Lords Sitting of 9 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading Solicitors (195); Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland) (86), discharged; Libel Law Amendment (190).
Committee—Report—Limited Partnerships (159).
Report—Habitual Drunkards Act (1879) Amendment (No. 2) (138).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 13)* (207).
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour*(135); Tramways (No. 3)* (191); Public Health (Scotland) (Kirkliston, Dalmeny, and South Queensferry Water)* (177).
Third Reading—Local Government (No. 6)* (181); Local Government (No.9)* (182); Local Government (No. 12)* (183); Local Government (No. 7)* (200); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert)* (145), and passed.

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE LATEEMPEROR OF GERMANY.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, as directed by your Lordships, I forwarded to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin the Resolutions of Condolence with the Empress Victoria of Germany, passed by your Lordships' House, and I have received the following reply from Sir Edward Malet:—
  "My Lord Chancellor,
  I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordships' Letter of the 19th inst., transmitting to me copies of two Resolutions of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, conveying Messages of Condolence to the Empress Victoria from their Lordships' House, and I have the honour to inform your Lordships that Her Imperial Majesty was graciously pleased to receive me in audience yesterday, for the purpose of presenting these Messages. Her Imperial Majesty desired me to convey to their Lordships' House, through
  684
  your Lordship, her gratitude for these marks of sympathy with Her deep distress, and to express the hope that the memory of the Emperor Frederick, her dearly beloved Husband, may ever be preserved."
  Letter ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.

AFFAIRS IN ZULULAND.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could communicate to the House any information with regard to the situation of affairs in Zululand?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): Perhaps the best reply I can give to the noble Earl's request is conveyed in a telegram I received last night from Sir Arthur Havelock, dated the 8th of July:—
  "In consequence of defeat of Usibepu and withdrawal of police magistracy at Ivuna 23rd June disturbance has become serious. Natives of coast district to the north of Zulu Native Reserve, through fear of Dinuzulu, have taken part in rebellion. Attack upon magistrates of districts threatened. British troops and native contingent gave assistance to-day. Am confident forces now in Zululand are sufficient for restoration of good order, unless any unexpected complications arise. Dilatoriness in adopting necessary measures mainly caused by delay in collecting native contingent. Military authorities will not move without native contingent. It is believed that affair at Hlopekulu will have produced good effect. Government of New Republic maintain friendly action and professions. I have reason to believe there are a few freebooters with Dinuzulu. Local newspaper reports much exaggerated. Will telegraph at once any important changes in the situation of affairs."
  My Lords, it is impossible to deny that, though the situation is not dangerous, it is still serious, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state in a very few words the position of affairs in Zululand as far as I can make it out. Dinuzulu, the son of the late King Cetywayo, and his uncle, Undabuko, are both together at a place called Ceza, on the North-West frontier of Zululand. What is the exact force they have with them it is difficult to make out, but Sir Arthur Havelock thinks we may number them at about 4,000. The Imperial Force is as follows:—A regular force of 300 Cavalry, 120 mounted Infantry, 440 Infantry, two light guns and two gatlings. Then there are reinforce-

  685
  ments, which have probably arrived by this time, of 677 Royal Scots and 21 artillerymen. There are of Zulu Carabineers 25 mounted and 135 foot, besides 250 Basutos and some Native levies. I have no exact information as to where the main body of Imperial troops is at present, but it has been found necessary on the way up to Ceza to disperse some insurgent levies under one of the Chiefs called Tshingana. The following telegram gives the shortest account of the matter. It is as follows:—
  "Tshingana having collected insurgent bands at Hlopekulu, near White Umvalosi River, has been raiding and plundering loyal Natives, it became necessary to dislodge him before advance to Ceza. 2nd July, police with native and Basuto levies, with support of troops, advanced to Hlopekulu, found Usutus in strong position, from which they at once opened fire. Usutus dispersed with heavy loss after six hours' fighting. About 1,000 cattle captured. Casualties on our side:—Killed—Lieutenant Briscoe, 1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; Trent, leader of native levy; and three police and Basutos. Wounded—Eight Basutos. Losses among native levies not yet ascertained; Tshingana supposed to be escaped."
  My Lords, our duty is a very plain one; it is to advance and to put down Dinuzulu and Undabuko, and to prevent any further resistance to British Authority. When this has been successfully accomplished, I think that it will be easy for us to treat the other Chiefs who have risen against us with leniency. It is not difficult to understand why some of these Chiefs who gladly accepted the Sovereignty declared in May of last year have now risen against us. There have been all kinds of rumours spread through Zululand of the decline of the British power, and of our intention to retire. There has also been a feeling of distrust and doubt as to the finality of the arrangements made by the British Government and the continued maintenance of the Sovereignty. Every endeavour has been made to remove that distrust, and I think I may say that success has attended those endeavours. But now, unfortunately, they have heard of the failure in April last of the police to seize four men in Undabuko's kraal, from which they had to retire, and also of the far more serious failure in June last, when the police and troops intended to execute warrants against Dinuzulu and Undabuko, but were resisted in force and obliged to retire. No doubt, the rumours of these two events
  686
  have been much exaggerated, and the retirement of the troops has been treated as if the British Army had been defeated. In these circumstances a distrust has undoubtedly been revived against the British Government among the Natives. Looking at what has passed in Zululand for many years, I cannot altogether wonder that the Natives feel this distrust as to the maintenance of our Sovereignty in Zululand, and are, therefore, afraid that if Dinuzulu again secures power they will be treated harshly. This shows the necessity for speedy and decisive action against Dinuzulu and Undabuko. I am satisfied that Sir Arthur Havelock and General Smythe will take every necessary step, and that they feel the importance of carrying out our plans. I should like to add one other observation. I have seen it stated that the Boers—the Leaders of the South African Republic and the New Republic—are supporting Dinuzulu and Undabuko. Sir Arthur Havelock has pointed out that he does not believe that the Leaders of the New Republic have taken this step, though there may be some individual Boers who are with the Chiefs. I am quite satisfied, and I am glad to make public my belief, that the Leaders, both of the South African Republic and the New Republic, have lent no countenance to Dinuzulu's action, but, on the contrary, have endeavoured as far as possible to support us.

