Lords Sitting of 10 February 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Solicitors (Ireland) (12).
Committee—Appellate Jurisdiction (15).

NEW PEER.
Percy, Lord Shute—Was introduced by virtue of a special limitation in the Patent dated 17th April 1880, and sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother George William, Lord Shute, and took the Oath.
SOLICITOUS (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
SOLICITOUS (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 12.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the measure was to consolidate and amend the law so as to place the profession of Solicitor in Ireland on a similar footing to that enjoyed by it in England. He brought in the Bill on behalf of the Incorporated Society of Solicitors in Ireland, whose desire was to raise the standard of professional education in Ireland. The measure contained 59 clauses, which, amongst other things, declared that no person should act as solicitor unless admitted and enrolled. It laid down the terms of apprenticeship, made provision for examinations prior to admission to the profession, and for the proper keep-

  1059
  ing of the roll. It also provided for the registration of solicitors, made arrangements as to certificates and penalties, and contained miscellaneous provisions for the authentication of regulations and other documents, the construction of enactments referring to attorneys' examinations, and the amendment of 33 & 34 Vict. 97. 62. There was also a clause making temporary provision as to examination, and another of appeal. He would further say, that if the Bill were read a second time that night, he should defer the Committee stage for a fortnight.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, he had received an intimation from his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to the effect that there would be no objection to the second reading of the Bill. There were, however, several formal Amendments the noble and learned Lord would desire to see made, of which he would furnish the noble Lord opposite with a list. As the Committee stage was to be postponed for a fortnight, there would be ample time to consider the proposed Amendments.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he should be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for any suggestion which would improve the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 25 th instant.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

  (NO. 15.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD DENMANsaid that in 1826 Lord Gifford was created a peer, and in two years cleared all the arrears of appeals in the House of Lords. Besides that of 1856, a Bill for an Imperial Court of Appeal passed their Lordships' House in 1874, but was dropped by the Government in the House of Commons.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Lord of Appeal may take his seat during prorogation).
  LORD DENMAN, in moving an Amendment on the clauses, said that in the
  1060
  Statute of Edward III., the Archbishop of Canterbury was one of five Lords of Appeal, but they always reported to the House.
  Amendment moved,
  At end of clause, add ("and any Spiritual or Lay Lords shall also be empowered to take the oaths during the sittings of the House of Lords on appeals during the prorogation of Parliament: and if a quorum of three Law Lords cannot be found it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of both parties, to nominate one or two Spiritual or Lay Lords who may be willing to sit during the whole of any one case or cases.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
  LORD ESHERsaid, he should certainly have opposed the clause if he had thought that, by its means, under this Bill, there would be a creation of Life Peers. That, however, was, in his opinion, not so, because, as he understood it, the noble and learned Lords who were mentioned were already Peers by virtue of the Act under which they were appointed. If not Peers, they had been enabled to speak and vote, and decide cases while they held the office of a Lord of Appeal only without being Peers at all. The Act said that they were to rank as Barons; and, unless the words made them Peers, they were not Peers at all, and the adjudication of cases in which they had taken part had not been decided by the House of Lords at all, but by persons not Peers. He construed the Act of 1876 as meaning that they were Peers for life for all purposes, but with this fetter—that on their ceasing to be Lords of Appeal they were not to have afterwards a Writ of Attendance; and all that this Bill did was to take off a fetter which that Act imposed not to create Life Peers, but to continue the attendance of those noble and learned Peers in that House after they had ceased to be Lords of Appeal. He, therefore, did not think that the political sarcasm which came from the noble and learned Lord opposite on that subject was well founded. He differed from that noble and learned Lord on the construction of the Act of Parliament, and further supported the clause in the Act because it did not contradict what that House did in the case of Lord Wensleydale. What the House objected to then was an assumed power on behalf of the Crown to make, without

