Lords Sitting of 10 July 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* (184).
Second Reading—Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (168); Women's Suffrage (176), negatived.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment* (180).
Committee—Post Office Protection* (172–185).
Committee—Report—Indian Marine* (170).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 7)* (162), and passed.
Withdrawn — Secretary for Scotland (157); Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister (177).

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 168.)
(The Lord President.)
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 168.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 21st day of March last 'That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 27th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, he wished to call attention to the omission, in the Bill, of any clause which would provide that the money to be guaranteed by the counties under it, in the shape of capital for making tramways, would be strictly applied to that purpose. He would, therefore, give Notice that, in Committee, he would move a clause to remedy this defect.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. (No. 157.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. (No. 157.)

  THIRD READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: I have, on behalf of the Government, to state that I do not propose to ask your Lordships to read this Bill the third time. Having regard to the statement with reference to Public Business which the Prime Minister is to make in the other House, it is obvious that this Bill cannot be passed into law this Session; and, therefore, the Government think that it would be more respectful to your Lordships not to put the House to the trouble of proceeding with it further.
  Moved, "That the said Order be discharged."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he had heard the announcement of the noble Earl with some concern, and he might also say with some surprise. He did not see why the result of the Division on the Representation of the People Bill should have the effect of excluding the consideration of such a simple measure as this was, one so unlikely to give rise to any difficulty in passing it. He greatly regretted that it should be given up so lightly, because it would be thought in Scotland that some Members of the Government were not over-zealous in pressing it through Parliament. If there were only this particular Bill to be abandoned, there would be nothing to be said in favour of that course being taken; but, looking at what had occurred, he was afraid that the course taken by the Government in the matter savoured somewhat of temper.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) whether there is anything in the state of Public Business in the other House which necessitates the course that he now asks us to adopt, because, not more than a very days ago, it was understood that this measure was to be proceeded with? Has anything peculiar happened with regard to Public Business in the other House since then, which requires a different course of proceeding to be followed from that which we understood the other night was to be pursued? Possibly the noble Earl opposite may inform us as to that.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not know that anything of a peculiar character has happened this evening in the other House; but something has happened—if I may repeat the expression of the noble Duke—of a "peculiar" character in this House. Her Majesty's Government have very carefully considered their intentions in the matter; and Mr. Gladstone, in consequence of a Question from the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, as to the views of the Government with regard to the progress of Public Business, and the Bibs to be proceeded with, proposed to make a statement on this occasion; and the statement which he has made is, that Her Majesty's Government, after reviewing the circumstances which have occurred, have made up their minds to abandon this particular Bill—in favour of which I quite agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) that there is much to be said. I also agree with him that if this was the only Bill affected, such a course could not be defended; but they intend to abandon all the Government Bills of any importance, or such as would be likely to be contested, reserving, however, to themselves the right of going forward with Bills which have passed through a Grand Committee of the other House. At least nine measures, all of which they desire to pass, and some of which are of great importance, they do not mean to press, their object being to arrive at the stage of Prorogation as early as possible. With regard to the Question of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), the object they have in view is that Parliament may be summoned in the Autumn to consider the
  652
  very important Bill which was rejected in this House the other night.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he hoped that, when Parliament re-assembled in the Autumn, after the Prorogation, if such was to be the case, Her Majesty's Government would then be prepared to propose a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats, as well as for extending the franchise.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged accordingly.
  Moved, "That the Bill (by leave of the House) be withdrawn."—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I should like to ask one question. At the Autumn Session will the Government be prepared to re-introduce this Scotch measure into Parliament, or not?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot make that pledge with regard to the Autumn Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he protested against the withdrawal of that Bill at that stage. It might have been read a third time and passed, and sent down to the Commons, in order to show the people of Scotland that it was not owing to any action of the House of Lords respecting it that necessitated its withdrawal. He wished that the public should understand that, if a measure was withdrawn which the whole people of Scotland were anxious to sea passed this Session, it was not owing to any action of the Conservative Party. They had no idea whatever the other night that if the Representation of the People Bill were not allowed to proceed, the other measures of public interest would be abandoned, and that, in particular, this Bill, affecting Scotland, would be withdrawn. He knew that the people of Scotland would not approve of such a course of proceeding.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have to point out to the noble Marquess that this is not a matter in which disappointment is caused to Scotland alone. Certain measures connected with England and Ireland have also to be abandoned; and their abandonment, I have no doubt, will produce considerable disappointment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What appears to be the object of the

