asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that no case of cattle disease in Argentina had been reported since January, 1909, and that the Argentine Government officially declared that country to be free from the said disease on 25th August, 1909, he would specifically state the grounds upon which the Board justify the continued exclusion of Argentine cattle for slaughter on landing in the United Kingdom?

In view of the past history of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina and of the fact that adjacent countries were known to be infected the Board felt that they must proceed in this matter with the greatest caution. Their action has, I think, been fully justified, for the disease has recently made its appearance in the Provinces of Corrientes and Entre Rios, and in the territory of Chaco and the zone north of Santa Fé. In these circumstances the withdrawal of the existing prohibition is out of the question. It would be inconsistent with the statutory obligations of the Board in the matter.

I wish to ask the hon. Baronet whether he will have any abjection to communicate to the House the exact terms of the despatches received by the Foreign Office from Buenos Ayres regarding the alleged outbreak of cattle disease in Argentina?

I think my hon. Friend must see that that is a question I must have notice of.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to do the same in this case as in the case of North America, where a cordon was put round the affected district; and to allow cattle to come from any district which is unaffected by the disease?

I do not think it is possible to do so.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been drawn to printed instructions issued to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who act as enumerators of agricultural statistics in Ireland, particularly to paragraph (51) thereof; whether any applications for portfolios were received by the Department last year; if so, how many; whether the Department supplied portfolios to the applicants; if not, why was this not done; and whether, if applications be made this year by enumerators who have not portfolios, they will be granted?

My attention has been called to the instructions referred to. The Department of Agriculture received applications for portfolios last year from nineteen constabulary districts; 138 portfolios were asked for and ninety were supplied. Owing to changes made this year in the method of recording the statistics the Department do not consider that portfolios will now be required by enumerators.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the enumerators have to carry these forms around the country, sometimes in bad weather, there is not a danger of the papers getting destroyed?

Yes, sir; it has been thought that another method can be substituted for the portfolios: the men will have a book given them.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man, named Michael Tracey, seventy-two years of age, of the town of Drogheda, county Louth, who has applied for an old age pension and has been refused on the plea that his wife, who deserted him seventeen years ago and has been living apart from him ever since, has, during the separation, received Poor Law relief; whether he is aware that Tracey himself has been all his life a hard-working industrious man of good character, and has never at any time been a burden upon the rates; and whether he will cause this case to be further inquired into with a view to securing justice for this man who, through no fault of his own. has been declared ineligible for a pension?

The Local Government Board in January, 1909, disallowed Tracey's pension, as his wife had been in receipt of outdoor relief. The fact that a husband and wife live apart does not affect the statutory provision of the Poor Law Acts that relief given to a wife shall be considered as given to the husband; and Tracey was accordingly disqualified for a pension, under Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could now say at what date he proposed to introduce to this House his promised Unemployment Assurance Bill?

As the House is aware, the Unemployed Insurance Bill is practically complete, but no date can be fixed for its introduction; and, in the circumstances of the Session, I fear it will not be possible to deal with the question this year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could now inform the House at what date he proposed to bring under the old age pension scheme those aged people hitherto disqualified solely because of Poor Law relief?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether the salary of the President of the Board of Trade has been increased, and to what amount; how long has the increase been paid; was it provided in the Act of last year that the amount of the salary should be fixed by Parliament; and why has that not been done?

The salary of the President of the Board of Trade was raised to £5,000 per annum from the date of the appointment of the present holder of that office, and that sum has been provided in the estimate for the Board of Trade for the current year. Should the House decline to vote the increased salary, the amount overpaid will be recovered.

Having regard to the terms of the Act passed, will my right hon. Friend give some fuller opportunity of discussing this matter than can arise on the Estimates; and may I ask whether my right hon. Friend notices that the salaries paid in this country are much higher than in other countries, and that many of the offices in this country which entitle Ministers to Cabinet rank do not exist in other civilised countries?

I do not think Ministers in this country are in any way overpaid. There will be ample opportunity when the Estimates for the Board of Trade comes up, which is the constitutional occasion, for discussing the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to guillotine them?

Yes, certainly.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any intelligence to communicate to the House regarding the Somali Mullah?

No, Sir, we have no confirmation of the rumours appearing in the public Press as to the death of the Mullah. I will communicate to the House any information I receive.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that in celebration of His Majesty's Accession, remission of sentences and condonation of certain offences has been granted to the Navy, Army, Mercantile Marine, and to prisoners both in the United Kingdom and in India, he could see his way to advise the grant of similar remissions to the police forces and to the Metropolitan Police, such as a reduction of the period of disqualification for a clean sheet and other measures suitable to the occasion?

To commemorate His Majesty's Accession I have approved the proposal that men of the Metropolitan Police Force who on 23rd May were undergoing punishment by fine or by suffering a decrease, for a period, in their rate of pay shall have the amount of any fine or balance of a fine outstanding on above date remitted, or a curtailment made in the unexpired period of decreased pay up to a limit of three months. Notice of this remission appeared in the newspapers yesterday.

May I ask if anything will be done for police who do not belong to the Metropolitan Police district?

They are not under my authority.

I have to report to the House that I have received the following report and certificate from the judges of the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, who were appointed to try election petitions:

"The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868. The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

"To the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons.

"Election of a Member of Parliament for the Denbighshire Boroughs, holden on the 19th day of January, 1910. In the matter of a Petition relating to the said Election presented to His Majesty's High Court of Justice on the 14th day of February, 1910. Allen Clement Edwards, petitioner. The Hon. William George Arthur Ormsby-Gore, respondent.

"We, the Hon. Sir John Compton Lawrance, Knight, and the Hon. Sir William Pickford, Knight, two of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, for the time being on the Rota for the trial of Parliamentary Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby report:—

I beg to move that a copy of the shorthand writer's notes in the election petition in East Dorset of the report of Mr. Justice Lawrance and Mr. Justice Pickford, and also the minutes of evidence be printed. I also beg to give notice that I shall oppose the issue of the writ on Monday.

It is not necessary to put that Motion. The fact that the hon. Member desires it is sufficient.

If all the Votes were as satisfactory for the Navy as the Vote for Victualling and Clothing there would be very little room for criticism. The last efforts of the Admiralty since 1907 have been quite excellent as regards victualling. It must not be understood that the food was ever bad. I joined the Service in 1859, and from that day to now the food supplied by the Government was always excellent, but the cooking, the preparation, and the system of savings which was extremely wasteful and enormously expensive to the men were very bad. That is all altered. The victualling is as good as it can be at present, but I have a few suggestions to make. One question I want to ask is, how has the general mess in the "Dreadnought" and the "Furious" been reported on? That is where the paymaster gets 9½d. for everybody on board, and has to make that go all round. The 5d. for the standard which the men have to take up is compulsory.

It is 6d. now.

Anyway the men have either 3½d. or 4½d. which they can take either from the canteen or the paymaster. In the old days they used to bake, and then steam, and then burn meat on top of potatoes, and when they burnt the food, and the men called it a "schooner on the rocks," a "burnt offering," or a "boiley-bake," which it was very like. But that is being remedied. I want to know whether the report has come in, and whether it will be adopted. To show the advantages of the new system: in the old days a bluejacket or marine really paid from 10s. to 15s. a month out of his wages extra for his food—that is besides the savings—not that the food was bad, but the wastage was so enormous that the men had to pay that. Under the new scheme the food is very much better. It is well prepared and well cooked, and the men do not pay more than from 3s. to 5s. a month extra for their necessaries in the canteen. Having also the accounts of each mess every week, the caterers know exactly how much they owe or how much they are in pocket. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to making two issuing rooms. There is one issuing room used now for the standard rations. It has increased the work a good bit, having an extra ration of 4½d. a day that the men can take up from the paymaster or the canteen. As it is now, they go for what they demand in extra rations into the hold or anywhere at all, and they ought to have a separate issuing room, which would save a lot of trouble and bother in the ship. Another matter I should like to bring forward is the scheme of economy adopted some years ago when victualling stores abroad were very much reduced. As we know in some cases we had to buy all over the world wherever our ships might be. To do that in peace time is, I think, inadvisable, but to do it in war time would be inexpedient and dangerous. I wish to know if the whole of the supplies are provided under the new system, or whether in some cases they have still to be filled up abroad?

I hope there is no intention on the part of the Admiralty to take over the canteens. I think that would be very inadvisable. They ought to be very careful in regard to the canteens that nobody will get any benefit by advocating that certain men should run them. I recommend that the whole of a ship's company should vote for the man who is to run the canteen, so that there should not be certain cliques who would get some advantage by recommending that a canteen should be run by certain people. It is in the interest of the men that the canteen should be run without anybody benefiting, and that no one should be asked to pay more than the fair market price for the articles purchased. I also see there has been a great deal of comment in the papers on the Maltese having canteens. After all, the Maltese are British subjects, and I wish to know why they should not have canteens. I think it would be perfectly fair for the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration how the canteen on a ship is voted for.

I come to the question of clothing. I do not think the ready-made clothing system is at all satisfactory. It is very bad so far as fit goes, and the quality of the stuff is in many cases not at all good. I know some men who do not like the clothing, and in many cases they get suits made on shore, because they object to the quality and fit of the ready-made clothing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as the victualling goes in the Service, the new plan is very much appreciated. We all know that if you are well fed you are better tempered, and if you are better tempered, then when the time comes for acting and working you are not so liable to get irritated under strict discipline.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the Appropriations in Aid. They are all set forth in the Vote, and they are so large that I have some doubt whether they should be put down under the head of Appropriations in Aid. May I take it that they are all Appropriations in Aid in proportion to the contributions of the Indian Government, the Australian Government, and so forth, and are they all in respect of victualling and clothing?

Yes, that is so.