  1061
  authority given by Act of Parliament, any number of Life Peers. Under the Acts now in question the power is limited, and is a power to act under Statute.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Esher). Lord Blackburn was a Lord of Parliament exactly as the right reverend Prelates were, and was not a Peer for life. By the present Bill, Lord Blackburn would become a Peer for life, and he was glad that that would be so. If it were not that he desired that the Bill should be passed without delay, he should have asked that the measure might have been postponed, in order that they might have further time to consider its full scope and effect; and he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that he should consider whether the Bill could not be enlarged.
  LORD THRINGsaid, that, in his opinion, from the surroundings of the question, that it was the clear intention of Lord Cairns and the framers of the Act of 1876 that the Lords of Appeal should only sit and vote in the House as such during the time they held Office, and should not be Peers of Parliament. This was clearly stated in the Act, and their dignity was described in the Act as that of a "Lord of Parliament," an expression inconsistent with their being Peers of Parliament.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he had only put forward the view that was maintained by the very eminent Lord Chancellor who introduced the Act and carried it through their Lordships' House, and by the very able Attorney General of the then Government. If he had erred, he had erred in their company; and, with all respect to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Esher), he thought that, according to the view of those who introduced the Act, this Bill did make a difference. He did not say that the proposal would have been on all fours with what would have been done, if that House had permitted what was proposed in the case of Lord Wensleydale to be done. But he said that in order to meet the views of that House, it was insisted that those Lords of Appeal would be Lords of Parliament only while they held their office, and that they would not sit in that House as Peers, but as Lords of Parliament in right of being Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The present Bill, however, did make, looking at the views
  1062
  of those who introduced the Bill of 1876, a great change. The Lords of Appeal were ex-officio Members, and were in the same position as the Bishops. This Bill would give them the position of Peers for life. It made that difference in their position, and he would not say that it was wrong.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, they were all agreed that the Bill should be passed, and a question arose as to what was intended by the Act under which Lords of Appeal were appointed to their office. He thought that no person was less able to say what was the construction of an Act than the man who drew it; but he would not enter into an academic discussion of the point. The whole question seemed to be, whether a person appointed under the Act was a Peer, or was only a Lord of Appeal; and, whether the House was now asked to do anything inconsistent with what was done in 1876? The discussion with regard to the creation of Lord Wensleydale as a Life Peer was an important but a different question. It was claimed to be in the power of the Crown to create Peers for life; but that the House objected to. This Bill did not appear to him to establish a precedent as to Life Peerages.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid he wished to point out that the Bishops could not sit in that House after they had resigned their sees. By resigning, they ceased to be Members of their Lordships' House; the Lords of Appeal were in the same position, but this Bill would enable them to sit as Lords of Parliament for life. But could any one pretend that that would create Peers who were not Peers before?
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that the third reading of the Bill should not be proposed until some time next week, in order that they might have that matter discussed more fully with a view to see whether its provisions could not be enlarged. But he now protested against the principle that they were to be guided on the question by what were the intentions of the framers and draughtsmen of the Act of 1876, however eminent they might be. They were to be guided solely by the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Act which it had passed, and that intention must be gathered from the terms of the Act itself.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary may sit in House of Lords).
  LORD DENMAN, in moving an Amendment on the clause, said, he proposed the power of sitting in the House of Commons, which was the right of every Irish Peer, because Mr. Macaulay had voted for a Master of the Rolls being, as before, eligible to sit in the House of Commons and opposed their exclusion, both as a Liberal, and as a Conservative. His (Lord Denman's) attention had also been called to the lamented death of Lord Deas—a retired Lord of Session. His Lordship was well known when at the Bar, engaged in cases in their Lordships' House, but never was eligible for the House of Commons after he became a Lord of Session, or had retired. With regard to the creation of Lord Blackburn, the Prerogative of the Crown decided, and the consent of his Lordship was also requisite.
  Amendment moved,
  At end of clause, add ("and if a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, after he has resigned his seat in this House, should be elected to sit for any county or borough in England, or Scotland, or Wales, it shall be lawful for such Lord to sit and vote in the House of Commons, so long as he may remain a Member of Parliament, and if, ceasing to be a Member, it shall be lawful for him to return to his seat in the House of Lords for the remainder of his life."—(The Lord Denman.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 24, at the end of the clause, to add ("and the expression 'high judicial office,' as defined in the twenty-fifth section of the said Act, shall be deemed to include the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought there were some Members of their Lordships' House qualified to sit and assist in the transaction of Judicial Business, who ought to be brought within the quorum clause of the Appellant Jurisdiction Act, quite as much as those whom the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) proposed to bring within it. There was Lord Hobhouse, for example, who had acted for many years to the public advantage in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and who, at present, did not happen to come within the definition of the Act of Parliament as one of the persons having held high judicial office. He
  1064
  thought the definition should be enlarged, so as to include all those persons nominated to be members of the Judicial Committee by Her Majesty under the Sign Manual, and who, for a reasonable period of time, had acted as Judges of Appeal in Council.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he fully concurred in the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne). The words in the Act of Parliament referred to would not have included Lord Kingsdown, one of the ablest Judges who had ever assisted their Lordships. He would have been able to sit, but not to be one of the quorum described.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next.

