote on it. But it was difficult to raise it in any other way. It could not be raised on the salary of an individual Minister; and, even if it could, that would be still more invidious than raising it as a general principle. He did not think right hon. Gentlemen opposite could complain of the tone and temper with which the debate had been conducted. There was no desire to reflect on the present Government, and his hon. friend who moved the Amendment, though he had to give instances to prove his case, made no personal attack on any member of the Government. In no sense was it a Party question, but he did not think that any previous Government had carried the matter to such an extent as the present Government. The fact that thirty-three members of the Government held sixty-eight directorships seemed to him to be a very serious matter, and one which it was the duty of the House to consider as a matter of principle. The right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the subject a few years ago, seemed to think that it was not only an attack on the Government, but a sort of general depreciation of directorships as such. They might rightly assume that all the directorships held by the Government were legitimate, but that was not the question. The question was whether a directorship put the member of the Government who held it in a false position. The instance which his hon. friend gave yesterday, of the way in which directorships held by Ministers might be used, was one of the strongest arguments he had ever heard in favour of the Motion. He need hardly say he made no reflection on the Secretary of State for War, but it appeared that in an advertisement of the insurance company, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a director, his name was put at the head of the list of directors, and was printed in large characters. That was done without the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, and he immediately stopped it when it was brought to his attention. The company was a very respectable company, but was it not quite certain that if the secretary to the company did so, the agents of the company would also draw special attention to the fact the Secretary of State for War was one of the directors of the company? It seemed to him that members of the Government who were also directors were in a serious dilemma. He assumed they were directors because they intended to give attention to the affairs of their companies, but if they did that they were bound, in the present pressure of business, to neglect their public duties. The work of the principal offices of State was enough, and more than enough, to occupy any man's full attention. If a Minister was a director he would either neglect his public duties or the interests of his shareholders and be a mere guinea-pig director. A year or two ago it was said that private interests would in such circumstances always give way. He was sure they would, but it was not a case of a mere shareholder. A director's interests were not private interests. He was acting as trustee for the shareholders, and he was put in a false position when his duty to his country and his duty to his shareholders conflicted, as they were almost bound to do in the existing state of things. The right hon. Gentleman himself had practically admitted the validity of the arguments they had advanced. A year or two ago he said that his colleagues, instead of holding sixty directorships as at one time, held then only forty-one, and he pointed out that it was an advantage that the number of directorships held by Ministers had been reduced by one third. But that forty-one had now increased to sixty-eight, and the right hon. Gentleman's point fell to the ground. Yesterday his hon. friend said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held two directorships. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head and said he did not; and he himself was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had given them up. His point was that they could not discriminate between company and company, and directorship and directorship. If it were left to the discretion of individual members of the Government as to the directorships they should or should not hold he had no doubt that a proper discretion would be exercised. But they had no guarantee of that; and it seemed to him it was not possible that the Prime Minister should say to a particular colleague: "You are entitled to hold this directorship, but you should give that one up." No one could tell in which way the interests of a company of which a Minister was a director would come into conflict with that Minister's public duties. The only rule was the rule which was applied to the Civil Service, and to the Army and Navy, and that was that while a man was serving his country he should not hold a directorship of any sort or kind, on the ground that in the first place it would occupy his time, and on the much more important ground that a conflict of interests might arise. There was one rule, and one rule only, and that was that directorships should not be held by members of the Government. The case put by his hon. friend yesterday seemed to him very much to the point, namely, that when any Member of this House took an office under Government he had to give up any directorships which he held. The late Secretary to the Admiralty held a directorship, but when he accepted an appointment under Government he had to give it up. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. They knew the case was stronger in the Civil Service. The argument with regard to the Civil Service was very strong one. Our standard for the Civil Service was far and away the best in the world, and that was largely due, in his opinion, to the fact that as public servants they were not allowed to have any private interests which might conflict with their public duties. That was the standard we should apply to Members of this House as well as the Civil Service. By the Rules of the House no hon. Member of this House was allowed to accept a contract from a Government Department. He regretted that this rule, which was adopted in days gone by, should be of so little use now, owing to the fact that private concerns were now to a large extent turned into limited companies, and thus hon. Members became interested, either directly or indirectly, in Government contracts. These limited companies had been put in the positions of the private concerns, and if it were wrong that any Member of the House should accept contracts from the Government it was equally wrong that members of the Government should be in a position to receive them as directors of limited companies, and so become, directly or indirectly, interested in them. He agreed that if the rule was carried out it might be hard on some Members who were asked to accept office, but, after all, when they came to that House they had to make sacrifices and they should accept the situation loyally. In regard to the sacrifices they had to make upon taking office he reminded the House that the hon. Member who put forward the Motion had said that the members of the Cabinet divided between them in salaries £93,000 a year, and in that case his argument was still stronger, because one could not say that members of the Cabinet, at all events, were so badly treated by the country that they ought to fall back on the emoluments of directorships. What did such a statement mean? Some members of the Government had received in public money between £600,000 and £700,000, so when they talked of a poor man taking office that was not a factor that ought to be considered in the matter. The fact was that while hon. Members were in the wilderness they were grateful for any manna which might come down to them, but when they accepted office, received the emoluments and divided the spoils of office, they ought to relinquish all other interests which might clash and conflict with their public interests. He heartily supported the Motion.

said he had never held a directorship, and had never in his wildest dreams imagined himself a member of the Government. He submitted that the question really was whether the House of Commons, the mirror of the people of this country, was ashamed of men actively connected with business affairs. That was the way in which the matter presented itself to him. Was the Government to be composed of mere doctrinaires and pedants who had no practical knowledge of anything actually going on? Was every member of the Government to be a mere academic debater? Was the House of Commons, the representative House of the people of such a country as this, to be engaged merely in talking of things they did not understand, or things which they understood merely from hearsay? They all knew, as was once said by a great debater in this House, that commerce was in England the master feather in the eagle's wing. It seemed to him that this Motion proposed that the Government of the British Empire should entirely consist of bookworms, and that the disqualification for office in the Government should be that Memeber who it was proposed should fill it should still continue to know what he had to do. One of the hon. Members for Durham had said that all directors voted solid. Of course they did, and the same might be said of any body of men who had a community of interests. Why should they not? He thought this Motion was far from consistent with the public traditions of the greatest commercial country of the world.

I do not think this case ought to be disposed of in the way in which it has been stated by the hon. Member who has just sat down. This is a very serious matter, and has been so regarded by the Government. The hon. Member who has just spoken said it was a very good thing that the members of the Government should be occupied with other things than the Government of the country, but I cannot accept that proposition. I think that men who occupy official positions of great responsibility should devote themselves exclusively to that work and to no other, and that is a proposition to which, in my opinion, there ought to be no exception whatsoever. You do not allow it, as my hon. friend has just now said, in your Civil Service. You do not permit for a moment any one of the subordinates of the Government to appear as directors of companies. Then why in the world should you not apply that principle to the heads of the Government. What is far more important is the notion that a man, the head of a Department of the Government, may be held out as an inducement to the investors of this country. That is a shocking thing to my mind. I have never been a director of a company in my life, and never shall be, but what is the fact? The fact is that the appearance of these names in the prospectus is to give the company a credit which it is not entitled to possess. The notion is that when a man is put forward as a director of any of these companies, he should be occupied with looking after the business of the company, and that should not be the case with responsible Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is not necessary, in my opinion, to argue a question of the kind. We know perfectly well of the extremely painful case of a colleague of my own who, being a director of a company, was, through no fault of his own, placed in such a position that he felt bound to resign his position in the Government. No Minister should be placed be placed in such a position—a position in which he is nominally responsible—as to oblige him to resign his office. This is an argument with reference to limited liability companies which, in my opinion, is unanswerable. A Minister of the Crown should run no risk of his character being compromised in this way, and I shall heartily vote for the Motion, unless the head of the Government will give us an assurance that the system will be put an end to, when it will not be necessary to divide upon the question or to record our opinions in regard to it. I know there are objections felt to raising a question of this kind on the debate on the Address, because it may appear to be directed against the Government, but it is quite within their power to prevent such a debate being raised in the future. The Prime Minister has only to give us an undertaking that measures shall be taken to meet the views put forward by those who have supported this Motion. There is no reason why such an undertaking should not be given. The Government have already promised two Bills in consequence of discussions which have taken place on Amendments to the Address, and it is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to give the assurance that we now ask for, that this system shall be put an end to at once, without exception, and that directorships shall not be held by Ministers of the Crown. I took a part myself in laying down and carrying out the principle that the Law Officers of the Crown should not engage in private business, because it was held that they had quite enough public business to do, and that it was possible that in undertaking private business they might have to deal with matters which came into conflict with their responsibilities to the Government and to the country. Well, that system has been put an end to, and is it for the Government to come forward now and say that these highly paid offices do not furnish enough work for the whole of their time and attention? I venture to assert that it is impossible for any member of the Government to entertain or to put forward such a defence as that. The hon. Member for Peter borough said it was better that people should have some experience in business. May I remind him that there is a period of opposition in which a man can do that; he does not become a Cabinet Minister as soon as he leaves school, and he has ample opportunity to get an insight into business affairs if he chooses. But when a man takes a responsible position such as that of a Minister of the Crown, I say it is only common sense to lay down the rule that he shall give up the whole of his time to the responsibilities of that position. This seems to me to be a proposition which can be unanimously accepted, and, therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, accepting and realising his responsibility in this matter, will give us an assurance that this system, or rather this practice, shall be put an end to unconditionally.