ELECTIONS (INTERVENTION OF PEERS AND PRELATES IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS)—RESOLUTION.
Moved, "That the first paragraph of Standing Order No. XX. be suspended and that the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee on Elections (Intervention of Peers and Prelates in Parliamentary Elections) have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices which stand before it."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
Motion agreed to.
Then the said report was considered (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving the reception of the Report, observed that their Lordships would remember that the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, which had been sent to their Lordships repeating a Resolution which from time to time had been passed

687
every Session since the year 1641, had been referred to a Committee of their Lordships' House. In that Report certain statements had been made, but the nature of the infringement suggested had been unfortunately so wrapped up in ambiguity that it was very difficult to know what was intended by the Resolution. If it had referred simply to the absence of any right on the part of a Peer to vote in the election of a Member to serve in the House of Commons, he believed that none of their Lordships would have denied that by the Common Law of England a Peer was not entitled to vote. But the ambiguous language that a Peer should not concern himself in an election had been misunderstood to mean that Peers had no right to take an ordinary interest in electoral contests. While he believed, on the one hand, that no one would doubt that Peers are not entitled to vote in elections, on the other hand he believed that there was not the smallest foundation for suggesting that a Peer, like any other person interested in an election, could not take a lawful part in promoting the election of a Member of Parliament. The first conspicuous instance of action on the part of a Peer giving rise to this Resolution of the House of Commons was where a Peer had sent a letter to a particular borough ordering that a certain person should be elected member for that borough. In that case it was not unnatural that the House of Commons should resent such an occurrence as an undoubted interference, and the form of the Resolution specially passed indicated what it meant. A later instance was where an assault had taken place. But at present they had a modern Act of Parliament which made it penal to exercise any undue influence, and Peers as well as others were under that law. In these circumstances the Committee to whom their Lordships had remitted the consideration of this question had thought it right to make the following Report:—
"Inasmuch as a Resolution of one House of Parliament cannot affect the law, it is unnecessary to take any action on the Report of the House of Commons as to the continuance of the Sessional order with reference to the intervention of peers or prelates in Parliamentary elections."
That which was contrary to the law in a Peer was equally contrary in a Com-
688
moner, and that which was unlawful in a Commoner was equally unlawful in a Peer, and in his opinion there was no other distinction. As the Resolution of their Lordships' Committee had suggested, neither House of Parliament could either make or unmake law, and the Resolution of the House of Commons neither added to nor took away from what the law was. He begged to move that the Report of the Committee be received.
Moved, "That the Report be received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS)said, that he wished to say a few words, speaking entirely upon his own responsibility, which would be in no sense the opinion of their Lordships' House, with regard to the Resolution and Report of the House of Commons sent up to their Lordships. He would call their Lordships' attention to the extreme vagueness of the Resolution. It would be most difficult to say what interpretation was to be placed upon the Resolution. A good deal would depend on what was meant by interference. In the application of the Resolution to the case in 1641, to which the Lord Chancellor had referred, the Peer, he supposed, was the patron of the borough, and directed that a particular person should be elected as Member of Parliament. Such interference would by the Common Law be most improper. The second case, that of interference by force of arms, would no doubt also be most improper; but both would be as much illegal interference if done by any other person as by a Peer of the Realm. The Resolution could not pretend to be a judicial decision. The House of Commons had at one time the power of giving judicial decisions with regard to elections which were brought before it. But when there was no case before it upon which the House of Commons could adjudicate, it could not give anything like a judicial decision. A protest on the part of the House of Commons was but a pro-test, and could not have the effect of law before any judicial tribunal. Such a Resolution would have no effect whatever of any kind upon the law. As to the question of what the law is, and to the allegations in the Report, there is no legal penalty for interfering at an election, and no person

