Lords Sitting of 29 March 1889

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.—
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED BILL. (No. 1.)
Received the Royal Assent.
THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE, in rising to ask the Government what progress had been made with regard to the selection of a site for the National Portrait Gallery, said: My Lords, I have so often asked this question before that I am almost ashamed to put it now. I cannot say that I have ever received any satisfactory answer from Her Majesty's Government. The matter is one that cropped up some weeks ago, when my noble Friend (Lord Lamington) brought forward the question of public buildings in the Metropolis, and on that occasion my noble Friend (Lord Henniker) certainly did not give a very re-assuring answer. What I have always contended for is this—that the National Portrait Gallery has a preferential claim over all other departments of Science and Art, because three years ago a promise was made that two years would not elapse before an arrangement was made for removing the pictures from Bethnal Green, which is not a suitable place for them, and where they are hardly appreciated. I know it is said that just at this moment there is
  1118
  considerable pressure upon the Government in consequence of the demands in respect to the National Defences; but if that policy is to be pursued in any continuity—which I certainly trust it will be—it may be years before anything is done, before we get a site, or before any steps are taken to build a new National Portrait Gallery. Last year a deputation composed of Peers and Members of Parliament presented a Memorial to the First Lord of the Treasury which was very numerously signed. The First Lord received the deputation with his usual courtesy, but since then nothing has come of it. During the Autumn Session of last year a question was asked in the House of Commons as to what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that matter. Mr. Plunket on that occasion stated that he was in communication with Mr. Scharf on the question. That satisfied the hon. Member who put the question; but, on inquiry of Mr. Scharf, I find that the only suggestion Mr. Plunket made was that Madame Tussaud's Waxworks were to be placed at the disposal of the Trustees of the Gallery. Now, it is quite a novel idea to turn a waxwork exhibition into a National Gallery; but I think the great objection to it was that the building was insufficient, and was quite as much out of the way as Bethnal Green. When the last Government were in office, Mr. Mitford prepared elaborate plans for a new gallery in Delahay Street. That had great merits, and we were in hopes that something was going to be done; but now, it appears, a company has got hold of this land, so that the site is gone. Then there were other plans. There is the site at Millbank; the prison there is going to be pulled down, and there is a very

  1119
  large extent of ground behind in Victoria Street. Any of these sites might be negotiated for, at any rate; but nothing is being done. Then, I must draw my noble Friend's attention to the fact that we are constantly having donations and bequests coming in, and we do not know where to put them. We are practically in a small lodging house at 20, Great George Street, where you can hardly get full-lengths up the staircase. The consequence is we have been obliged, as a last resort, to ask the Trustees of the National Gallery to receive those pictures that are too large in their cellars. We have been obliged to send to the lower part of the National Gallery that most interesting picture presented by the Emperor of Austria of the House of Commons, with Pitt addressing the House, and also another most interesting picture, of the Conference of 1604. These are two extremely valuable pictures, and they must remain there out of sight until the Government do something. I wish to correct an answer which my noble Friend gave the other night to a question of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst). The question was as to the number of visitors to the Exhibition at Bethnal Green, and my noble Friend said it was five times as large as before the pictures went there. The real state of things is that for two years the number has rather diminished. In 1880 there were 450,000 visitors; in 1886 there were 480,000; in 1887 it dropped to 409,000; in 1888 it rose to 910,000, but this was the Jubilee year, and the large crowds were no doubt principally attracted by the exhibition of Her Majesty's Jubilee presents. But there is another much more serious thing with regard to the Bethnal Green Museum, and that is the deterioration of the pictures there. The pictures are all cracking. I have a Report from Mr. Scharf, who inspected the Gallery together with two experts, and that Report is—
  "Those portraits on the side walls have suffered most. The walls are very thin, and the changes of climate during night-time seem to have taken a greater effect on them. The other portraits show less marks of deterioration."
  I am sorry to say there are upwards of 40 portraits, many of them extremely good ones, that are so attacked. Under these circum-
  1120
  stances I must say I think it is hard upon the Trustees who are responsible for the proper keeping of the pictures that this state of things should be allowed to continue. I want to know from my noble Friend whether any move has been made—whether any correspondence has taken place between the Office of Works and the Treasury upon the subject; because if we are to go on year after year receiving the same answer, and nothing being done, the pictures will all go to rack and ruin.
  LORD LAMINGTON: Before my noble Friend replies to this question, I wish to refer to the answer which my noble Friend gave me the other evening. I did not catch the observation at the time, but the noble Lord is reported to have said that a great many more people visited the Bethnal Green Museum since the pictures have been there than visited the old gallery at the West End. Now, I want to point out that there is another exhibition at Bethnal Green, and if account be taken of the ordinary visitors, I do not believe it will be found that the number of the visitors to the pictures simply has increased. Very recently I visited Bethnal Green for the purpose of seeing for myself what is taking place. A great number of people were there, but they were not the class of people who care for historic pictures, and the collection is entirely lost in its present position. Now, a great number of these pictures have been presented to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery by families, in order that they might be placed in a favourable position, and so prove an advantage to the nation. Many of these families feel considerably aggrieved that the pictures should be left at Bethnal Green, and, if nothing is to be done to house the pictures properly, I think it would only be just that they should be returned to their donors. What has been stated to-day by my noble Friend as to the deterioration of the pictures is a matter of very great importance, because we must remember that portraits cannot be replaced.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would like to ask my noble Friend (Lord Henniker) whether the Government have considered or will consider the possibility of obtaining Her Majesty's gracious permission to utilize the large Banqueting House, Whitehall, for this purpose? That beautiful build-