I want to follow up what the Noble Lord (Lord O. Beresford) has said with regard to the making of the men's clothes. There used to be on board ship a day that was called the making and mending day. On that day the men made and mended their clothes, and I always understood that there was not a better cutter of a pair of trousers than a bluejacket in the British Navy. Certainly the system of the men being allowed to make and mend their clothes themselves was a most excellent one. They made their clothes in a style which no London tailor, certainly no slop-maker, could import into the men's uniform, and I attribute to the fact that the clothes were made by the men themselves the success which has characterised the recruiting for the Navy as compared with the recruiting for the Army. If boys see a well-set-up man in a neatly made uniform, although it is only blue serge, and although there may be no gold lace about it, that may certainly have an effect on their imagination. I believe that is one of the important causes which have enabled the Navy always to get more boys than they want, whereas the Army cannot get the number they require. I think it is a false policy that the Admiralty should have set their face against the system of the men themselves making their own clothes, and that they should have introduced a system, and used their influence to get the men to adopt it, of providing ready-made clothing instead. I do not know what reasons there may be to assign for the change, and perhaps in the remarks which will be made by the right hon. Gentleman we shall hear them.

As to the question of canteens, I have no doubt that the system of canteen contracting is a very excellent thing so far as it goes, but it is impossible to avoid the knowledge common to everyone who knows about the Navy that not long ago there were serious abuses in connection with canteens. My own belief is that these abuses have ceased in consequence of the appointment of an executive officer as president of the canteen who has the governing and controlling command. I do not think you can leave a canteen to the men alone. They are exposed to every temptation and allurement on the part of those who seek to provide canteens with the two main articles, which, I believe, are supplied to them, namely, Worcester sauce and Beecham's Pills, and the men cannot resist these temptations. In order to resist the temptations you did require the intervention of an executive officer, who looks after the supplies in so far as he can and who will stand no nonsense. I should like to be confirmed in the statement that an executive officer does now occupy that position, and that he will be continued in it.

I wish to make one remark with reference to what fell from the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) with reference to ready-made clothing. I understand that part of the reason, and, in fact, the main reason, why the change was made of supplying ready-made clothing instead of allowing the men to make their own clothes was that there is now a large number of stokers in the Fleet who do not know so well how to make their clothes as our seamen did in former days. Probably that is the real reason for the new system which has been adopted. I wish to ask whether it would not be possible to combine the two systems—that is to say, that those who prefer to make their own clothes should be allowed to go back to the old system, and that others who have not the talent or the time to make their clothes should be allowed to buy ready-made clothes under the system which prevails at the present moment, thereby pleasing all sections of men in the Navy.

The observations of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) in which he expressed his general satisfaction with Vote 2, were of a kind which will be highly appreciated both in the Admiralty and by the officers who are directly concerned with the operations of this Vote. I think in respect of this particular Vote, the Noble Lord is perfectly in the right in saying that the recent reform that has taken place in the victualling of the Navy has worked out in the most satisfactory manner. I can say that with all the more confidence because, personally, I cannot claim the smallest credit for it. These changes have taken place as the result of accumulated experience, and it would not be just for any person in the Admiralty occupying the post which I now hold to claim credit for himself or his friends for what has only been the result of successful experience over a large number of years. The Noble Lord put several questions to me, and suggested various ways in which some further reforms might be effected in connection with this Vote. He asked me in regard to the general messing experiments that have been made in the "Dreadnought" and "Furious." I think there is also another ship, namely, the "Hampshire." He also asked in regard to certain shore establishments. The trials of these arrangements are still proceeding at the present time, and so far as we have seen, they have been undeniably satisfactory. There is no doubt that, as regards the men who are away with a ship that is cruising, the satisfaction which the system gives appears to be complete. The only objection which might be urged is that as regards a ship which is in port the men may prefer, as they are not going to have all their meals on board, to save some of their money instead of living under the general mess system. I can assure the Noble Lord that careful attention will be given to the results of the experiments when they have been completed. The Noble Lord suggested that an improvement might be made in regard to a second issuing room being established on board ship. On that point I am happy to be able to assure him that the matter is being carefully looked into in connection with new ships which are being built, but nobody can understand more readily than the Noble Lord that it is very difficult in the case of old ships to find the necessary space. On the new ships the Noble Lord's suggestion will be carried out if it is found practicable. On the subject of canteen tenancies I am not sure that I can agree with the view expressed by the Noble Lord that it is desirable that the Admiralty should interfere in the appointment of the tenants.

I do not mean that at all. What I meant was that the Admiralty should not take over the canteens themselves under Admiralty management.

I am very glad that I misunderstood the Noble Lord. I am at one with him on that point. The Admiralty do not propose to take over the management of the canteens. They retain a controlling voice in regard to the matter. The tenants of the canteens have to be on the list of Admiralty contractors. The Director of Contracts answers that the prices charged by the contractors are reasonable. The Director of Victualling is responsible for seeing that the goods supplied by the contractors are up to the standard. Once we have security as to the price and quality of the goods, then the Admiralty has done its work. As regards the actual tenancy of a canteen, that will continue to be held by a private contractor, and there is no proposal at the present time that the Admiralty should take over the canteens.

Then the question was raised, not only by the Noble Lord, but also by the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) with regard to ready-made clothing. Something has been done in that matter. As a matter of fact the explanation of the large increase in the sub-head dealing with clothes in this Vote is that a change of pattern has recently been made, and in consequence of the change of pattern the existing stores were allowed to run down below the standard. They have now been made good, and made good with clothes of the new pattern.

And best quality?

Pattern to a certain extent includes quality. We hope also to get rid of some legitimate grievance which exists with regard to ready-made clothing. The patterns have been revised and improved, and the present system in seagoing ships is about to be modified by introducing on board tailors who will make to measure. We cannot say that all classes will be made to measure. We cannot say that we shall abandon all ready-made clothing, but wherever practicable we shall make the clothes to measure, a competent tailor being employed for the purposes of measurement. As regards the other point raised—that we should not abandon the old practice of the seamen making their own clothes—I am glad to assure my hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that we have not abandoned it. We have the system of men-making and the system of supply running side by side. There is no intention at the present time of giving up the well-established practice of the seamen making their own clothes to a certain extent. Of course it would depend on the sailor. No doubt very good clothes can be bought of very good quality, and very cheaply, more easily than the sailor can make them himself. There will always be a tendency for the sailor to buy his clothes. But we still issue the cloth to any sailor who is willing to make his own clothes and can make them. So we are doing our best as far as we can to maintain the benefit of both systems. The reduction of supplies in foreign ports is due to foreign establishments being closed. As the Noble Lord knows, there has been no reopening of foreign establishments, and consequently there has been no increase of supplies.

Malta.

At the present time I think I am justified in saying that in all our ports our stores are fully up to standard. There is no shortage in any port, either home or foreign, but that the total has been reduced, of course, is an obvious consequence of having, closed a certain number of ports.

On page 45, under "Appropriations in Aid," I find that the "proportion of contribution from Indian Government on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters" is £9,100, which is the same sum as was provided in the Estimates last year. I thought, perhaps erroneously, that a ship something bigger than a first class cruiser was to be deputed to the East Indian coast during the coming year. If so, there would be a correspondingly larger provision for the victualling and clothing under this head.

This Question is one that should come under the Admiralty Vote.

The contribution for clothing and victualling would vary with the size of the ship sent out.

My hon. Friend is raising a controversial point. So far as I remember it is not in order at all to discuss this matter.

The First Lord, in his statement, mentioned that questions of very great importance and far-reaching scope would be brought before the Committee which the Admiralty very wisely ordered to investigate affairs connected with the Naval Medical Service. The First Lord told us that he would let us have the report of the Committee as soon as possible, and I trust this will be done, as the statement was made last February. I quite agree with him that hardly anything is more important than that the whole of the Medical Service should be organised and ready for war, because you will want an immense amount of reserve both in the surgeons and staff, and unless you have got that reserve properly organised in time of war it would be a matter entailing serious consequences. One shell can kill a great number of people, and wound perhaps sixty or seventy men, so you must have a proper medical staff quite ready to go on duty if war were suddenly declared. Since the South African War the Army have recognised the importance of this point. They have got a school, which the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, at Millbank, which is a most excellent institution, and prepares officers for duties, in which they cannot have too much practice, in case of sudden emergency in war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that the Committee will provide some sort of Naval Medical School, something similar to that which has been provided for the Army. I find, according to the peace establishment which is put down in the Navy List, that we ought to have 574 surgeons of all ranks, and, as I make it out, we have got about 60 or 70 short on the peace establishment. That is a very serious position, especially when we consider our requirements in case of war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he intends to do in regard to that. We have got only thirty-four reserve volunteers in the Naval List. I think we might increase those volunteers immensely by inviting the surgeons of mercantile ships to become surgeons for the Royal Navy in reserve. I believe they would be very glad to do so, and there would be this great advantage: that these men are accustomed to be at sea. I must again refer to the craze for economy. There was one year in which they never joined a single surgeon in the Navy. These economies are very bad in their result, and you have always got to pay a great deal more for them after- wards. We can learn a great deal from the other service on the question of the medical officers, because they have had experience in the South African War, and it is owing to that experience that many of the leading reforms in the Army Medical Department have been carried out.

Another point is the status of the sisters. There never was anything that was more to be admired than the attitude of those sisters in the hospitals. They put a stop to swearing. They kept everything clean, and they saw that the men had their medicine at the proper time. Since the advent of the sisters the naval hospitals have been improved enormously. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that our sisters are put on terms similar to those given to the sisters in the Army. Personally I always took a great interest in the hospitals. When in command I used to go to the hospitals every week, and I can testify to the utility of the admirable work and the loyal work that is carried out by the sisters in the hospitals for the Navy. I do not think that they ought to feel that they are underpaid in comparison with their sisters in the sister-service. I am afraid that I should be out of order if I were to touch on pensions, but I hope I may mention incidentally that the whole of the sick-berth staff wants looking into, neither the pay nor the pension being adequate. With reference to "sick-berth staff in the Reserve" perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, as I would like to know, how many men there are, and if this question has been taken up by the Committee, and, if so, what they intend to do with regard to it? There is another proposal I would like to make. In all the hospitals there are certain civilians, the assistant to the dispenser, storekeepers, butlers, messengers, and receiving men, and they are all civilians. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to get sick-berth pensioners to take these positions, because if he does he will at once create a reserve of practical men, whereas you cannot send civilians to any other work? The sick-berth staff would appreciate this change, and it would cost the State no more, which is one of those things which we have to consider.