689
could be imprisoned for doing so. The only case in which the Resolution could possibly have any effect, if it could have an effect, was on a Parliamentary inquiry into the subject-matter of the election—namely, whether it was a due election or not. But the Resolution of the House of Commons could have no effect, because the House of Commons has given up the power of inquiring into the validity of an election, and the only tribunal which could inquire, and whose decision would have any effect, was the tribunal of the Judges appointed to try Election Petitions. Neither a Resolution of the House of Commons nor a Resolution of the House of Lords, nor both combined, would have any effect upon the Judges. The Judges must decide by Common Law or by Statute Law if anything should be alleged to have been done contrary to Statute. As he understood that this was the first time that this Resolution of the House of Commons had been sent to their Lordships' House, this is the first time that the House could take no notice of it. As it has never before come before them, it is impossible to say that their Lordships' House have failed to controvert it. It could not, therefore, be properly said that their Lordships, by not controverting, had made any admission. In the same way he was bound to say that this Resolution had never been brought in any shape or form to the attention of any judicial tribunal whatever. But if there had been an admission by their Lordships' House, it could be no higher than a declaration by the House; and, as he had said, a declaration of their Lordships' House would have the same effect only as a declaration of the House of Commons; and a joint declaration of both Houses would have no effect of any kind on the Common Law; it could neither add to it nor take from it. The Report went on to say that the Sessional Order of the House of Commons had been recognized by the Courts as a declaration of law. That was not so. He was party to a case in which not that Resolution, but a Resolution passed in 1699 was brought before the Court. This case was not called to the attention of the Committee of the House of Commons, though it is on the Journals. That case was that in consequence of the Earl of Manchester having voted at
690
an election, the House of Commons resolved that no Peer in this Kingdom had any right to give a vote in the election of any Member of Parliament. That Resolution was brought before the Court as the judicial decision of the House of Commons upon an Election Petition in which the seat was claimed, and the election was declared void. It was the decision of the House of Commons, therefore, given as a judicial decision determining the election. Such a decision, therefore, would probably be treated as a high authority by the Court of Common Pleas. He affirmed that the Resolution that Peers should not vote at elections, which was passed year by year by the House of Commons, had no effect what-ever. That Resolution had never been brought before any judicial tribunal of the country, and it was therefore erroneous to say that the Resolution was evidence of the Common Law of the land. The only Court that could come to a decision as to whether the interference of a particular Peer was or was not according to the Common Law of England was the Court of Judges of Election Petitions. If their Lordships were now to come to any decision on the subject it would be a futile decision and would have no effect whatever. The matter must be left to the only tribunal that could decide it. He, therefore, strongly advised their Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he heartily agreed with every word contained in the Resolution. No Resolution of the Houses of Parliament could affect the law. It was quite certain that a Resolution passed by the House of Commons could not create the law if it did not otherwise exist. He was not, however, prepared to say that the declaration which had been made by the House of Cammons year after year for nearly two centuries was at variance with the Common Law of this country. If his noble and learned Friend opposite said that there was no decision which supported such a Resolution, he could only say there was no decision against it. Unquestionably it could not be denied that the impression had prevailed and been acted upon for many years that a Peer was not justified in taking that part in the election of Members of Parliament which every other subject could exercise. Distinction had been drawn between a

691
Peer taking part in ordinary political discussion and taking part in elections. Where the dividing line came in was a question which he did not think it necessary to decide. All he wished to say was that the matter should be left where it was. They could not by any expression of opinion make the law other than it was. He thought it was much better not to admit any new definition, especially as by immemorial usage there had been abstention on the part of Peers from taking part in elections. One other matter he ought to mention was that the Resolution of 1700 was brought to the attention of the Court of Common Pleas, and was referred to by Chief Justice Bovill in his judgment, though he quite agreed there was no decision in the case. He ought, also, to mention that after the Act of Union a new Standing Order was made which contained the old declaration, but in different terms, and making other provisions with reference to the action of Irish Peers. Therefore, it was not a mere reiteration from year to year, but the matter was considered by the House after the Act of Union. He entirely supported the Motion before the House, but he wished to make it clear that he was entitled to reserve his judgment as to what the Common Law had been.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was glad this discussion had taken place, because the fact that there was not absolute harmony among the Law Lords who had spoken with regard to the exact state of the law confirmed the necessity for approaching the subject with extreme caution; moreover, that want of harmony made the decision of their Lordship's Committee more satisfactory, as they were entirely agreed as to their Report. The state of the law on the subject appeared to him, as a Member of the Committee, to require very much more lengthened and elaborate inquiry than could be afforded to it on that occasion. The very fact that it was acknowledged on all hands that neither House of Parliament could by Resolution affect the law showed that there was no practical necessity for expressing an opinion on the Resolution of the Commons. He would, therefore, recommend their Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): With reference to the legal argument of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) I shall not venture to offer an opinion, but he diverged for a moment from a mere statement of the law to what he conceived to be a statement of fact, and on that point I do not think he was accurate. He stated that the immemorial usage was that no Peer should concern himself in an election at the time it was taking place. If he had said that that had been a general custom I should not have disputed it; but it has been by no means a universal custom. I have known Peers to vote at elections; at University elections it was a common thing. I have taken part myself as a Peer in proceedings about an election after the Writ was issued. I believe it has been frequently done, and the only rule limiting it has been the power of the House of Commons, up to a recent date, possessed of cancelling an election without giving any reason for that annulment. Of course, as long as the House of Commons had that power, if any Peer thought he had a right to interfere and did interfere, and the result was the annulment of the election, his labour would be thrown away; but as to the fact that they have aften interfered I have no doubt whatever. I venture to prophecy that, as matters are carried for decision more to the hustings and the platform and less to the House of Commons at Westminster, your Lordships, not as Peers, but simply as ordinary citizens, will at all times express your opinions, as you undoubtedly have the right to do, as to who are the best persons to frame financial laws which you will have to accept, and to select the rulers who will rule the country in which you dwell. If you have no right to express opinions on these matters, you are, in respect of them, in a position more disadvantageous than any citizen of this country who is not an elector. There would then be three graduated stages of disability—electors who can vote, non-electors who cannot vote but may express opinions, and Peers who may neither vote nor express opinions. I do not think the Constitution places you in that position. I believe that the very fact that you have no power in this House to deal with the selection of those who govern the country, the very fact that by usage you

