Lords Sitting of 3 July 1890

LORD CARBERY.
Petition of William Charles Baron Carbery in the Peerage of Ireland, for leave to amend his petition, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland (presented on the 22nd of May last); read and referred to the Lord Chancellor.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 122.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

COMPANIES (MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION) BILL—(No. 110.)
House in Committee (on re commitment) (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have only a few words to say in explanation of my now moving the Amendments which appear on the Paper. The fact is, that those Amendments were only delivered at 3.40. p.m. on the day on which the Committee met, and the result was that neither I nor the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill had the opportunity of dealing with them, or I should have done in Committee what I propose now to do in your Lordships' House. I hope that these Amendments, together with those which are proposed by my noble Friends, will bring the Bill more into harmony with the Bill as it came from the other House. A practically new Bill would, I think, be in peril of not passing into law, which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, would be a matter of regret. I thought it right to explain that, because I should be very sorry if it should be supposed I am doing anything to impair the efficiency of the Grand Committees, or that would be disrespectful either to the Committee or to my noble Friends, who have taken great pains to put the Bill into shape.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, of course the Amendments which are proposed by my noble and learned Friend will be carefully considered, but I feel
618
bound to say a word or two with regard to what my noble Friend has just said. The truth is, that when this Bill came from the House of Commons, it was in many respects rather a sketch of a Bill than a Bill. There has been no single word introduced into it in this House which has been intended in the slightest degree to affect its principle or its scope. The only object has been to make a perfect machinery whore, before, a very imperfect machinery existed, and to remove the probability of difficulties and litigation, where, according to the judgment of many, those probabilities were before very great. I must confess I cannot myself think so badly of the House of Commons as for a moment to suppose that when a Bill of this sort goes back to them, with no single principle interfered with, but only the machinery made more effectual, they will dream of rejecting the Bill simply because it is made rather longer than when it left that House. Of course, if we had altered the scope of the Bill, or in any way made it a different measure in that sense to that which it was before, I could understand the view taken of it by my noble and learned Friend and those who take the same view; but unless they can show either that those provisions are unnecessary, or will be mischievious in their effect, I cannot believe that the House of Commons will reject the Bill simply because it has been made a better one in respect of its machinery.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the language of Clause I becomes extremely awkward and inconvenient unless the words are used which were originally in the Bill—"in England or Ireland by the High Court, and in Scotland by the Court of Session." If my noble and learned Friend's Amendments are taken, it would, I think, become necessary to make other provisions.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: On the contrary, I propose to use the definition of "Court," which is used in the Act of 1869; that is, the Superior Court which has jurisdiction to make an order for winding up the company. That will include the Chancery Court of the Duchy of Lancaster. That Court does continually make winding-up orders.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is true, but it is not a Superior Court; on the contrary, it has always been excluded from the definition of a Superior Court.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: Then leave out the word "superior," and say "a Court which has jurisdiction to make a winding-up order." That is the definition of the Act of 1869.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would not object to the words leaving out the word "superior."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it would be an improvement, because, of course, the noble and learned Lord opposite intends to follow that up by another Amendment relating to the Court of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancaster. I think there are strong objections to the clause which the noble and learned Lord opposite is about to propose which will be entirely covered by accepting the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend, because the "High Court" may apply as regards companies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine, and that leaves it uncertain in the case of what companies the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine might exercise its jurisdiction. I do not know what is meant by "being within their jurisdiction; "being within their jurisdiction for the purpose of winding up is quite intelligible. My noble and learned Friend confines it to that, and I think that is a proper mode of dealing with it, whether in the County Palatine or elswhere. I think that would avoid the necessity of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Leave out the word "superior" and insert the words "which is authorised to make an order for the winding up of the company."
Amendment moved, in page 2, at the end to insert—
"(5.) The power by this Act given to the High Court may, as regards companies within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster be exercised by that Court."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, agreed to.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: After the words "entitled to object," in line 20, I propose to insert the words—
"And who signifies his objection in manner directed by the Court, or by rules of Court."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord would omit the words, "or by rules of Court," I have no objection to that Amendment.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: Certainly.
Amendment moved, in line 20, after the word "object" to insert the words—
"And who signifies his objection in manner directed by the Court."—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
On Question, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment I here propose is to take the place of my noble and learned Friend's Clause 3—
"Provided that the Court may in the case of any person or class of persons for special reasons dispense with the notice required by this section."