Another point is the necessity of building two hospital ships. This is absolutely essential in these days, when you have the most tremendous sacrifice of life and inflic- tion of wounds with the present modern weapons and high explosives. These ships would perhaps get to the place where they were wanted within a few hours. If these modern hospital ships are properly found with proper stores and a proper staff, and a proper number of surgeons, hundreds and hundreds of men's lives would be saved. They are a necessity in war, and I entreat the right hon. Gentleman not to take up an ordinary merchant ship, and to think that he can make it into a hospital ship. He cannot do it. We tried it with the "Maine." It did very good work, but it never was a proper hospital ship. It was under my orders for five or six years in the Mediterranean, and whenever I had a certain number of men with the fever I used to send this ship home with them. On one occasion I sent home sixty-two cot cases of fever, and when the ship arrived in England there were only sixteen in the cots. It shows that you must get the people away as soon as ever you can when they get the fever. If you do not do that it goes against them very often, and it leads to other complaints. I hope there, will be a hospital ship laid down, and built as soon as possible.

There is one point on which the right hon. Gentleman has given an answer, but I do not think a very satisfactory one. I hope, however, that he will consider it. I refer to the question of hospital stoppages. When a man gets a complaint or a disease, as happens continually, he goes to hospital, and after six weeks he has those very heavy hospital stoppages, which are very hard on his wife and himself. The officers have no hospital stoppages, and I think in common fairness they should be removed from the men.

The Noble Lord is now speaking on questions which arise on Vote I. (Wages, etc.).

I have now said all I desire to submit on this Vote, and I shall await a further opportunity in regard to other questions.

I support what my Noble Friend says with regard to the sisters. If Members will kindly turn to the Votes they will see that a sister, besides her beard and washing allowance, has a salary of £37 10s. per annum, rising by £2 10s. yearly increase up to the maximum of £50 per annum. She has therefore no more to look forward to than this salary of £50 a year, after a great number of years' service. I would put to the Committee whether this is sufficiently high pay for a woman who has devoted her best years to looking after the sick? If she continues to hold the position she must possess a great deal of skill, must be full of sympathy, and ready to sit up at night, which is a most trying and tedious duty, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman should see his way, not to raise the minimum pay, but to make such provision that an ordinary sister should be able in the later years of her service to look for more than £50 a year remuneration. The Noble Lord also made the very excellent suggestion that civil surgeons should be retained for medical service in the Navy in time of war, because it is obvious that we are very short of surgeons, and the surgeons who are in the Merchant Service are just the men who will be thrown out of employment when war breaks out. It is obvious that a considerable number of surgeons in the Merchant Service would not be required, because the passenger steamers, many of them, will not be able to run in time of war. These are the very men who are skilled in the use of medicine, who are familiar with the sea, and who would be ready in time of war. There is one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. On page 50 I see a note that medical stores to the amount of £800 are to be drawn upon during the current financial year. What I want to know is whether these medical stores are to be replaced or whether we are living upon our capital in using the stores which we have?

The hon. Gentleman's remark, I think, was answered by the Noble Lord. If it be the fact, as I know it to be the fact, that the sisters employed under certain conditions do the work entrusted to them in a most skilful and admirable manner, then I think there is no case for increasing their wages, since you can get very good people for the wages now given. I am afraid the hon. Member for Blackpool has views which would increase the Estimate. My view of the business of the House of Commons is that we should rather diminish them. Passing from that to the much more important point urged by the Noble Lord as to the sufficiency of the number of naval surgeons, I do not know whether it has received the attention of the Admiralty, as undoubtedly it ought. It is quite clear that in time of war you will want considerably more surgeons in the Navy than you now have. I do not think the sugges- tion that we should derive the additional number of surgeons from the Merchant Service would at all suffice. I think it would provide scarcely any, as the Merchant Service does not carry surgeons except in the great liners, which would require their surgeons in time of war, as in time of peace. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool that in time of war passenger vessels would be stopped from running. I should be very much disappointed with the Navy if the greater part of the passenger service did not continue to run as at present. However that may be, there are very few surgeons in the Merchant Service. The larger number of merchant vessels do not carry them; it is only the large liners who employ them. Therefore, I do not think you can look for any great increase in that direction.

I am afraid I failed to make my remarks clear. What I meant was that those who had already served as surgeons in the Mercantile Marine—and there is a very great number—are the men I desire to see in the Reserve. But of course they would only form a part of the large number required.

I follow the Noble Lord in what he says. As a matter of fact those who have served—after passing a short time in the merchant service —generally take a country practice which they would not readily be induced to leave. The suggestion has something in it, but my criticism is that you can get very few surgeons from that source. I think that will be found to be the fact. I must presume that the Board of Admiralty have considered the steps to take in order to make the necessary increase required in the number of surgeons in time of war, and I rose with a view to asking what proposal they have before them, and, if possible, to ascertain what arrangements they have already made to increase the number of surgeons in time of war.

The provision of hospital ships is a point on which I feel rather strongly, having had a somewhat painful experience. When I was seriously ill I was first of all sent from Cuba to Porto Rica, in 1898, during the Spanish-American War, in a merchant vessel which had been converted to the purposes of a hospital ship. Afterwards I was transferred to a vessel which had been built as a hospital ship, where the change in practice and treatment was so great as to really make the whole difference. Men were suffering from a peculiarly pernicious form of fever, and were dying like flies in this converted merchant ship, with its small staff, stuffy cabins, and strange odours connected with its former career. This was not a vessel under the British Government, and there is no reflection on the Admiralty. The illustration, however, may be in order. I think it may be of some value to the Committee that one should speak from experience on a ship of the kind I have referred to, and of what one afterwards experienced on being transferred to a vessel built as a hospital ship, with large airy wards, and a free circulation of air. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that a ship built as a hospital should be constructed with some regard to extra stability a quality which is of considerable importance, especially in certain seas. I trust this point brought forward by my Noble Friend will be borne in mind by the Government. Good hospital ships are really the most economical thing in the long run. Information can be obtained by a study of what has been done by the United States Government in regard to hospital ships. They have built specially for this service the "Solace" and "Relief," and other vessels of that kind. Whilst many of us do not like to see money spent except on those things which increase fighting efficiency, nothing is so likely to increase and improve that efficiency than a due regard to the health of the men.

I have listened to the speeches made on this subject, and I cannot help feeling a certain amount of satisfaction in recognising that every point of criticism that has been raised has in fact been dealt with by the Committee which inquired into the Medical Service. I regret that it has not been possible for me to publish even a part of the Report of the Committee before bringing on this Vote. Certainly it would have made my duty of replying very much easier than it now is. I hope the Committee will accept it from me that not a single point which has been raised here has been overlooked in the inquiry that has taken place. The recommendations of the Committee are at this moment being considered by the Board of Admiralty and I am not going too far when I say that not only the bulk of them have been accepted, but provisions will be made in order that they may be carried into effect. Of course, some points which have been referred to are matters upon which the Admiralty are not the only authority who have to be consulted. I am not speaking now of the hospital ships; but when you come to questions of the nurses and doctors, and of raising the standard of existing salaries, there is another authority that has to be consulted as well as the Admiralty. Consequently I am not in a position to make any promise upon any such point. But certainly the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry shall receive from the Board of Admiralty the recognition they undoubtedly deserve.

Is the increase of salaries a recommendation?

I hope the Noble Lord will not press me as to particular points in the Committee's Report. It is far better that we should not deal with a part of it, but I hope to be able to give some information shortly. I would remind the Noble Lord, who referred to the experience gained in the South African War, that Sir Alfred Keogh was a member of the Committee of Inquiry, and we have had the advantage of the knowledge he acquired in regard to the Army. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool as to the consumption of stores without replacement. He referred to Page 50 of the Votes. I would call his attention to the fact that the amount of stores so consumed amounted to only £800. I hope he will recognise that in the adjustment of any store account it may very easily be that some small item of that sort may be consumed without replacement without a charge being properly made against us that we are living on capital. In this particular case I can assure him that it was a mere question of adjustment. The Admiralty quite rightly call the attention of the Committee to every case, no matter how small, in which we use some stores without replacing them.

The question of a hospital ship was raised, and I entirely agree with the observations that fell from hon Members opposite upon the superiority of the hospital ship over the converted merchant ship. Here, again, I am not willing to pledge myself. I cannot pledge myself to what the Estimates of the ensuing year shall be, but I can assure the Committee of this point, that it is the present intention of the Board to include a sum in next year's Estimates for the building of a hospital ship. I cannot undertake, as the Noble Lord suggests, that we should build two at once, but we, at any rate, hope next year to make a start and to build one. No doubt when we build one, we shall be so satisfied with the result that a second will shortly follow. I believe those are all the points that have been raised.

There has been an immense diminution of crime in the Royal Navy within the last few years. I think that the Committee should know that, as it is very satisfactory. I would like it if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee how the scheme for the Detention Barracks is working. I take a very great interest in it, and when I was Commander-in-Chief was a great believer in it, because a man who may be most insubordinate and who may commit a crime of striking an officer, and who loses his temper, very often is the best man in the ship or regiment. Such a man may be quite as severely punished as the man who has done a blackguardly and scoundrelly thing, and that is altogether wrong.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions with reference to what seems to me to be rather an inequality in salary under this Vote. On page 63 we have to vote salaries for the prison at Lewes. The maximum salary that the governor can receive under this Vote, though he may receive and does, as a matter of fact, receive a pension from a former service, the maximum salary is £400. He is receiving £292 this year. The medical man who looks after the prisoners receives £100. I do not quarrel with either of those two items, but I will put it to the right hon. Gentleman, though I have great respect for the chaplain and the work he performs, that a salary of £500 is undoubtedly a large sum for the chaplain when the local medical practitioner only receives £100 while the medical stores amount to £20, and when the governor only receives £300. Surely with an aver- age of sixty-eight prisoners £500 for the chaplain is an absurd amount, and ought to be looked into. I am fortified in my argument when I see that there are other prisons which do without so expensive an official. At Bodmin, where the average number of prisoners is exactly half that of Lewes, totalling thirty-four, they get on without a chaplain at all, and if Bodmin can get on without any chaplain surely it is rather extravagant to have a chaplain at £500 per year for sixty prisoners at Lewes. It seems to me that Portsmouth, as I am sure the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) will agree, has set the happy mean between the excessive amount of £500 and nothing at all. In Portsmouth they do not have a chaplain specially for the prison, but they give an allowance of £50 per year to the chaplain of the "Victory" to perform such services as are necessary. That seems to me a common sense and practical way of doing things. It avoids the excessive amount of £500 paid in one prison, and the equally inexpedient course as in another prison of not having any chaplain at all.