693
abstain from dealing with financial matters, does morally and practically confer upon you the right which is possessed by the humblest subject of her Majesty of expressing at all times freely your opinions upon all political matters which are before the country.
Motion agreed to.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the foreign squadrons, and to the large expenditure on ships not effective for the operations of war or the protection of trade, said, that he disavowed all intention to criticize the present Admiralty, which had rendered excellent service to the country. His object was to propose a change of system, to increase the building of effective ships by diminishing expenditure on those which were comparatively ineffective. The experience of the last two years must have impressed on all who were interested in the Navy the imperative necessity of concentrating our efforts on essentials. Under a Government which could not be suspected of indifference to the security of the Empire we had seen a sweeping reduction of Navy Estimates. He did not condemn the Admiralty for accepting reductions, or the Government for showing some distrust of the assurances so glibly given in various quarters that the country was ready to spend unlimited amounts on the increase of the Navy. The experience of every Chancellor of the Exchequer was the same. Proposals to build ships and to raise seamen were popular enough. There was always some fatal objection to new taxes. Impressed with the difficulty of increasing Estimates, while at the same time earnestly desiring to obtain more protection for our commerce, he would consider the means—in effect the only means—by which the object in view could be attained. It was not necessary to make exaggerated statements as to the inferiority of the British Fleet in comparison with other Powers. In the construction of swift and powerful vessels great progress had been made within a recent period. In vessels built or completing we had established a decided superiority. When, however, we turned to the programme of building
  694
  now in course of execution in France and England, it was evident that our position in the future was seriously threatened. Setting aside the torpedo gunboats, which were in no sense cruisers, the English programme of shipbuilding for 1888–9 included the two first-class cruisers, Blake and Blenheim, 9,000 tons, 22 knots; the five second-class cruisers, M type, 2,900 tons, 20 knots; and two third-class cruisers, 1,800 tons, 19.5 knots. The French shipbuilding programme was much more ambitious. It included the 20-knot ships Dupuy de Lôme, belted cruiser, 6,360 tons; and the Davoust and Suchet, protected cruisers, 6,027 tons. Their list of 19-knot vessels included 11 ships—Tage, 7,045 tons, Cécile, 5,766 tons, three Alger type, 4,162 tons, and six third-class cruisers, Surcouf type, 1,850 tons. Of ships steaming 19 knots and over France was building 14, England nine. Making full allowance for greater rapidity of construction, when we looked to the vessels in progress in France and to the figures recently published by Lloyds, showing the approximate value of our Mercantile Marine to that of France as £93,000,000 to £9,000,000, we saw that greater efforts were required on the part of the British Admiralty. As an immediate step Sir Arthur Hood recently asked for six additional cruisers. The question to be considered was how such a reinforcement of the Fleet might be obtained with the least charge to the public. When we were building for the protection of commerce speed was the first condition of efficiency, and we were now, as in the past, wasting money in building too many cruisers greatly inferior in speed to those building in France. We were building four third-class cruisers of the Barossa class—1,580 tons, 16.5 knots. No figure was named for those ships in the Estimates; but the cost could not be less than £400,000. Then there were the five ships of the Buzzard class, 1,140 tons, 14.5 knots, and the Melita, 12.5 knots, costing, in round figures, £65,000 each. There were also 15 gunboats of the Pheasant type—13 knots; cost £41,000. In all we had in hand 25 comparatively slow vessels, which would cost in the aggregate at least £1,405,000. France had only five vessels of the corresponding class. The

  695
  cost would be under £400,000. We were spending on cruisers conspicuously inferior to those building for France, Italy, and the United States, a sum which would have given us 10 more 20-knot cruisers of the Medea class; and it was not open to question that such an addition to the Navy would have been more valuable for the protection of commerce than any number of gunboats. All that unsatisfactory expenditure on peace-service vessels to which he had referred did not fall on the Estimates of the current financial year; but the proprotion chargeable to 1888–9 formed a serious deduction from the money available for building effective ships. Excluding indirect charges, £2,667,000 was taken for new construction in 1888–9. An analysis showed that the expenditure on ships designed for war service, including the armoured and protected vessels over 19 knots and the torpedo flotilla, was £1,944,814. Surveying and other necessary services absorbed £101,000. Thus far the appropriation of the shipbuilding Vote was entirely satisfactory. What was not satisfactory was that we should spend no less than £621,520 on protected vessels under 17 knots and unprotected vessels under 15 and 14 knots. The excessive construction of vessels of inadequate speed was not a new defect in our naval administration. The extent of this drain on our resources was shown in some striking figures presented to Parliament with the Navy Estimates of this year. Taking the period from 1866–8 onwards, our total expenditure on shipbuilding was £33,134,851. Looking through the figures in detail, it was painful to see that millions had been sunk in corvettes, sloops, and small vessels designed only for peace requirements, not suitable by reason of insufficiency of speed for the protection of commerce, and not powerful enough for the line-of-battle. Our larger partially protected ships approached very near in the cost per ton to some of our most powerful ironclads, and in the last 10 years we had completed 16 such vessels of the Comus and Satellite types, none having a speed of more than 13 knots. Eleven corvettes of somewhat inferior speed had been built, the earliest having been completed in 1870. Since 1872 we had built 19 sloops, 15 gun vessels,
  696
  and 28 cruising gunboats, with speeds ranging from 14 knots in the latest to under 10 knots in the earlier types. The total cost of these vessels was no less than £5,483,733. The cost of maintenance after completion to the 31st of March, 1887, was given at £1,385,000; and if they added the Dockyard incidental charges apportioned to each ship, amounting to over £1,018,610, they arrived at a total expenditure in the period subsequent to 1865 amounting to £7,887,522. It was because we had been building so many vessels adapted only to peace requirements that we were driven, when the prospect of a conflict with Russia seemed imminent, to take up at great cost for conversion into cruisers merchant steamers absolutely unprotected and weakly armed, but possessing the speed which was indispensable, and in which the ships built for the Navy were wanting. That unhappy experience should not be renewed. They had been more successful in France in checking unprofitable expenditure on what had been happily described as the poussière navale. Of 13 to 14-knot vessels France had four and England 26. Of vessels of 13 down to 10 knots France had 43 and England 52. Under 10 knots France had 15 and England 69, Mere harbour-service craft were not included on either side. It was worthy of notice that our numerical superiority increased as we descended in quality. No administration would willingly have incurred a large and continuous expenditure on vessels known when they were laid down to be practically useless in war. We had been building, and we were now building, to satisfy demands pertinaciously pressed upon the Admiralty for the display of the flag in every quarter of the globe where we had commercial interests to protect and Consuls to represent us, no matter how inferior the vessel upon which it was borne. How seriously our Administration was hampered by these impolitic requisitions was readily seen upon an examination of the squadrons on foreign stations. Taking the numbers as they stood at a recent date, of ships steaming 17 knots and over, we had nine, as against two French ships. Of the ineffective class steaming 14 knots and under, our ships in commission were 63, to 29 under the French flag. These