The Amendment proposed by my noble and learned Friend is to add that—
"The Court may on special grounds dispense with any notice required by this Act."
I think that is too wide.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I quite agree. I think it would come in better as the Lord Chancellor proposes.
Amendment moved, after line 23, to insert the words—
"Provided that the Court may, in the case of any person or class of persons, for special reasons, dispense with the notice required by this section."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, agreed to.
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH: In Clause 1, page 2, line 2, I propose to leave out from the word "creditors" to the end of the clause, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain to your Lordships in a very few words the object of this Amendment. The part of the clause which I am moving to have struck out is, I think, an innovation upon the Bill, as it was when it came tip to us from the House of Commons. The Bill was referred, as your Lordships know, to the Standing Committee on General Bills, and a very long discussion took place upon it, extending over two days. A great deal of the discussion turned upon this very important question, and upon the important principle which is contained in it. Your Lordships are, of course, aware that this Bill provides for the alteration of a Memorandum of Association of a company; and in order to enable companies to vary the conditions on which they trade, it is pro-

621
vided that the now objects are to be cognate or ancillary to the original one. Then it was proposed that if there were dissentient members, they might apply to the Court to be paid off, and to have their names accordingly removed from the register of members. That is to say, if they did not approve of the proposed change in the objects of the company, they could go to the Court and say that the constitution of the company was being altered to something else, something different to what it was when they embarked in it and took their shares, and that they wanted to be paid off. It was impossible not to see the justice of that proposition, and that some provision ought to be made for those dissentient shareholders: but again and again when the question arose in the Committee, it was never quite fully answered how that proviso was to be carried into effect, because this difficulty at once arose: out of what funds are the dissentient members to be paid? It was pointed out by one or two noble Lords on the Standing Committee that they could not very well be paid off out of the existing capital, because it is against the provisions of the present law that companies should buy their own shares; companies are not allowed to purchase their own shares, and consequently they would be using the capital of the company in an absolutely illegal manner. Well, then, are the dissentient shareholders to be paid out of the profits of the company? If that were to be done it might seriously hamper the company, who might be otherwise benefited by the change. Then there was a third proposition suggested in the Committee, namely, that the assenting shareholders—that is to say, the majority—or the winning side in regard to the proposed change of aim, should in some way contribute out of their private means, or make up something in the nature of a private purse in order to pay off the dissentient shareholders. The amount to be paid might possibly represent one-fourth of the capital. I think under the Companies Act, with which this Bill is to he read, there are certain provisions laid down as to the manner in which special resolutions are to be passed, namely, that the resolution must be passed by a majority of three-fourths, and then that it must be subsequently confirmed, though on that occasion there need only
622
be a bare majority. In any case, the one-fourth of the shareholders, who might possibly represent as much as or even more than one-fourth of the capital, might go to the Court and say, "We object to the proposed change, and we ask the Court to order that the other shareholders who have beaten us shall pay us off." At once the question arises, how is that to be done? I need hardly point out to your Lordships that if there were any idea of the majority making up anything like a private purse to pay off the dissentient shareholders, that opens out a most dangerous innovation, and would practically do away with the safeguard of limited liability, because those people who would be called upon to provide possibly very large funds in that way would, in point of fact, be saddled with a liability far greater than that which they undertook when they subscribed for or bought their shares. I think, my Lords, I have said quite enough to show the great difficulties in which this proposition would land us; and I may further say that those difficulties were very apparent to the Standing Committee. There was, as I have said, a great deal of discussion upon it, and at last the Committee came to a Division; in fact, there were several Divisions, and in the last Division this proposition was only carried by a majority of 3 in a Committee of 33; that is to say, there were 18 for the proposition, which, I think, was moved by my noble Friend Lord Balfour, and 15 against. I venture to express a hope that the House may think fit to accept the Amendment, after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he said it was desirable that this Bill should, as far as possible, be kept in the same shape as when it left the House of Commons. I beg, my Lords, with these few words to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from the word "creditors" to the end of the Clause.
*THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I hope the House will not consent to omit these words. The noble Lord who has moved their omission has given a very full and, I believe, accurate account of what took place in Standing Committee on the subject. It is

623
not, therefore, necessary for me to go over the same ground. I concur entirely in saying that it would not be right that the dissentient shareholders should be paid off either out of the capital of the company, or out of any profits made by the company. I do not share the opinion of the noble Lord that the majority will suffer any hardship by being obliged, in the discretion of the Court, to find from their private means a fund whereby the dissenting shareholders can be paid off. It seems to me that if they desire the alteration to be made at all, it is not unfair to prove them by such a test as this. And I would point out that it is not to be an absolute order that they shall have to find this money; but it is only if the Court, in its discretion, shall think the objections of the minority so reasonable and well-founded that they ought to be allowed to give up their shares and to be compensated for them. As to the point that it does away with limited liability, I cannot concur in that view, because it is a matter of choice for the shareholders; there is no compulsion upon the majority to take the action which they are to be presumed to have taken before this state of matters can arise; and if their liability is at all increased, it is increased by their own action and for their own purposes, the value and benefit of which to themselves they have presumably fairly and properly considered. My Lords, I go back to the general ground on which this Bill was promoted. It is desired by this measure to relax the hard and fast conditions which prevent the alteration of any Memorandum of Association of a company except by the sanction of Parliament: but I think the House will agree that while you relax it; is not desirable that it should be unduly or excessively relaxed, but that certain conditions should be attached. That seems to me to be reasonable, and I hope, under all the circumstances, that the House will not assent to this proposal to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee.
LORD HERSCHELL: This was a provision which was inserted in your Lordships' House, and, therefore, we need not have any tenderness in dealing with it, as we have been warned by my noble and learned Friend to have as regards the provisions contained in the Bill as it came from the other House. The noble
624
Lord who has just sat down has said that under this provision there would be no power to pay off dissenting shareholders out of the capital of the company. I do not know why the noble Lord says so. It appears to me perfectly manifest that if the Bill is passed in this form it will be understood that there is authority to do that. The provision is that when the company is applying for this alteration, the Court may order that any shareholders dissenting from the alteration may be paid off. Who are to be the subjects of the order? The application is made by the company.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The alteration and the application to the Court are made by the majority.
LORD HERSCHELL: But it is made on behalf of the company, and when it is provided that the Court may order that the dissenting members shall be paid off, undoubtedly it would be understood to be out of the capital of the company. It must be so, because otherwise it would enable the company to diminish its capital. But that is not the case, and the Bill is clearly so drawn as that it would not be so understood. But I think the form in which it is drawn is ineffectual. Upon whom is the order to be made? Clearly against somebody. If the Court makes the order, it involves that the order is directed against somebody for the purpose of compelling them to pay. Really, what I understand by this provision is that the Court shall not confirm the new arrangement unless the dissenting shareholders are in some way or other arranged with. I would submit to my noble and learned Friend opposite that the proposal which my noble Friend Lord Macnaghten has on the Paper really meets the case, because that provides that, at the instance of the dissenting shareholders, the Court may adjourn the case in order to give an opportunity for an arrangement to be come to. That hangs the matter up until an arrangement is made, and gives the Court a control over the whole thing, so that they are not bound to carry out the arrangement unless they think fit to do so. If the people who propose the alteration think it worth their while to go on, it would, surely, be worth their while to arrange for paying the dissenting shareholders, and then the matter could be completed. That is surely a much

625
better way of doing it than by saying the I Court can make an order that these people shall be paid off without saying how the order is to be enforced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, even with my noble and learned Friend's Amendment, there may be some little difficulty about it, because the Amendment, as it stands at present, does not say that the Court is to make the order if an arrangement has not been made. It is, I think, rather vague language—that the Court may
"Adjourn the proceedings in order that an arrangement may be made to the satisfaction of the Court for the purchase of the interests of dissentient members."
If the meaning of the section is that the order is not to be made unless that is done, I can understand it. Words to that effect might, perhaps, be added to get rid of the objection.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: You might add that if the Courtis not satisfied it may dismiss the application. But I think that is unnecessary, for it seems to me it follows. Evidently it is quite within the discretion of the Court whether it will confirm the order or not, and if no arrangement was made, of course the Court would reject the application. I think, therefore, that would meet the case; but I should not object to adopt the Amendment suggested by the Lord Chancellor.
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH: The House will understand that I had not the opportunity of reading the Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord Macnaghten. I must say that I think it would be better for that Amendment to be adopted instead of mine. In fact, mine would be quite covered by that; and therefore I would ask the House to allow me to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that the noble and learned Lord's Amendment shall be considered.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it would be better to leave the words exactly as they stand, and not to add the further words now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The language is rather vague.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then you might add—
"And the Court in the event of no such arrangement being come to, may refuse to confirm the alteration."
