Lords Sitting of 31 May 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Arms (Ireland)* (129); Post Office Sites* (130); Patriotic Fund* (131); Tramways Order in Council (Ireland)* (132); Patents Amendment* (133).
Committee—Report—Oxford University (Justices)* (119).
Report—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) (127–134).
Third Reading—Infants* (125–135), and passed.
Withdrawn—Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment (99).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Third Reading—Commons Regulation (Stoke)* (102); Commons Regulation and Inclosure (Totternhoe)* (103); Local Government* (104); Local Government (No. 2) * (105); Local Government (Poor Law)* (106); Local Government (Poor Law (No. 2)* (107); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3)* (108); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 4)* (109); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5)* (110); Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 6)* (111), and passed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)
(The Lord Greville.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GREVILLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the societies proposed to be amended by its provisions might be

427
generally described as societies formed for the purpose of mutual assurance among the working classes, the members making weekly or monthly contributions, in the expectation of receiving allowances in case of sickness, or provision for funeral expenses in the event of a death in the family, or securing a payment to the widow on the death of the subscriber. It was required that such societies should be registered, and it was an easy matter for seven men to form a society and register it. They then described it as "registered under an Act of Parliament;" and poor men, imagining that these words in themselves afforded some security for the soundness of the society, the integrity of its managers, and the certainty of future benefits, and that they were as safe as if the money had been deposited in the Post Office Savings Banks, paid their deposits for months and years, only to find, in the time of their trouble and need, that they had been cruelly deceived and robbed, and that it was impossible to obtain redress. Many cases of hardship had been brought under his notice, and in one, which was a fair sample of the rest, a man who had invested £23 gave notice of his intention to withdraw. After the lapse of two years he was informed that he could not get back his money; but perhaps he might find someone to purchase his interest in the society for the sum of £10. The fact was that no protection was afforded by the registration, and only recently a gang of persons were put upon their trial for starting these bogus societies, and the public were then surprised to find with what ease such societies could be started. He (Lord Greville) did not ask that the investors in, and subscribers to, these societies should have Government security as the depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks had; but he proposed that no society should be allowed to be registered unless its tables were certified by an actuary as sufficient to enable it to meet its possible obligations. That would be an additional protection to poor men by preventing the starting of societies which could not provide the benefits they offered. The necessity for some further protection of the provident working classes was shown by the fact that 150 of these registered societies had disappeared in the course of a year, and the aggregate
428
of the weekly or periodical payment to these societies probably amounted to £5,000,000 yearly. One did not like saying anything against his own Party; but he was very much surprised that the Liberal Party, who were always appealing to the working classes of the country, declined to take up a matter of this kind in the interests of the poor, thrifty, hard-working, honest working man. The matter was one affecting the whole community, because the more provident working people were, the fewer paupers would there be; and the burden of pauperism was sufficiently onerous to render it incumbent on them to do all they could to encourage habits of thrift and self-dependence among the working classes. He therefore hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2*"—(The Lord Greville.)
LORD NORTONsaid, he also concurred in the necessity of amending the legislation as regarded these societies, for a more important subject than this could hardly be brought before their Lordships. The great difficulty in legislating on the question of these societies was to promote their soundness without Government guaranteeing it, or seeming to do so. At the present moment, the whole working of the Friendly Societies Act turned upon the Registrar, which, he maintained, did more harm than good, for a guarantee was supposed to be offered by him as to the soundness of the societies, while practically he neither could nor should offer any security whatever. That officer, by the Act of 1875, prepared and circulated model forms of accounts and tables, and collected and published Returns; registered societies which sent their rules to him if he was satisfied that they complied with the conditions of registry, had tables certified by an actuary, and had an office, trustees, and quinquennial audit. The Act, however, failed to give effect to its intention. Two things seemed to him to be wanted—first, that the Registrar should be ready to give assistance by discretionary advice; secondly, that he should be able to enforce what coercive functions he nominally had; either by penalty, or by taking or temporarily suspending societies from his register. As to the first requisite, it was recom-