  697
  numbers were exclusive of 11 tenders to our reserve ships, and the gunboats attached to our home ports. Where we were dealing with savage races, as in the Eastern Archipelago or the Pacific, the mere display of the flag was sufficient for the maintenance of order. With civilized nations, however, it was not the flag, but the effective power of which it was the symbol which alone produced any sensible impression. France was the only foreign Power which had attempted to follow our system of maintaining numerous small vessels in every quarter of the globe, and her policy in this regard was condemned by her most distinguished officers. Nothing existed in our naval administration for which no good reason could be given at the time when it was established; but many things were survivals of the past, and not suited to present conditions. That was eminently true in relation to our foreign squadrons. The excessive number of small vessels under the British Flag on foreign stations originated in the building of gunboats by hundreds in the Crimean War, for service in the Baltic. Having these gunboats on our hands, the desire to find a use for them was natural, and at a time when communication was slow and difficult, it was desirable to keep vessels near at hand to give protection to British interests. With the introduction of the telegraph and steam, the conditions were altered. The policy which we should follow in the altered circumstances of the case was well described in a letter which he had received from Sir Spencer Robinson. Instead of showing our flag in slow and inefficient but costly vessels, scattered singly over the globe, squadrons of swift and powerful vessels should be kept ready at home, and at certain stations abroad, within reach of the electric telegraph, and thence despatched to the place where a naval force might be required. Flying squadrons under the British Flag should occasionally visit every sea. If a question were raised as to the means by which officers and men would be trained when the small vessels were reduced, the answer was that there was little to stimulate energy, no emulation, and but limited opportunity for gaining professional knowledge in scattered vessels of inferior type. The instruction of the navy would be best carried on in
  698
  flying squadrons, in training squadrons, and by an annual mobilization, such as the present Board of Admiralty had twice carried out, to the great advantage of the Service. He should be glad to learn that the Admiralty had resolved on some revision of the programme of building now before Parliament. It would be satisfactory to receive the announcement that those fast cruisers were about to be ordered which Sir Arthur Hood was so desirous to lay down. As an immediate practical step, he would urge that our naval requirements abroad should be specially considered at the Foreign and Colonial Offices. As a result of such an examination, he looked for the gradual withdrawal of some 30 or 40 small craft. With Estimates framed in anticipation of peace, we must look for the means of strengthening our position, not so much to an increase of expenditure as to efficient administration. He submitted the case, which he had endeavoured to state as clearly and plainly as he could, with confidence to the deliberate consideration of the Government.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, the noble Lord, with the knowledge he had of the conduct of affairs at the Admiralty, must be perfectly well aware that in the month of July it would be impossible to make any radical change in the programme fairly considered and decided upon in the early part of the year. He could only assure the noble Lord that the suggestions he had made would be kept in view by the Admiralty when the building programme for next year came to be considered. He thanked the noble Lord most cordially for his kindness in providing him with a précis of his speech, because it would enable him to deal with the various subjects he had taken up. Now, since the year 1885, the First Lord of the Admiralty had laid down no less than 57 vessels, and of 60 vessels now building, 56 would be completed in two years' and the remainder in three years' time. The whole of the vessels now being constructed were being pushed forward in the most rapid manner possible, a considerable saving of money being effected thereby, and the present rate of construction was such that we were turning out two ships for one of any Foreign Power. In his enumeration of the shipbuilding programme of 1888–9,