  653
  noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in the measure which he proposes to take is this. He wishes, if possible, to make his own vexation at what has taken place shared in by other people who have no interest in it, but who have an interest in the unfortunate "innocents" whom he announces it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to massacre. It seems to me his mode of expressing his wrath seems to be something like that of the mediæval Popes who, when they could not get the thing they liked out of the King, interdicted all the religious services of the inhabitants of his Kingdom, thereby hoping to communicate their own feelings of disappointment to as large a circle as possible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn accordingly.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Lord Denman.)
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 176.)

  SECOND READING NEGATIVED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was intended by it to give the Parliamentary franchise to women entitled to vote for School Boards and in municipal elections, and who had the same rights of residence and rating as men possessed.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): I rise to Order. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read his own Bill; but I cannot think he has, for the Bill, as printed, only says—
  "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, &c., this Act shall come into operation in all parts of the United Kingdom and of Ireland as soon as the usual days for registration shall have arrived."
  The Bill, your Lordships will see, does not enact anything about women at all. There is not a single mention of women in it.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the Bill is intended to provide that women should have a vote. That is a very desirable thing; it is mentioned in the Preamble; and it would be extremely easy to make the necessary Amendments in Committee. I will move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): My Lords, I really think it is utterly impossible that your Lordships can agree to the second reading of this Bill. The Preamble is not sufficient; it enacts nothing about women.
  On question? resolved in the negative.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
(The Lord Houghton.)
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, although he had every disposition to challenge a decision of their Lordships' House on this question, as long as there was a possibility of confirming the opinion the House of Commons had arrived at by Resolution in favour of this measure, and which they had also repeatedly expressed on previous occasions, he did not now think it right to occupy the time of their Lordships after the statement that had been made regarding Public Business. He deeply regretted that to the disappointment which had been caused to his clients in this matter must be added those other various disappointments caused by the concurrent action of the Opposition and Her Majesty's Government.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, who had a Notice on the Paper, "That the Bill be read a second time that day three months," said, he was glad that the noble Lord had withdrawn his Motion; because, after all, it was possible that he would have been reduced to that position if he had proposed to go on with the Bill. He (the Duke of Argyll) wished to say, with regard to a measure of this character, proposing to make a very great alteration in the Law of Marriage, which had been the subject of controversy, contest, and various results in the two Houses of Parliament for no less than 40 years, to introduce it so late as the 10th June was not a course that ought to be adopted in connection with so grave a subject. If the noble Lord would introduce a Bill in another Session, he hoped it would be