ARMY (SIDE ARMS)—DEFECTIVE SWORD-BAYONETS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BALFOUR, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps the authorities are about to take in order to ascertain who are responsible for having passed the defective sword-bayonets, and having taken them off the contractor's hands; and, what was the contract price paid for them, said: My Lords, I am not animated in any way by a feeling of hostility to the War Office; but it seems to me that the Question which stands in my name arises directly out of the answers given in this House and the other House of Parliament on Monday last. It seems to me that there are two manifest defects in the reply which was given by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Harris). In the first place, it seems to me that he did not give any expression to what I think is the feeling of the majority of your Lordships, as to the great gravity of the state of things revealed in regard to the defective condition of certain weapons which have been supplied to the different branches of Her Majesty's Service. Secondly, there did not appear to be any expression of an intention to find out who is really responsible for the admission of these defective weapons into the hands

  1065
  of officers and men. There can be no two opinions but that this is a very serious question, both for its own sake, and on account of the moral effect which it might produce, if the Army were to become afraid that the weapons served out to them were in a large measure defective. Therefore, I do not think it necessary for me to make any apology for bringing the matter before your Lordships. It is of the utmost importance, if possible, that we should find out who is responsible for what I think is a neglect of duty in allowing defective weapons of this nature to pass into use. If my noble Friend says that there is a more rigorous test demanded now than before, that may relieve individuals from blame; but if he lays blame on the system, I shall be glad to hear that, in the future, that system is to be changed; if the Department does not admit that the system is defective, then I think that the Department is bound to say who is responsible for not having put the weapons to the proper test. The contract price paid for these weapons is also a matter of great importance. I may be wrong with respect to the information that has reached me, to the effect that the prices of these sword bayonets were so low that it was practically impossible for proper weapons to be supplied at the price paid for them. If that is a misapprehension, it will be for the noble Lord to state what was the price paid for the articles, and then any practical man will be able to say whether there would be a reasonable expectation that a good article could be supplied at that price. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given notice.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Before the noble Lord answers the Question, I am anxious to say a few words. I do not know anything about the particular batch of bayonets, or cutlasses referred to; but I should like to tell your Lordships what I saw yesterday, because it shows, at any rate, that however severe a test may be to which these weapons are submitted, they will not, and cannot, resist treatment that any irresponsible people may subject them to. I happened to be at Enfield, yesterday, on business, with several Members connected with the Committee which is now sitting, who are well acquainted with metals and their working. I was not directly inquiring
  1066
  into this, or any other technical subject, but into administration. While at Enfield, we looked very carefully into the tests which all sorts of swords, cutlasses, and sword-bayonets are now subjected to. I think it was their unanimous opinion that those tests were extremely severe and satisfactory. The present tests are very much more severe than those formerly used. Two cutlasses were taken and put through all those tests, which were of three kinds—first, the striking test; secondly, the bending test, which was of a severe character; and, thirdly, the weight test—that was to say, how many pounds a weapon would bear without bending, and how many inches it would bend to every additional pound. These cutlasses passed through all those tests. Then we put one into a vice, and it was perfectly easy, when applying sufficient manual force, to bend it in any way you liked, and not merely to bend, but to break it. It is impossible that any steel will remain unbroken, if sufficient force is applied in a vice, or, even, if you bend it over your knee; and it is quite possible for a sword or cutlass to pass all the tests which are admitted to be satisfactory and stringent, and yet be unable to stand this severe treatment. It does not follow, however, that the article is bad, because it will not stand the particular treatment to which it is subjected, and I venture to state that no steel which could possibly be made could stand such tests as that of the vice.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, with reference to the answer of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War on Monday, I would suggest that he would do better to give a candid answer and say that flexible swords which bend are better than brittle swords which break, rather than to endeavour to screen the Department. There was no precedent for flexible swords unless you went back to ancient history. Julius Cæsar relates that some of the Gauls had swords which bent at every blow, and that they had to straighten them under their feet. What was involved was not the credit of this or previous Governments, but the safe equipment of the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): I can assure my noble Friend (Lord Stan-