deprecated the application of a hard and fast rule in matters of this kind. He did not suppose that there would be a large majority of the House in favour of saying that a person holding a high position under the Crown ought to be able to devote himself to a business that would take up a large portion of his time. But he did think hardly any one would maintain that no Minister of the Crown ought to be possessed of means other than emoluments belonging to his office. They must not forget that the tendency of the day was to convert property of various kinds into limited liability companies. Sometimes large estates, for the convenience of management, had been turned into companies, but because a man held a position in them it ought not to be any great disqualification to his holding high office under the Crown. There was a great difference between one kind of company and another, and it would be very unjust to say that a Minister ought necessarily to be disqualified from continuing to occupy a position he had occupied in the past.

This is not the first time on which I have had to give my views, and the views of my colleagues, upon this question. I have argued it at length upon many previous occasions. I have also heard on many previous occasions the arguments which have been advanced on the opposite side, and I can only say that I do not see my way to change the opinions which prior to this I have laid before the House. I have no desire to complain of the tone in which this debate has been carried on, although it is true that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is sometimes misled by the rapid and tumultuous flow of his own eloquence into making something in the nature of a personal attack upon members of the Government.

You did not hear my speech.

Oh, yes; you do me a great injustice. I may have been called out on business here and there, but I can assure the hon. Member I have the trend of his discourse clearly in my mind; so much so, that I did not require to refresh my memory by reading the reports which appeared in the newspapers this morning. I remember that the hon. Member chose for attack, of all members of the present Government, the Lord President of the Council, and asserted that he was a director of the Barrow Railway, the Barrow Hematite Iron Works, and of the Furness Railway. He went on to say that one of these companies produced armaments, and also to suggest that a Member of the Government who was also a Member of the Armaments Committee, ought not to be at the same time chairman of a company which produced armaments. Had any of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman been true, I think the House would have felt that even then the Duke of Devonshire might well have been left out of account in a discussion of this kind; but as a matter of fact, all the hon. Gentleman's facts are untrue. The Committee is not an Armaments Committee. I presume the hon. Gentleman was alluding to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. Well, that Defence Committee has to discuss very important questions, but it has not to discuss the particular nature of the guns and rifles which are to be used by our troops or by our fleets in the event of war. It is not, therefore, an Armaments Committee at all. The second error into which he fell was the assumption that the Duke was the chairman of a company which made armaments. Well, he is not, so far as I know, the Chairman, or even a director, therefore, the hon. Member is entirely incorrect. I do not believe that the Duke of Devonshire has anything whatever to do with the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I believe that some years ago he had, but so far as my information now goes—I have not been able to verify the fact—he is now no longer connected with it.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to correct him. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give me a list of Ministers and their directorates, and the only means which I, therefore, had was this book, the "Directory of Directors," which I regard as the bible of the Ministry, and in that I find that the Duke of Devonshire, K.G., is described as Chairman of the Barrow Hematite Steel Company, Ltd.

That is a company with which I believe, though I am not sure, the Duke of Devonshire was connected, which did make armaments, but he has not been connected with it for many years. I only mention this because it is really too bad to drag in the Duke of Devonshire, or if he dragged in it should be with some accurate knowledge of the facts. I will pass to what is much more important than the case of any particular Minister—the general principle which, in my judgment, ought to guide the House in coming to a conclusion on this matter. There are only two possible objections that I am able to see to a Minister holding a directorships; one, that it is likely to take up too much of the time which ought to be devoted to the public service, and the other that the mere fact that he is a director may bring him, in that capacity, into collision with some public interest which he ought to safeguard, or, being connected with a company, he may, if that company and its directors become involved in difficulties, through those difficulties bring, I will not say, discredit, but may embarrass his position in the Government and the position of the Government as a whole. Those are two arguments which are urged in favour of the absolute general rule that no member no member of any Government should ever hold any directorship. Everybody must admit that no man has a right to join a Government unless he is prepared to give the best of his time to the work, or, indeed, to give all the time which the duties of the office require. But does that mean that a member of a Government is never to transact any kind of business of his own? For generations many of the most distinguished, honoured, and trusted members of the Government of this country have been men born to responsibilities which could not possibly be discharged without some expenditure of time, whether in or out of office. Are they to hand over their property to somebody else? Are they to abandon all interest in it?Are they to neglect the responsibilities which the possession of a great property involves? If not, you are driven to the conclusion that it is not inconsistent with the duties of a Minister of the Crown to devote, at all events, some part of his time to his own affairs, or affairs other than those of his office. Nobody can deny that general proposition, it is all a question of degree. A Minister is bound to see that his energies, strength, and health, are given to the service of his country, and that the duties of his office have the first call on all he has to give; but I have never heard the rule laid down, and no such rule can be laid down, or if it were it could not be enforced, that a member of a Government should have nothing to do with any business except that immediately connected with his office. I do not think it will be asserted that any one of the Gentleman who now occupy the Treasury Bench has done other than devote the very best of his energies to the public service. Hon. Gentlemen may disagree with them; they may think them not worthy of the high places to which they have been called; but I am convinced that no man with the smallest acquaintance with the facts will for a moment suggest that they have not laboured hard, at all events, if not effectually, in the service of their country. I therefore pass to what I think influences hon. Gentleman in their approval of this Motion much more than the question of the amount of a Minister's time that directorships are likely to take up, viz., the argument drawn from undue influence or improper motive — I will not say corruption — or from the fact that a Minister, through no action of his own, may become involved in transactions which he and his colleagues will have every reason to regret. I want very much to know how the mover of this Motion distinguishes the case of a director of a public company from that of a member of a private firm? There are certain legal and technical distinctions between a limited liability company and one of unlimited liability. Is it on those legal distinctions that the whole principal of this Amendment is based? If so, surely it is the flimsiest thing in the world. The hon. Gentleman must base his case on something very different from that. The first question I ask him, therefore, is — Does he think there is a valid distinction between a private and a public company? If he comes to the conclusion, as he must, that the principle if applied to public companies must be extended to private companies, is he prepared to say that no man in business is to take part in the government of the country? I heard last night a most excellent speech—though I did not agree with it — from the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall, who in supporting an Amendment having reference to some very scandalous frauds in the City, avowedly spoke as what I may call the exponent of commerical morality in the City of London. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is a member of a firm—I have no doubt a most excellent and honourable firm—in the City. When the Party opposite come to this side of the House, is a man like that to be excluded from office because he belongs to a business firm in the City of London? ["No."] Why not? Does a private business take up no time? Do Private businesses not get into difficulties? Are members of private firms never involved in unfortunate commercial enterprises? The proposition is really an untenable one. Unless you are going to lay down that a country, which is, above all, a business country, is to permit every class of man except the business class to compete for the regulation of its affairs, I do not see how the Amendment before the House can be supported. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin seemed to limit his objection to what he called "publicly regulated monopolies," by which he really meant, broadly speaking, railway companies. His view was that no member of a Government ought to be a director of a railway company because railway affairs often come before Parliament, and the position of such a Minister as a director might collide with his duties as a member of the Cabinet or of the Government. I am far from denying that the relation which this House bears to all these great corporations presents some difficulties, but the principle which the hon. Gentleman lays down, if adopted at all, must be extended—and I believe he was prepared to extend it — to all Members of this House and of the House of Lords. If you are going to lay down the proposition that no Minister is to give a vote in this House, or take any part in legislation or administration, who is connected with one of the great railway companies, it would be absurd to stop at the Treasury Bench; you must go to the Front Opposition Bench and to the general body of Members. One is in the habit of talking as though the only persons of administrative responsibility in the country were the gentlemen actually holding office at a given moment. We know that that is not the fact. Next in importance to the Ministry for the time being comes the ex-Ministry, who exert an enormous influence on the course of legislation, both in this House and in the other. But will anybody venture to say that Lord Rosebery, for instance, was to blame when the other day he joined the Board of the Great Northern Railway Company? Is he by that action to be precluded from giving his opinion, either in the House of Lords or else- where, upon great questions of public policy in which, directly or indirectly, the railway interest may be involved? The only result of this principle, if driven to its logical conclusion, will be to make public life, not purer, but poorer, by drawing out of it some of the best men now engaged therein. I am, of course, ready to admit that no Minister ought to hold a directorship, or to take an interest in the affairs of any company with which he may have to deal administratively. All will agree that for the President of the Board of Trade, for example, to be a director of a railway company would be most improper.