  655
  introduced at a much earlier period in order that it might receive the calm consideration which a proposal of such great importance deserved.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NAVY (BOILERS).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to move for—
  "Returns of fighting and sea-going ships of the Royal Navy, specifying also the state of forwardness (1) of ships now building; (2) of those under repair; (3) the condition of the boilers of ships in commission; (4) the draught of water of each ship known and estimated when all her weights are on board; and, for a Return of the new boilers now in store in Her Majesty's Dockyards, and of boilers in a state of preparation,"
  said, he wished to examine some of the statements that lately fell from the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), and especially his assertion that the present Government had gone far in advance of their Predecessors in laying down ships. It was, no doubt, quite true that there were no very large shipbuilding operations carried on by the late Government; but there were many ships in a bad state of repair, and they laid out large sums of money in that way. Not only that, but the circumstances of this country were then altogether different to what they had been since the present Government came into Office. The noble Earl forgot to state that the whole gravamen of the charge against the Admiralty was that, whereas from 1874 to 1880 we were on excellent terms with Franco, and had no apprehension of serious naval difficulties, the case was different now. In 1882–3 the French Government spent £2,000,000 additional on its Navy. He (Viscount Sidmouth) did not wish to say that that outlay was made with any hostile intentions towards this country; but he did say that an advance of £2,000,000 in the French Naval Estimate for shipbuilding was an incident which should have made Her Majesty's Government bestir themselves in the matter of shipbuilding. But it was not the French Navy alone that was increasing. The German Navy was increasing in an extraordinary degree, and was being met by no corresponding increase in the English Navy. Spain,
  656
  too, was moving in the same direction, having nearly doubled the number of vessels she formerly possessed, the result being that she would soon possess a very considerable Naval Force. Great energy, too, was being exerted by Italy in the matter, and she had turned out some of the most powerful iron-clads in the world. Other countries in all parts of the world were also increasing their Navies. France had got now a very important Naval Station within a short distance of Malta, and was active in all parts of the world. He mentioned these matters, not as wishing to urge Her Majesty's Government to regard those steps with any jealousy, but simply as showing the importance which was attached by all the Powers of Europe to an increase of Naval Force as Colonies spread, and as we became more and more connected with distant parts of the world. There were 110 vessels on active service in Her Majesty's Navy, and 500 returned as effective; but at least 71 ought to be struck off the list as utterly unworthy to appear there as seagoing fighting ships. As the matter now stood, there was about an equal number of first-class English and French vessels. We might give ourselves, perhaps, the benefit of one more than the French Navy. The Italians had a most powerful array of ships, which might be, in possible events, added to any other Naval Power; and the Russian Navy was by no means an unformidable one. The Returns he moved for would so far satisfy the country by their seeing exactly what the state of the sea-going ships was at present; and he, therefore, hoped the noble Earl would grant them. A naval officer, who had written to him, pointed out that, since 1872, the year 1877–8 was the best shipbuilding year, and that was when the Conservatives were in Office. Naval officers looked back with regret to the time when the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) was at the head of the Admiralty. The Navy was then in a flourishing condition; but the Estimates were £2,000,000 a-year more than now. That was soon afterwards largely reduced, and no Government had since had the courage to raise it to the old figure again. He was told by naval officers of high authority that, notwithstanding all the large display which we had on paper of seagoing fighting ships, only six first-

  657
  class ships were worth anything at all for fighting. He believed also that the Reserve Forces, so frequently paraded before the country as an important line of our defence, was really, for fighting purposes, absolutely worthless. In fact, it was hard to speak of it as defensive at all. The ships comprising it would be blown out of the water by certain foreign ships. We used to be able to meet any combined Fleet. He was satisfied that we did not spend enough money in the construction of ships; and, so far as he could see, very little was being done to place the English Navy in that condition of superiority which it ought to hold over that of other Powers. It was well known how long it took to build a vessel now, and he was informed that vessels were now waiting until the best model was decided upon. Another superiority which Continental Navies had over our own was, that almost all their vessels were armed with breech-loading guns, while the vessels of our own Navy were very deficient in that respect. As to the boilers, he asked the noble Earl for a Return upon that subject; and he could see no reason why it should be objected to, unless it were that the boilers were not in such a state as the noble Earl would wish to appear before the country. He himself was afraid, from what he could make out, that the boilers in the ships at present employed were in a very deficient state; and also that, in the event of a large and sudden demand being made for new ones, the supply of boilers in the Dockyards was not such as would enable the Admiralty to meet it. The next question, relative to the draught of large vessels, was, no doubt, obvious, the object of it being to ascertain what vessels of large size were capable, in the event of an emergency, of passing through the Suez Canal. This matter had been taken into consideration by Foreign Powers in the construction of their ships; and he thought it was highly important that the Admiralty should turn their attention to this subject, and take care that, in the event of the necessity arising for naval operations in the Indian and China Seas, a sufficient force was always in readiness and capable of passing through the Suez Canal. He hoped the force of the future would be of such construction and power as would enable Her Ma-
  658
  jesty's Government, at any time, to send a sufficient force in the event of complications arising with other European Powers. He would also urge the protection of the various stations which were connected with the defence of the Colonies. Anyone acquainted with the position of the Colonies must be aware how very dangerous it would be if an unexpected and powerful force were to swoop down upon them. The Colonial Governments, certainly, were using strenuous endeavours to create a Navy of their own; but, unless they were cordially supported by the Government at home, it was quite impossible that they should get officers of that experience and reputation which would enable them to assume such a position as they ought. The only other point he would urge upon the attention of the House was the enormous advantage which other Powers possessed, in the event of a sudden outbreak of war, in their system of training the seafaring population along the coasts. France had upwards of 170,000 men, more or less, drilled to fight on board ship. Although the seafaring population of this country was, perhaps, superior to that of other countries, that advantage was, to a very great extent, diminished by the circumstance that war ships were not now managed by naval skill alone. It had always been understood that the safety of England depended upon the superiority of her Naval Force. He feared, however, that the country might be caught napping, as it had been in previous wars, the prevalent desire to reduce expenses having affected the Navy more than any other branch of the Public Service. He appealed to the Government to explain to the country that the money spent in the construction of ships was insufficient. Sooner or later more money must be spent upon the Navy; and, in his opinion, the Government would have little difficulty in persuading the country to acquiesce in the expenditure. He begged to make the Motion in his name on the Paper.
  Moved for—
  "Returns of fighting and sea-going ships of the Royal Navy, specifying also the state of forwardness (1) of ships now building; (2) of those under repair; (3) the condition of the boilers of ships in commission; (4) the draught of water of each ship known and estimated when all her weights are on board; and for a Return of the new boilers now in store in Her Majesty's