  1121
  ing was designed by Inigo Jones for James I. in the beginning of the 17th century. It as all that was ever carried out of the magnificent Palace which he designed for that Monarch to replace the old Palace which shortly before had been burnt down. It has sustained two subsequent fires; and it remains there the finest specimen of Italian architecture in this country, and one of the most beautiful of the building which adorns the Metropolis. It was built and originally used, as it was intended, as a Banqueting Hall; but since the reign of George I. it has been used as a chapel, but it has never been consecrated. It is about as as un-ecclesiastical looking a building as it is possible to imagine. It faces north and south instead of east and west. It is hung with curtains in a theatrical manner. Its ceiling is covered with a beautiful mosaic by Rubens of the apotheosis of James I., who was hardly an ecclesiastical personage, and certainly not one whose apotheosis one would expect to see on the roof of a chapel. Under these circumstances it appears to me no more consecrated to Divine worship than is one of your Lordships dining rooms where family prayers take place from time to time.
  LORD SANDHURST: In the one or two remarks which I shall mate, I hope the noble Viscount will understand that I am in no way hostile to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, nor that I grudge the removal of the Gallery back to South Kensington, but I hope it will be possible to replace it in Bethnal Green by a collection of miscellaneous pictures, which would probably interest the people of that quarter more than a collection of national portraits. There is another point which I would ask the noble Lord to take into consideration, and that is, whether it would not be possible, and advisable, to establish, instead of these large picture collections, two or three small ones in two or three of the more densely populated districts of London. The South Kensington Museum, the National Gallery, and the British Museum are at a very great distance from the East End, Islington, Shoreditch, Hackney, and, to the south of the river, Bermondsey is extremely badly off with respect to Art Collections, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the matter into their consideration.
  *LORD HENNIKER: I am sorry to say that I can really add very little to what I have stated more than once in this House on this subject. The whole question of finding a permanent home for this valuable collection is one which depends upon the Treasury recommending the expenditure and Parliament finding the money. If they sanction it and find the money, there will be no difficulty whatever in finding a site, or in regard to proper plans. It appears to the First Commissioner of Works, as I think it will appear to your Lordships, that there is no use in providing plans and proposing a site if the money is not forthcoming to provide the site and carry out the plans. In fact, it is useless to put a scheme before the Treasury which is not one which is immediately and imperatively required. I quote the words "immediately" and "imperatively" from a Circular from the Treasury; and this is a rule strictly laid down by the Department. Certainly this is one of the works which ought to be undertaken as soon as possible; but there are others which ought to take precedence of a National Portrait Gallery. One of the important works which come into this category is the erection of new Admiralty buildings. As I said the other day, it is only proposed to ask for a very small Vote to begin to carry out the plan already adopted with regard to the Admiralty. The calls for national defence are very great upon the Government and Parliament at the present moment, and it is very difficult to ask for a grant for public works. If the pictures were suffering in Bethnal Green, as the noble Lord said, of course the question of providing a permanent home for them becomes one of greater urgency; but neither myself nor the Office of Works had any information on that point until my noble Friend (Lord Hardinge) was kind enough to mention the matter to me privately the other day; and no complaint had been made at the Office of Works on the subject. I must remind your Lordships of this: that the Office of Works has nothing to do with the care of the pictures; it is only their duty to provide a building to contain them. This applies to what my noble Friend (Lord Sandhurst) said as to loans of pictures in different parts of London. It is the Trustees who are responsible for the pictures, and I