Or the Prime Minister?

I do not know of any Prime Minister who was connected with a railway company. There may be such, but I should not like to dogmatise. ["Rosebery."] Oh! this introduces interesting and personal elements upon which, fortunately, it is unnecessary to dwell. I come now to the broad consideration which I think ought to influence the House, even if the arguments I have already adduced are ineffectual. An hon. Gentleman opposite said the members of the present Government would have no reason to complain if they were forbidden to hold directorships because they had had the fortune, good or evil—I really do not know which—to be in office for a large number of years, and, during that period they had drawn their official salaries as members of the Government. Yes, a great many of my colleagues have been in office for a number of years; but, looking at the constitution of this country, and to the forces which determine the fate of the Government at any moment, can you count, in the future, on long tenure of office by any particular set of Ministers? Judging the future by the past, how can you say that this is likely to be the ordinary rule. I remember the first Government I was in—the Government of 1885—which lasted, I think, about eight months—I am not sure that it lasted quite so long. The next Government, for anything I know, may have a life as brief and interesting as the Government of 1885. The Minister who has to select his colleagues, if this rule be laid down, will be absolutely obliged to say to this or that gentleman who may be eminently qualified to serve his country, "I ask you to take office under me. I think you will be eminently suited to manage this or that particular Department." The reply will probably be, "How long is the Government going to last? Is it to be a matter of six months or six years?" Probably a Minister will be forthcoming who will say, "The signs of the times are doubtful; the majority at my back is not large, and I can certainly hold out no prospect that this Government will be anything more than a temporary or passing arrangement." The gentleman will probably reply, "How can you ask me to give up my business work, on which I largely depend, for a tenure of office which, by your own confession, may last no longer than three months." I am not arguing that this rule affects the men who do take office, because there are many who make great personal sacrifices in order to take up office. My point is that it is injurious to the country, and that it limits the choice of the Minister of the day. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but there may be moments when every Minister called upon to form a Cabinet may find some difficulty in selecting a colleague. I know there are always at least ten gentlemen qualified, in their own opinion, to fill the place. But whether that be so or not, no one will deny the general truth of my contention. It is not an easy matter to form a Cabinet. It is not at all an easy business, and every artificial difficulty you put in the way is an injury not to the Party, not to the individual, not to the Minister, but it is an injury to the country; it is an injury which you ought not to inflict by laying down any hard and fast rule of this kind, which would be absolutely illogical and absurd unless you extend it from public companies to all kinds of business. I am aware that there is supposed to be something disgraceful in being the manager and director of a public company.

No, no!

I do not think I am in the least misrepresenting the tone of the comments made by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. He talks of it being discreditable to a Minister to hold one directorship, he says he is still more guilty if he holds more, and if he holds three or four directorships he becomes almost a criminal. I think such attacks, instead of being in the interests of commercial purity, have precisely the opposite effect. I believe that a man of unspotted honour who gives his labour to the direction of a public company does the very wisest thing he can do in the interests of this commercial country. No one has ever thought it worth while to ask me to become a director, and I can assure them, especially after the criticism which has been so freely made this afternoon, that I should regard any such requests from an honourable company as a very high compliment indeed. I strongly object, in the public interest, to this notion that a person is doing something he ought not to do, something which he ought to be ashamed of, if he accepts the responsibility of aiding one of those great corporations which carry on so much of the business on which the country itself so much depends. Such energies and such brains as Providence may have given to any persons in this country may well be used in this manner. I cannot withdraw from the position I have held heretofore on this question. I am certain everyone of my colleagues in the Cabinet who still hold directorships have carefully considered whether they are such as to permit them to discharge with credit the duties of the office to which they have been called. Some of them have consulted me on this particular point, and I have always found them fastidious to the last degree in the decisions to which they have come. I have not pressed my views upon them; I have not asked them for information, and I do not mean to ask them. I have absolute confidence in their honour and discretion, and I believe it is confidence in the honour and discretion of the public men who are called to office in this country, and not in any hard and fast illogical rule laid down by this House, that the credit and honour of public life in this country for all time will depend.

said that if the hon. Member divided the House on this Amendment he should certainly support him. He should do so without imputing to any member of the present Cabinet the desire to do anything dishonourable. He took his stand on what he regarded as a fundamental principle of right, which was that no man should ever be placed in a position in which there might be a conflict between his interests and his duty. The members of a Cabinet exercised quasi-judicial duties; they determined what measures they should introduce and what Bills they would support which were introduced by others. One of the fundamental principles of law, ethics, and morality was that no man should have an interest in any case in which he had to exercise judicial functions. That was the foundation of his objection. The objection to Ministers being directors had been put by speakers on both sides of the House upon two grounds. In the first place it was said that being a director took away some portion of the time which otherwise would be devoted to the public service. There was a great deal in that objection, but if that were the only one he thought possibly that it might be got over, although it appeared rather inconsistent that Members of the Civil Service should be precluded from holding directorships in public companies. He rested his objection on the higher ground that Ministers who were directors of great public companies should not hold those directorships while they were members of the Cabinet. Occasions must arise in the course of their deliberations in the Cabinet when the interests of those particular companies would be more or less involved. It was impossible to disabuse the public mind of the belief that the fact of Cabinet Ministers being members of public companies would operate upon the policy which they would advocate in this House. That was a most alarming state of things, and would tend greatly to shake public confidence in the integrity and the honour of the House of Commons. The First Lord of the Treasury had endeavoured, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum, to get rid of the argument in favour of this Motion, and he said that if they pushed this argument to its extreme conclusion, no great landowner ought to be a member of the Cabinet. Could anything be more remote from the question they were now considering than such a suggestion? Did they expect that officers in the Civil Service should have no property? Was there going to be a rule to say that no man should enter the Civil Service unless he disposed of all his private property? How could that be compared with the fact of Cabinet Ministers being directors? A Cabinet Minister who was a director must either betray his trust to his company or to his country by letting the interests of the private body of which he was a member prevail over his duty as a Cabinet Minister. He therefore dismissed that argument as almost puerile and absurd. The suggestion that his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Donegal made a personal attack on the Duke of Devonshire was also unworthy of the First Lord of the Treasury. Surely the House of Commons was not to be overshadowed and overpowered by any name, however great. Surely the maxim of the law, that "the King can do no wrong," was not to be extended to read "the Duke of Devonshire can do no wrong." Why was that introduced unless it was to throw dust in the eyes of some hon. Gentlemen opposite and create a prejudice at the outset against the principle of this Amendment? They were not here dealing with any particular individuals. They were dealing with a broad fact, and that fact was recognised in almost every department of the State. Any man who knew anything of the law knew that judges who were shareholders in a company could not sit and hear any case in which that company was interested, no matter how remote the interest was. The principle was recognised that there should be no conflict between the interest of the individual and the duty of a judge in the administration of justice. How did that differ in principle from the case involved here? If a director in one of those great gain-making companies, such as the Peninsular and Oriental Company, went into the Cabinet and a question was raised, the decision of which might materially affect the interests for good or bad of that company, how could they expect the public, however undeservedly, not to come to the conclusion that that man had not an unbiassed judgment in determining the question. It was obvious to any fair-minded man that there was a fundamental principle at stake which was violated by the evil against which this Amendment was levelled. It was said that it would be a very hard thing when choosing a Cabinet to ask any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who happened to hold a directorship to give up that directorship. He could not see the hardship of that. Cabinet Ministers were well paid for their services, and to make use of a homely phrase, "There are as good fish in the sea as ever were caught." If an efficient candidate for the Cabinet could not accept the office because of his holding a directorship in some great public company, there would be plenty of others equally good to fill the place. Therefore, there could be no suggestion that any public loss or inconvenience would result from such a state for things. The other suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would be that if they extended this to its logical conclusion, no shareholder in a company ought to sit on the House of Commons. That, of course, was quite a different thing. Some people thought that if a Bill was brought forward seriously affecting the interests if a company, an ordinary unofficial