  659
  Dockyards, and of boilers in a state of preparation."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that no one had a stronger feeling on the matter than he had, that the Navy of Great Britain should be sufficiently powerful not only to undertake whatever work might be required of it, but that, at the same time, it should be equal to perform all the work which could be undertaken by any other Power in the world. He was of opinion that Her Majesty's Navy was not sufficiently strong, and was not what the country ought to have, unless it was able, in European waters, to meet any combination it might be called on to fight. He considered it was not sufficiently strong to fulfil its duty, if an unexpected strain was likely to be placed upon it; and he should, therefore, like to see a much larger sum of money placed at the disposal of the Admiralty than was possible under existing circumstances. He had no doubt, also, that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) would be only too glad if he had a larger sum of money at his disposal to increase the efficiency of the Navy. They all knew, of course, that the great difficulty in these cases was not with those who were in authority in the different Departments, but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible to Parliament and the country, which made comparisons of the Expenditure of various Governments at election times. For his part he (the Marquess of Lothian) should be only too glad if the Naval and the Military Departments could be taken out of the category of Party consideration altogether, and that the country were given to understand that a sufficient sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty in order to make our Navy worthy of the country. Having said that, he was sorry that he could not support the noble Viscount in asking for the two last heads of his proposed Return. The two first heads of the Motion of the noble Viscount, relating to ships building and those under repair, he made no objection to; but he was sorry that the third head, relating to boilers, and the fourth head, having reference to the draught of water of each ship, should have been asked for. What would be the result, if the Return asked for was laid upon the Table? It would
  660
  immediately get into the hands of the Foreign Powers, which would be most undesirable. No doubt, they all took great interest in the Suez Canal, and he thought the present Government took as much interest in it as they (the Conservatives) did; but if the Return were made, whenever a ship was sent out, Foreign Powers would look at the Return, and would at once see exactly how far such a ship could go. He hoped, under these circumstances, the noble Earl would not accede to the demand for a Return under the two heads he had mentioned. No doubt, the Return would be an interesting one; but he thought it would be better not to have such a Return, however interesting, when they knew that it would give information to other Powers which it was desirable to keep from them. He was sorry that the noble Viscount had thought necessary to cast discredit on the Navy. He said that out of 500 ships at least 71 were only fit to be broken up. It could not be expected that every ship should be in an equal state of efficiency, and his impression was that all these ships were more or less efficient.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he wished to explain that the vessels he referred to were not all fighting ships, but vessels of all kinds.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, however that might be, with regard to the Motion of the noble Viscount, he must protest against the idea of issuing forth to the world a Return from which foreign nations could learn the state of the boilers on our vessels, and their draught of water.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) had suggested that, on a former occasion, he (the Earl of Northbrook) omitted two skips from his enumeration of the number laid down in 1883 by the French Government. The noble Viscount, who referred to the Charles Martel and another vessel, was, however, mistaken in thinking that those ships had been laid down. In fact, he (the Earl of Northbrook) doubted whether, as originally designed, they ever would be laid down. It was true that, in the French Estimates for 1885, money was asked for the construction of part of the ships in question; but the French, in their Estimates, were a year in advance of us. It was of little