  1123
  suppose it would be their duty in a case of this kind to make a representation to the Government that the pictures were not properly housed, and no doubt such a representation will be made. Apart from this consideration, it does not appear that any serious evil arises from these pictures being at the Bethnal Green Museum. As has appeared lately from the public Press, the place where the pictures are appears to please the public. The way in which the pictures are hung give the student a far better opportunity of seeing them than he ever had at South Kensington. I cannot think for a moment that any real student would object to take a journey down to Bethnal Green to see the pictures as they are hung at present. There are numbers of visitors who never had an opportunity of seeing the collection before, and might never have done so if the pictures were not where they are. I should like here to give some explanation as to what I said the other day, particularly as my noble Friend who brought this question forward has found fault with what I said. I was misreported. I had not the figures with me at the time, and I spoke from recollection; but I told your Lordships that I believed that the number of visitors in the first year that the pictures were removed to Bethnal Green was three or four times (not four or five times, as my noble Friend said just now) as many as the number who visited the collection the last year it remained at South Kensington. I made one mistake. I said I thought I based my recollection on a Return on 1887; I ought to have said 1886. The pictures were removed to Bethnal Green in September, 1885. What I based my calculation upon was this. I based my calculation with regard to South Kensington on the ten years from 1876 to 1885, in which year the pictures were moved from South Kensington to Bethnal Green. During that ten years the largest attendance was in 1883, when 146,187 visited the Gallery at South Kensington. During 1884, the last complete year the pictures were at South Kensington, 127,716 visited the Gallery; in the first complete year at Bethnal Green, that was in 1886, the number was 446,722. My calculation was, therefore, not
  1124
  far wrong. That was the only information I had to go upon, but I afterwards asked for a Return, and since I came into the House to-day, a few minutes ago, I have received a letter from Mr. Scharf, who says—
  "There is no means of distinguishing at the Bethnal Green Museum with what particular object visitors enter the Museum. One set of turnstiles lead to every department. Vagrant children of a tender age count the same as grown-up, cultivated persons. A large number of the former preponderate. Since the addition of the portraits to the Bethnal Green collection the total yearly number of visitors has diminished. In 1884 and 1885, before the portraits, the number of visitors was 447,330 and 450,439; in 1886, with the portraits, the number was 446,722; in 1887, with the portraits, 409,929; and in 1888, with the Jubilee presents on view, 910,511."
  I think I was justified in making the statement I did. On this statement, there can clearly be no means of judging who visits the pictures, unless it be the Return of those who pass through the turnstiles; and, again, I have no information as to the difference of numbers being increased from any special reason except in 1888, when the Jubilee presents to Her Majesty were on view. The noble Lord has said something about pledges as to the building of a National Portrait Gallery. I myself know of no promises having been made since I have been connected with the Department over which my right hon. Friend Mr. Plunket presides. At all events, I never made any promise in your Lordships' House, either on my own behalf or on behalf of Mr. Plunket. He is, I know, extremely anxious to find a permanent home for these pictures as soon as possible, and he is quite ready to proceed the moment the Treasury and Parliament grant the money for a site and settle the plans for the erection of a building. I quite appreciate what my noble Friend says as to the inconvenience of pictures being put away in cellars at the National Gallery, and I have no doubt that the First Commissioner does the same. With regard to the correspondence, any correspondence that I have is quite at the service of the noble Viscount; but it really throws no light upon the matter because it simply relates to the leave given by the Treasury at the instance of the Works Department for the loan of the pictures to the Bethnal Green Museum, with some letters from the

  1125
  noble Viscount and the Science and Art Department on the same subject. That is all the correspondence we have since 1886. I do not think it would be worth while to print it; it is very short, and does not touch the points to which the noble Viscount has alluded. As to the question raised by my noble Friend (Lord Milltown) whether Whitehall Chapel could be used as a gallery for these pictures. I will call the attention of the First Commissioner to his proposal, but it is the first I have heard of it, and I hardly think that I can encourage him in thinking that it will be successful.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: There can be no doubt that any one who really wishes to see the pictures can see them at Bethnal Green with great effect. At the same time, I believe very strongly that the time has come when the pictures which have there found a temporary home should be brought back. If, as the noble Viscount avers, the pictures are being injured at Bethnal Green, that seems to be an answer to the suggestion as to taking other pictures there, until, at all events, the place is put in such a state that the works can be exhibited without sustaining injury. With regard to the loan of pictures generally, there are certain principles on which the Science and Art Department grants loans of art subjects to localities, and they are always ready to consider favourably any plan which seems to offer advantages for the instruction and elevation of the people, due regard being had to the safety of the collection.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON NAVAL AND MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government could give any information as to the time when the Commission appointed last year to consider the administration of the Naval and Military Departments would report; also whether it was part of the duty of the Commission to report whether the great delays in the manufacture and production of guns were due to defects in our administrative system, said: Your Lordships will doubtless remember the general object of this Commission, and the circumstances under which it was appointed last year. The Commission is a very important one. Lord Hartington is the
  1126
  Chairman; the First Lord of the Treasury and Lord Randolph Churchill are among its Members. It was a question debated much at the time of the appointment of the Commission whether some means should not be provided for fixing authoritatively the standard of military and naval strength. I think myself that no one will really be satisfied until this is somehow arrived at. If such a standard could be fixed, a great deal of present controversy would be saved, and we should no longer, as now, be working very often in the dark. But that was not the decision which was then arrived at, and Her Majesty's Government recommended the appointment of a Commission, which was "to consider the administration of the Military and Naval Departments"—in fact, to consider the relations between those Departments, and between them and the Treasury. My Lords, this is not by any means the first Commission on this subject that has been appointed. Some of your Lordships may have read, and if you have you will have read with very great interest and admiration, the Report of the Commission that was appointed about two years ago, of which the learned Judge, Sir Fitzjames Stephen, was Chairman, on the system under which the patterns of warlike stores are made and passed into Her Majesty's Service. That Report, to which I must refer, was not only one which is characterized by great ability, but it contains statements of the most serious nature. To that Commission was referred the question of corruption in certain cases. The Commissioners acquitted those who were charged with corruption, but they certainly pronounced an extremely heavy censure upon the Departments of Administration upon the ground of inefficiency. They went so far indeed as to imply, if not to say in so many words, that it is almost in present circumstances a chaotic system. They dwelt very much on the importance of decentralization, and I think everyone who has turned his attention to the subject will be prepared to admit that in that they were eminently right. But, if I understand rightly, the present position of affairs in the War Office, recent changes have been rather in the opposite direction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in a speech made