moved, as an Amendment to the Address, at end, to add: "And we humbly express our regret that no mention is made in His Majesty's Gracious Speech of the unsatisfactory condition of His Majesty's Navy." He said that during the recess he had been much struck with the great number of speeches that had been made in England and Scotland by Ministers, ex-Ministers, and Members of Parliament, and in looking over these speeches he found that, with hardly an exception, the importance of the Navy was dwelt upon. What, however, had struck him as very peculiar in all these references was that there never was any allusion to an efficient Navy: it was all a question of the number of ships. The idea that possessed the minds of those who expressed their love for the Navy was apparently "Give us plenty of ships and our Empire will be safe." That might be so; but these gentlemen, for all they said, would be satisfied with a flotilla of mud-punts. He had put his Amendment down on the Paper solely for the reason that he whished to show that the question of the Navy was not a matter of mere platform platitudes and oratorical display. These would not secure an efficient Navy, although he admitted that some hon. Members wished to increase the Navy at the expense of the Army. What he wanted, by means of his Amendment, was to insist that the Navy was in an unsatisfactory condition. He started away with that. Now, he, for one, with all due allowance to the experts, so-called, held that our modern Navy was unsatisfactory, and he would endeavour to prove his position. What constituted a real modern warship, an efficient ship? He used the word "efficient," because they were dealing with efficiency. Further, he would ask, "Have we got efficient warships?" An efficient warship ought to be of maximum offensive power, of maximum defensive power, of maximum steaming power, with safety, and of minimum dimensions with least exposure to an enemy. He would endeavour to show that we had not got such vessels. He would put his indictment in as plain language as possible, divested entirely of all professional technicalities. What had we got as a safe battleship? He would take the "Russell," which was built on the Tyne by Palmer, was supposed to be a perfect example of the efficiency of British Naval Power, and was to be sent to the Mediterranean to relieve the "Canopus." It must be borne in mind that in the old days of wooden fighting ships a great amount of value was given to what was called the fighting tops. These tops were large spaces on which sharp-shooters stood for the purpose of shooting down on the enemy's vessels. In those days vessels were fought "hammer and tongs" fashion, alongside each other, which gave our seamen and opportunity to board and capture the enemy. But the modern style of fighting was very different. The idea was still dominant with the Admiralty, and with our so-called experts, that the fighting would take place with the opposing vessels alongside each other. But in future naval battles the ships would be 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 yards apart. There would be no more "hammer and tongs" fighting, and no more boarding pikes. We would try to demolish the enemy's ships with our big guns. Now what did we find on the "Russell"? There was foremast and a mainmast both with fighting tops each weighing forty-five or fifty tons. Now, and this was a question of efficiency, what was the use of fighting tops on a modern warship? Supposing that the "Russell" was in action and that her foremast was struck by a 380 lb. shell. Why the mast, weighing forty or fifty tons, would, if it fell forward, crush and disable the forward gun turret; if it fell astern it would smash every funnel on board; and if it fell to the side it would destroy the bulwarks and broadside armaments. Suppose the mast had fallen on to the funnels, the men would all be asphyxiated between decks. These appliances were not fit to stand the stern test of war. The ships would be destroyed before they could escape. The Navy was relying on things of the past which were now practically useless. He might be asked what he would propose instead. He would make an efficient warship with the least possible number of things on deck that could be carried away. Instead of thirty-five, forty or fifty ton masts, he would put up a light pole for signalling and showing lights, and if that were carried away the blue-jackets would be able to throw it overboard. With reference to funnels, he would go back to the old plan of telescopic funnels. Take one of the four-funnelled frauds, the modern cruisers, and put her into action. Where would she be if her funnels were knocked down? He would have no top hamper on the vessels, and only the least possible number of objects that could be hit. He had shown the House, he thought very plainly, and at least practically, that the Navy had not efficient ships in that respect. This was a question of design. He wanted to show that the designs were bad, and that an efficient warship could not be built from them. The top hamper and gear which was now fitted on deck was a very dangerous adjunct to a warship. He would now refer to the guns. Two and a half or three years ago he brought to the attention of the House the undergunning of ships in the Navy, and he referred at that time to the great displacement of Navy vessels. If the least attention had been given to what such vessels should be, as offensive machines, they would never have been gunned as they were. He admitted that the Admiralty were now paying attention to the matter. Two great cruisers, the "Powerful" and the "Terrible" were built eight years ago in reply to the construction of two Russian cruisers. The "Powerful" and the "Terrible" cost over a million of money each, and it was only now that more guns were being put into them. Why was not that done at the beginning? Where were the experts, and where was the efficiency? Several of the ships in the Navy were undergunned, and there was no getting away from that fact, Take the "County" class, which were being built at present. What was their discharge? He thought only 1,400 lbs. Why was that? He for one could not see the reason for it; neither could he see the efficiently of it; but he could see the weakness of it. He had taken a special interest in the "Terrible" and the "Powerful," which the then Chief Constructor of the Navy had fitted with French contrivances instead of boilers. He himself warned the Chief Constructor of the danger that was looming ahead as the result of what he was doing, of the rock he was going to strike upon, and the ruin to which he was about to bring the British Navy. So much was he interested in the matter that he wrote to the Chief Constructor and told him that he did not wish to see one leaf taken from his laurels, but for Heaven's sake to be careful what he was doing. The House of Commons was nothing if not a business assembly. Hon. Members were not theorists. They should be all practical Britons, and look at things from a practical point of view, and they should not be upset by theoretical notions. Boilering was the weak point in the Admiralty, who imagined themselves the immaculate conceptors of new contrivances. He could not understand the weakness, but he knew that the Admiralty were afraid to own up to their own shortcomings. The "Powerful" was sent to China, and he was not exaggerating one iota when he said that the vessel consumed all the spare coal at Colombo and Singapore on the way out. He knew the quantity of coal she burned, and it was startling. She was now home again, and what had taken place? Why, nothing. She was lying down at Portsmouth, and let the Admiralty now try and steam her the twenty-three knots for which she was designed. Although she was not yet two years old, they could not do it. She was simply scrap. Then take the case of the "Terrible." Much had been heard about the men of the "Terrible," who were terrible in name and in nature, and about their grand shooting with Captain Percy Scott's marker. But what did the "Terrible" steam? She steamed from Wei-hai-wei to Hong Kong in nine months; and during the whole time that she was out in China he did not believe that she did six months fair steaming. Where was she now? She was lying at Portsmouth, and let the Admiralty try and take twenty-two knots out of her if they could. He wanted to know how the money was being spent, and to direct attention to the extravagance, the squandering, and the inefficiency which characterised the Department which was supposed to give the nation a proper Navy. He challenged contradiction of what he had said. Hon. Members were elected to look after the interests of the Empire, and were they to sit dumb when Estimates for £33,000,000 sterling were brought before them, and never ask a question as to how the money was to be spent? No Member of Parliament had a right to represent a constituency unless he went to the bottom of the expenditure of the country. That was his position, and that was the position he had taken up ever since he had the honour of being a Member of the House. But he could not get at the bottom of the cost, or of the extravagance and ramifications which were at work. The result was —and he was sorry to say it—inefficiency, and ships that could not be depended upon. He would not make a single statement that could not be substantiated up to the hilt. He had oftentimes been accused of exaggeration and of painting the picture incorrectly; but every word he had uttered had been proved up to the hilt. He had shown that the ships on which they were depending were inefficient, and that they were badly designed to meet the stress and strain of real war. They appeared very well on paper; nothing was more beautiful than a warship on paper; but it was war they would have to face; f they were not fit for that, then he held they were inefficient; they would come to grief the moment their top hampers were blown down. No number of letters in The Times, or apologies from the late Chief Constructor could get over the facts, which could not be disputed. He now wished to refer to what he would call the financial aspect of the unsatisfactory condition of the Navy. As he had said, it was the duty of every Member to get to the bottom of the expenditure of the country if he could. What did they find with regard to the Navy? He would show the House conclusively how the money was being spent. Unfortunately hon. Members were kept in the dark, and it was only by adopting certain methods that he got to know what was happening. He would show the House what the country had to pay for inefficient ships. It was well known that the body politic of the Admiralty was nothing else than an experimenting body. He would show that the work which was being carried on by the Admiralty could have been carried on for a mere song if the experts knew their business. An expert, after all, was a man who ought to know his business; and an expert at the Admiralty who did not know his business cost the country millions. It was well known that the Admiralty decided to fit a German boiler into the "Medusa" and a Yarrow boiler into the "Medea." The Scotch boilers in those two ships were perfectly good, but the ships were sent down to the Tyne, to Palmer's, who were given a free hand to cut up the decks and take out the so-called old boilers—which were quite as fit as a German boiler which the Admiralty knew nothing about—and as the Yarrow boiler, of which they knew only a little. No specification was given, and the job was carried out on what was known as "time and lime." Why did the Admiralty take out first-class boilers and put in boilers of which they knew little or nothing? £50,000 would be spent on each of the ships before the job was finished. Why could not the Admiralty experts—the word "experts" grated on him—buy two collier steamers for £4,000 each? He imagined that many hon. Members would be glad to sell two of their ships at that figure. The old boilers could be taken out and the new ones put in; the ships could be run up and down the coast carrying coal for the Admiralty and earning their own money; and the horse-power, the quantity of coal burned, and the defects could be ascertained. That was one way in which money was being spent without a word being said. Take another case. The "Diadem," a brand new ship, was sent down to Glasgow to Fairfield's, and was handed over without one scintilla of a specification as to the work to be done. The Government were to pay for the labour and the material, 20 per cent. for charges, and 10 per cent. for profit. He would take on the entire Fleet for that, and make his fortune mighty quickly out of it. But would any business man call that business? At present there was a ship on the Tyne, and one of the officials told him that the contractors would keep her as long as they liked, as they had no specification and there was no check. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were being spent in that way, and there was nothing to show for it but an inefficient Navy. He would be prepared to vote money without demur. No one could say that he had ever raised his voice against expenditure on the Navy; but he had raised his voice against building inefficient ships and deluding the country. He would give the House a list of the inefficient ships. When the "Canopus," a first-class battleship, was sent abroad there were the usual newspaper platitudes coming from the Admiralty, of course, as to what a magnificent vessel she was. All the vocabulary of Mesopotamia was used Now the "Canopus" was home again, and although she was only three years old she was practically done. Where was the "Montagu"? She was lying in harbour now and could not steam. And why? Simply because the water tube boilers put into her would not hold peas, let alone water. The Secretary to the Admiralty at one time was a capital critic, but he was muzzled now. He could not, however, get away from the fact that there was a great squandering of the public money going on, and that we were only getting inefficiency in return. He would read a list of vessels which were practically of no use to us at the present moment. They included the "Montagu," the "Canopus," the "Crecy," the "Glory," the "Terrible," the "Niobe," the "Diadem," the "Furious," the "Europa," the "Hermes," the "Pactolus," and the "Hyacinth." These were only a few of the vessels which were laid up, and he wanted to direct the attention of the House to the fact that all of them were new ships. They had cost the country from £1,000,000 downwards. They were vessels on which we and the country were told we could depend for the defence of the Empire. Was that the case? It was not. They were cripples. Where was their boasted efficiency? Parliament voted £32,000,000 or £33,000,000 annually for building and keeping up ships which were of no use. How long were they going to continue that? He could not understand why it was they were all so dumb and silent in the face of such a grave position. Members of Parliament in their speeches of late had had a good deal to say about the Navy, which they had described as our first line of defence, and on the maintenance of which they had advocated the spending of more money, even going so far as to suggest that less should be devoted to the Army. They had adopted that line because they had said that upon the Navy we must depend for the security of our food supply in time of war. That was all very well theoretically, but what were the practical facts? Our ships could not steam, and why? No man could fight a battle, or run a race, or do any work if his heart was bad. What was the condition of the British Fleet? The boilers are the heart of a ship. The heart of every one of the ships was bad. They could not trust them. Their dockyards were piled up with vessels awaiting repair. The Government establishments could not overtake the work, and conse- quently the ships were being sent to Barrow, the Clyde, and the Tyne. He challenged the Admiralty to disprove these facts; he challenged them to show there was a single ship they could keep on full-speed power continuously without coming to grief. He was sorry to have to say these things. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to be able to declare that our Fleet was incomparable and invincible. But when he looked at these vessels—which had cost the nation millions of money—lyingin our dockyards, doing no work, he was driven sorrowfully to the conclusion that the public money was being spent uselessly and wastefully. Take the case of the submarines. What were we getting in regard to them for our money? We were obtaining these vessels from America, and at the same time we were going to France and Germany for our boilers. We had better have the enginerooms staffed with Frenchmen, for apparently we could not do without Frenchmen in our Navy. But to return to the submarines. He told them long ago that they would not do, that he feared they would soon hear of more explosions with fatal results, and that they would have further instances of money being wasted. One objection to them was that gasoline engines were used in them. The fumes from these were very deleterious. One never knew what was going to happen, and he would not be the least surprised at any moment to hear of the bursting up of some of these vessels. Had the Admiralty had the interests of the country at heart, had they been the true patriots they represented themselves to be, they would have offered a prize of £5,000 or £10,000 for the best submarine boat of British design, instead of buying them from America and France. Why did they not experiment with them before they purchased them? They obtained a number of submarine boats from the States without knowing their value and without giving them a fair trial. Was it business for a Department which had the administration of public money to go and buy vessels costing £30,000 or £40,000 a piece without first trying them? He ventured to say it was gross extravagance. There had been a gross squandering of the public money, and it was the duty of the House to look into the matter. By pursuing such a policy they were tending to ruin the Empire, not to save it. Their ships were bad—the House knew it, and the Admiralty knew it. The designs were bad, and the vessels were under-gunned. He had warned them often, but he had been speaking as unto milestones and not to men. He had warned them that with such cripples for vessels they might expect at any time to hear of disasters involving the loss of many lives. They had no fleet on which they could depend. He had attempted to prove, and he challenged disproof, that they were squandering the nation's money and getting no equivalent for it. They were designing ships which would be of no use in war time, and they were putting in them Babcock and Wilcox boilers which were tried in the merchant navy years ago and were found not to be a success. At one time the Admiralty was "Bellevilled," now it was being "Rosenthaled." He knew all the moves. It was the duty of Parliament to look to the safety of the Empire, but they are not performing that duty. He thought he had proved incontestably that the money voted by the House for these vessels was not spent wisely or well, and that in time it would be found to be detrimental to the best interests of the Empire. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