  661
  use to discuss what might be done at the end of this year, or during next year. The question for the public to consider was, what ships were actually being built in France and in England. The fact was that, from 1880 to 1883, we had laid down eight ships to the French four; and in 1884, up to the present time, we had added one, and the French none. He referred only to fighting ships, and did not include gunboats; because many of those being built by France were only suitable for river use. Therefore, so far from overstating the case with regard to the proceedings of the Admiralty, he had rather understated what had been done up to the present time. With regard to the future he would say nothing. When the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) said that it would be desirable that the Admiralty should have an unlimited amount of money to spend on the present type of ships of war, he felt bound to say he was not of that opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he wished to explain that what he said was as to the present state of the Navy.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, it would, he thought, be an extravagance to spend £2,000,000 of money in the construction of large iron-clad ships. The great difficulty the Admiralty would have to contend with, if they were granted £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to-morrow, for the purpose referred to, would be to decide how they should spend the money. The House must be aware, or at least anyone who had paid attention to the progress made in the construction of guns must be aware, that the guns put on board the newest type of ships would be able to destroy any armour which could be put on a vessel. We were now obliged to leave portions of our ships undefended, and to protect only certain vital parts. In every new ship the armour had to be thicker; and unless the vessels were built of a larger size a great portion of them must be penetrable. Therefore, the difficulty at the present time was, whether it was desirable to increase the number of those enormous ships of war; and that was a difficulty felt not only by our Admiralty, but, as he knew, by those who had to conduct the naval affairs of other countries. There was, therefore, a great probability that, in future, the number of
  662
  these vast and costly machines would not be increased; and he was not prepared to say that, even if the money were voted by Parliament, it would be desirable to spend it for that purpose. Then there was another consideration, which made it doubtful whether it would be wise or politic to spend a great sum of money now upon such ships. Some of the best naval officers in the country thought that, in the event of another naval war, the torpedo would be the most powerful weapon of offence, and would be able to dispose of the most formidable ships in the service of this or any other country. Therefore, it would be very imprudent greatly to increase the number of these enormous machines. The noble Viscount had made some comparisons between the numbers of the French and English Navies fit for service at the present time. For his own part, he (the Earl of Northbrook) always tried to avoid such comparisons. But when the noble Viscount told the House that in first-class ships England and France stood on an equality, or that we exceeded France only by one, he begged to assure the noble Viscount that he was mistaken. It was very difficult to say what a first-class ship was. Some thought that tonnage was the best test, others took another test. But he could assure the noble Viscount that, taking what he believed to be a fair test of what a first-class ship was, so far from the two nations being on an equality in that respect, England had 10 first-class ships to the French three actually ready for service. The noble Viscount and the noble Marquess had alluded to the number of vessels in The Navy List. It was by no means intended to represent that all the ships put in The Navy List were fighting ships. He doubted whether anyone who ever looked at The Navy List supposed that they were. It was perfectly true, also, that ships in the Channel Squadron and the Reserve Squadron, now usefully employed, were not of the latest type, and that, as compared with the most recent class, they would be termed obsolete. But of first-class ships, with the biggest guns, very few existed in the world. Supposing a naval war to break out between two countries, in all probability the first-class ships would be soon placed hors de combat, and the