429
mended by Lord Iddesleigh's Commission, 1872, on the Report of which the Act of 1875 was drafted, that the Registrar should, at his discretion, give advice to promoters and managers, and popularize and publish information. Those societies were intended to encourage thrift and saving, and their privileges were only justified by their need of such encouragement. Private individuals, without official knowledge or power, often undertook the formation of friendly societies, though not their management. It was right that these societies should be self-governed; but the present Registrar did not give advice and aid to promoters of those useful institutions like his Predecessor, Mr. Tidd Pratt. Perhaps, however, advice unwillingly given would not be worth much. The second requisite was more important than the first which he had mentioned. It was that effect should be given to the coercive powers nominally given in the Act. The case of the Liver Society lately reported sufficiently showed the necessity for that amendment of the law. Its mismanagement came before Sir Stafford Northcote's Commission in 1874; and in the 10 years after that exposure its two secretaries pocketed to their own use, by their own confession, nearly £70,000. They altered rules, "Boycotted" interference, packed meetings, and became registered plunderers of 1,000,000 poor dupes of subscribers. When at last application was made to the Registrar, under the 23rd section of the Act, to look into the matter, he appointed Mr. Lyulph Stanley to report. The result of that Gentleman's inquiry was that since then nothing whatever had been done to improve the management of the society. They had all heard the allegations which had led up to the inquiry; and although the Registrar had received the Report of the Inspector sent to inquire into the matter, he only replied by expressing obligations for suggestions as to the reform of the law, in which he said he partly concurred, and he promised to consider whether any legal proceedings ought to be taken. The Bill, he (Lord Norton) feared, must be altered to meet such impotency on the part of the chief officer under the Act. To say, as it did, that no new society should be registered unless its tables were certified by an official actuary, did not meet the
430
case, and went too far in the way of Government undertaking a guarantee. The Bill should rather say that all such societies as were named in the 6th clause should imperatively be registered, and that failure to report revaluations and audits, at least once in every five years, to the Registrar, should incur the removal or suspension of the society from the Register, and the consequent loss of privileges during suspension. Amendments to that effect might be introduced in Committee. Insurance for sums at death not mentioned in the Bill required an additional clause for security against gross and dangerous abuse. Undertakers frequently got the whole of the sums so insured transferred to themselves for funeral expenses, to the total deprivation of the widow; and that dangerously discouraged all efforts of thrift and saving in the way of insurance. If the Government rejected the Bill as not entirely meeting the case, or for fear of giving too much guarantee to the societies, they were bound to do something without delay to prevent the Registrar doing much harm with little compensating good.
LORD SUDELEY(for the Treasury), in moving the rejection of the Bill, said, it was identical with the one introduced by the noble Lord last year, which their Lordships rejected on the second reading. It was impossible not to feel sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, in his desire to stop, at the outset, the formation of unsound societies, by obliging the tables to be properly certified by an actuary before the society was registered; but it was a very grave question how far legislation should be carried on those lines. Unfortunately, tables were not nearly so important as management. No one could deny for a moment that the failure of a friendly society, in which large numbers of the working classes might have for years contributed to make provision for themselves in old age and in sickness, was a calamity of a terrible and national character, and one against which every endeavour ought to be made to render it impossible. The great difficulty, however, was to what extent the State could interfere without producing a far greater amount of mischief in one direction than it produced good in another. The Government, after carefully considering the Bill, believed that the

431
proposals it contained would be a retrograde step, would have a most disastrous effect of stopping the formation of registered societies, and would do far more harm than good. It had been found, by considerable experience, that the idea of having to obtain and work with approved Government actuarial tables completely stopped the formation of societies. It might be a sentimental idea, and it might be a foolish objection, but it was none the less true, that these societies got frightened either at the expense, or the possibility of a higher table being used than was necessary; and the simple result was either that they did not form them, or it drove them from becoming registered, and the State lost all control. In 1870, as their Lordships were aware, a very important Royal Commission sat on this subject, presided over by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh), and, in the course of four years, went very fully into the whole matter of friendly societies, and perhaps there was no greater authority on the question than the noble Earl. They made a great many recommendations, but they made no proposal such as the one now under consideration, as they saw it would not work, for they had before them the experience of the failure of previous legislation on the subject. In different shapes this enactment was in force from 1819 to 1834, and again from 1846 to 1850; but in both these periods the number of enrolments of societies fell off so considerably that an Act had to be passed to repeal the enactment. Mr. Tidd Pratt and Mr. Ansell both gave very strong evidence before Committees of the House of Commons, and showed that the number of applications fell off one-half. Although evidence on the subject of compulsory actuarial certification was received by the Commission, the matter was not even referred to in their Report; but instead of that they reported that the same object could be attained in a different way, and they proposed that every registered friendly society should be required to submit its affairs to valuation once, at least, in every five years as a better method. They expressed their opinion that periodical valuations were far more important than the original tables in these words—
"We attach even more importance to properly conducted periodical valuation, and to
432
corrections made from time to time in the tables according to the results of those valuations than to the original tables themselves, and we consider that such valuations should be made compulsory upon all registered societies."
That proposal was carried into effect in the Act of 1876, and thus, practically, the very result desired by the noble Lord (Lord Greville) of getting proper tables was now the law of the land, only the mode of doing so was different. It was true that for the first few years, until the quinquennial valuation took place, the tables might be wrong; but that soon righted itself. Perhaps he might be allowed to quote the evidence on the subject of the Chief Registrar, Mr. Ludlow, who was examined last year before the Committee which was sitting in the other House on National Providence Insurance—
"You think the State ought not to interfere to help those people?—I do not think the State ought to compel registration, and I do not think it ought in any case to compel the acceptance of particular tables of contribution at starting. … The table of contributions when the society is started is nothing but a working hypothesis, and until it is tested by the experience of the society it is virtually of no value.
"Taking societies whose tables are not sound, must it not be certain, in the judgment of men like yourself, that these societies must end in mischief?—The only cases in which they must end in mischief are cases where they are worked by dishonest people, because societies have a wonderful power of recovering themselves when they seem to be very low if they have got the right sort of men.
"Supposing that such a table of contributions as we have been speaking of were laid down by the State, what mischief would accrue?—Very great mischief, because there would be an undue reliance placed upon it, and no good would arise. It is just the same thing as supposing that the community is to be made thoroughly healthy by requiring that everyone shall have a dietary prescribed for him by the doctor. The first question is will it suit the particular man, and the second question is whether, having received it, he will throw it out of the window."
The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) would probably confirm him (Lord Sudeley) in saying that there were few greater authorities living than Mr. Ludlow. That gentleman had been Chief Registrar for 10 years, and before that was Secretary to the Royal Commission, and previously had made friendly societies one of the great studies of his life. His opinion was very strong that mismanagement was the real great difficulty. They might have the best possible tables, but they could not insure