  1127
  a short time since, expressed his intention of decentralizing in certain cases. My right hon. Friend has my hearty good wishes in that object, though I could desire that the decentralizing process were carried a good deal further than is apparently contemplated. I would ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what the position of the Secretary of State for War really is. He has to discharge a number of functions and duties which, physically and mentally, are absolutely beyond the scope of any living man. There are no less than five different capacities which he holds. First of all, he is a Cabinet Minister, which involves the careful consideration of the most important questions; secondly, he has to deal with questions in Parliament of a military character; thirdly, the whole of the Stores and the Ordnance pass under his review, and for them he is responsible; fourthly, the enormous question of fortifications comes under his charge; and lastly, he is responsible for the Estimates in their preparation and passage through Parliament. He is, moreover, in nine cases out of ten, a civilian, who has to learn his business when he goes to the War Office; he is constantly changing, and, therefore, cannot possibly secure anything like a continuity of military policy. Between 1881 and 1887 there have been no less than six Secretaries of State, or an average of one a year. What is the result of all this? It is the entire absence of responsibility on the part of individuals, running from top to bottom of our system. There are cutlasses which will not cut, swords that break, bayonets that bend, cartridges that jam, saddlery that is defective, and stores which are absolutely vicious and bad; and there are guns designed and ordered sometimes years and years before they ever come to their completion, or when they do, they are practically worthless. What the country complains of is that the responsibility cannot be fixed on any one person, or even on one part of the system, the consequence being that no individual is ever punished. I read with great interest the other day the statement of the Secretary of State for War. As to the coaling stations, my right hon. Friend frankly admitted that what I and others have been complaining of for so long was correct,
  1128
  and that at this moment, after eight or nine years of waiting, virtually none of those stations are in an adequately defensible condition. My right hon. Friend also promised the larger guns, and in this I hope the Secretary for War was not too optimistic in his calculations. Those large guns are almost the first and most pressing need. They have been promised for a very long time, but at this moment none of the large 9·2 in. type are mounted, at home or abroad. I do not blame any individual; but on the whole I think this position of affairs is scandalous. For years and years those guns have been promised, and year after year large sums of money have been spent, and yet at the end of all this time we are still without that which is considered to be essential. The only way of escape from the difficulty is to hand over the contracts to private firms. We are in terrible arrear. This country cannot be placed in these matters beside France, Germany, Italy, the United States, or even with some of our own Colonies, where the best of guns exist, which have been obtained from private manufacturres. I believe from what I have heard that at this moment the United States has a certain number of the 9·2 inch guns which we have never been able to procure. How far, then, is our administrative system and organization responsible for those great defects? A good many years ago, but not out of the recollection of many of your Lordships, the Ordnance Department was separated from the duties of the Secretary for War and of the Secretary for the Colonies as he then was, the two offices being conjoined in one Minister, who embraced the double functions of War Minister and Colonial Minister. The Master General was at the head of the Department. He was an officer of the highest rank and status; he was, so to speak, a permanent officer, and in many instances he sat in the Cabinet of the day, as in the case, among others, of Lord Hardinge and the Duke of Wellington. I have heard from many persons in former years of the great advantage derived to the Cabinet from the presence of the Duke of Wellington on all military questions. I think that was a wise plan, so far as it went; but at the time of the Crimean War, when our military arrangements were re-organ-