seconded the motion. He said he represented a constituency which, like that of the hon. Member who had just spoken, took a great interest in naval matters, although on political topics their views differed. He was not an expert. He desired, however, to give expression to the views of his constituents, views which were, in fact, those of the man in the street, with regard to this important matter. What were the reasons generally advanced for the statement that the Navy was in an unsatisfactory condition? The first was that so many of our ships were fitted with water-tube boilers, the second was scarcity of men to man the Navy, and the third was the large number of ships that were at all times unfit to go to sea. Why was it that at a time when there was such uneasiness expressed in regard to our food supplies in time of war there was such a general lack of confidence in the Navy? He ventured to say that in addition to the reasons already mentioned there were the following, which called for serious consideration—the increased strength of foreign navies, the importance of our food supply, the acquisition by America of our fastest steamers, and the publicity which had been given to the failure and defects of our brand new cruiser the "Good Hope," which had recently taken the Colonial Secretary to South Africa. Speaking not as an expert on naval matters, but as a merchant shipowner who had for many years taken some interest in the improvement of boilers, he was absolutely surprised that the Admiralty had caused our Navy to be used to so large an extent for experiments in connection with water-tube boilers. He had made enquiries in regard to these boilers in all directions from experienced men, and he was told that the main advantage to be gained was that they got up steam quickly. He was also told that they did not weigh so heavy as the Scotch boilers. These were all-important advantages, but what were the disadvantages? The first was that they are apt to break down at a most critical time, and, secondly, that the repairs and renewals of these boilers were most expensive. Concurrently with the outlay of a large amount on repairs, the ships had to lie idle for a considerable time. They also found that the stokers had lost confidence in the boilers. That, in itself, would be a most serious matter in time of war. They further found that there was a very heavy coal consumption. What was the use of having a boiler lighter than the Scotch boiler if they were going to counteract that advantage by carrying a larger supply of coal? For thirty years he had been told that the water-tube boiler was the boiler of the future. It appeared to him that it was still the boiler of the future. Thirty-five years ago water-tube boilers were fitted to vessels on the Tyne, but they had to take them out. They were no doubt excellent boilers in some respects, and he knew of one which had since been used most successfully for driving machinery on land, although while it was in a vessel at sea it was found to be absolutely inefficient. He found from a Return moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woolwich that the highest outlay in respect of Scotch boilers in ships named in the Report was about £8,250. But what was the case with the water-tube boiler? The "Hermes" was only commissioned in 1899, and no less than £40,863 had been spent on her boilers, including £32,400 for new boilers. Yet he could mention a ship in which he was interested that had on board a boiler of 150-lbs. pressure, which was built in 1882, and on which not 500 shillings had since been spent. The "Europa" was commissioned in July 1899. The expenditure on her water-tube boilers had since amounted to £26,935. In the case of the "Powerful," which was commissioned in 1897 the expenditure was returned at £20,675. What had the mercantile marine shipowners been doing for the last thirty or forty years? They had been endeavouring to get a boiler which would last for a large number of years and decrease the coal consumption. That boiler was found in the Scotch boiler. There was no better or more efficient boiler. Our Navy had been made the ground for a gigantic series of experiments with these water-tube boilers. He did not blame the Admiralty for experimenting with new inventions. It was their duty to do so, but the Empire ought not to be exposed to the danger of having many of its finest ships fitted with boilers which were practically unknown and in which there was no confidence. He desired to press upon the Admiralty the fact that these boilers were likely to break down in critical times, such as when a vessel was called upon to pursue an enemy, or to retreat from one who was too strong. Even if they had to sacrifice some small advantages, they wanted a boiler in which they had confidence. He would like to ask the Admiralty whether they proposed to fit water-tube boilers to the two new fast Cunarders which were to go longer voyages and be able to overtake and destroy the very fastest merchant cruisers of other nations. In view of what was to be expected of them, they ought not to put in boilers in which they had no confidence. He was amazed at the number of comparatively modern ships he saw lying absolutely idle in the dockyards. Some of them had been only short voyages and others had practically never been commissioned. He was told that in the first place something was the matter with the machinery or boilers, and then, in a sort of confidential way, that there were not sufficient men to man them. What was the use of continually building new ships if there were no means of manning them? In a Blue-book issued last session he found that in 1891 we had in the mercantile marine 127,567 British born sailors, 23,884 foreign born sailors and 21,332 Lascars, but on 31st March, 1901, we only had 120,412 British-born seamen, whilst the number of foreigners had risen to 32,614, and the Lascars numbered 33,610. While, therefore there was a very small increase in the total number, it was entirely among the Lascars and foreigners, and the British numbers had decreased by 7,150. Bearing those figures in mind, and remembering that whilst in 1891ndash;2 we only required 61,000 sailors and marines for the Navy, in 1901ndash;2, we required 104,000, and in 1902ndash;3 the number had risen to 120,000, he would ask the Admiralty to tell them whether they were increasing their reserves in a similar ratio to the increase in the number of men required, year after year, in the Navy. This was a most serious matter, because, in time of war, the first thing the Admiralty would need would be to take men from the mercantile marine to remforce the Navy. If that were done, what was to become of our food supplies in time of war? He sincerely trusted that one of the results of the debate would be that the naval authorities would cease to allow our ships to be used wholesale for experimental matters. If they had made mistakes, let them have the courage to retrieve them, and take care to regain the confidence of the people in the Navy. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—

