MR. GERALD BALFOUR said that if such an argument were admitted, it could, and immediately would, be used in reference to many other districts in the country. should decide that question. The county | dations had been carried out. Two of those councils certainly could not do it. The recommendations referred to the coast right hon. Gentleman had really not between Duncansby Head and Aberdeen, made a fair offer at all. If the Board of and between the North Foreland and Trade were to do their duty, it was Beachy Head. He would call the attennecessary that they should send down an tion of the President of the Board of inspector or engineer to ascertain whether Trade to the fact that the refuge harbour or not such a harbour was a pressing of Peterhead, between Duncansby Head necessity. and Aberdeen, was built out of public money. As to the coast between the North Foreland and Beachy Head, was not the new harbour at Dover a refuge harbour? Whether it was an Admiralty harbour or not, it was a refuge harbour on one of the most dangerous coasts, and would be very largely built out of funds that would have to be guaranteed by the Exchequer. Therefore the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on that point was inaccurate. The opinion of the county councils as to a suitable site for a refuge harbour on the coast of North Devon or North Cornwall would not be worth the paper it was printed on; they were not harbour authorities. The Board of Trade would compromise neither their dignity nor independence by sending a man down to inquire into the feasibility of the proposal. But he feared the only way to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to alter his mind would be to take him down the Bristol Channel when there was a strong nor'wester blowing and leave him under the lee of Lundy Island for a couple of tides, with the wind blowing first with the tide and then against it. He was convinced the first act of the right hon. Gentleman on his return to terra firma would be to grant the prayer which had been made. *MR. SOARES said that unless the right hon. Gentleman consented to the appointment of a committee to examine into the matter he would be obliged to take a division. The Board of Trade had all the necessary machinery at its command, and that machinery was paid for by the State. The county councils had not the necessary machinery. Why, then, could not the right hon. Gentleman allow it to be used? The right hon. Gentleman had referred to a private Report; but hon. Members were in entire ignorance of the contents of that Report and of the evidence upon which it was based. What they wanted was that the evidence should be taken locally, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant the committee for which he had been asked. SIR ROBERT ROPNER (Stockton) said that if this harbour of refuge was intended simply for fishing boats and small coasting vessels he could understand the demand being made, but if it was meant to benefit the mercantile marine it would be an absolute waste of money. Sailing vessels were rapidly becoming obsolete; the mercantile marine was now mainly composed of steam vessels, which, in case of necessity, could always leave the coast and get out of danger. MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury) said that this particular part of the coast was that where sailing vessels most abounded. In the Bristol Channel ports last year 3,000 sailing vessels arrived and only 11,000 steamers. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Report of 1886, and had said that none of its recommenMr Lambert. *MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire) remarked that the country had no more valuable asset than its fishing population. The fact that sailing vessels were becoming obsolete in the mercantile marine was an additional proof of the value of the fishing fleets, because it was only on sailing vessels that sailors could be properly educated. His constituency had a coast line of over 100 miles, but a penny rate in Argyllshire would probably produce only £800, so that it was just in those places where the need for protection was greatest that the power of local assistance was smallest. It was high time that the officials of the Board of Trade should be aroused to a sense of the responsibility *MR. SOARES, seated and with his resting upon them, and immediate steps hat on, said that he had moved an ought to be taken for the encouragement Amendment, whereas the Chairman had of one of the most important interests of put the Main Question. the British Empire. It was much easier to build ironclads than to get sailors to work them, and without sailors of what value were the ironclads? He hoped the interests of the fishing industry would no longer be neglected in the manner they had been. *MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire) pointed out that the long stretch of Cardigan Bay, although it possessed several places well adapted for the purpose, was entirely destitute of small harbours of refuge for fishing boats. The Welsh people had been taunted with not being good sailors, but the reason was that their coast was altogether wanting in harbours. Their kinsmen in Brittany provided the French navy with many of its most illustrious seamen. He pressed opon the Board of Trade the desirability of an amendment of their policy in this respect. A very small percentage of the scandalous waste on the Army might well be applied to the provision of harbours on the coast of Wales. On the House being cleared for a division, Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John *THE CHAIRMAN explained that the Amendment had been moved before the dinner-hour, and that all Motions for reductions dropped when Progress was reported. AYES. Compton, Lord Alwyne 1 Gardner, Ernest Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn). Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'ndery) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham, Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol,S Lucas. Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Macdona, John Cumming M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) M'Calmont, Colonel James M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW. Martin, Richard Biddulph Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Milvain, Thomas Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Morrison, James Archibald Murray,Rt. HonAGraham(Bute Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Nicholson, William Graham Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Percy, Earl Pierpoint, Robert Pilkington, Colonel Richard Platt-Higgins, Frederick Plummer, Walter R. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Pretyman, Ernest George Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) NOES. Harmsworth, R. Leicester Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart Tuke, Sir John Batty TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. O'Dowd, John Runciman, Walter Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Lambert, George Leigh, Sir Joseph Leng, Sir John Levy, Maurice Lough, Thomas McKillop, W. (Sligo, North) Motion made, and Question proposed, “That a sum, not exceeding £35,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Shipman, Dr. John G. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Mr. Soares and Mr. Fletcher Moulton. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces.' MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) thought that t MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) this Vote needed some further explana- said they were accustomed to extion, for he would be able to show that traordinary precedents in connection the promises made by the Government with the business of the House, in regard to this expenditure had not but he looked with surprise at the been carried out. This Vote was for reluctance of the noble Lord to reply £61,500, and it had increased during upon this point. If the noble Lord was the past four years by no less than 60 ready to reply he would give way at per cent. Two years ago the reason once. He associated himself entirely given for this increase was on account with the protest which had been made of alterations carried out in consequence by the hon. Member for Halifax. This of His Majesty's accession to the Throne, Estimate was on a par with several and it was then stated that this was other Estimates which had been before purely a temporary increase. Now they the Committee during the last week, in discovered that this excessive sum was which temporary expenditure in prebeing maintained permanently. On the vious years had now appeared as 15th May, 1902, when the present permanent expenditure. He did not Home Secretary was First Commissioner care whether it was for Royal of Works, he stated that although this Palaces or for any other building, but he Vote was larger than the normal Vote thought £40,000 a year put on the Estimates it was accounted for by the extra ex- year after year for maintenance and repairs penditure rendered necessary by a was a great deal too much; more especichange in the occupancy of the Throne ally when they remembered that upon and the accession of His Majesty, and the last occasion when this Estimate was the right hon. Gentleman also stated that before the Committee the Home Secretary this extra expenditure would disappear distinctly stated that this expenditure from the Estimates in future years. He was purely consequent upon the lamented wished to know where the disappearance death of the late Queen, and that it was was, because the Vote had shown no only a temporary matter. It had not signs of any reduction, and he felt been suggested that any new or expensive sure it was much higher than it ought building had been put up. He hoped to be. The two items which were ex- the noble Lord would be able to give cessive were those for new works, them more information in regard to this alterations and additions, and for main- Vote. There was another matter he tenance and repairs. They all recog- wi hed o raise. He would like to know nised that substantial alterations were if the noble Lord got estimates for all required to bring the Royal Palaces up this expenditure. There seemed to be to date, but they did not anticipate that a general feeling amongst contractors temporary additions to the expenditure that if they only got a Government job would remain as permanent increases. once for a Royal Palace they would keep If this kind of thing was allowed to go it for all time, and if they got the original on economy would never be attained by contract they could have as many adthe Committee. Last year they com- ditions as they liked. It was the habit plained of the large sums of money spent in some Government offices where conupon new works, and they were then tracts were invited, to leave the whole told that those works had brought the thing to one particular official, and no Royal Palaces up to date. He did not matter whether thirty or forty large see why they should continue spending contractors spent thou ands of pounds £40,000 per annum upon maintenance and in preparing estimates, the work invarirepairs and in order to elicit an explana- ably went to some particular contractor. tion and to get to know why the promise of He hoped that was not the case with the the Home Secretary had not been carried Department for which the noble Lord out, he begged to move a reduction of was responsible, but he wished to know this Vote by £5,000. who had the giving out of those contracts and who was responsible for seeing that the work was properly carried out. These items now appeared to be permanently charged on the Estimates, and 3 G Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted for the said service." (M. Whitley.) VOL. CXXXIII. [FOURTH SERIES.] he would like to know if the noble Lord had any suggestions to make that, in regard to this Vote, it was not a permanent charge and that his predecessor was not mistaken in regard to the statement he had made. LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley) said he meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member in not rising when he was invited to do so, for he was fully prepared to deal with the Question which had been put to him. The hon. Member opposite had asked a Question in regard to a pledge given by the Home Secretary that the expenditure upon new works was of a temporary character. He wished to point out that when the Home Secretary made that statement he was not dealing with item E but item D. And, it being Midnight, the Chairman. left the Chair to make his Report to the House. Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED). Address for "Return of the number of victuallers', beerhouse, and other Licences for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors the renewal of which has been refused at the general annual licensing meetings and adjournments thereof held in England and Wales during February and March, 1904, showing in each case the ground of the refusal, especially where such ground was in any instance that the Licence was not required; with the number of cases in which notice of appeal was given, and the result of such appeal Mr. Dalziel. (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 194, of session 1903).” — (Mr. Cochrane.) SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT [DEFICIENCY ANNUITY]. Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25th April]. That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, That it is expedient to authorise the continuance of the payment of the terminable annuity payable under Section 1 of the Savings Banks Act, 1880, in each year up to the end of the half-year ending on 20th May, 1917, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend the Savings Banks Acts."" Question again proposed. Debate resumed. Question put, and agreed to. MOTOR CARS (LICENCES). Address for "Return showing the number of Motor Cars (distinguishing Motor Cycles from other Motor Cars) registered by each registering authority in the United Kingdom under the Motor Car Act, 1903, up to the 1st day of January, 1904, and the 1st day of April, 1904, respectively; together with the number of licences under the Act granted to drivers of Motor Cars by each authority at the same dates, distinguishing between licences limited to the driving of Motor Cycles and licences not so limited." (Mr. Scott Montagu.) Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock. [APPENDICES. |