The Court would not sanction the scheme.
LORD MACNAGHTFN: As my noble Friend Lord Zouche has withdrawn his Amendment I will move mine.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4, and insert "adjourn the proceedings in order that an arrangement may be made to the satisfaction of the court for the purchase of the interests of dissentient members; and the court may give such directions and make such orders as it may think expedient, for the purpose of facilitating any such arrangement or carrying the same into effect; Provided always, that it shall not be lawful to expend any part of the capital of the company in any such purchase."—{The Lord Macnaghten.)
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to omit this clause, but I think it is rather a matter of drafting as between my noble and learned Friend and myself. What I propose is, that something should be added later. I quite understand the object of his clause is to take care that the proceedings taken for the confirmation should be made public, but I think it is possible to provide for this in another form. I entirely sympathise with that view, and I think if, at a later stage of the Bill, one were to put at the end, "being confirmed by the Court upon petition," or some similar words, that would effect all he desires much better. The reason I object to the 2nd clause as it stands is that it imports that any application to the Court must be by petition. As my noble Friend knows, an application by petition is a much more expensive form of procedure than an ordinary application to the Court, and I think his object would be carried out by omitting this clause and putting in the words I have suggested at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD HERSCHELL: They might come after line 11, in Clause 4.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I quite assent to that.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 2," agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would ask my noble and learned Friend to consider at a later stage whether, with regard to the framework of the Bill, especially in view of the provisions with regard to alterations, it might not be well to make this an additional sub-section of Clause 1. It is really a consequence of the other provision, and would, I think, be much better put in there. It would also be more in conformity with the Bill as it came up to this House, and would read better altogether.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think so.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have an Amendment upon this clause, at page 2, line 18, after the word "Company" to insert "or to restrict or abandon any of the objects specified in the memorandum of association;" but I do not know that it becomes necessary now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then the next Amendment I have is to move to leave out lines 19 and 20, in this clause. They are the last two lines of that clause, that the Court may, by order, confirm the alteration in the cases mentioned,
"or in any similar or analogous case where the Court thinks it reasonable and proper that the alteration should be confirmed."
I confess I am very jealous of those words: I do not know what is "similar" or what is "analogous"; and I do not know what it is that the Court may "think reasonable or proper," under the circumstances. That seems to me to leave a wide field open. My noble and learned Friend has, it appears, gone through the whole matter with great care, and he appears to have swept up a great deal in those general words, leaving to the Court the duty of their interpretation. I suppose this is inserted in substitution for the expression "cognate and ancillary," which I think some of us have had great difficulty in understanding. I think it is much better to leave out these other words, which are, I think, too wide, and would, it seems to me, cause great difficulty if the Judge is to be called upon to interpret them.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I believe I included everything I could think of, but, of course, I was not vain enough to think that I had included everything
628
which might occur. I would point out that the words to which the Lord Chancellor has objected occur in the Companies' Act, 1862, and they have always been interpreted without any difficulty; but if my noble and learned Friend thinks they had better be omitted I have no objection.
Amendment moved, "To leave outlines 19 and 20."—{The Lord Chancellor.)—Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose the omission of this clause. The only reason I object to it is that no such authority is required. Does my noble Friend not know that by order the Court can deal with costs? The Court has complete authority over costs and everything else.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I am sorry to say I know quite the reverse.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then it becomes a serious matter, and a matter of substance if Order 65 of the Judicature Act is supposed not to give complete and absolute authority to the Court as to dealing with costs. I think it does; but certainly if there is any doubt to be thrown on Order 65, it ought not to be disposed of in effect by this Statute, but by some amendment of the Judicature Act. In my view, however, absolute discretion in that matter is given already to the Court.