  1067
  ley of Alderley) that, so long as I represent one, that it will not be my object to screen any Government Department. The reply which I made the other day was perfectly honest, and without any attempt to screen anyone. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) I must point out to my noble Friend that, following upon my answer the other day, there is something more than a Question. There is an assumption which I cannot admit in using the word "defective." I am not at present prepared to admit that these sword-bayonets are defective. If it cannot be shown that they will not stand the test to which they were submitted in 1871, and which was considered at the time to be perfectly sufficient, then I say the sword-bayonets are not defective. If it can be shown that they will not stand the test, I will admit that they are defective. At present, my information is that they will stand that test, but that a certain percentage will not stand the increased test demanded of swords and sword-bayonets at the present day. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of interest taken in this subject. The noble Lord has further asked who is responsible for the issue of these sword-bayonets. In answer to that, I can only repeat what I stated the other day—that the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory issued the cutlasses and the sword-bayonets on his own responsibility, and there is no reason to suppose that they were not up to the test when they were passed. The last contract price was 14 s. each, including the scabbard.

NAVY—H.M.S. "INDUS"—DEFECTIVE SWORD-BAYONETS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I have a Question, which is supplementary to that which I put the other night; but, after what we have heard from the noble Lord, I suppose I ought to strike out the words "admittedly defective," as the War Department do not appear to admit that they were defective. The Question I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government is with reference to the answer lately given by the Under Secretary of State for War, showing the admittedly defective state of the sword-bayonets supplied to H.M.S. Indus. Whether any complaints have been received at the Admiralty from command-
  1068
  ing officers of other ships, and, if so, of what nature; what steps are the Admiralty about to take to ascertain whether any of Her Majesty's ships on foreign stations have been supplied with defective sword-bayonets; what was the test applied to the sword-bayonets found defective in H.M.S. Indus; and to what extent are the Naval Authorities answerable for the admission of these defective sword-bayonets into the Naval Service?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD IN WAITING): My Lords, in answer to the first part of the Question, complaints have been received from the commanding officers of four ships, the Active, Volage, Rover, and Devastation. Some cutlasses and sword-bayonets on the Active having been found defective in actual use, orders were given for about half of those on the ship to be tested as follows:—The point of the sword was placed in the deck, and pressure applied at the handle until the point was turned about 50 degrees from the straight line. On being released, the whole of those marked "defective" remained permanently out of the original line. Of the 50 cutlasses tested on the ship, 34 were found defective; and of the 55 sword-bayonets tested, 40 were found defective. The same course was followed on the Rover, when 45 out of 50 cutlasses were found defective, and 54 out of 55 sword-bayonets. On the Volage, with the same test, 12 out of 50 cutlasses were reported defective, and 17 out of 55 sword-bayonets. The following is the report from the Devastation, at Queensferry—
  "On examining sword-bayonets, it was found that many would bend like hoop-iron. Some could be bent easily by hand, and remain bent."
  With regard to the second part of the Question, the War Office has been communicated with to know what steps they wish to be taken, sword-bayonets being a War Office store and not a naval. What was the test applied to the sword-bayonets found defective on Her Majesty's Ship Indus? The point of the sword was placed on the deck, and a fair pressure applied on the hilt; when this was released, a permanent deflection of the blade existed. The point was then fixed in a vice, and the blade bent evenly round until it assumed the appearance of a screw. As to the last part of the Question, I have to say that the Naval Authorities are in no way respon-