"And we humbly express our regret that no mention is made in His Majesty's Gracious Speech of the unsatisfactory condition of His Majesty's Navy." — (Sir William Allan.)

said he rose for the purpose of making a few observations on the Motion submitted to the House by his hon. friend opposite. He hardly thought the hon. Gentleman behind him, who had seconded the Motion, could have very carefully read the Resolution, because he had practically seconded a Motion expressing a wish that there should be in the King's Speech the words, "My Lords and Gentlemen, the condition of my Navy is unsatisfactory." He deprecated raising a discussion upon this great question in this form. They were close to the time when they would have an explanatory statement as to the condition of the Navy from the authorised representatives of the Admiralty, when they could discuss it. He deprecated raising a debate upon the matter in this way, because, in his opinion, it was neither in the interests of the public service nor of the Navy itself.

said he shared the views of the the last speaker that it would be convenient to discuss this question more thoroughly than could be done now after he had had an opportunity of explaining the policy of the Admiralty in greater detail to the House, but it was due to the House, when once the subject was raised, for the Minister responsible to the House to make some sort of reply. He had listened, as he always did, with great interest to the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion, but he was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to take an exaggerated view of the incapacity of the Admiralty. The House would welcome bona fide criticism of any Department of the State, and especially of the Admiralty, but he did not think that criticism became more valuable when carried to the extreme of some of the expressions used by the hon. Member. The great questions of armament and machinery were not dealt with under the authority of Government officers in the light spirit suggested; and he pointed out that it had been his own happy fortune, during the two years he had been in office, to see a large number of changes which the the hon. Member and others had advocated carried into practical effect. He was not there to defend the Belleville boiler. He was exonerated from that task by the report of the Boiler Committee. He had never been able to see the wisdom of the great experiment which was made in the introduc- tion of the Belleville boiler to the whole of our ships under construction. But that was a matter long past; and the Committee had reported to the effect that the Belleville boiler, though very good in some respects, was the least suitable watertube boiler for the Navy. His hon. friend would give the Admiralty credit for the fact that from that time the Belleville boiler was discontinued, and it had been discarded for His Majesty's ships. The hon. Member had been an advocate of the cylindrical boiler. For the first time for many years, the Admiralty were trying the newest and latest type of cylindrical boiler in our ships, and they were building ship after ship in which the latest pattern of cylindrical boiler was being inserted. The hon. Member had often alleged that. They had been comparing the cylindrical boilers in our ships put in ten years ago with the latest pattern of water-tube boiler, but they were also giving a trial to the new type of cylindrical boiler. Though he did not dissent from the finding of the Boiler Committee, he thought that the opinion expressed by them was far from being generally adopted. He could not assent to the hon. Member's criticism when he spoke of the inefficiency of the Navy—that was a phrase he could not consent to allow to go unchallenged. Was there any country in the world where the practice this country had adopted had not been followed? If they had to go to war, they would find foreign ships with precisely the same type of boiler.

That is no argument at all. If your opponent has a wooden leg are you to put on one also?

I think the argument is a very strong one.

It is no argument at all.

said he thought that the argument was a very strong one when it was found that the navies of all other countries were combining in the interest of efficiency to introduce and use certain appliances adopted by this country. The hon. Member had spoken of the Babcock and Wilcox boiler. He had heard him before now draw comparisons not altogether favourable to this country in favour of the United States of America, but the Babcock and Wilcox boiler had been selected by the United States Navy for half their battleships and the Niclausse boiler was also used; so that the hon. Member was not correct when he supposed that we are along it trying this unknown boiler.