I presume that this chaplain, mentioned on page 63, is a clergyman of the Church of England. Seeing that prisoners, naval or otherwise, are not all members of the Church of England, and I may mention that I acted as prison chaplain six months in London, I should like to know what provision is made for Nonconformist prisoners in the way of religious services. Has the time come when a Nonconformist can be appointed as salaried officer in connection with any of the prisons to which naval men are sent?

My Noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) asked with regard to the Detention Barracks and as to what progress was being made. I understand that under the Naval Discipline Act, 1909, the' scheme cannot come into operation before 1st January next at the earliest. I remember that the Secretary of the Admiralty met us very fairly with regard to the Bill, but I want to know whether any progress is being made in the meantime, that is to say whether the Admiralty is enabled to introduce a modified system of punishment until the beginning of next year, and if it is so whether they are in the meantime getting the Detention Barracks ready so that the scheme can come into actual working operation at the earliest possible date. I think it is of great importance, now that it is announced, that the change should come into effect as early as possible. I hope everything is being done to bring it into operation as promptly and on as large a scale as possible.

As the Noble Lord has mentioned, I am glad to say that there has been a substantial decrease in crime in the Navy. With regard to the Detention Barracks system, we had hoped under the Act passed last Session to bring them into operation on 1st January, 1911. I need not remind the Committee that the difference between the Detention Barracks system and the naval prison is very substantial. With regard to ordinary offences against naval discipline, the bluejacket will not go to the detention barracks in prison rig, he will not have his hair cut, he will not do shot drill, and will not pick oakum. On the contrary, he will go under naval escort, in ordinary naval rig, and will do physical exercises and naval trainings, the whole purpose being to make the punishment deterrent but not demoralising, and in the hope of turning him out, as I hope we shall do, a better sailor after his detention. With regard to the progress made, the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) has stated that we undertook, under the Bill of last year, to bring in this scheme by the 1st January next year.

Or soon after.

We had hoped we would be able to provide permanent detention quarters at the home ports on the 1st January, 1911, but we have not been able to realise that expectation because of the large amount of structural alteration required. At any rate we hope to make provision for temporary accommodation at Chatham and Devonport, so that the system will come into being there on the 1st January. With regard to Portsmouth, we hoped to convert the prison so as to get it permanently ready as detention quarters by 1st January, 1911. There we had some difficulty in the matter of the disposal of the warder staff of the existing prison, and the hope of our being able to convert the prison into detention quarters by 1st January could not be realised. In the meantime we shall use temporary accommodation, so as to bring the system into operation on the 1st January. I had hoped that we might have brought certain features of the system into existence forthwith, and that we might no longer send men to the detention prison in prison rig, or have their hair cut, or that they should have to undergo shot drill. There are difficulties in the way of that. For instance, at Lewes the premises are very old, and do not lend themselves to the routine of the detention quarters, and I am not quite sure whether there are not legal difficulties in the way of bringing the thing piecemeal into operation, such as I had hoped even in the absence of proper accommodation. The matter is constantly before us, and we shall certainly put the temporary premises going by the date of the Act, and the permanent premises as soon thereafter as possible. We shall keep Bodmin as the Naval prison for the time being, because, independent of the civil offences altogether, there may be offences against Naval discipline which may be so serious as to justify the sending of men to a naval prison. For that reason we propose to keep Bodmin as the only remaining naval gaol. At Gibraltar, Malta and Poonah, and perhaps Kandi, Hong Kong and Bermuda, we may use the Military Detention quarters. At Simons-town, and Sydney, the existing naval prisons can be converted into detention barracks, and plans and specifications have been received from the respective Commanders-in-Chief. Therefore I am very glad to say that everything that can be done is being done to carry out this very great reform in the treatment of prisoners who have been guilty of disciplinary offences. With regard to the question of the chaplain, the salary of the chaplain of Lewes of £500 is a salary not for the prison, but as a senior chaplain in the Navy. He has reached that salary by previous service. With regard to the governor, the hon Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) will see, if he looks through the Estimates, that he gets more—

I did not complain of the governor.

The hon. Member will see if he adds up the total emoluments of the governor that they are more than the sum mentioned. With regard to Nonconformist prisoners, ministers of their religion have access to them.

I am not aware that any stipend is paid to any Nonconformist minister who acts in any gaol in England. I acted for six months as voluntary chaplain in a London prison without any stipend of any sort.

If the hon. Member will put a question on Report I will find out the precise facts with regard to the point.

We may have the biggest and the best Fleet, with the best officers and men, but if the officers and men, are not properly educated we shall go far to lose actions. It is the human element that will win, not ships and guns; therefore we cannot be too careful with regard to the education not only of our officers, but also of the men. I do not think this question has been ever thoroughly thrashed out in the House of Commons. I am referring to the efforts which have been made for giving a better education to the officers of the Fleet. The new scheme has been launched, and we have to do our level best to make it as good as possible; but there are certain features connected with it that must be extensively modified if it is to succeed. The 1902 scheme was launched with the unanimous support of the senior officers of the Service and of those who had made a continual study of what was really necessary for the education of the Fleet. The 1905 scheme was launched very quickly. A Committee sat; it did not examine a single executive officer; it examined five engineer officers in one day, and five Marine officers in a week; it reported in a very few weeks; and the scheme became the authoritative scheme which has to be obeyed in the Service. There are many points in that scheme which I and many others think are not at all for the benefit of the Service, and certainly not for the benefit of the education of officers.

Will the Secretary to the Admiralty tell us clearly whether or not these officers are to be interchangeable? The time has arrived in all Services, even in all businesses and industries, for specialisation. There has never been a time in our history when the specialist in certain work was more wanted. To think that a man can do everything and take his turn in all the different departments in the British Navy equally well is absolutely absurd. You might as well include clergymen and doctors among interchangeable officers. There was a strong minority report, signed by very distinguished officers, which we have not seen. May I ask, in particular, whether the very basis of the scheme has not already been altered. The Director of Naval Education delivered a lecture which I would commend to the attention of the Committee if they wish to see a paper containing most flattering and unctuous remarks on those who carried out the scheme, and the egotism of which I never read anything to equal. In one part of the lecture, which was never answered—I only wish I had been at the lecture; I would have knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat —it says:—

"Under the new scheme, midshipmen will no longer be under the naval instructor at sea; the distraction of the claims of school will be absent."

On top of that, the Admiralty sent the best instructors of the Service to one of the colleges to be instructed as to what they were to teach these young lads who went to sea. Not one batch ever went to sea under the new scheme that had not its instructor with it. A new circular has come out under which an instructor is to be with the midshipmen in their first and third years. The basis of the scheme was that these lads were to be taught the whole of their mathematics before they went to sea, so that the remainder of their time could be devoted to professional subjects under the instruction of the officers of the ship. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will explain why in that particular the scheme has been so entirely altered.

The new scheme also states that the lads are to be taught principally by lectures. What boy ever cared a fig about a lecture? He always goes to sleep; but put him to a lathe or to do something and he will do his level best. As for an x plus y lecture, a lad never pays the slightest attention to it, and with very few exceptions it is a mere waste of time. Are the Admiralty still intending to carry out this process of education by lectures? I am not sure whether I shall be in order in calling attention on this Vote to the interchangeability of the Marines and to the question of the engineers.

I do not know the exact point to which the Noble Lord wishes to refer, but I cannot see at present how it would be in order on this Vote.

May I point out that the engineers do not stand in quite the same position as the Marines? The engineering college, which makes a speciality of enginering education; comes under this Vote.

I do not know what is the exact point the Noble Lord wishes to raise. Anything under the head of education comes under this Vote, but the question of interchangeability at a later stage would not.

I merely pointed out that the two matters mentioned by the Noble Lord are not similar. Engineering education for the creation of specialists is an educational Vote by itself, and is greatly reduced in consequence of the increase of the other system. The question of the engineers is affected by this Vote.

I think the question as it affects the engineers comes on this Vote. The important point about it is that the engineers have been caused a great amount of disappointment and irritation. They were led to believe, in the Press and elsewhere, that they were to receive great additions to their rank and power. No service can be really disciplined, happy, smart and efficient if any class of officers in it are not contented, and, though I entirely object to the view of the engineering officers with regard to their having this increased power and rank, I wish to point out that they are labouring under a sense of having been more or less promised, or of having been led to expect, these additions, and that, not having got them, they are not as contented as they should be. I think the question ought to be cleared up. This education question was run in a most scandalous way. I do not think the term is too strong. Old naval officers will remember a person called Rollo Appleyard writing tremendous letters to the engineering papers, and signing himself as if he were a civil engineer on shore. The public paid great attention to those letters, but when somebody took the trouble to find out who the writer was he was found to be a naval engineer on full pay who had been put up to do it. Directly this was found out Rollo Appleyard disappeared back to the place from which he ought never to have come. We are going half mad on this question of theoretical education. I am as keen as anybody on proper education being given, but you will never teach a man to handle a ship, to handle the men under him, to fire a gun, or to lower a boat in a gale by x plus y mathematics. Under this new scheme seamen lads are to be advanced over the heads of other men because they are better at mathematics. That is altogether wrong. You are putting the Education Department and the Director of Education in far too powerful a position in the Service. He is laying down the law as to what are the requisite qualifications for a British admiral who has to handle men and handle ships. According to a circular dated 8th March, 1910, this is one of the questions the advanced class of seamen boys have to answer:—

"If a = y + z-2x, if b = x + z -2y, if c = x + y -2z. find out in terms of x,y and z. the value of a² +b²-c² -2ab"

Will anything in that question help that lad to lay a gun, or fire a shot, or anything else necessary for the hard physical life on a British man-of-war? But this lad's progress has to be watched with a view to his early advancement—that is to say, that the lad who can do this will go over the heads of other able seamen or petty officers. Because he can do this he has to have advancement, over others by whom he would be beaten at all practical work such as occurs in a gale of wind or in handling a gun. We must watch this very narrowly. We want to have our officers and men educated as well as we can, but for goodness sake do not put theory before practice I You want practical men when you go into action or when you are in a gale of wind. This is equally for the men and for the officers. As I said before. I am no advocate for ignorance. I want education to be as thorough as possible; but do not let us be carried away by this sort of sentimental nonsense, and put the man I have referred to in front of another man who can do practical work such as handle a boat or do any other work he has to do.