Amendment to leave out Clause 5.—{The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I am sorry to say that the Court of Appeal has taken a different view to that which my noble Friend takes in the case of re Mill's Estate. That was a decision of a very strong Court, consisting of, I think, Lords Justices Cotton, Bowen, and Fry. There it was held that the rules of the Judicature Act and Order 65 of the Supreme Court do not enable the said Court to order payment of costs by a person who before that Act came into operation, could not have been ordered to pay them; and then it goes on to say—
"The effect and intention of those orders being not to give any jurisdiction with regard to costs, but only to regulate the mode in which costs are to be dealt with in cases in which the Court had, antecedently, jurisdiction."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think that makes it rather too doubtful for us to leave any doubt upon the matter. I have not carefully considered the matter, and, therefore, should not like to bind myself to an opinion, but it seems to me that when you are giving a new and independent jurisdiction to the Court, and have to deal, therefore, with an entirely new matter, it is very doubtful whether the general words of the Judicature Act would enable costs to be given. I would suggest to my noble and learned Friend, as I can understand his desire not to alter the Bill more than is necessary, that he might in that clause say, "subject to such conditions as to the Court may seem fit, and the Court may on any such application make such order as to costs as to the Court may seem right;" and then add the provisions as to costs to the 3rd sub-section of the 1st clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess my object was not so much in regard to lengthening the Bill as to casting doubt on Order 65. However, I will accept that as being the decision of the Court of Appeal at present. Whether it is a decision which would commend itself to your Lordships when sitting in another capacity I cannot say; but, in order to get rid of any difficulty on the subject, I think, what my noble and learned Friend opposite has suggested would be sufficient.
On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite unusual, I think, to make a penalty absolute, I propose, therefore, to insert the words "not exceeding."
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I think they were all fixed penalties in the earlier Act?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Probably it would be better not to allow that to remain.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the word "of" and insert the words "not exceeding."—{The Lord Chancellor.)
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Now, my Lords, I move to omit this clause. It is entirely beyond the scope of the Bill. Some of the persons who introduced the Bill into the House of Commons have written to me to say they entirely object to this clause, and several of your Lordships have called attention to the absurdity of it. I quite agree that my noble and learned Friend has reduced it into something like sense; but the reason I object to it is that it is entirely beyond the scope of the Bill, and I think would give rise to very serious discussion. I, therefore, propose to omit it, because it has no reference to the matter which was before the Joint Committee. They did not desire to make such an alteration in the law, and it appears to me undesirable to introduce a provision which is alien to the object and purpose of the measure.
Amendment moved, "To leave out Clause 9."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I only desired to retain the clause in order to make other parts of the Bill intelligible, but if the Lord Chancellor thinks it should be omitted I assent.
LORD HERSCHELL: I, too, should agree if we could be perfectly sure that the other House would not dissent from our striking out this clause. I have no wish to see it, and certainly, in the form in which it came before your Lordships' House, it would not be worked. I think this has now been made a clause which would work, but I quite admit it is not one which is very close to the purpose and object of this Bill, and striking it out will also reduce the Bill more to the proportions which it had when it went to the House of Commons, which, accord to my noble and learned Friend, is a desirable object. I, therefore, should assent to its being left out.
On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," negatived.
Title.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have an Amendment to the title. It is to insert after "certain" the words "instruments under which they may be constituted or regulated," leaving out the words "memoranda of association." I am sure I do not know whether

631
"memoranda" has so far become a word in the English language as to justify its being used in that way.
Agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would it suit the noble and learned Lord opposite to take the Report of Amendments on Tuesday next?
LORD HERSCHELL: Yes.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended (No. 162).

ORCHARDS RATING EXEMPTION BILL. (No. 149.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, I may, perhaps, be allowed to explain, as briefly as possible, the object of the Bill. Shortly stated, its object is to put orchards upon the same footing as woodlands, gardens, and nursery grounds with regard to rating for sanitary purposes.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No. 106.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); Bill reported without further amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT, 1882, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 164.) DIRECTORS LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 165.) INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL.—(No. 166.) MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 167.) METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 168.) PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1867, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 169.)
  Brought from Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—{The Lord Herschell). (No. 170.)

  IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS.