The Babcock and Wilcox boiler, the right hon. Gentleman must remember, is an American boiler and not an English boiler.

said that he was unable to see the relevancy of that observation. As to the designs of our ships, we had the advantage of having two designers unparalleled in their career, and it was very remarkable that their design should have been condemned.

I have not seen the designs.

Then the hon. Member should not condemn them.

condemned the ships.

In what respect had these designs been condemned? Mention had been made of the "Russell." He had been in many foreign battleships and in all our own, and there was not a single battleship in any foreign Navy which was so lightly masted, or which had such little top-hamper, or was so little encumbered as the "Russell." If errors so gross and palpable had been made by our designers, it was remarkable that the errors should be copied in an exaggerated form by foreign designers. The hon. Member quoted the "Powerful" and "Terrible" as two vessels that showed beyond contradiction the failure of the Admiralty designs in comparison with those of the "Rossia" and the "Rurik." He would take the opinion of any naval officer as to which of those two types of ships he would rather be on board of in an action. He had been in both; and he could only say Heaven help the men in those vessels with unprotected guns in an action with vessels like the "Powerful" and "Terrible," which had all their guns protected. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty were entirely forgetting the question of gunnery in our ships. He himself had shared the opinion of the hon. Member that some of our ships had not the gun power that they ought to have. But that was years ago. Class after class of those ships had been strengthened because other ships had been built to compete with them. The "Terrible" and the "Powerful," the "Centurion," and the "Barfleur," and all the ships in the "Eclipse" class had had their armament strengthened; and the new ships like the "New Zealand" and the "Duke of Edinburgh"—which really ought to be chosen for comparison with the new foreign ships—possessed a protection and gun power which were unparalleled in any Navy of the world. The way in which the hon. Member had spoken of submarines was an example of the extraordinary rashness and recklessness of his assertions. He said that the Admiralty ought to have experimented with some of these vessels before committing themselves, and ought to have introduced British talent into their construction. That was precisely what the Admiralty had done. They bought five of what was at the time the one successful type, which was available so that trials might be made in more than one place and at more than one time. The vessels were experimented with and examined from every point of view by exceedingly competent naval officers and engineers. The value of their suggestions was utilised to the full, and as a result it had been possible in this brief space of time to produce a vessel, substantially of British design and wholly of British manufacture, which was believed to be a great improvement on the original boat. Then the hon. Member fell foul of the Admiralty for the system of repairs which they had adopted. He appealed to any large shipowner to say whether this system was not the most profitable, and whether it was not found that the contractors, instead of swindling those who entrusted work to them, saw it to be to their own interest to do the work as quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as they could. To say that the Admiralty knew nothing about what was going on in the repairing yards was one of the extraordinary exaggerations into which the hon. Member allowed himself to fall. The Admiralty had inspectors in all these yards, though personally he did not place his chief reliance on the minuteness of their inspection. He relied much more on the fact that that the Admiralty was dealing with great companies who knew that the continuance of the Government's custom, and the renewal of orders, must depend upon the success with which their contracts were carried out. He would ask the House to wait Until the Admiralty had carried their experiments further; and when the firstfruits of those experiments had been gathered he believed it would be possible to show that the experience of all the great mercantile companies was not contradicted by that of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Newcastle had fallen into a fallacy, which vitiated his argument, of comparing the needs of the mercantile marine with those of the Navy. Any conclusion based on an analogy between men-of-war and mercantile vessels must be misleading. Probably the new Cunarders were not to be fitted with water-tube boilers, as the hon. Member suggested. But the class of work which they had to perform was totally dissimilar from that of a cruiser doing the ordinary work of the Navy. Those ships were specifically designed to enable them to overtake the ships of a precisely similar character with which they might be confronted in time of war. As long as they performed that office, it was all that could be expected of them. The case was not strengthened by saying that their arrangements differed from those of a cruiser which had to carry on the ordinary work of a cruiser in time of peace. As to the question of manning, there was no difficulty about the manning of the Navy such as the hon. Member suggested. There were certain branches of the Navy in which the Admiralty intended to have a larger personnel; but the personnel as voted by Parliament was actually over borne. He hoped in a few days to lay before the House the proposals of the Government with regard to these lacunce, which undoubtedly did exist. Sir Edward Grey's Committee had reported, and its recommendations had not been left out of sight; and he should soon be able to give the effect of the Admiralty's proposals with regard to any shortage in the personnel of the Navy. He must protest emphatically against the acceptance of such an Amendment, and the suggestion that the Navy was at the present time inefficient. He absolutely denied that suggestion. The Navy was making very rapid strides in the direction of improvement. The advance was palpable; and the hon. Member for Gateshead, instead of indulging in jeremiads, might have given some credit for the progress which was being made.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said the subject of the Motion which he now proposed to move he had brought before the House on many previous occasions, and he was now going to make another attempt to see if he could not soften the heart of the Government in connection with this matter, and persuade them to make another effort to put a stop to the enormous extensions which were being made to the deer forests in the highlands and islands of Scotland. This was an old-standing grievance. Twenty years ago there were agrarian grievances in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, and the Government of that day established the Napier Commission, which reported that no one could contemplate the changing of good pasture land into deer forests without regret. The Report of the Napier Commission was issued in 1883, but nothing had been done to prevent the extension of these deer forests. He submitted that the Government had neglected this matter throughout, though happily Sir George Trevelyan, when at the Scotch Office, did succeed in introducing a Bill, which he passed into law, securing fixity of tenure to the crofters. He could not understand why the Government were so blind to the facts. It ought to be their policy to keep the Highlanders, who were a fine, sturdy and martial race, in the Highlands. The rentals for deer forests amounted in 1870 to £73,000, in 1877 to £230,000, and in 1886 to £363,000, while at present they amounted to over £500,000. The increase of the deer-forest area was condemned by all who had the interests and well-being of the Highland people at heart, but of course the owners of the deer forests did not want their high rentals disturbed. Between 1883 and 1899, thirty-four new forests were created, and the extensions between 1891 and 1898 amounted to 142,000 acres, while since that date the increase had been even more rapid. The House would doubtless be told that no evictions had taken place. That was true, but what about the evictions before the deer forests were made? Years ago the people were evicted from the land to make big sheep runs, and now, as the leases of the sheep farms ran out, the farms were being turned into deer forests. What was wanted was that the people should be put back on the land, and the sheep runs used by the people for the benefit of the people. Some consideration should be given to the Reports of Royal Commissions. Where was the use of appointing such bodies unless action were taken on their findings? For twenty years the recommendations of the Napier Commission had been before the country, but nothing had resulted. The Liberals would have taken action by which 500,000 acres would now have been placed at the disposal of the people, but Sir George Trevelyan was opposed by the then Opposition on the ground that the Bill he introduced was not sufficiently generous. It had been suggested that landlords, when they desired to extend their deer forests, should come before Parliament with private Bills. He shought that would be a very cumbertome process, especially as machinery already existed whereby the matter could be properly dealt with. Hitherto the Crofters Commission had done its work most satisfactorily, and he thought the time had arrived when its powers might be so extended that the Commission should be the body to decide what land should be set aside for the people. All that was necessary was that the Government should put that machinery into working order. Before the Napier Commission reported, the usual plea of the Government was that there was no land in the Highlands suitable for the people. The Deer Forest Commissioners, however, showed that there were now used for sport no less than 1,782,785 acres of land suitable for occupation by the people, of which 795,000 acres were suitable for new holdings, 440,000 acres for the extension of existing holdings, and 548,000 acres for moderate-sized farms. The excuse now was lack of money. It was a strange thing that the Government could find any amount of money to put the Boers back on their farms, and to do things in others lands. Why did they not set their house at home in order? That would be the more creditable course to pursue. For years the Government dangled before the eyes of the country the promise of a scheme. At last the Congested Districts Board was established, its chief function being that of migrating crofters and cottars from the congested areas to other parts. That Board was endowed with many powers, for the carrying out of which Parliament had voted altogether about £150,000. But of that sum only £18,000 had been spent on the purchase of land, and £21,000 in connection with small holdings and loans; as the greater part of the latter sum would be repaid, it might be said that only £18,000 out of £150,000 had been spent on the main purpose for which the Board was created, viz., the migration of the people from the congested areas. On the Island of Lewis there were 30,000 people. How they lived was a mystery. But not a single shilling had been expended in Ross-shire or Argyllshire on migration. A Report had been prepared on the social condition of the Island of Lewis. He would therefore not press that matter, but simply express the hope that the Government would speedily act on that Report. There would doubtless be legislation when the Liberal Party returned to power, but he wanted the present Government to get a share of the honour and glory. As they would not have the chance much longer, he urged them speedily to take up this Report and deal with it satisfactorily. The depopulation of the Highlands was a very serious matter indeed. A great deal was heard of "Imperial policy." He was as Imperial as any "Imperialist;" he desired to see our great Empire maintained; but he wished the Government would make some Imperial experiments nearer home; our own people had the first claim to be looked after. The Highlanders were becoming poorer every year; large numbers had to seek parochial relief; and the taxation increased. If only the people were given access to the land, less of this wretched poverty would exist, and a fine, hardy race would grow up in thousands. That was a sad and unhappy state of things. The object of the House ought to be to keep the people in the country, whereas they had been driven off the land into the slums of the towns. The Highlands was the very place where the people ought to be kept as a nursery for the Army and Navy. The land ought to be distributed amongst those who want to use it. Let the Highlanders have the land, and provide them with technical education. This would give the population a chance of staying in their native land instead of devastating the country in order that deer might thrive. They had now a difficulty in getting recruits for the Army amongst the Highlanders, because, when they came back from the battlefield, they found their homes burned down and their parents turned out of doors. That was not the way to increase recruits for the Army. He implored the Government to do something to stay the extension of these deer forest areas, and they should give the authorities power to allocate land now used as deer forests for the people to live upon. Send the deer up on to the hills, and not down into the fertile valleys.