433
by them efficient control. Only the other day they had brought before them, in Mr. Lyulph Stanley's Report, the gross mismanagement of the Royal Liver Society, and yet they had the best tables based on actuarial valuations. There were also numerous actual failures recorded, where the tables had been quite sound. The United Assurance Society was one of these; and there had been several great collecting burial societies which had also failed, and yet they had all worked with certified tables from actuaries. It was quite possible, as alleged by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton), that the Government ought to have greater power to control and enforce proper regulations, and to see that there was honest management; but that was another question altogether, and was not contained in the proposal of the Bill before them. Further inquiry and investigation might be necessary; but he (Lord Sudeley) maintained that in any case the Bill of the noble Lord was most inopportune at that moment. Grave doubts were even entertained whether the proposals of the Commission for a quinquennial valuation had not themselves gone too far. Even the Chief Registrar gave evidence to that effect. He said—
"The Act of 1875, which it is the fashion to call weak, is, in fact, too stringent for the great bulk of the population. The obligation to return a periodical valuation is one which, I believe, stands in the way—enormously in the way—of registration by the separate societies. The cost of valuation is a bugbear to a small society. This obligation to value is, I believe, very much dreaded by societies, and the consequence is that in an increasing proportion the new registries of separate societies which there have been are confined to such societies as are exempted from valuation. It is certain that the number of new individual societies of the ordinary class is much less at present than it was 10 years ago."
Whether that was the case or not, there could be no doubt that legislation on the subject of friendly societies was too important to be lightly dealt with, and without very full inquiry and examination. The Royal Commission showed that in 1875 there were, with wives and children, nearly 8,000,000 persons interested in the societies in England and Wales alone; and he believed the number was now, in 1886, close upon 10,000,000. The assets of these societies amounted to over £13,000,000, and the annual expenditure in benefits strictly
434
was £3,000,000, which was thus annually saved to the ratepayers. That proved that it was of the utmost importance that no check should be put on the formation of friendly societies and of their becoming registered. In conclusion, he thought that he had shown that the principle of the Bill was ill-timed, and was condemned by experience, and by the highest authorities, and that a similar provision had actually to be repealed by statute in 1850. The Government, as he had said, had come to the conclusion that it would do more harm than good, and he trusted their Lordships would decline to give it a second reading.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHsaid, he entirely shared with the noble Lord who had brought in the Bill (Lord Greville), and his noble Friend near him (Lord Norton), the sentiments as to the great importance of this subject, and as to the great importance of doing everything that could be done to improve and to secure the system of insurance by the working classes. There could be no doubt that that was a matter of the very highest importance to the great body of the working classes of the country; but, at the same time, it was a matter full of difficulties, upon which it was necessary that they should proceed cautiously, warily, and, as far as possible, without giving any false impression to those for whose benefit they were acting, for there could be no doubt that the interposition of the Government, in any way, did produce a certain amount of erroneous impression that the Government was responsible for the management of the societies it allowed to be registered. At the time of the Royal Commission of 1870, the view taken by Mr. Lowe, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that it would be better to do without registration altogether, in that it only led the working classes to believe that a security was given to them which was not really given to them. It was from a feeling that that was not the best way to treat the matter that the suggestion that a Royal Commission should issue arose. That Commission went very carefully into the matter, and came to the conclusion that it was not right to altogether throw the whole system loose and do without the Registrar; but that, at the same time, it was not right to take up such a position as would make the Government appear virtually respon-