  1129
  ized in great haste, and in circumstances of much confusion, the Ordnance Department was made a separate department. About 1869 the Surveyor-General's Department was created, the object being to have at the head of the Department to which was transferred the business of the Ordnance, not only an officer, but also, if possible, a Member of the House of Commons. But very soon the professional element dropped out, and a civilian was appointed. Since then, I believe that the great majority of Surveyors General have been civilians. And not only are they engaged in political life and continually changing, but they are under the influence of their so-called subordinates in the War Office. Here, again, is another instance of the want of responsibility on which I lay so much stress. Eight or nine years ago the Ordnance Committee was established. It was a body, partly composed of civilians and partly of officers; but inasmuch as it changes periodically, it is impossible to fix responsibility upon it. The chain of responsibility extends from the Secretary of State, through the Commander-in-Chief, the Director of the Ordnance Committee, the subordinate officers who have to deal with the branches of the business, down to the manufacturer. It is absolutely impossible when a gun bursts to fix the responsibility on one of the different persons or departments which I have enumerated. This means a very serious state of affairs, and yet it exists in nearly every branch of the Service. I will trouble your Lordships with but a single quotation, and that is very apt. In the Egyptian Campaign it was stated in the evidence before the Commission that—
  "Out of 110 shrapnell shell, 55 were found defective, some having no bursting charges, and others having the bursting charges wet. Out of a total of 398 shrapnell shells, 156 were found correct—that is, about 39 per cent; 125, portion of bursting charge gone—about 31 per cent; 61 empty—about 16 per cent; 30 damp—about 8 per cent; and 26 jammed—about 7 per cent."
  The statement of Lord Wolseley upon that is as follows:—"
  April 13, 1885.
  "My Lord,—It is difficult for me to adequately describe the feelings with which I have read the inclosed papers describing the condition of the ammunition supplied from Woolwich
  1130
  to the only battery of Royal Artillery which accompanied the column recently operating from Korti across the Bayuda Desert. In all our small wars the British soldier has to contend against enemies vastly superior in number, and it is only by superior discipline and the efficiency of our arms of precision that we can secure victory. I have already addressed your Lordship on the subject of the carelessness shown by those responsible at home for the quality of the ammunition supplied to the troops in the field, in issuing star shells of a different calibre from that of the guns of the battery serving here. I trust the new proof contained in the inclosed papers of the culpable negligence of some branch of department at home will lead to an inquiry into its working by a board of selected officers of the line, unconnected in every way with the Woolwich manufacturing or store department, or with the administration under which they work. I write strongly because I feel strongly when I think of how the lives of gallant soldiers may have been sacrificed in the present campaign, and may be again so sacrificed in the future, through the inexcusable carelessness of individuals in the Woolwich Arsenal, and through the unsoundness of a system under which such ammunition as that described in these inclosures could possibly have been issued for service in the field.
  "I have, &c.,
  "WOLSELEY, General."
  It is needless to comment upon that. Indeed, I should only weaken such a letter by doing so. Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Report summed up the opinion of the Commissioners as to the present defects in this particular weapon. They said that our system had no definite object, and no efficient head, and, lastly, no definite practical method of dealing with all those technical and scientific stores and implements which had to be dealt with. It is impossible to conceive a stronger or a more sweeping statement than that, and yet, as a matter of fact, I have never heard it contradicted or controverted in any way. If the state of things be as described, of course we are convicted of very great waste and inefficiency. Efficiency and economy generally go hand in hand, but our system is against both. No doubt, under our Parliamentary system we cannot have the vigour, the rapidity of action, and the mobility of foreign Governments. But, on the other hand, there are also great difficulties arising out of our management of that system, and the organization which we have created. For this we are responsible, and on these questions I hope the Commission of which I am inquiring will be able to make full and

  1131
  adequate recommendations. The Commissioners are so constituted that they ought to do so, but, on the other hand, we must always look in the main and in the end to Her Majesty's Government. They have, of course, the spending of this large sum of £18,000,000 a year. They have the real power and the real responsibility. I do not doubt their desire to do what is right, and I have not made these observations with the desire of casting blame on any individual. It is because I am impressed with the serious position of circumstances that I desire to call attention to some at least of the most important factors in this case, and to point out how great, in my opinion, is the evil, how great is the waste, how great is the danger, and how great is the need of someone finding a remedy with the least possible delay.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEY: Before the noble Lord answers the question, I would ask the House to give me their patience for a few moments. My noble Friend has traversed the whole field of military administration, and though I agree with a great deal that has fallen from the noble Lord, I think that many of the faults in the system are not referable specially to War Office administration, but are really inherent in our Parliamentary government and administration. The noble Lord referred at length to the Report of the Commission over which Sir James Stephen presided. Able as the Report was in many particulars, I venture to differ entirely from the conclusions at which it arrived for the reform of our system of military administration. The re-introduction of the Ordnance Committee would, in my opinion, increase the confusion. I think it is essential to have a Secretary of State who should be responsible to Parliament for the Army Estimates and for all that depends upon them. I do not for a moment say that the War Office itself, or the manufacturing departments are perfect in organization, but many of the errors and misfortunes, referred to by the noble Lord cannot entirely be put down to faults of the system in the War Office itself. I think the noble Lord was rather misled as to the character of the Ordnance Committee and his statements were calculated to mislead the House as to its func-
  1132
  tions. I always understood that that Committee, composed of the ablest Ordnance officers who could be found, and of eminent mechanical engineers, was a purely consultative committee which only made such experiments as it was requested to make by the Secretary of State or his Ordnance advisers. So far it is, no doubt, responsible for the Reports which it sends in to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord also spoke of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. Certainly, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord when I consider what the office originally was, and what it eventually came to be. When it was instituted by Lord Northbrook in 1869 it was intended to be a technical and professional office to be held by a distinguished Ordnance officer. In my judgment, it is a great pity that that principle was departed from, and that it came to be a Parliamentary office. I believe that if we had had an officer of technical experience as adviser to the Secretary of State a great deal of evil would have been avoided, and much good would have been done. As to the latter part of the question, relating to the manufacture and production of guns, the noble Lord has hardly referred to it at all. I am not going to say for a moment that the delays have not been greater than they ought to have been; but here again the House and the country should draw a distinction between delays which are the result of bad administration and those which are the result of the conditions of manufacture. For the last few years we have been passing through an absolutely experimental stage in the manufacture of big guns, as regards their construction, as regards the material from which they are made, and as regards the powder which is to be used in them. As soon as one pattern is supposed to be perfect in all particulars, the inventive genius of some individual would suggest some improvement. There is no stability or permanence in the patterns, and to that is owing a great deal of the delay of which the noble Lord so justly complains. I agree with the noble Lord's remarks about obtaining guns by contract; but the noble Lord should remember the great difficulty that existed some years ago in finding private firms that could manufacture guns of great