There is another point I want to bring out in this education question. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is perfectly possible to have an officer, or man, a splendid mathematician, without the slightest capability of handling men or a fleet. This is born in men. You can make a man who is not good do his work better by these means, but you can never make him brilliant. If you are going to give the advantage to the officer or the man because of his knowledge of mathematics you are doing a very wrong thing and making a mistake. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if the Board of Admiralty as a whole have seen the circular for Advanced Seamen Boys, dated 8th March, 1910 (N. 14058/1909, No. 10), because if they have I am very much astonished that it ever went out. I do not think they have seen it. I do not think they will agree that these boys are to be pushed forward over other boys on account of the knowledge I have mentioned. In the last few years there have been some circulars sent out to the fleets which the Board of Admiralty as a whole—certainly the political chiefs—never saw at all. If they had, I do not think they would have approved of them. I do not think they did approve of them. I can bring to their notice a pamphlet which deals largely with naval education. If the Committee will allow me I will tell them the story of that pamphlet. It is headed: "The Truth about the Navy." It has got the Admiralty seal on it. It was sent out to the fleets all over the world with an order from the Admiralty that this was to be issued to the men's libraries. It came out to the fleet I was commanding in, I think, December, 1908. The Board of Admiralty came out to Malta in January, 1907, and I at once said to them: "What on earth induced you to send out such a thing as that; to send such a pamphlet as that to be issued to the men's libraries of the Fleet is deplorable." They said they knew nothing about it. I showed them my telegram. I refused to issue that pamphlet unless I got a definite order from the Board of Admiralty to issue it. I carried my point. The pamphlets were not sent to me as commander-in-chief, they were sent to my captains. My captains read the order and said to me: "Surely this pamphlet was never intended to be issued to the men's libraries, or any library on board-ship; it is full of political questions, full of unctuous praise of a large number of people, and it has some sentences in it which are very liable to make a great stir, and provoke great irritation in neighbouring countries? I sent my telegram home. I never issued the pamphlet to the men's libraries. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a note of this and let me know if this pamphlet is in the libraries of the other fleets, or any of the reserve ships at present?

I do not know whether this has to do with the Vote. I must ask the Minister in charge.

I cannot say. I do not know the pamphlet. I never saw it. But if this book has reference to the education of the Fleet I assume, Sir, it will be in order. What is the date of it?

The date of it is 1906, and the front of it says that it can be bought from Chapman and Hall.

That has nothing to do with it.

I beg your pardon, it is everything to do with it. It is the foundation of the scheme for the education of the Fleet which I am endeavouring to pick holes in. It is entitled: "New Training Scheme," by A Captain, R.N., and it was adopted. We want to know who was that "Captain, R.N.," and why this scheme was adopted in the Service without the officers being consulted in any way whatever. As I have shown the Committee, it has already been altered by the naval instructor, who was never to go with the lads at all, being called in, and now he has to go afloat. I will read for the benefit of the Committee one or two things out of this pamphlet. I objected to it by telegraph because it had political bias. It was full of praise for certain people who had got this thing published. It had matters in it which had been violently attacked at home, and which had been made party questions; and I say it was absolutely wrong to send to the men or the officers of the Fleet a pamphlet of that character. This was the sort of thing that was in it:—

"When there is weakness at home, it is the Bis-marckian rule to create a diversion abroad. The historians will learn that … and subsequent growth of anti-British feeling in Germany in association with various acts and speeches of those in high places have not been due to mere accident or carelessness."

That is a nice thing to issue to the public library of a ship! But there is worse than that:—

"On the hypothesis that the German fleet is being created mainly with a view to fighting and defeating the British fleet under fortuitous circumstances. Great Britain may come within the zone of German war dreams, and no one acquainted with the German people, the German Navy League propaganda, and German periodicals, can doubt that the Fatherland indulges in war dreams of lurid triumph."

I say it was a scandal to send that to the men of our Fleet. It is the very thing that makes bad feeling between two countries. What right had we to send out with authority to the men of the Fleet a pamphlet which had political bias in it?

Is it called "The Truth about the Navy?" There has never been a penny in any Estimates for it.

Who paid for it?

Was it not Mr. Carlyon Bellairs, the Member for King's Lynn, who in this House got out from the Front Bench that the Admiralty paid £19 odd for that pamphlet? It was paid for by Admiralty money, and the Admiralty denied in a telegram to me that it was official. They said: "There is not the slightest idea of giving official sanction to it." I had the Board of Admiralty at Malta with me. I do not know who sent that telegram for them. The Admiralty telegram said:—

"The pamphlet in question has been supplied in the usual course. Nothing is known that is objectionable in it. But if you have any cause for objection, you can withhold its issue, as it is quite immaterial to their lordships whether it is circulated or not. There is not the slightest idea of giving any official sanction to it."

My answer to that was:—

"The pamphlet, as the Admiralty states, was supplied in the usual course; but the Admiralty wrapper and official stamp gives the pamphlet official sanction, and the letter accompanying the pamphlet orders it to be placed in the ship's library."

Was not that official? The hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with it. I am not blaming him. I am blaming any state of affairs that can allow such a thing as this. If you will look at the Debate in the House of Commons, you will find that Mr. Carlyon Bellairs got it from the Front Bench that the pamphlet costs £19 of Government money. [An Hon. MEMBER: "£20."]Well, £20. It cost money.

But not money in this Vote.

Oh, no! That is a little beside the mark. I object to that pamphlet; and I have just read out to you that other about the men. I do not think it is a wise thing to give lads advancement over others because they can do the mathematics specified, and I am only bringing forward this pamphlet because it was written in connection with the naval training question. It is that naval training that I say will have to be modified. We in the service always do our best to make a bad thing into a good thing, but this is not a good thing, and it will have to be modified. None of the officers in the service were ever consulted about the education scheme at all, and you will have to alter it. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will find out if that pamphlet is in the ships' libraries?

Yes.

If it is, and he notes what I have read, he will see the propriety of having it withdrawn. I would like answered the questions that I have put with regard to the education matter. Are these officers to be interchangeable? Am I right or wrong in stating that one of the principal points in this education scheme that the naval instructor was never to appear on board with new lads from Osborne has been entirely altered? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee of any other alterations there are with regard to the scheme, and whether the Admiralty have approved of it as far as it goes? Will the Admiralty inform the Engineer Department of the Navy that those intimations they received publicly—and I believe privately—that they were to receive certain honours, certain definite powers, are not to be given? I think it is due to the engineers that they ought to know, and I am sure the Committee will be very glad to have the questions which I have put answered.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Admiralty to explain the item in the Estimates on page 73, under miscellaneous items of expenses for boys, how it is that the reduction of £40 has been effected on last year? The Admiralty is saving £40 under this head of last year, but if we turn to page 3 to the explanation of "difference in numbers," it will be seen that it is proposed to have 794 boys more this year than last year. I shall be glad, therefore, if the hon. Member will explain how he is going to reduce the Vote by £40 and yet have 794 more boys this year than last year.

Some of us are anxious to know a little more about the pamphlet which has been referred to by my Noble Friend, and I will, therefore, put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty. As I understand it, this pamphlet is issued by order of what is known as the educational staff, which comes under this Vote. It would seem to me to be a matter entirely cogent to this Vote to inquire of the Government, who is responsible for the issue of this pamphlet. As one anxious not to introduce controversial matter, I am bound to say I consider this pamphlet one of the most inflammatory pamphlets ever issued by the Admiralty or anyone else.

This pamphlet, I understand, was issued many years ago. I do not know by whom, but the matter seems to me pertinent to this Vote only in so far as it is a defence of the scheme of education attacked. Otherwise it is not in order.

I entirely bow to your ruling. The point I submit is that this pamphlet, although issued in 1906, is still in circulation in the libraries of the Navy. It is issued under a scheme which we are discussing in this Vote, and I venture to submit unless it was issued under such a scheme there would be no object in issuing it at all. If it was not issued under such a scheme, it is purely a party pamphlet, and I know at the time it was issued, whatever views people might hold upon the North Sea question or otherwise upon the question of German or English navies, there was no one who read this pamphlet but regretted it was issued under official cognisance or authority to the men of the Fleet. The extracts which my Noble Friend read from this pamphlet are sufficient evidence to show the Committee that it contains statements of the most inflammatory character. I do not wish to introduce any unnecessary controversy, but it has been an open secret that this pamphlet was written by Lord Fisher of Kesteven.

No, no.

The hon. Gentleman denies that. Then by whom was it issued?

I do not know.

The hon. Gentleman says he does not know by whom it was issued or by whom it was written.

I denied the statement that the late First Sea Lord wrote it.

I have certain information which I am not at liberty to give which shows that it was written by Lord Fisher of Kesteven. I am willing to withdraw that statement if the hon. Gentleman says who wrote the pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman gives no answer to that. The fact remains it was issued, and it is not necessary for my argument to draw the name of Lord Fisher into it, although I continue to maintain it was written by him, and unless there is a denial of that by the hon. Gentleman opposite I shall continue to hold that view. It is an open secret in the Navy that this pamphlet was written by Lord Fisher, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to deny it. What was the need for this pamphlet? It contains a lot of inflammatory and controversial matter. If it had been issued by the Maritime League or the Navy League or any other such league it would foe said to have been deliberately intended to make bad blood between England and Germany. We require some explanation of the issue of this pamphlet. The history of the pamphlet left, not only in this House, but outside it, a very bad impression as to the kind of intrigue that went on at the Admiralty under Lord Fisher's administration.

That is not in order.

I have nothing more to say, but I hope at the same time we shall have some explanation in regard to this matter. I have put three questions to the Government, namely, who issued the pamphlet, who paid for the issue of it, and who wrote it?