said he desired to second the Motion of his hon. friend. During the last few days they had been discussing the problem of the unemployed, but the discussion had been confined very much to the question of the unemployed in our great towns. But they had also got an unemployed question in Scotland, and they were unemployed because they could not get an opportunity to work. There was plenty of land to be had, and plenty of men to till it, and yet the men could not be brought back to the land. There was a demand for small holdings in the Highlands, and yet they could not be obtained. The complaint in England was that they could not get people to go into the country to take up small hold- ings, but in the Highlands there were hundreds of people anxious, and willing, and able to take small holdings, and they could not get them. He did not entirely condemn deer forests, because they were in many places a benefit, for some of the land was suitable for nothing else; but where deer forests made it difficult to get small holdings, then he thought their existence constituted a national danger. The creation of sheep farms swept away the tenants and drove them down to the sea shore. Some of those who turned their estates into sheep farms are sorry that they turned off the tenants. Those sheep farms are now unlettable and, although deer forests are fashionable and popular at present, the time may come when they, too, will be unlettable; and there was a danger that in the future in some instances they might find the deer forests would be vast tracts of uninhabited land which could not be used either for holdings or deer forests. It was a great pity that the Highland population should not be encouraged to settle upon the land. It might be said that they could not prevent a man doing as he liked with his own, but this law had its limitations, and if they prevented a man getting a higher rent as a deer forest, there were ways of compensating him. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—

"And humbly to represent to Your Majesty that the present unrestricted extension of deer forests in the Highland crofting counties in detrimental to the welfare of the Highland population and Imperial interests, inasmuch as it renders more acute the difficulties which have so long existed in regard to the Highland land question; and seeing that the Royal Commission appointed in 1892 scheduled 1,782,785 acres of land in the crofting counties as capable of being cultivated to profit, or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters or small tenants, this House is of opinion that steps should be taken with a view to admit of the ready acquisition of such of these lands as may be required for occupatfon by the people; and further, that the future extension of deer forests be subject to a Board, such as the Crofters Commission, with power to limit new deer forest areas to those lands only which are not suitable for cultivation or occupation by crofter tenants.' "—(Mr. Weir.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

It has been argued that the people of the Highlands should be able to get a living under proper economic conditions on the land of the Hightlands, and that is what everyone would be glad to see attained. I confess that the hon. Member seems to me, in the course of his remarks, to have forgotten the precise terms of the Amendment he has moved, because it is really one which is strictly limited to the extension of deer forests, and that alone. The hon. Member argues that the extension of deer forests is detrimental to Imperial and local interests, and he tried to show the truth of his proposition by the startling method of reading the figures of the valuation made in successive years, showing that under the regime of which he complained the total rateable value had increased about three or four-fold. It is rather startling to be told that a state of things which has increased the valuation of the country four-fold is detrimental to local interests. There is another matter in this connection. I think it is perfectly impossible that this increased money which is put into the Highlands does not do any local good, and I think the fancy picture of the Highland landlord who gets a large income from the deer forests and lives in London or Brighton is not at all in accordance with the facts. While fully recognising the great difficulties in connection with the settlement of some of the more congested districts of the Highland population, really this increase has nothing to do with the matter, and it does not enhance the difficulty. These particular lands, more than a century ago, were in the hands of small tenants. In recent years reafforestation has not been coupled with evictions, and the increase of afforestation has in no case turned what was arable land into grazing land. The only thing that has happened is that a certain number of sheep farms have been let to sporting tenants. So far as these various Commissions which have been quoted by the hon. Member are concerned, their findings are entirely in favour of the deer forests from an economic point of view. There is no connection between the increase of afforestation and the question of getting extra land for those who are fit to take it. In the Crofters Act, which provides for the extension of holdings, although the extension of a holding cannot be made upon ground which is subject to an existing lease, there is a special exception if that lease is the lease of a deer forest, or a sporting lease of any description. In other words, a sporting lease or afforestation is no protection against the taking of ground for the extension of a holding, and whatever it may be proposed to do in future by way of taking land for the creation of holdings, it is neither here nor there whether the land is at the moment under deer or sheep. If you were proposing a measure which would more or less allow transfers from one person to another, there would be most probably a good deal less sym- pathy in favour of the sporting tenant than the sheep tenant, and the hon. Member, instead of finding himself in a worse position, would find himself in a better one if this land were afforested. I think that is an answer to the Amendment which is brought forward, and I do not propose to go beyond the terms of the Amendment and deal with the very much larger and more serious question as to how far it is possible by State aid and compulsory legislation to ameliorate the position of the people of the Highlands by the creation of new holdings, further than to say that my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland and myself are fully alive to the importance and the difficulty of the question of ameliorating the position of the people of the Highlands; but that question is not touched by this Amendment. The subject is one which has received the very careful attention of my noble friend in his capacity of Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, and his policy has often been before the House, although it has not always been approved of. I hope I have shown that this subject is not touched by the question of afforestation, and consequently no case has been made out, even upon economic merits, for the drastic remedy which the Amendment calls for—namely, that a man should not be allowed to clear his ground of sheep and put it under deer without first obtaining the sanction of the Crofters Commission.

said this Motion raised a subject of great importance to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The Highlands of Scotland had done a great deal for this country, and it was on this account that they were venturing to urge this Amendment upon the House. There was no doubt as to the facts which had been laid before the House. Reafforestation was going on year by year, and was increasing. That was a great wrong to the North where men had the capital, but could not get the land on any terms whatever. A distinguished colleague of the right hon. Gentleman had said that the crofters had been rack-rented and driven from their holdings to make way for deer forests; they had been charged rent on their improvements, and they had been reduced to misery and degradation. That was the opinion of the present Colonial Secretary. Anyone who had visited the Highlands and Islands knew that the people were suffering from the want of land. What they blamed the Government for was, that with all the power at their hands and all the resources of the Government, they had not put the law into an efficient state. It was

said of the 1,700,000 acres of land scheduled by the Royal Commission of 1902, 1,600,000 acres were then, and were today, under sheep, cattle, and cultivation. The Report of the Commission referred, not to the deer forests alone, but also to the low ground. Out of his own estate in Scotland of 30,000 acres, only 256 acres were scheduled, whilst on the estate of Lord Tweedmouth not a single acre was scheduled. He yielded to no man in his desire to see the people restored to the straths and glens.