435
sible for what it could not be responsible. He did not believe that the mischief in connection with these societies arose so much from insufficient tables. He thought rather that the point to be looked at was the administration of the societies than their original tables. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) had said nothing about that; but, in his (the Earl of Iddesleigh's) belief, it was a much more important point than that dealt with in the Bill. In the case of the Royal Liver Society the tables were perfectly correct. They had the highest authority, and no question was raised as to any insufficiency in the funds required to meet the obligations of the society. There were other causes involved, and the Bill of the noble Lord would not affect those causes the least in the world. While he thought that no language could be too strong to describe those who had been guilty of the practices exposed in the Report in the case of the Liver Society, the question before them was—should they, or should they not, make the Registrar responsible for the soundness of the tables? He thought it would be a very great mistake on the part of Government and of Parliament if they were to abandon the position taken up by the Commission of 1870, which was the foundation of the Act of 1875. He quite agreed that there were some things in the existing Act which might be carefully reviewed, and that it might be found possible to give greater powers to the Registrar to interfere earlier and more effectually than in the case of the Royal Liver Society; but he did not think it would be an easy matter. Those who had read the Report in that case would perceive that the real difficulty arose from the fact that the society was spread over a great part of England, and that the administration was conducted at headquarters. He hoped the Government would take such lessons as they could from the evidence given in that matter, and would see in what way their powers could be extended; but he also earnestly hoped they would not be carried away by such a matter into a course which had nothing to do with the evils complained of, and would expose them again to a very great difficulty. As to the Registrar himself, he wished to bear his testimony to his great merits. A harder working official could not, he
436
believed, be found anywhere, and he could not believe that he had been in any way to blame, or that there had been any neglect of duty on his part. Whether the powers of that official should be increased was a matter for the Government to consider; but he did not see how anything of that kind could be introduced into the Bill. In the direction of direct Government action there was something to be done if the Post Office system could be improved. Under that system he believed something was really being done for the working classes in an unobjectionable and effective way. That was a matter to which the attention of the Government should be directed, and he hoped they would bear in mind as points upon which improvements might be made—first, the possibility of introducing stronger coercive measures for dealing with cases of abuse in the case of these great friendly societies when they arose; and, secondly, the possibility of improving and extending Government action by means of the Post Office system.
LORD GREVILLEsaid, he did not think a conclusive case had been set up against the Bill; but after what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Iddesleigh) he should not press it further by dividing the House.
Resolved in the negative.
Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE FOOD SUPPLY—SALE OF IMPORTED MEAT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they will take any steps to prevent the sale of imported meat as home produce, which entails great injury on the home producer as well as on the consumer? said, that in asking the Question he must not in any way be taken as objecting to the importation of meat. What he wished to prevent was the sale of imported meat as home produce. By prohibiting sales of that kind they would protect farmers and the public at large against gross frauds. If the Government would bring in a Bill to make the practice illegal, it would do much to benefit the poor in agricultural districts.
  LORD HOUGHTON(for the Board of Trade), in reply, said, he fully recognized the desirability of securing that articles sold should actually be what they purported to be. Imported meat, however, was very similar to, or rather absolutely identical with, the home produce. That was especially true of meat that was not frozen. Anything, therefore, in the nature of the prohibition desired by the noble Lord opposite would be ineffective, as it would not be possible, even by analysis or otherwise, to distinguish between home produce and fresh imported meat, for there were often no means of discovering with any certainty as to where it had been produced. Indeed, he doubted whether any analyst, although able to detect the difference between oleomargarine and butter, could by any possible process be enabled to say whether a rump-steak came from an animal bred in Leicestershire, Holland, or Texas. If restrictions were placed on the importation of frozen meat, the Australian Colonies would be the chief sufferers, for they contributed by far the largest portion of frozen meat that came to this country. The United States, on the other hand, would benefit largely, for the quantity of fresh meat which they sent to us was immensely greater than their contribution of frozen meat; the change, therefore, would be likely to benefit the United States at the expense of the Colonies. In these circumstances, the Government did not see how they could take any steps in the direction indicated by the noble Lord.