  699
  the noble Lord should have mentioned in addition the Australian cruisers and two torpedo boats; while, with regard to comparisons with the French programme, which he said was more ambitious, he had to point out that that programme existed only on paper, no commencement having yet been made in carrying it out. It was perfectly true that great efforts were required on the part of the British Admiralty in the building of effective cruisers, and in 1890 the relative number of cruisers of France and England would stand thus:—France would have 13 cruisers and England 22 cruisers, with a speed of 19 knots. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks on the list of comparatively small vessels, he maintained that it was an absolute necessity that we should build small vessels as well as large, considering the variety of our interests to be protected and the overwhelming proportions of our commerce sailing every sea. He did not quite follow what the noble Lord tried to prove by his figures showing the comparative number of small vessels of France and England; but, for one thing, they showed that France, with fewer Colonies and less trade and a smaller Mercantile Marine, found it necessary to employ 29 small vessels; while we, with our much larger trade, found it necessary to employ 61, the respective interests of the two countries being, as the noble Lord had shown, as 93 to 9. The building programme had been most carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty. They had to consider the strength of our squadrons on foreign stations based on the requirements of each station, and they were of opinion that vessels of various classes were absolutely required in order to protect those interests efficiently. For instance, in the East Indies, the Pacific, China, and Australia, where long distances had to be covered, and where facilities for re-coaling were few and far between, it was necessary to have a certain number of vessels of moderate size sheathed and coppered in order to maintain their speed without docking frequently, and that such vessels should be provided with a moderate amount of sail-power to enable them to economize their coal. Again, it was absolutely necessary to have gun vessels of mode-rate draft of water in order to ascend the rivers. This was indispensable on
  700
  the coast of Africa, the East Indies, and China. Fast vessels with steel bottoms were quite unfit for such duties. He remembered an instance in which, having been sent to destroy a piratical stronghold on the coast of North Borneo, piloted by a smaller ship belonging to the East India Government, that small vessel was ashore four times in one forenoon; had she been a fast vessel, with a steel bottom, instead of destroying the stockades, which he did two days afterwards, our whole time would have been employed in repairing the smaller vessel, if, indeed, there was anything left of her to repair. It was also necessary to have some fast cruisers on the foreign stations, and as the slow vessels completed their time the Government were replacing them with new and fast vessels. In China, for instance, the Audacious, flagship, was being replaced by the Impérieuse, having a speed of 17 knots. The Leander, of the same speed, was also on that station, and the Porpoise, of the same speed, had also been sent there. In Australia, the Nelson, flagship, would be replaced by the Orlando, with a speed of 19 knots, and one of the newest gunboats, the Lizard, of 715 tons and 13 knots speed, had replaced two sailing schooners. On the West coast of Africa, the Brisk, 1,770 tons, was about to replace the Icarus, of 970 tons. In the Meditteranean they had four vessels of 17 knots speed, the Phaeton, Fearless, Scout, and Surprise, and this course of replacing slow cruisers with fast ones would be proceeded with. No foreign vessel on any foreign station could steam 16½ knots, the speed of the Barracouta class. Armament, coal-carrying capacity, and sea-going qualities were more essential on distant stations than mere speed on the measured mile, which was often obtained by a sacrifice of these qualities and by light scantling. Then the noble Lord said that 30 or 40 of our slow gunboats ought to be gradually recalled and paid off, beginning with those on the Mediterranean Station and on the coasts of America. But, as a matter of fact, we had only 13 slow gunboats in commission on foreign stations, three in the Mediterranean, three on the North American Station—to which one relief had gone—one at the Cape, four at the China Station, and two at the Australian. Three new gun-boats had already gone out, and those

  701
  now building were for the purpose of replacing these 13 gunboats. Then the noble Lord suggested that a training squadron and a flying squadron, such as that which had been cruising under the German Flag, should occasionally be seen in every quarter of the globe. As a matter of fact, the German training squadron consisted of four corvettes. The English training squadron consisted in like manner of four corvettes, the crews being changed every six months. The Channel Squadron also served as a training school, and on each of the foreign stations the ships were assembled annually and cruised together as a fleet for about throe months. Looking to the varied interests of the country, scattered as they were over every part of the globe, they did not think it possible, or even desirable, to concentrate their vessels as suggested at the end of a telegraph wire. Then the noble Lord hoped that the Admiralty had resolved upon some revision of the programme of building now before Parliament; in lieu of the gunboats not as yet commenced it would be satisfactory to receive the announcement that those fast cruisers were about to be ordered, which Sir A. W. Acland Hood is desirous to lay down. But what were the words of Sir A. W. Acland Hood? In answer to Question 4,315 before the Commissioners, he used these words—
  "As I said before, I do not consider it a point of vital importance, but I should be glad to see six more fast cruisers by the end of 1890."
  With regard to that building programme, it consisted of the two most powerful protected cruisers in the world, the Blake and the Blenheim, of 9,000 tons displacement, 22 knots speed, and coal-carrying power to steam 15,000 knots at 10 knots speed; the Vulcan, 6,600 tons, 20 knots speed, and coal-carrying power to steam 12,000 knots at 10 knots speed; the Bellona and Barham, third-class cruisers, of 1,800 tons and 19½ knots speed, four protected and sheathed third-class cruisers of the Barossa class, of 1,580 tons and 16½knots, and two gun vessels of the Buzzard class, 1,040 tons and 15 knots, with a draft of 12ft. 2in. These last vessels were for the distant foreign stations. They were building six improved Rattlesnakes, first-class gun vessels of 750 tons and 21 knots speed; five fast
  702
  cruisers of 2,500 tons each and 19 knots speed; and two torpedo gunboats of 750 tons and 21 knots speed for the protection of trade in Australia. This was a very suitable programme to meet our most pressing requirements. It was the largest building programme we had ever had with the exception of one in the time of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook). The noble Lord advocated speed as the one essential. The noble Lord forgot the price that had to be paid for speed; the boiler and engine-room space had to be increased, to the detriment of the health and comfort of officers and men. The noble Lord had travelled much by sea, but he had always had the comfort of a yacht, and he little knew what it was to serve for years, or even months, in a hot climate on board a man-of-war. With regard to the question of building small vessels, he would ask the noble Lord, who had been for five years in the Admiralty, whether he had ever during that time condemned that policy as he now did? Had the noble Lord ever remonstrated? If he did so it was evident that he had failed to carry his Colleagues with him. If he did not remonstrate while he was in Office, why did he come down now that he was in Opposition, and condemn a policy which he had himself supported? As a good many remarks had been made at meetings, and in the public Press about the unprepared state of our Navy, it might be interesting to their Lordships to know what had actually taken place during the past week in the organizing and assembling of the two Fleets at Spithead and Portland. On July 2 the Commanders-in-Chief at the home ports were informed by telegraph that certain vessels were to be commissioned on the 4th, manned and prepared in all respects for sea as rapidly as possible. On the 7th the following ships were assembled and organized into fleets:—At Spithead, 13 armoured ships, 11 cruisers, 2 torpedo gun vessels of 20-knots speed, and 12 first-class torpedo boats, in all 38 vessels, under Admiral Baird; at Portland, 9 armoured ships, 8 cruisers, 2 torpedo gun vessels, and 12 first-class torpedo boats, under Sir George Tryon; inclusive of 9 armoured ships of the coast district squadron, and 4 of the Channel Squadron, the whole manned by 16,090 officers and men, The ships,