I wish to ask a question with regard to the system of technical education in the Navy. I would like to know what has been done by way of assisting the men to fit them for taking up positions in civil life after leaving the Service. I know that certain experiments have been made in that direction at Eastney, and reference has been made to the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty made in explanation of that system and also to some extent in other directions. I should therefore be glad if the Government would give us some explanation of the matter.

With regard to the point which has been made by the last speaker, I desire to say we have for some considerable time past set such a scheme on foot—rather I should say the officers at Eastney have set such a scheme on foot—whereby men may be equipped for a better opportunity of getting employment when they leave the Ser- vice. The hon. Member referred to the scheme which was going on at Eastney for giving the men technical training. It is progressing satisfactorily, and certainly we must all watch its progress with an eye of sympathy. With regard to the pamphlet, I believe that the pamphlet was issued in 1906. I have never seen it or read it; I do not know who wrote it, or anything else about it. I am responsible for these Estimates, and there is no money in the Estimates in respect of this pamphlet.

But the pamphlet is still in the libraries.

I think I am right in saying there never has been any money in the Estimates for the issue of the pamphlet. It is now, indeed, brought to my notice for the first time. I may be quite wrong as to whether there was ever any money in the Estimate for this pamphlet, but there is no money in this Estimate. The Noble Lord opposite and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised the question of the pamphlet on the ground that it is still in the libraries. I will make due inquiries upon that point and I will inform hon. Gentlemen whether it is there now or not. One good thing at any rate has emerged from this discussion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been, quite rightly and very properly, deprecating anything in the nature of embittering international relationships. I am extremely glad to hear it, and I am certain that all parts of the House will share my gladness. The main subject touched upon in these discussions was that of the whole question of the training of the naval officer. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth does not agree with common entry and common training. He said it was a bad thing, but with his true loyalty to the Service of which he is such a distinguished Member he will do his best to make it go. I do not think it is a bad thing. I think it is a very good thing, and I also shall do my best to ensure its success. The Noble Lord is wrong in stating that the adoption of that scheme was the result of the work of one Committee. There had been a number of Committees dealing with the question of the training of naval officers. Several Committees investigated the question of the training of naval officers before Lord Selborne's scheme.

That is perfectly true, but my point was that the 1905 scheme, which was an entire alteration of the 1902 scheme, was the result. The 1902 scheme—that was common entry and specialisation—had all our support, but the 1905 scheme wanted to make a handy Billie of every officer, so that he was to be able to do everything, and that scheme was the result of one Committee's investigation.

You cannot take the changes of the 1905 scheme and discuss them apart from Lord Selborne's scheme of 1902. The one depended very much upon the other. Now, the genesis of that scheme, as the Noble Lord knows, was common entry and common training up to a certain point. We take in these boys, they go before an interviewing committee, and I do not know anything which I have ever come across in educational matters, and, although I have not the knowledge in naval matters of the Noble Lord, I have a large knowledge of educational matters, and I do not know anything that works so admirably as does this interviewing committee. You have a Flag Officer, and experienced men like Dr. Gow, Dr. Burge, Canon Lyttelton and Mr. Benson. You have a second naval officer, a post captain with some experience of training work, and a representative of the First Lord. They examine these boys, and they get at their native genius. They get at the intellect of these boys in a way in which they could not get at it in a month's examination. The Noble Lord opposite is out against professors, lecturers, and examinations.

I am in favour of expert inquiry, and I am very much against people who are very clever mathematically making out difficulties for others not so clever mathematically. I am in favour of the practical people. I like practical working people better than theoretical people.

The Noble Lord referred to these things as sentimental nonsense.

Not all of them.

After the interview and medical examination they are selected practically upon the result of that interview to which I have referred, subject to a qualifying examination. You get at the native capacity and genius of these boys in that interview. They then go down to Osborne and Dartmouth for two years each. The Noble Lord says do not let them sit there to be lectured by professors. The British Navy has to depend on brains as well as upon brawn.

Yes, but not all brains.

No, and not all brawn. I say that the training at Osborne and Dartmouth is about the best I have come across. It is first-class secondary education of a modern type with a necessary touch—yes, more than a touch—of navigation and seamanship, and the general duties of a naval officer. The Noble Lord may know that the first batch under this scheme joined the Fleet in May, 1908, and they will become sublieutenants in July, 1911. I am not a naval expert, but I have seen these young officers on many occasions, and they seem to me to be very thorough and very keen, and so far from the naval officer being a jack of all trades and master of none, under the present system I think the naval officer of the future will know something about everything and everything about some one thing. I do not know any finer equipment than that. The Noble Lord has dwelt upon the word "inter-changeability," in fact, he has made it a sort of shibboleth. As I pointed out on a former occasion, and as I point out now, we wish to give high specialisation with the faculty to assume executive control. We issued a circular upon this subject in May, 1908, in which we pointed out that the details of the scheme would be subject to such revision as experience might show to be necessary. I have carefully listened to what the Noble Lord has said to-day, and I shall bear in mind his criticism. I wish, however, it to be remembered that we stated frankly that the details of this new scheme would be subject to revision. I think the Noble Lord rather overdid his criticism in regard to mathematics. I agree that x plus y will not help a man to fire a gun, but it will help him to find the range and also help him to hit the bulls-eye. It must not be thought that we do not want high mathematical training, and nobody understands that better than the Noble Lord opposite. We have taken up the training of sub-lieutenants under the new system at Keyham, and of course we have establishments for giving specialisation to older officers in the Navy.

There are two points which I wish to raise. My first point is with regard to the interviewing committee to which the Secretary to the Admiralty referred. I am in hearty agreement with his general observations upon this question. He very truly described the method of selection of these boys. I wish to know if, in addition to the indication of ability which the boys themselves give before the committee, and in addition to the reports of the boys' schoolmasters the new system permits it to be stated to the committee by whom the boys are recommended? I believe that was originally done, and I took exception to it at the time when I was at the Admiralty, because I thought it tended even in the case of the most impartial committee to undue favour being given to those boys who were recommended by some distinguished person. I wish to know if that system still obtains, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform me whether the committee, in making their selection, are in possession of any knowledge as to who has recommended the candidates apart from the boys' own schoolmasters? I hope that such recommendations as I have alluded to are no longer allowed, because if the new system is to be a success it is necessary that every boy should be selected absolutely upon his merits, and no recommendation from distinguished persons outside should be laid before the committee under the new scheme.

The Secretary to the Admiralty has described the working of the new educational system. I should, of course, be the last person to criticise that scheme, because I was more or less implicated in its inception. The hon. Gentleman has described how the scheme has worked up to a certain point, and I think we all agree that the results are apparently admirable and hopeful as regards the future. We are now coming to the point at which, in a very-short time, the whole effect of the scheme will be put to the test where the senior hatch of these boys from Osborne and Dartmouth will pass through the rank of midshipman and sub-lieutenant, and when they will have to decide which branch of the Service they are going to specialise. This has been foreseen from the first This is the first great fence to be jumped, and the first great obstacle to be faced. You now reach that point where you will find that a number of young officers will be required for the first time to become lieutenants in the engineering department or lieutenants in the marine. What I want to know is whether the Admiralty have yet any indications which will enable them to forecast how many of these young officers are going voluntarily to select these branches and elect to serve in the engineering branch or the marine branch. I also wish to know, in the unhappy event of a sufficient number not electing voluntarily to join those Services, what steps are the Admiralty going to take to fill up the vacancies in those branches in order to make the new scheme a success and to continue it upon the lines laid down. We all hope that the scheme is going to be successful, but this can only be determined when the moment arrives at which an opinion can be pronounced upon the scheme as a whole. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will give some anxious thought to this matter.

I do not agree with what my Noble Friend has said about specialisation. I do not think it was ever intended that there should be permanent specialisation. What was intended was temporary specialisation for a period for every officer having a prospect of success after a certain number of years, with the chance of going back to the executive branch unless he wished to permanently specialise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he is going to do in the event of his not being able to get sufficient naval volunteers for the engineering and marine branches.

May I remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur Lee) that whatever difficulties he has pointed out are of his own creation?

Yes, we foresaw the difficulties.

And you did not provide for them.

How was it possible for us to provide for them?

Then I understand that the hon. Member opposite and his associates formulated and passed a scheme of training for the Navy involving difficulties which he knew of then and knows now, and yet he did not provide for meeting those difficulties. I remember when this scheme was put forward in 1902 I strongly objected to it largely upon the ground of the difficulties that would be found in regard to its working. You invite young gentlemen to go into the Navy, and they are selected by this admirable committee, which is to find out all about them and their capacity and their adaptability for the Service in an interview of about two and a half minutes.

dissented.

Well, a quarter of an hour. I do not think I could find out all about the hon. Gentleman himself in a quarter of an hour, especially if I met him for the first time. These young gentlemen all intend to be sailor officers.

All admirals.

And they all intend to be admirals, and most of them Admirals of the Fleet. Having got them into the Navy, you say, "I am going to train you all together; I am going to give you all a common training." That, in my opinion, is the first great mistake. Sailor officers require to be trained differently from engineers or engineer officers. But that is the plan. We are going to fill them with science till they can scarcely understand what they have got in them, and require spectacles to bring it out of them. Then we are going to say to these young gentlemen, "You are not going to be executive naval officers, but Marines or engineers." That is a breach of the understanding on which all these young gentlemen enter the Navy. They all intend to be sailor officers, lieutenants and admirals. The difficulty is one entirely of your own creation. The new scheme creates the difficulty.

I do not in the least object to the hon. Gentleman attacking me or the scheme, but he might describe it correctly. These young officers, as soon as they reach the right command, have to go back to the executive branch unless they are permitted to specialise permanently. The intention of the scheme was that they should get back into the executive line from the rank of commander onwards and so have the opportunity of becoming admirals.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has improved his position by this interruption. It appears there is not to be one specialisation, but many specialisations. This young gentleman is first to be an engineer, then an executive officer, and then, I suppose, an engineer again.

No.