NAVY—H.M.S. "COLOSSUS"—THE 43-TON GUNS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, (1.) For what purpose the Colossus is to be sent to sea; (2.) what trials or tests have the 43-ton guns of the Colossus been subjected to since the bursting of the Collingwood's 43-ton gun on 4th May last; and (3.) what are the orders given to the officer appointed to the command of the Colossus with regard to the use or abstention from use of the ship's guns? said, a very great deal of interest had attached to the Colossus from the day when she was first designed. She was
  438
  laid down exactly seven years ago, and therefore it could not be said that the Admiralty had shown any great precipitancy in sending the ship to sea. When she was designed by Sir Nathaniel Barnaby she was described as an improved Agamemnon, which, with the sister ship the Ajax, had already been described as small Inflexibles. The Colossus was 5 feet longer than the Inflexible, and her beam was 7 feet less. Her tonnage displacement was 2,000 tons less than that of the Inflexible. Her estimated cost was £500,000, and her actual cost £533,000. She was the first steel ship laid down at Portsmouth. She was one of the first three ships provided with steel-faced side armour—the other two being the Edinburgh and the Conqueror. She had two turrets, in which she carried four steel breech-loading guns, which were almost precisely similar to those of the Collingwood. She also carried five 6-inch guns, 10 Nordenfelts, and some Gardner and other quick-firing machine guns, and she was fitted with torpedo tubes and boats, so that, both in her offensive and defensive aspect, she was one of the most powerful iron-clads afloat. He wished to draw attention to the remarkable history of the 43-ton guns which she carried in her turrets. In 1882 the authorities at the Royal Arsenal recommended the abandonment of wrought iron in the construction of heavy ordnance for the Navy, and supplied a design for the construction of a steel breech-loading gun. With regard to those guns, he did not wish to decry the gun factory at Woolwich; but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that there were in this country men, composing the firm of Sir William Armstrong and Co., who for their long attention to the delicate construction of heavy ordnance were second to none in the world, and they had positively refused to manufacture guns upon the design of the 43-ton guns in question. It was somewhat remarkable, too, that their objections took two points. First, they objected to the construction of the gun itself; and, secondly, they objected to the mode in which it was proposed to manipulate and work the steel. He (the Earl of Ravensworth) was informed, upon indisputable authority, that steel for heavy rifled guns was best when it approached nearest to wrought iron, and that if it departed from the condition

  439
  of "low" steel and was worked up to "high" steel it might be stronger, but it was more brittle. For gun manufacture the nearer it was kept to those qualities possessed by wrought iron the better. It was a remarkable circumstance that about the time that doubts arose both in regard to the design and the material of these 43-ton guns there were five in hand; but the authorities were not content with completing these—which, having regard to the money already spent upon them, was reasonable enough—but they ordered six other similar guns to be manufactured. These 43-ton guns were originally designed to carry a charge of 400 lbs. of powder. That was subsequently reduced to 290 lbs.; and even with this it was found that after 16 rounds they jammed, and the charge was then reduced to 222 lbs., which was the charge in the gun which burst on board the Collingwood. He should like to hear from the noble Marquess opposite the First Lord of the Admiralty what trials and what tests these guns had been submitted to since that lamentable accident. Of course, he did not deny that accidents to guns occurred in foreign Navies; but when an accident of this kind occurred on board an English ship it was bruited about all over the world; and what must be the effect on the minds of our foreign rivals and competitors in naval construction at hearing that one of our newest and most magnificent ships was being sent to sea with an embargo on her guns? What would be the effect on the gallant officers of that ship and her crew? He hoped that the noble Marquess would inform the House of the orders that had been given with regard to the use of the heavy guns of the Colossus. The noble Earl who preceded the noble Marquess at the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) had, in the course of a debate in December, 1884, upon the Naval Programme, pointed out that it was not enough for us to follow in the wake of other nations. Having regard to the information and knowledge which we possessed as to the steps which were being taken by foreign nations to provide themselves with heavy ordnance, could the noble Marquess say that we were as much in advance of our rivals as we ought to be? If not, he hoped that no time would be lost in endeavour-
  440
  ing to place ourselves in that position of pre-eminence which we ought to occupy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Marquess of RIPON), in reply, said, the Colossus had been sent to sea for the purpose of testing her sea-going qualities, her armament, and her general qualities. For that purpose the Colossus would be sent on a summer cruise, which would take place shortly. The noble Earl was aware that there were other guns beside the 43-ton guns which were placed in the turrets of the Colossus; and there were, therefore, many parts of the ship's armament which required to be tested, and in regard to which it was desirable that trials should be made. It was hoped that in the course of the cruise of the Channel Fleet this year various experiments would be made with torpedo boats and with the torpedoes with which the ships were furnished, and in these respects it was desirable to ascertain the fighting qualities of the Colossus. It was for those reasons that the Board of Admiralty had thought it desirable to send this vessel to sea at once, and not to lose the summer, in order to make a thorough trial of her sea-going qualities. In regard to the 43-ton guns, he thought it was desirable that the public should clearly understand the question raised by the bursting of the gun. It applied only to a particular class of the 43-ton gun—namely, the 11 guns of which the noble Earl had spoken. The 43-ton guns which were now being manufactured, and which would be hereafter delivered to the Navy, were of an improved pattern, and were not, as the best authorities believed, liable to the objections urged against this particular class of gun. He should like to mention also that the 43-ton guns of the Colossus, although of the same description as those of the Collingwood, had passed through more trials than those of the Collingwood, and the result of those trials had been satisfactory. The guns of the Collingwood had only been tried at proof, and it was the opinion of many naval men that, in regard to these large guns, the particular danger arose especially in connection with the first round of fire after proof. Whether that was so or not he could not say; but that was the opinion held. Doubts had been thrown, and reasonably thrown, upon this particular