  663
  nation that had the greater number of other vessels would be able to sweep the seas. No doubt, there had been some considerable delay in completing ships. The reasons were, the improvement in artillery, the great size of the guns we had to put on board, and the difficulty of completing and making perfect the machinery which was to load and work the guns. It was a great satisfaction to the Admiralty, and it might be to their Lordships, to know that we had no more difficulty in mastering those technical impediments than other nations. But progress must be slow and expensive; for nothing could be more costly than building ships, and making alterations to render them perfect. It was always a question of degree. We tried to build fast; but, when a question of importance arose, it was right to submit to some delay, and go to some expense, rather than turn out a ship in an inferior manner. The noble Viscount had mentioned that our great Australian Colonies had taken the greatest interest in developing especially their naval defences, and that they were now in a condition to hold their own against any probable attack that might be made upon them. He rejoiced at the fact quite as much as the noble Viscount; for there was nothing that the Admiralty had more at heart than to assist, by every means in their power, the most laudable and liberal efforts which the Australian Colonies were making. He was glad to be able to say that, only very lately, one of the ablest captains in the British Navy had gone out to place his services at their disposal, and the Admiralty would be glad to assist them in every way. With respect to the Returns moved for by the noble Viscount, he would that night lay on the Table a Return, which had been presented to the other House of Parliament, in which his noble Friend would find everything which could be properly stated with regard to our ships. He agreed with the noble Maquess (the Marquess of Lothian) that it would not be desirable to publish information as to the state of the boilers of our Navy. By an oversight, some years ago, such a mistake was made; but it was not exactly a proper thing to place such information in the hands of foreign nations. The Admiralty would be glad to obtain such information with respect to the ships of Foreign Powers; and, having
  664
  said that, he thought their Lordships would see it was hardly advisable to give this information to other Powers. He thought that he could say that, not only in his own opinion, but in the opinion of professional officers of the Navy, there had never been a time when the boilers of Her Majesty's ships had been in a better condition than that in which they now were. In 1874, a Committee had been appointed to make an examination into the condition of the boilers of the Navy, and to make suggestions for their better preservation. The result of that Committee had been a Report, giving elaborate instructions for the preservation of boilers which had been of the greatest value. At the present time there were ships—as, for instance, the Alexandra—now serving their third commission in the Mediterranean, with no diminution of boiler pressure; and, generally speaking, the boilers in the rest of the fighting ships of the Navy were equally good. He would be glad to agree to the Motion in reference to the boilers if the noble Viscount would amend his Motion accordingly; and as to the whole of the rest of the noble Viscount's Motion, he thought that in the Papers which he should have the honour to lay upon the Table the noble Viscount would find most of the information which he required.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, that as to the comparison between the two Fleets of England and France, he had gone carefully over both the French Estimates and our own. France had on the Estimates 15 ships of the first class, 12 of the second class, and eight gunboats. These gunboats, of which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook) had spoken somewhat contemptuously, were actually very powerful, and the money spent upon them was equal to that spent upon a first-class ship. Against that, as far as he could make out, we had only 10 ships of the first class on the Estimates and 16 of the second. As to the state of efficiency of the French ships, he had, of course, no means of judging; but from the amount of money spent upon them he thought that they were kept highly efficient. Again, in inquiring into the state of the Navies of the two countries, he had found that only 14 of the 26 British ships on the Estimates had longitudinal bulkheads, which were so neces-

  665
  sary for the safety of a ship, only 14 had steam steering gear, and only 12 had breech-loading guns. The noble Earl had told them it was best to wait. That was all very well if we had time; but war might come at a very short notice, and then we should be at a disadvantage. With regard to his Motion, he would consent to amend it as suggested by the noble Earl.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Return of the new boilers now in store in Her Majesty's Dockyards, and of boilers in a state of preparation: Ordered to be laid before the House.

  SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the salmon fisheries in Scotland—Was presented by The MARQUESS of HUNTLY; read 1a. (No. 184.)

  NAVY (H.M.S. "VALOROUS").
  Report by Commodore Cockburn to the Lords of the Admiralty, in 1866, of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Ship "Valorous" on the South-West Coast of Africa: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.