  1069
  sible for the admission of those defective sword-bayonets into the Naval Service. When a new weapon is designed for the Naval Service, a pattern is sent to the Admiralty. If approved of, notification is made to the War Office, and there all responsibility ceases. The Naval Authorities are not consulted further. They are not consulted as to the wording of the specifications, as to the selection of the contractor, as to the details of the metal to be used, or as to the nature of the test to which the weapons are to be submitted before being accepted as serviceable weapons. Your Lordships will readily understand that the approval of a pattern weapon is a very different thing from the approval of the weapons themselves. A pattern weapon would not be likely to exhibit inferiority, either of workmanship or metal. The Admiralty can, therefore, accept no responsibility of the admission of these defective weapons into the Naval Service.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I must be allowed a word in reply to what has been said by the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) with regard to these sword-bayonets. With respect to the tests, your Lordships have heard that the sword point was placed on the deck, and pressure was applied upon it until it had obtained an angle of 50 degrees. I am not sure that your Lordships will be able to understand what an angle of 50 degrees is. Certainly, we found very great difficulty about it at the War Office, and, having the advantage of his presence, I asked a distinguished naval officer to explain what was meant, and he was entirely unable to do so. But your Lordships will perceive that this was a purely arbitrary test, and it was not at all fair, inasmuch as it may have been a far greater test than the sword-bayonets were submitted to in 1871, and even a far more severe one than that to which they are submitted now. What fell from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) will show that the subsequent test of placing in a vice was positively unfair. I would ask any of your Lordships to go to any eminent sword manufacturer in this country, and ask him whether he considered it fair to put any sword to a stronger test than that which it was made to stand. I have seen a manufacturer bend a sword until the blade was shortened six inches, and when I asked him to bend it another
  1070
  inch he declined, because, he said, it would be unfair. The test on these ships, therefore, may or may not have been a fair one. If it was a fair test, the War Office is perfectly ready to assume the responsibility; but I would remind your Lordships that a Royal Commission of Inquiry is now sitting to inquire into the system by which ordnance stores were issued. There is also a Committee inquiring into the manufacture of ordnance stores, and the terms of Reference will permit of the question of sword-bayonets being included. The Secretary of State has determined, further, to investigate this matter by instituting an impartial inquiry on the spot.
  LORD DE ROS: I think that there exists an immense amount of red-tapeism connected with this subject, and it appears to me very hard upon our soldiers and sailors that they may be called upon to go into action armed with weapons which they cannot rely upon. I hope that the Committee and the Royal Commission which the noble Lord has just mentioned will be able to throw some light upon the matter, and that the result will be that more satisfactory weapons will be supplied to the Services in the future.
  LORD BALFOUR: I think that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Harris) has misapprehended what I have said. I did not mean to charge him with indifference; I only desired to state that, in the answer I gave, he did not seem to sufficiently appreciate the importance of the state of matters.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, it is obvious that one of the statements made on behalf of the Government—that made by my noble Friend (Lord Elphinstone)—contains some very startling revelations. I wish to know whether any previous discoveries of this nature have been made, or whether these are the only defective weapons found?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: I think that this is somewhat a wide Question, and I must request that Notice may be given of it.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I wish to ask, whether there is not reason to suppose that these weapons had become defective by reason of the alterations which had been made in them from cutlasses?
  LORD HARRIS: That is not the opinion of the authorities at the Small Arms Factory; but it is possible: and the question will be tested by chemical process.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.