  441
  class of 43-ton gun, in consequence of what happened the other day on the Collingwood. He (the Marquess of Ripon) and his Colleagues, immediately after the accident, communicated with the War Office, with the view of seeing whether these guns could not be replaced, for the noble Earl knew that the Admiralty was not responsible for the construction of these guns. The War Office was responsible; and it was only fair to the Board of Admiralty, who were concerned in this matter, that he should mention the fact. On inquiry, he ascertained that the War Office were making and would soon complete six 43-ton guns for land service, made upon an improved principle, and not liable to many of the objections which had been urged to the 43-ton guns, mark 2. He, therefore, went to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and asked him to hand over those guns to the Navy. Looking at the circumstances of the case, his right hon. Friend at once agreed to do so. The guns, however, were made with trunnions, and would require to be altered. They would be taken in hand at once; and in three or four months, at the outside, he was informed that the whole of the six guns would be placed at the disposal of the Navy. Besides that he had already ordered two new guns of the very latest and best pattern. He had also under consideration whether the Admiralty should order some more of these guns, although they would not be completed for 12 or 14 months. He hoped, in consequence of the arrangement which he had been able to make with the War Office, that the Navy would receive six 43-ton guns of a satisfactory kind within a period of not more than four months. It was true that, in these circumstances, and looking to the fact that the Colossus was going to sea for the purpose of thoroughly testing her sea-going qualities, as a matter of precaution the Admiralty had directed the captain not to fire these 43-ton guns at target practice. He hoped, however, that soon after the cruise was finished those guns would be replaced by the other and more satisfactory guns to which he had referred. With reference to the Committee appointed to investigate the causes of the accident on the Collingwood, he had to mention that it was under the War Office. He made inquiry the other day as to the date of assembling and the
  442
  probable period within which their Report would be presented; and he understood that the Committee would assemble in the course of the present week, and it was anticipated that the Report would be forthcoming in a fortnight or three weeks. When the Report was received it would be his duty, in communication with the Secretary of State for War, to consider it and the results arrived at, and to decide whether these showed the necessity of any further inquiry either in regard to those special guns, or, as was more likely, in regard to the large question of the mode in which the supply of guns to the Navy should be regulated.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he wished to point out that guns of the size referred to were designed to fire a maximum charge of 400 lbs. of gunpowder. Guns of that calibre should be subjected to the full test for which they were designed before they were placed on board ship, as was done in France, otherwise officers and men would never trust these weapons. The noble Marquess had stated that it was the intention of the Admiralty to "chasehoop" these guns before firing them again; but he (Viscount Sidmouth) thought it likely that guns patched in that way would always be looked upon with distrust by the men. All these things showed how desirable it was that the Admiralty should have the entire control of the guns provided for the Naval Service. If you asked naval officers, you would find that 19 out of 20 were thoroughly dissatisfied with the present method of arming the Navy. The question was raised two years ago, when complaint was made of the way in which the manufacture was carried on; and it was stated, he believed, by the Marquess of Hartington, that we were behind other countries in manufacturing materials, and that the hammers we used were inferior to those in use in Germany. Yet we were now standing still, with no improvements effected, and ships were kept waiting seven or eight years for guns. In every instance in which a ship had been delayed, the delay had been attributed to the necessity of waiting for guns. We were now building five large ships, which would be absolutely useless, because the guns were not ready.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he fully appreciated the importance of