  703
  when commissioned, were in the condition in which they would be at a time of strained relations—coaled, and with their filled shell on board. In addition to the 22 armoured vessels at Spithead and Portland, we had in commission 7 battle ships, and 1 torpedo ram in the Mediterranean, and 8 armoured ships abroad, making a total of 37 armoured ships, and the armoured torpedo ram in commission, and ready for any service. He did not wish it to be supposed, from what he had said, that he was attempting to show that the strength of the Navy was sufficient for the various duties which in time of war it would be called upon to perform. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said, on more than one occasion, that we were not so strong as we ought to be, or as strong as we would be provided that his building programme was steadily pursued; but that, in his opinion, it was better to carry out a continuous and well-considered building programme rather than to rush into a hasty, and what might be termed, a panic programme.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he should not enter into the general question of the comparative strength of different European Navies, which was a subject difficult adequately to discuss in a debate in that House. He, however, desired to refer to the matter of the supply of naval guns. This was a vital point in regard to the strength of our Navy. All other preparations were futile unless there were the necessary guns available. He thought he should be supported by a consensus of opinion that we were at present very deficient in the matter of such guns, and that this was, in some degree, due to the competition between the Army and Navy. The recently constructed 12in. gun, corresponding to the 43-ton gun, which cost so large a sum of money, and consumed two years in its manufacture, had been an entire failure, and could not be used in its present condition. Nor had the 10in. guns been a success. His noble Friend said that the policy of the Admiralty was a policy of rapidity. That was certainly a very excellent policy, for the great cause of complaint hitherto had been the enormous delay in the manufacture of the necessary guns. No doubt as time progressed guns which were excellent at one period became obsolete; but that
  704
  was no reason why guns of the best type should not always be available. It was owing to the Germans having acted on this principle that when the Danish War broke out they found themselves so advantageously placed. And at the present time Germany continued to act upon this principle; and, as a matter of fact, found no difficulty in getting an adequate supply of Krupp guns. Nor should we find any difficulty if we proceeded in the right way. Manufacturers were quite ready to carry out any orders they received, provided that the orders were given in time, and upon a sufficiently large scale to make it remunerative for them to lay down the necessary plant. To manufacture such guns as these, very expensive plant was required, and manufacturers would not provide it on the mere chance of future orders; they must get large orders before the outlay was incurred. Our Colonies found no difficulty in obtaining the large guns that they required. In Victoria, New Zealand, New South Wales, and Canada there were guns of the most modern type. But it must be borne in mind that guns could not be got at the moment that they were required, and that if they were to be obtained at all they must be ordered in time, and upon such a scale as to induce manufacturers to undertake the contract of supplying them. When, some years ago, the Commission, of which he was Chairman, was appointed to inquire into the coaling stations, the state of Gibraltar, Malta, Halifax, and Bermuda was withdrawn by the Government from the scope of that inquiry. He did not blame the Government for that, but the fact threw upon the Administration of the time, and all succeeding Administrations, a grave responsibility. He did not, on the present occasion, desire to refer to Bermuda and Halifax, though he believed that adequate steps were not being taken there, and that things were in a condition of slumber and apathy. But Malta and Gibraltar were essential to our naval subsistence in the Mediterranean, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would look closely at the state of affairs there. Very serious questions arose owing to the altered condition of naval affairs, and that which was satisfactory a few years ago might not be so now. Though he was aware that much money had been spent on

  705
  these stations, still he feared that all that was adequate was not being done. He had information which he did not desire to lay before the House, but which led him strongly to urge Her Majesty's Government to attend carefully to those important Mediterranean positions.