  1133
  calibre. There was not more than one—if there was one—firm in the country which could produce satisfactorily the huge ingots of steel which were necessary for the construction of the big guns then made. This has been to a great extent corrected now, and no doubt the noble Lord opposite (Lord Harris) will tell the House what has been done in this direction. I hope the system of putting guns out to contract will be largely increased. Before I sit down I should like to know, though it is perhaps hardly fair to ask the noble Lord without notice, how far the recommendations of the Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, have been carried into effect? I refer to the Committee which inquired into the Manufacturing Departments of the Army, which sat at the same time as Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission. One great object of that Committee was to centre responsibility somewhere. One suggestion was that there should be one head of the Manufacturing Departments of the Army; another and most important suggestion was, that there should be an absolute divorce of inspection from manufacture. We attached great importance to the latter suggestion, and I should like to learn whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): My Lords, the questions put to me by the noble Earl may be answered shortly. The noble Marquess who presided over the Commission referred to by the noble Earl hopes to be able to report about Easter. The second point referred to in the question was not, in the opinion of the noble Marquess, referred to the Commission, though they might probably deal with it incidentally. I quite feel that an answer as brief as that would not be respectful to your Lordships, and would not satisfy the noble Earl, but I was not quite prepared for the noble Earl's going back to the Report of the Commission two years ago, the report and recommendations of which had been fully dealt with. Before, however, dealing with that part of the noble Earl's speech, I would like to refer briefly to the death of Mr. Guy Dawnay, who, by the great experience gained in his hunting expeditions in South Africa, proved a most valuable officer in our South African campaigns. He was
  1134
  selected by the noble Marquess as Surveyor General of the Ordnance in 1885, and I am sure that all who came into contact with him will agree that it would be impossible to find a man more assiduous in his public duties, or more amiable as a friend. For two years or more Mr. Dawnay had been working with great success upon the completion of the new rifle, and if that rifle should fulfil the expectations formed of it, the result will be largely due to Mr. Dawnay. The noble Earl based his speech in great measure on the Report of the Commission now two years old. That Commission was appointed to consider the system of passing stores into the Service. It went somewhat further, and expressed an opinion that it would be desirable tore-establish such an official as the Master General of Ordnance. The noble Earl opposite has pointed out that it was the intention of Lord Northbrook that the office of Surveyor General of Ordnance should be held by a distinguished military man, but that Parliament was too strong for the noble Lord, and insisted upon having a political official. I quite agree that many of the difficulties in the administration of a great spending department like the War Office arise from our political system. The noble Earl expressed himself strongly in favour of decentralization, and did the fullest justice to Mr. Stanhope's efforts in that direction. I cannot, however, agree with all the noble Earl's illustrations of how such a system could be carried out. At the same time I hope that the system of decentralization initiated by Mr. Stanhope will be carried further, especially with regard to the supply of stores. What is wanted of the War Office, after all, is to make war well, and it would be an immense advantage if there were at particular places stations at which every variety of stores were collected, rather than having them all centralized at Woolwich. The noble Earl referred to the complaint made in the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission with respect to the star shells. My noble Friend opposite has dealt with that question, and shown that it arose from the mistake of an Ordnance Store officer at Alexandria or Cairo, and had nothing to do with the Ordnance Department at Woolwich. Then, again, there was the story of the

  1135
  shrapnell shells and the powder shrinking down below the cap. That was a grave mistake, undoubtedly, and one I do not wish to defend; but it must be remembered that those stores, before they got out to Egypt, passed through several transhipments, and underwent a great amount of jolting, which would account for the slipping of the powder below the cap. It was satisfactorily proved, on examination, that the shells had not been sent out from England without the bursting charge. Moreover, it is part of the drill of an Artillery officer, before he discharges his weapon, to see that the bursting charge is all right. Then the noble Lord has referred to the question of heavy guns. That is a most difficult technical question for a layman to take up; but there are one or two points which ought to be made known, because the public are under some little mistake as to the actual facts. This country adopted breech-loading ordnance long after France and Germany. The noble Earl believed he was justified in saying that we were far behind France in this matter. My belief is exactly the contrary. Though we were two or three years behind France in the adoption of the new type of breech-loading guns, I believe we are now, as regards the new type of steel breech-loading guns, considerably ahead of that country. The noble Earl has quoted occasionally from the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission. I, too, would like to quote a passage from the Report of the same Commission, because it bears directly on the question of heavy ordnance. In paragraph 446 the Report says—
  "We would direct particular attention in connection with this subject—[that is, the subject of the Collingwood gun]—to the evidence given by Sir Frederick Bram well. He considers that there was some local defect in the material of which the gun was composed, and observes that the steel is of such a nature that fracture in it occasionally takes place which can be referred to no visible cause. This, if correct, is a great misfortune. It shows that large guns must, at present, be regarded as being to a greater or less extent experimental and speculative; but it is a misfortune from which all nations must suffer in common. We have reason to think that failures of a very serious character have occurred in both French and German guns, of which very little is allowed to be known."
  The noble Lord will quite understand that I am not attempting
  1136
  for a moment to defend the delays that take place in completing the supply of guns; it is most deplorable that such a state of things should exist in a great manufacturing country like this; but the public should recognize that we took up the breechloading system later than either France or Germany; that in ten years we have entirely changed from the simple form of muzzle-loader to the complex form of breechloader, from the old iron gun, first of all, to a steel tube with iron hoops, and, finally, to a steel tube with steel hoops, an immense change, especially with a treacherous material such as steel; and that, notwithstanding accidents which have occurred to guns of the new type, there have been none which have resulted in loss of life. Extraordinary advances have also been made in the descriptions of powder to be used. The gun is designed to take a certain charge, and experiments have to be conducted as to the exact charge and the kind of powder which is best adapted for the gun. It is the fact that during the last 10 years we have been in an experimental state. The Secretary of State in another place spoke the other night with hope as to the turn out of guns, but he was not prepared to pledge himself on the subject. After our experience in the past few years, no one would be justified in saying that he was absolutely certain that guns would be always waiting for ships instead of ships having to wait for guns. But quite recently there has been an important Report which leads one to hope that a point has been reached in the manufacturing of guns which will enable them to be produced more rapidly in future. As regards lining, that matter originated practically in 1886. An 8 in. gun fired 366 rounds, and the bore was then found to be so eroded by the action of the powder that the projectile no longer rotated. The gun was sent to Elswick and lined, and the experiment proved quite satisfactory; it proved that guns could be practically renewed and made efficient at a very small cost. That was the origin of the system of lining. It has been tried not only with the 8 in., but also with the 6 in. gun, and is equally successful. There seems to be some impression in the country that there are no new types of breechloading guns in the Services, but