  443
  efficiently testing guns before they were placed in the ships for which they were intended; but he did not think that either Admiralty or the War Office could have taken any better course than that which they had actually adopted, in having all the circumstances connected with the failure of the 43-ton gun in the Collingwood thoroughly investigated. He understood that, in the first instance, the Ordnance Committee was assisted by certain professional gentlemen quite unconnected with the Woolwich manufacturing departments. We were not the only nation that experienced failure in the manufacture of guns. Notwithstanding the great efficiency and the magnificent scale of the French Departments, it was not long ago, if statements in public journals were to be credited that at least two of the very largest of the French guns failed in proof at the chase, precisely in the same way our 43-ton gun had failed. These were two 70-ton guns, and the French Government had been obliged in consequence to alter their designs and patterns. Notwithstanding the magnificence of the establishments abroad, they had met with difficulties just as we had. It was well known that the most successful manufacturer of guns on the Continent, Herr Krupp, had produced several guns which had burst. Therefore, he hoped their Lordships would not suppose that such an accident as that which lately happened on board the Collingwood was to be looked upon as happening only to English guns. The French failures referred to were even more serious, because of the greater size of the guns. The main reason of their failures was the recent introduction of slow-burning powder. The effect of the firing of a charge was a pressure extending throughout the whole gun, instead of being confined to one portion, as it was before, with quick-burning powder. On that account we had been obliged to strengthen larger guns in the chase, so as to provide adequate resistance to the increased pressure resulting from the use of slow-burning powder. The peculiar construction which had caused the failure of the 43-ton gun on board the Collingwood had been avoided in the case of the 63-ton guns for ships of the Admiral class, which had been strengthened in the chase for the purpose of resisting the
  444
  increased pressure. The still larger type of gun—the 110-ton gun—was designed in the same way. This gun, which was the largest to be placed on board ship, might be regarded with considerable confidence; and there was this additional ground for confidence—that guns of the same size had been supplied to the Italian Navy by the same manufacturer—namely, Sir William Armstrong and Co., who was constructing them for us, and they had been tested, and had stood the test successfully. So far as we could reasonably place confidence in any gun, we might place confidence in the 110-ton guns, not only because of theoretical improvements in their construction, but also because those guns had been tested by practical experience. As regarded the provision for guns for our ships, and the hydraulic machinery by which they were to be worked on board ship, we had no reason to fear comparison with the guns or machinery of other nations. As to the suggestion that the Board of Admiralty should undertake the construction of guns for the Navy, there was much to be said for and against the proposal. It was a very difficult question indeed. The course suggested might concentrate responsibility on the Department concerned; but it would involve the anomalous and undesirable state of things of a separate Department for the manufacture of naval guns and another Department for the manufacture of guns for the fortifications and the Army. An alternative plan which commended itself to his mind was that there should be a resuscitation of the old Ordnance Department, which should manufacture both for the Army and the Navy, and should be neither under the Secretary of State for War nor under the Board of Admiralty. It was possible that some arrangement of that kind might be an improvement upon their present system.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he wished to point out that a return to the old Ordnance Department would be going back 30 years. He thought it would be much more to the benefit of the country if the Government placed the whole of the manufacture of guns for both services under one Department, irrespective of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that this question turned not only on the inefficiency of British guns, but also on the efficiency of the guns of foreign Governments. At that moment there was in the House a noble and gallant Lord who was in a position to thoroughly compare the British guns with foreign guns, because he commanded the Combined Fleets at Dulcigao; and he (the Earl of Wemyss) was anxious to know if that noble and gallant Lord would tell the House what his own opinion was of the guns in those Fleets, and of their relative value? He (the Earl of Wemyss) had heard it stated that a Report was sent home to the effect that, with one exception, the British guns were worse than the others. It was rather remarkable that while the Italian ships carried 100-ton guns which did not burst, the Colossus, which was supposed to be the most powerful fighting ship created in modern times, could only carry 43-ton guns, one of which had burst, and with respect to the others orders had been given that they should not be fired. He did not know who was to blame; but that state of things was not satisfactory to the country, or complimentary to the Departments concerned.
  LORD ALCESTERsaid, in reply to his noble Friend, that he had no recollection of sending home any Report of the kind mentioned by the noble Earl. Indeed, he was quite certain that he never made any such Report. He had seen a great deal of the foreign squadrons in the Mediterranean. At Dulcigno the French, the Austrian, the Russian, and the German ships carried breech-loading guns, while the English and Italian ships carried muzzle-loaders, and in the comparison the English had nothing to fear. He was able to state that the British ships were not the only ships on which gun accidents occurred. He could mention two ships in the French Navy in which, through premature explosions, no less than five men were killed, and several others wounded.