  SOLICITORS' BILL—(No. 195.)
  (The Lord Esher.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, among other things, the Bill provided for the transfer to the Incorporated Law Society of the custody of the Roll of Solicitors, which heretofore had been in the custody of the Clerk of the Petty Bag. This would lead to a considerable saving of salaries. The Bill also provided for the admission of solicitors by the Master of the Rolls upon production of a certificate from the Incorporated Law Society of having passed the final examination. On production of the admission, signed by the Master of the Rolls, and on payment of a fee of £5, it would be the duty of the Registrar of the Incorporated Law Society to cause the name of such person to be entered on the Roll of Solicitors. With regard to an application to strike a solicitor off the Roll, or an application for the hearing of allegations against a solicitor, the Bill proposed that the Law Society should appoint a discipline committee of not less three or more than seven members, who should make inquiries into the matters alleged. If the committee were of opinion that there was no primâ facie case of misconduct the Society need proceed no further. But if the committee believed that there was a case, it would be the duty of the Society to bring the report of the committee before the Court, which would make such order as it might think fit. If the committee of the Law Society came to the conclusion that there was no foundation for the case, the party who insisted that the solicitor had misconducted himself would not be prevented from going into a Court of Law, though the Law Society would not be bound to follow up the case.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Esher.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Lord Monkswell.)

  (NO. 190.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed through the House of Commons. It proposed to alter the law in two directions. First, it proposed to extend the conditional privilege now enjoyed, and in the next place to amend the law of libel in the direction of restricting to some extent the costs and damages. It was proposed to give not an absolute but a qualified immunity. If there was absolute privilege it would be impossible to break down a plea on the ground of malice, but that was not so where there was only a qualified privilege. The word "scandalous" had been used in connection with the words "blasphemous and indecent" as destroying the immunity which might be otherwise claimed for a report. But if "scandalous" were taken by Judges in the ordinary sense of the word, its retention would do away with all privilege, as every report affecting character might be considered as scandalous. Clause 4 would extend the law of privilege to fair reports of meetings of County Councils, when established, Town Councils, and Board of Guardians as to which the public would naturally desire to know what was going on. But nothing contained in the clause would affect anything which was not of public interest. He ventured to think that that proviso was not necessary. Clause 7 proposed that a person charged with libel should be capable of showing by evidence that the person who complained of being libelled had already received compensation in other actions he had brought. He ventured to think that the measure was a very moderate one, and that it had been conceived in the interest of the public, as well as in the interest of newspapers. It did something to mitigate the present state of the law when

  707
  it was brought into operation by unscrupulous and designing persons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he had no intention of moving the rejection of the Bill at the present stage, but he wished to give Notice that when the Bill went into Committee he should certainly move either to omit or modify the 4th clause. That clause was very much dealt with in "another place," and he thought that some of the modifications there made should be got rid of. The language in regard to what were public meetings should be carefully guarded. The Act of 1831, which justified the publication of proceedings in public meeting, carefully guarded the privilege, and made it a qualified privilege by enacting that the publication must be for the public benefit. In this 4th section the "public benefit" had been converted into "public interest." What did those words mean? He was afraid it was only true to say that if matter was particularly slanderous it was particularly interesting to the public. The whole substance of the section appeared to him to be open to exception, as there were meetings of various kinds described. He thought that the clause was an extremely dangerous one, and when it came on for discussion in Committee he should, as he had said, either move to omit it or to considerably modify it.
  LORD COLERIDGE (LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of ENGLAND)said, he did not wish to oppose the Bill at this stage, but he should have an Amendment to propose which had been suggested to him by a committee of very respectable provincial newspaper proprietors. He wished to give Notice, therefore, that he should move an Amendment to the clause which dealt with the powers of the Public Prosecutor. He thought that further protection was needed against criminal libel actions.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he gave his hearty support to the Bill. He thought it was desirable that the law should be amended in the manner suggested. It was quite true that the provision affecting the publication of the proceedings of public meetings might be open to observation as being somewhat too large; but as the proceedings
  708
  in Parliament, in which the public were interested, had been held to be privileged, so the public were interested in the proceedings of local bodies which, at present, were not privileged, but to which privilege should be extended. The public took an interest in the proceedings of local bodies, and it was for the public advantage that they should be published, but there should be some limitation. The reports of such proceedings should not be protected if the public were not admitted. He agreed with the noble Lord who introduced the Bill that the word "scandalously" ought to be omitted. It seemed to him to have been inserted inadvertently. One clause in the Bill extended the immunity from criminal proceedings. With regard to that matter, he thought it was only right that, if the immunity was extended, it should be extended only on the condition that the offending newspaper should insert a contradiction or correction of the libellous matter.
  LORD ESHER (MASTER of the ROLLS)said, his principal objection to the Bill rested on Clause 4. He had been unable to gather what was to constitute a meeting a "public" meeting. A meeting of shareholders in a railway or other undertaking was not a meeting to which the public were admitted; but it might be a matter of interest to shareholders who were not present to know what had taken place. He hoped that in Committee those who were interested in the Bill would determine what was meant by a public meeting.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that as the phraseology of some of the clauses had been criticized in this stage, he thought it might be useful to mention, that in the description of meetings as "lawfully convened, or held for a lawful purpose," the disjunctive "or" was improper, and that it ought to be the conjunctive, "and."
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 17 th instant.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.