  1137
  that is quite a mistake. In 1882 we had some 350 new type breechloading guns, almost entirely in the sea service; in 1886 we had about doubled the number, and we have now of all types either in the sea-going squadrons or in harbours, or in store, about 1,450 new type breechloading guns, and about 600 of these are 6 in. and upwards. With regard to the question of fixing responsibility upon an individual, I think the noble Earl will himself admit that there is some little difficulty in doing so where the design may be made by one person and the material by another. I should be inclined to think that, to some extent, there is responsibility for a design upon the Ordnance Committee, but it does not follow that, because a gun fails, the design is necessarily responsible, because it must be proved that there was absolutely no flaw whatever in the material before it can be proved that the design was at fault. Therefore I think the difficulties of fixing responsibility are not so light as the noble Earl seemed to think. With reference to the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Morley), I may say that the actual recommendations of that Committee as regards the Ordnance factories have been carried out, and the factories—Woolwich, Park-head, Enfield, Waltham—have all been placed under one head. The head of the Ordnance factory, indeed, is very much in the position of a private manufacturer, and is made actually responsible for the stores he issues. The department of the Director of Artillery now examines all stores issued to the Army, and if it chooses to reject them the person who supplies them is brought to book. In order to carry out this system it has been necessary to increase the strength of the Inspecting Department, but I believe the additional expenditure thus involved has been well laid out. Finally, as regards the storage of stores, the Secretary of State, as he has recently explained, has taken steps to put up store buildings in various parts of the country, in order that the stores requisite for particular bodies of troops may be decentralized and easily got at, and that we may not have the difficulty of dealing with an enormous mass of stores centralized in the central depôt at Woolwich. Although the Report of Sir Fitzjames Stephen's Commission, and that of my
  1138
  noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) were but two years old, a very great deal has been done to improve the system of administration in the Army. It would, in my opinion, be most unwise to interfere with the gradual progress of the improvements that are being effected, because the War Office has no doubt that they are beneficial, and that the system adopted must result in the supply to the Army of good material, and of an arm which will worthily stand the test in the hour of trial.
  *THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble Lord has made a very good defence of that which it is his duty to defend; and if I do not quite agree with him in all his remarks, it is not for want of appreciation of the ability he has shown. I desire merely to point out that whilst the explanation he gave as to the star shells may be correct, the other charge which I quoted from the Report is not dealt with at all. The defects in the shrapnel shells were not due to any manipulation at Cairo and Alexandria, but to mistakes made before the stores left Woolwich. My noble Friend quoted against me a paragraph from this Report, from she evidence of Sir Frederick Bram well, so the effect that
  "In the present condition of steel, fractures continually take place, and can be referred to no visible cause."
  My hon. Friend should have read also he next paragraph, in which the Commissioners sum up their opinion, as apart from that of Sir Frederick Bram well, in he sentence—
  "Such results from the manufacture of guns can hardly be considered satisfactory."
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: The noble Lord has referred to the recent changes in the system of administration of the Army, which, we trust, will lead to no inconsiderable results. I am not sure, however, that down to the present he results of the examination of arms lave been as satisfactory as we could wish. In reference to the Egyptian Campaign, the country must remember that in time of war, when a good deal of rough work is going on, it is quite natural that accidents should happen. It is, therefore, not quite reasonable to say, because a weapon is broken, that therefore it was due to bad manufacture. It is utterly unreasonable, because