That is the effect of the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given. The real truth is that these young men are to be either fish, flesh, or good red herring, as the Admiralty choose. They go in to be fish, and do not want to be flesh or herring, but the Admiralty says, "When you have been herrings, you shall be fish at some other period." You want the sailor officer specialised and kept in his position, the engineer specialised and kept in his position—he is not an engineer really, but an engine-driver—and you want the Marine Specialised and kept in his position. You have abandoned that. That, I think, is the inherent difficulty of the position. I have never heard any justification for the alterations that were then made. You had an excellent method of training your engineer officer and an admirable method of training your Marine officer, superior possibly to any military department in any force in the world, and you chose to create these difficulties yourselves. I think it rather hard that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) should come to the present First Lord of the Admiralty and deal with him as though he had created the difficulty, and ask him how he is going to get out of it. I do not think it is possible to get out of it.

Secondly, there is the question of this science, x plus y. Of course, you want a vast amount of science in the Navy. You have to use the highest mathematics in the naval service and to calculate curves of the most extraordinary difficulty. I admit that, but that work should be done by a few professors highly skilled, and they should be at home. I admit and assert that you want men of the highest scientific knowledge, but you do not want them on the boat or in the ship; they ought to be in the Admiralty—in those new buildings where you would have all the appliances of the highest kind. What you want in the ordinary naval officer is practical experience of practical matters. The fault of the scheme is that it sets up science, not in a higher position than it should hold, but in a place different from that it should occupy. I believe you are entirely wrong in requiring these little boys to fill their heads with science. I saw some of the new midshipmen when at Gibraltar the other day, and I am told that the effect of the extraordinary amount of x s which they have got to get into their heads is to leave them very much confused. You should put the naval officer into his apprenticeship as soon as you can. Put him on board ship and give him command of a boat's crew. Some of the boat's crew will probably run away, get drunk, and return without any clothes on. Let him learn to prevent these things. That is the way to teach a naval officer. Teach him to handle men, and, if he fails, take the boat away from him. That is the way to make a practical naval officer. You do not want that particular science in that particular gentleman; science can be provided for him from the shore.

I was rather disappointed with the definition given by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) of what a naval officer should know. He said he should know something about everything and everything about one thing. It is quite impossible, in the limitations of human life, for any human being to attain to that. If a naval officer knows how to deal with ships and boats and a certain number and a certain kind of man, that is as much as can be required of him. The knowing of something about everything and of everything about something—that you can find at home, if at all, and that you should leave at home. At sea you want a man who knows how to handle a ship, whether it is a torpedo boat, a destroyer, a cruiser, or a man of war; and he can only learn that by the most intense application from his earliest youth to that task. He must serve an apprenticeship at sea. If you suppose that by serving a long apprenticeship to science you thereby become a seaman and a capable handler of ships and men, you make a most profound mistake. It is the mistake made in this plan.

Then I come, to interchangeability. It was certainly suggested in the plan as first proposed that all these officers should be interchangeable. I believe to some extent that has been abandoned, but to what extent I do not quite know. The Noble Lord will perhaps suggest that it was not Lord Selborne, but Lord Cawdor who did this.

Under the scheme of 1902, there were to be specialists, but under the scheme of 1905 everybody was to be a specialist in everything, and that cannot work

I can perfectly well remember denouncing the scheme of 1902 on account of its creating what I ventured then to call the interchangeable popinjay. I do not know how far that has been abandoned. I am perfectly convinced you will have to make a complete abandonment of that before you can get the proper work out of your naval officer. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) has alluded to the time when the boys trained under the new scheme will become lieutenants. I believe I am right in saying that that will be in 1912. You will therefore, in 1912, have your new lieutenants flowing into your man-of-war. Let the Committee remember that the lieutenant is the backbone of the service. It is not the commander, the captain, nor the admiral upon whom the efficiency, the capacity, and the ability of the Fleet depend, but it is upon the large body of lieutenants. If, then, you are making a mistake, as I venture to think you are, and if you are continuing the mistake, as I believe you are, and if you are introducing the wrong sort of lieutenants into the Navy from the year 1912 onwards, you are beginning a very serious deterioration of your naval capacity. I am persuaded that the old and not the new way is the right one. A man learned his trade, not by sitting at a desk and having his head filled with formulse, but by sitting in the sternsheets of a boat and learning how to handle the boat and the men in it, even to taking an iron tiller and giving a man a crack on the head if he did not do what he told him. That was the hard school in which the naval officer really learned his profession. X and y must be had, but they should be left at home. The practical way, I believe, is the right way. I could really dwell at great length upon this subject. I feel intensely the enormous importance of it, and I feel that we are at this moment gambling with the future of our naval officer. If the scheme started in 1902 and since somewhat modified—though not to the extent I should have liked—is right, it is well and good, but we know the old system was right. It bred the best officer in the world. It is true it was another kind of ship, but it was not another kind of Service; it was essentially the same. We do not know, we have to guess whether this will be right. I myself have the greatest doubt about it. I always had. I still believe you are going the wrong way. It seems to be suggested that you are to change about, that you are to change your executive man to an engineering man or to a marine man, and that then you are to bring the engineer and the marine back to the Executive Branch. I believe that is the crowning error of all. Do I understand that you are to select your naval officer as an engineering officer, and that he should then leave the stokehole and go on the bridge and become an executive officer and handle the ship?

I am not making any suggestion. I am describing the scheme. A young officer has to specialise in one branch or the other for a certain period only. He does not choose the period, but he chooses the branch in which he specialises. At the end of that period he has to go back to the Executive Branch, unless he is allowed to remain in the branch in which he has specialised on account of having shown a special aptitude for it.

The right hon. Gentleman says "Go back." Go back to what? I understand that the boy is forcibly specialised by the Admiralty. At any rate, that is what it will come to, and you must not expect that lieutenants who go into the Navy will consent to become engineers. Do you think that a boy who enters full of romance thinking he is to become an effective naval officer will voluntarily become an engineer? I do not believe you will find one in twenty who will do that. You will have to force them to specialise. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I do not know what experience he may have among these young gentlemen, but from my knowledge of them and of their parents I believe the strongest resistance will be shown to forcible specialisation as engineers. You are going to make them specialise as engineers, and then under your scheme they will leave the engine room and go on to the bridge. Surely that is not the right way to go about the business. If you want a man to handle a ship you must bring him up with that object. If you want him to run an engine train him to do it. And if you want him to command the Marines, red or blue, you must bring him up to that. You cannot have the jack of all trades whom some people seem to admire. I should like to see this scheme largely modified, and some sort of reasonable prospect held out to these young gentlemen that they shall be trained for the job which they have entered the Navy to learn, and that they shall not be expected to turn their hand to another job. I look forward with great apprehension to the advent of this new kind of lieutenant who will come into charge of His Majesty's ships a few years hence.

I hope the views expressed by my hon. Friend will not obtain currency generally throughout the Navy or among the parents of the young officers. The view which he has expressed shows that he completely misunderstands the present system. I should be unwilling in the circumstances to use strong language, but it really is necessary that outside it should be understood that this Education Scheme has no connection, at all with the picture drawn by my hon. Friend. In the Navy we have long had a system of specialisation by young officers, and I want to say that we certainly include among our best lieutenants at the present time specialists in gunnery and torpedo work, and also in navigation. We do not say that these men who specialise in gunnery, torpedo and navigation are actuated by the hope of becoming Admirals of the Fleet, or that they divorce themselves from the executive, and will not hereafter command ships. On the contrary they are regarded as amongst our best men, and if my hon. Friend will go through the list of officers at the head of the Navy at the present time, the list of commanders and captains of big battleships, the list of admirals, and Admirals of the Fleet, he will find that the specialists absorb amongst themselves a very large proportion of the best appointments. The system embodied in the new scheme is that we should have an engineer specialist in the same way as we have gunnery and torpedo specialists. But the hon. Gentleman asks will you get young officers to specialise for the engine-room—will they be content to go down into the engine-room? Why not? The gunnery specialist does not have a very easy time—he has to spend a great deal of time in his study, he is not the man on the bridge and does not satisfy the picture of an ordinary officer which my hon. Friend has drawn.

Indeed, he does. These other specialists do not come within the view I was putting forward. These torpedo and gunnery and navigation lieutenants are all seamen executive officers—not engineers. What I wanted to point out was that usually a boy who comes into the Fleet does not intend to be an engineer.

If the hon. Gentleman will look into the history of the Navy he will find that exactly the same argument he is using with regard to the engineer specialists was in former days used about the navigating officers. In former days we had gunnery and torpedo specialists, and then the navigating officer was in exactly the same position as the engineer officer is at this moment.

He never could be an admiral.

The Noble Lord has not caught my point. The change was made in the system of educating the navigating officer. They were made executive officers, and trained as specialists, in order to obtain exactly the same rank and status as the ordinary executive officers.

The navigating officer was always an executive officer, and he could not become an admiral. There are now 3,200 officers on the list, from admiral down to midshipman. They can all become admirals, and I would ask you to look at the irritation caused by the fact that they do not do so. Now you are going to add 2,300 more engineering and marine officers, and you are telling them that they also can become admirals. That will be your difficulty, because they will join in the believe that they may become admirals, whereas they will not be able to do so, and you will have to specialise them.