NAVY—H.M.SS. "NILE" AND "TRAFALGAR."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Admiralty has decided to stop the progress of construc-
  446
  tion of the iron-clad ships Trafalgar and Nile; also, whether he can lay any information before the House as to the alleged structural defects of H.M.S. Calypso, and the failure of the machinery of H.M.S. Phaeton on her trial trip? It would, he said, be a great satisfaction to know whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to proceed with the Nile and Trafalgar, seeing that it was proposed by a Member of the House of Commons to strike them off the Estimates. He trusted that the noble Marquess and the Admiralty would not be led away by any suggestion to reduce the strength of the Navy in the iron-clad class, for it would, he thought, be a most unwise proceeding to stop the building of the two ships to which he had referred in the first part of his Question. Whatever the Admiralty might do, it was quite certain that other nations were pushing on and building powerful vessels. With regard to the other vessels named in the Question, he hoped the noble Marquess would be able to give satisfactory information, and that no person would be placed upon any inquiry who had been interested in the building of the vessels.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Marquess of RIPON), in reply said, that it was not the intention of the Board of Admiralty to make any change in their determination to proceed with the construction of the Nile and the Trafalgar. With regard to the defects of the Calypso, and the circumstances connected with them, there could be no doubt they existed, and they were being made the subject of a searching inquiry, and he should hesitate to express an opinion, upon the matter while that inquiry was proceeding. The ship was built at Chatham, and the inquiry was being conducted by Admiral Codrington, the Director of Dockyards (Mr. Elgar), and a gentleman connected with the Constructors' Department. The present Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard (Admiral Codrington) was not in office when the ship was building at Chatham. He was informed that the defects could be speedily remedied, and that the ship would be able to go to sea with the Training Squadron in the course of the month of June. He had received a Report as to the failure of the machinery on board the Phaeton; but since then the vessel had again been to sea, and no mention

  447
  was made in the general Report, which he had received that day, of the engines; therefore, he presumed that they had worked all right. He had, however, called for a special Report.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.—(No 127.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 1 (A crofter shall not be removed except for breach of statutory conditions).
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in moving, as an Amendment, that the "Land Commission" be changed to "Crofters' Commission," said, that the Amendment was intended to meet the objection of the Land Commission of England, who said that they had functions in Scotland, and that unless a change in the title were made confusion would arise between the two Land Commissions.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 4, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Crofters.")—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Compensation to crofter for improvements on removal).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment made:—At end, add—
"The provisions of the preceding section and of this section shall not apply to any holdings erected by a crofter or a cottar in violation of any interdict or other judicial order."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 (Appointment of three Commissioners).
On the Motion of The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON, the following clause was inserted to follow:—
"The Crofters' Commission shall once in every year, after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, make a Report to the Secretary for Scotland as to their proceedings under this Act, and every such Report shall be presented to Parliament."
Clause 32 (Saving in case of holdings in possession of servants).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment was inserted at end:—
448
"Nor to any holding or building let at a nominal rent, or without rent, as a pension for former service, or on account of old age or poverty, nor to any holding or building let to a person during his tenure of any office, such as that of minister of religion or schoolmaster, nor to any innkeeper or tradesman placed in the district by the landlord for the benefit of the neighbourhood."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 (Definitions).
On the Motion of The Earl of DALHOUSIE, the following Amendment added:—
"And shall also include, where not repugnant to the context, the heir or legatee succeeding to the tenancy of the holding."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to printed as amended. (No. 134.)

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN LONDONDERRY AND DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Postmaster General, What is the additional amount of subsidy paid by the Post Office to the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland for the conveyance of the mails between Londonderry and Dublin, and vice versâ, since the late acceleration of the mail service; whether, in consequence of the acceleration of such postal service, complaints have not reached him or his Predecessor with regard to the non-stoppage of the trains at stations on the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, to the great inconvenience of persons engaged in business at, or visiting, any such places; and, whether he cannot make such arrangements with the railway company as will reduce such inconvenience to a minimum, without interfering prejudicially with the efficiency of the mail service?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord WOLVERTON), in reply, said, that since April 1, 1885, the additional sum of £1,000 a-year had been paid to the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails, thus raising the total subsidy to £38,000 a-year. Applications had reached the Post Office for the stoppage of the mail trains at certain stations at which such trains did not now stop; but as such stoppages were not required for Post Office purposes, and as the applications could not be agreed to without

449
diminishing the short interval for the preparation of replies by return of post now afforded to Londonderry, neither he nor his Predecessor could properly assent to the applications. He was quite willing to consider any proposal which the Railway Company might see fit to put before him with the object indicated by the noble Earl, provided that the expense of this service was not increased, and the public accommodation was not diminished.

PATRIOTIC FUND BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Patriotic Fund Acts, 1867 and 1881—Was presented by The Lord Sandhurst; read 1a. (No. 131.)
TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm an Order in Council of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland relating to the Cork, Coachford, and Blarney Light Railway—Was presented by The Lord FitzGerald; read 1a. (No. 132.)

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to remove certain doubts respecting the construction of the Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, so far as respects the drawings by which specifications are required to be accompanied—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 133.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.