  1139
  of these unavoidable accidents, to blame the Department, although, at the same time, it is only right that faults of this kind should be carefully looked into, and I believe that the steps now being taken will add very much to the security which will be felt in the equipment of our forces. I feel with the noble Earl the great disadvantage of having so many guns unfinished, but the fact is that the extraordinary march of intelligence under which we are now living produces every day some new invention, some new experiment, both in regard to the steel of which the weapon is made and with regard to the powder that is used. Noble Lords have no idea of the delicacy of these heavy guns. The enormous charge alone makes it essential that the greatest care should be taken, because the strongest feeling would arise if any accident occurred whereby life was lost. That circumstance naturally makes the manufacturers doubly careful about the arms which are to be placed in position and in the hands of the troops. We must look for delay, therefore, in preparing those heavy weapons. I feel very much, however, that we want them, and the sooner we get them the better I think it will be. The Secretary of State for War and I are anxious that they should be prepared as rapidly as possible, and the Secretary of State has done everything to hasten their manufacture. The difficulties, however, are found to be very great. But I do not believe that the delay is the fault of the Departments, or of the system under which we at present administer those Departments.
  LORD HARRIS: I think the noble Earl will be glad to learn that there are guns of larger size than those he referred to actually already in position. I admit that there is delay in regard to the 9-in. guns, but there are, as a matter of fact, 29 12-in. guns mounted, and a considerable number of those are in the land service.

  TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 10.)

    SECOND READING.
    LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords' since this matter was first before your Lordships a year ago there has been no alteration in the substance or the merits of the case, and therefore I do not pro-
    1140
    pose to take up your time with any long argument in support of the position that the present system of individual trusteeships is fraught with evil both to trustees and beneficiaries, and that it is most desirable that there should be some change in the law. The suggested remedy has been tested for a long time over a wide field of experience. It has been applied in the United States, Canada, South Africa, and in the Australasian Colonies—in countries where the English system, the French system, and the Dutch system of trusts prevail; and it has been found equally successful in all, from which I infer that it is suited to the wants of active and commercial communities. The suggestion is that solid companies should be formed for the purpose of discharging the duties which are now discharged by individuals. I am not asking for any alteration in the law of joint stock companies, nor am I asking for any alteration in the law of trusts. On the contrary, I propose that corporate trustees should be under the same duties and obligations as individual trustees are now, But, by our law, a trustee cannot receive any profit on account of his trust unless the founder of the trust has so declared in express terms; and either by law or by inveterate practice—I hardly know which—corporations cannot be appointed to various fiduciary positions. What, therefore, is wanted is an alteration of those two rules of law, because, unless they are altered, it is clear that a very long time must elapse before new trusts are created, and even then the field of operation must be imperfect, on account of the offices to which corporations cannot be appointed. The Bill is framed with these objects. One group of clauses provides for such an alteration of the law as will enable companies to carry on business to a substantial extent—that is to say, receiving payment for the offices which they fulfil. There is another group of clauses addressed to the security of the public, in order to guard against there being bubble companies. It is provided that the subscribed capital shall be a large amount—£100,000 is mentioned in the Bill—half of which should be deposited in Court, in order to be security for the customers. The companies are to ren-

    1141
    der regular accounts to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, and any person who desires to satisfy himself of their condition may do so by applying to the Board of Trade to appoint an Inspector to overhaul the books, and the Board of Trade may, if it see fit, require an increase in the deposit. It is provided that the companies shall be under the same liabilities as those under which individual trustees now are, and that the officers shall be liable, by way of contempt and so forth, for breaches of duty by the companies themselves. The Bill has been carefully prepared, after the study of a great number of Acts in the United States and the Colonies for the creation of such companies. It is new, and runs a good deal into details. It is one of those measures wherein skilled heads may be able to detect many faults and suggest many improvements. With this object, I would suggest that, at a later stage, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think there is anything that can properly be urged against the principle of the Bill as I understand it; but I think it is very desirable that the principle of the Bill should be understood. In respect to one commercial company—from South Africa I believe—there was an effort to do that which I do not believe any of your Lordships or any English lawyer would recognize as a proper thing to do—namely, to permit them to treat the trust fund as a thing out of which they could make profit. I can understand the propriety of paying trustees—whether a company or individuals—but I would not consent to give any company the power to make a profit out of the trust funds. By the 18th section of this Bill my noble Friend preserves all the liabilities that a trustee would be under when a company becomes a trustee. I would suggest that, in addition to this, the directors should be themselves under personal liability in respect of the company. I do not find that exact security in the Bill, and I am convinced that it is one that is required. These are matters which require careful examination by skilled
    1142
    lawyers, and therefore I hope that after being read a second time the Bill will be referred to a small Select Committee.
    LORD HERSCHELL: I entirely agree with the objects of this Bill, and heartily support the Motion for its Second Reading. I think the better plan would be to refer the Bill to one of the new Standing Committees. The Standing Committees have power under the Standing Orders to refer any particular measure to a small Sub-Committee. I should be sorry to see any unnecessary multiplications of Select Committees to do work which I hope is going to be efficiently done by the Standing Committees.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS LEGISLATION.
  LORD NORTON: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government if it may be hoped that the promised Bill for consolidating and amending the Acts on Reformatory and Industrial Schools will be introduced in this House soon, before our time is more engaged?
  EARL BROWNLOW: I had hoped to lay the Reformatory Bill on the Table of the House before this, but some technical difficulties prevented my doing so. However, I shall have it ready to lay before the House on Monday. The Industrial Schools Bill I hope to be able to lay on the Table in a very few days afterwards. Although they are presented at different times, I think it will be convenient to have both Bills before us for consideration at the same time.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.