That is a new grievance. You say that these boys enter with the chance of becoming admirals, and if we only told them at the start that they would have no such chance they would be perfectly satisfied. I am sorry I cannot come to any other conclusion than that. In former days the navigating officer was not an officer of the same status and position as the ordinary executive officer—he held separate rank. But when the Admiralty made a change and gave the navigating officer the same rank as the ordinary executive officer, precisely the same argument now used by my hon. Friend in relation to the engineering officers was then used in regard to the navigating officers. We have now an Admiral of the Fleet who was entered under the old system. He turned over when the change was made, and is now in exactly the same position as other executive officers. If my hon. Friend will only be patient he will find that the experience which the Admiralty have had with regard to the navigating officers will be repeated with regard to the engineering officers, who will become specialists. The hon. Member for Fareharn laid himself open to the retort of my hon. Friend—I do not join in it—that this danger was foreseen and ought to have been guarded against before the scheme was adopted. I think the Admiralty of the day in 1902 were right in adopting this scheme. This danger was foreseen; but, although foreseen, the risk had to be taken. Nobody could avoid taking it. How do we find ourselves in 1910? What is our present prospect? That is the only point we have to consider. The scheme has been adopted, and midshipmen have been trained under it. I beg my hon. Friend not to instil into the minds of those whom we are recruiting as our future officers the idea that it is an unworthy thing to go into the engineroom. The engineer officers have absolutely as good prospects as the officers in every other branch, and I certainly hope that we shall obtain the necessary number of volunteers. The hon. Gentleman asked me what reasons we have for thinking that the scheme will work successfully in practice—what indication we have of that? Of course, at the moment it is impossible to say how many of these lieutenants will volunteer to become specialists in the engineering branch; but where-ever I have been I have asked the captains I have met who have had the new scheme under consideration, and I have been again and again told by responsible men that they have not a shadow of doubt that volunteers will readily come forward for the engineering branch. Personally, so far as I have an opinion on the subject, I have the strongest belief that when the time comes the inducements to join the engineering branch are so great that we shall have an abundance of volunteers. The sub-lieutenant who specialises as an engineer gets higher pay—he gets the pay of a specialist. He is also relieved of watch-keeping duty on the bridge, and I confess I do not know from my observation of human nature that young men are particularly fond of watching duties on the bridge. I believe that this inducement alone will be sufficient to enable us to obtain the necessary number of volunteers for the branch. As a matter of fact, there is another strong inducement. We find, as the result of the training at Osborne and Portsmouth, that a large number of midshipmen have developed special engineering tastes, and they will have a far better chance of success and prominence in the Navy as engineer specialists than in any other branch. Just as in the case of the youngster who shows a great aptitude for gunnery, so, in the case of the engineer specialist, the boy who becomes an engineer will see his way to distinction equally in that branch. Taking all these considerations together—the actual opinions and representations of the officers, the arguments which have been advanced to the engineer specialists, and the better prospects in the service which will be open to a skilful engineer rather than to the ordinary rank and file sea officers—I personally have very little doubt that we shall have no difficulty whatever in securing the necessary volunteers when the time comes. An hon. Gentleman referred to the case of the marine branch, and I have recently had an opportunity of discussing this point with the captains of one of the ships that I visited, who had the new scheme in his ship, and he told me that two of the midshipmen were anxious to volunteer for the marine branch, but I am unable to ascertain the precise figures. It was generally considered that there would be none, but one captain told me that there were two on his ship, and I have no doubt at all that volunteers will be found when the time comes. But, of course, in an important matter of this sort the Admiralty cannot merely rely upon volunteers, and we have secured ourselves against all risks in regard to the marine and engineer services being maintained, because every single cadet who is entered at Osborne is entered for all three branches, and really without any hardship or without any unfair play, we should be perfectly entitled to commandeer them for each of the three branches. I do not think it will be necessary, and as far as I have observed the Board of Admiralty which introduced this scheme in 1902, of which the hon. Member opposite was a member, were thoroughly justified in believing that they had laid the best basis for a scheme of naval training which this country has ever had.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the small point about the recommendations?

No recommendations from outside or inside the Admiralty, except the recommendations of the schoolmasters, are made known to the members of the committee. Care is also taken that the names of the members of the committee should not be known outside. Consequently very little, if any, opportunity is given to any person to communicate with them. The recommendations which may be made on behalf of particular boys are known only to the First Lord of the day.

While thanking the First Lord for that answer, may I ask him if he will go a little further, and say whether, as a general rule, the First Lord accepts the recommendations of the committee as to the boys.

I have no reason to conceal anything from the Committee as to this system. The committee, after interviewing the boys, divide them up into classes, and I will call the classes Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and so on. We have usually to select from seventy to eighty names, and the boys of the first class may not number more than ten or twenty, and these will be taken as a matter of course, and so on, with the following classes until we reach one in which if all the boys were taken the total required would be exceeded. In considering the selection of boys from that particular class the recommendations are considered; that is to say, the members of the Board of Admiralty have a right to recommend a boy, and the old system is adhered to that a captain may make a recommendation on commission of his ship. These recommendations are then considered, but it is only when there is doubt as to which of a number of boys are to be taken that the recommendation becomes of use.

Is it the First Lord who makes the selection?

Yes. It is I myself who make the selection.

I cannot allow this Vote to pass without expressing my regret and that of many hon. Members on these benches, at the unsatisfactory reply which the Financial Secretary made to the point raised by the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) in regard to a pamphlet entitled "The Truth About the Navy." I do not wish to drag anybody's name into this discussion, but the people who are responsible for this pamphlet, and the question with regard to it raised by the Noble Lord, are the Government of the day, and no one else. The hon. Gentlemen in reply to the Noble Lord said that he knew nothing about the pamphlet, and had not read it, and so far as he knew, no money had ever been taken by the Admiralty for it. I think that is a very unsatisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman should know about this pamphlet, which is a very important one. It came out with the Admiralty's stamp; it is still circulated on the ships, and apparently contains extracts of an ill-advised character in regard to a friendly power. It ought not, therefore, to be dismissed in half a dozen sentences by the representative of the Government, and I think it was hardly fair of the hon. Gentleman to insinuate that we on this side made statements of a defamatory character against a friendly power. Therefore I think it is right to make a protest against this very important matter which was raised by the Noble Lord being dismissed in half-a-dozen sentences by a representative of the Government without any information being given in regard to it.

The only question which was asked me was whether it was still in the library, and I said I would find out. I do not know what more I could say except that I would inquire.

I desire to ask a question about Osborne, and whether the sanitary conditions are such that the cadets can go there without any injury to their health. A series of letters has appeared in the "Times" from the parents of cadets, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a great deal of sickness has prevailed at Osborne. I went through the college myself some months ago, and although I grant the conditions appear sanitary in every respect, still there has been a great amount of doubt raised about the matter.

I do not think that this arises on this Vote. It comes on on Vote 10.

On the point of Order, Sir. We have the Vote for the officers on page 71, who are responsible for the education and discipline, and I would venture to suggest that the surgeons also come into this Vote. Therefore, I am in order in dealing with the medical portion of the administration.

It does not come in this Vote. It does not come in here at all.

On the point of Order, Sir. Are we not discussing Vote 5?

Of course we are discussing Vote 5, but the question of the condition of Osborne does not come up upon it, but only the education given at Osborne.

I will confine myself to the duties of the Fleet surgeons at Osborne on page 51, and I would point out that the sanitary conditions of the establishment have been for a long time past unhealthy.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman he is out of Order.

Am I not in Order in saying that the chief surgeon is not doing his duty? How can I call attention to it in any other way.

I told the hon. Gentleman that he could call attention to it on Vote 10, which is the proper Vote to raise it upon.

With great respect I cannot call attention to the failure of duty by that officer on that Vote.

The particular point which the hon. Member raises comes on Vote 10 (Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad).

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me if he has got a report yet on the short-service men. There was to be a report in regard to them, and will he let the Committee know what the report is.

It is entirely a confidential report, and therefore I cannot say anything about it.

Then I will only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the large increase of the Fleet, and ask him whether he can tell the Committee how many of the short-service men are joining it?

I can find out, and I will answer a question upon the subject.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain the recent history of the Royal Naval Reserve. I have always taken a great interest in that service, and I observe that there is a considerable decrease, and I rather think an increasing decrease, in its numbers. I am far from saying it is not a sufficient number, but when you have to keep an actually created Reserve in being it is rather a serious thing to interfere with it unless you are going to make it better. The only thing that I can see for replacing the Royal Naval Reserve is the Royal Naval Volunteers, which have not justified their existence. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us something which will tend to justify that decrease. They consist of seafaring men, the majority of whom, I believe, will compare as seamen with most of the men in the Fleet. They are real practical sailors. I therefore cannot but regard with some regret the decrease in the number of the Naval Reserve, and I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain and justify it. I look with no great complacency upon the increase in the Royal Naval Volunteers. In my opinion they neither are, nor can be, efficient substitutes for the Royal Naval Reserves.

The point is an important one. We maintain a certain number of Reserves made up partly of the Royal Fleet Reserve and partly of the Royal Naval Reserve. It is true that there has of late years been a steady decline in the number of the Royal Naval Reserves, but that decline has been more than compensated for by the increase in the Royal Fleet Reserve. If the question was put to any experienced naval officer as to whether it is or is not desirable to maintain the Royal Fleet Reserve rather than the Royal Naval Reserve, there could only be one answer. The Royal Fleet Reserve consists of the very best men trained in the Fleet. The Royal Naval Reserve has decreased partly, though not altogether, owing to the fact that much more stringent regulations have been adopted with regard to their training. We desire to make the Royal Naval Reserve as efficient as possible, and for that purpose they are trained afloat. The result has been no doubt a slight decrease in their numbers, but that has been more than made up by the increase in the Fleet Reserve, and if you take the two branches together our numbers are now greater than they have been heretofore. I hope the Committee will accept the view of the Admiralty that our present position in regard to the reserves is satisfactory. The Volunteer Reserves are very few in number. They amount altogether to 4,400. The largest station is in London. There is another at Newcastle, another at Glasgow, and one at Bristol, but the whole Service is not a very large one. I should certainly desire, so far as we can, to cultivate the spirit of patriotism, and in a very large degree the efficiency which is obtained in our Volunteer Reserves, and I certainly cannot hold out any intention on our part of reducing the number of the Volunteer Reserves. On the contrary, I am very glad to see the high degree of efficiency that the Volunteer Reserve have obtained. I have just received particulars with regard to other questions which the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) put to me. About 500 seamen of the Royal Fleet Reserve are short service men. With regard to the sick bay staff, that was one of the questions raised by the Committee, and I hope very soon to be able to give the Noble Lord a comprehensive answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration what I brought before his notice before as to letting the blacksmith artificers of the ships join the Fleet Reserves? I know there is a difficulty about it, but it is a very important point: to have in reserve ratings, of which there are only a few. For instance, if I took out a ship to-morrow I should only have one plumber, one carpenter's plumber, and perhaps two engineer's plumbers, though I should want five or six plumbers. It is imperative that these ratings should be allowed to join the Fleet Reserves in time of war.

I will certainly look into the point. In fact, I am familiar with it. We have, of course, men of the same class in the Fleet Reserve from the dockyards, but I will consider further the point raised by the Noble Lord.