  *THE EARL OR DUNRAVEN,in moving for a Return of the number of vessels arriving at the Port of London from the Port of Hamburg between 1st January and 1st July, 1890, stating in how many cases Reports were furnished respecting aliens; and to ask Her Majesty's Government what information is given in such Reports, and what steps, if any, are taken to ascertain whether aliens are on board in cases where no Report is made, said: My Lords, I scarcely think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with any remarks in justification of the notice of Motion and the question which appears on the Paper in my name. Her Majesty's Government stated last Session that steps would be taken to obtain statistical information as to the number of aliens coming into this country, or, at any rate, coming into certain ports in this country, and I presumed that information would also be obtained as to the destination, origin, circumstances, trades, and conditions of those aliens. It appears to me that it would be convenient to the House and to the country, and desirable that Returns giving such information as has been gathered should be furnished for the past half-year. It is very desirable that information of this kind should be collected; but I need not point out to your Lordships that in a matter of this kind statistics are not only useless, but are much worse than useless; they are absolutely misleading, unless they are full and complete, and, above all, accurate. There must be no possibility of exaggeration on the one side, and on the other side nothing should escape the official eye. I do not think, my Lords, that this House or the other House has been given any information as to the Returns which masters of vessels are required to furnish, or as to what steps are taken to see that Returns are furnished in all cases, or further, whether any steps are taken to ascertain whether aliens are on board vessels, or not in cases where

  633
  no Returns are given. I beg, therefore, my Lords, to move for a Return of the vessels mentioned in the notice. I have confined my Motion to the ports of inquiry to the Ports of London and Hamburg; but I need not say that if the Government can supply us with wider information embracing other ports, I shall have no possible objection to their doing so.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House a return of the number of vessels arriving at the Port of London from the Port of Hamburg between 1st January and 1st July, 1890, stating in how many cases reports were furnished respecting aliens."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the noble Earl ask this question, but I wish he had included some other ports. I understand the reason he has only asked for a Return as to London is that, I believe, some 90 per cent, of the immigrants do arrive in the Port of London; but still there is another 10 per cent, to be accounted for, and I think it is of importance we should have information with regard to those who arrive at Leith, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Hull. I believe that the noble Earl desires a good deal more than actually to obtain the information he has asked for. I presume his object is to seek some further legislation. Of course, I am not aware whether that is his desire, but at all events it is my desire, and I sincerely hope that something will be done to stop this immigration of foreign paupers into this country. We have had a good deal of evidence before the Sweating Committee with regard to the evil effects of the immigration of these paupers from Russia, Germany, and Poland; and although the Report which was presented to your Lordships' House does not lay as great stress as I should wish it had done upon this particular point, I think it will be conceded that a great deal of suffering is entailed upon the working classes of this country owing to the competition which they have to meet in consequence of the immigration from Russia, Germany, and Poland. The average number of immigrants who land in this country annually is, I believe, 30,000, and the bulk of that number are Polish Jews, who come here with scarcely any money in their pockets. A great deal of very useful information has been
  634
  obtained in this matter by a gentleman who appeared and gave evidence before the Sweating Committee of your Lordships' House—I allude to Mr. Arnold White. He took a great deal of trouble in going down to the East End of London and to the Ducks to find out all he could with regard to the immigration of these foreigners, and upon one occasion he brought up to the Committee of your Lordships' House 50, chosen at random, who had just arrived from Hamburg. Out of those 50 men, there were 15 who had arrived on these shores without a penny in their pockets, and there were 14 who had arrived without a knowledge of any trade whatever. Now, is it fair upon our own working-men that these victims of oppression, for, as a general rule, they come from Russia and Poland, and have been driven out by persecution, being Jews, should be allowed to make use of this country as an asylum, if by doing so they create poverty and misery among our own working people? Of course, I know the argument put forward will be that the traditions of England will not permit us to refuse an asylum to any individual; and I am perfectly willing to accede to that as long as by receiving these people we do not do an injustice to our own population. But I believe that charity begins at home, and that as long as it can be shown—and I think it can be clearly shown—that our working people are suffering from the immigration of these foreign paupers, we ought to put sentiment on one side and consider their interest first. The wages of some 160,000 families (and supposing each family to consist of five persons, that represents some 800,000 people) are depressed from the very fact alone of the influx of these 30,000 foreign paupers annually. Not only do they cut down the wages of our working men and women—and it is the women that I principally feel for—to starvation point: but besides that, their habits are not such as our working classes are accustomed to, and I think it will be acknowledged by all who have lived in those districts and have come in contact with that class that they are dragging down our own working class population physically, and I may say morally. I have no desire whatever to throw a shield of protection round the drunkard or the

  635
  idler, or the individual who cannot, or will not, learn a trade. I do not wish in the smallest degree to favour my own country people when the competition is a fair one, but I do certainly say that we are not behaving rightly to our own working population and their wives and children in permitting foreigners who are accustomed to a lower standard of life than our countrymen to come as unskilled paupers into this country and to undersell the labouring classes in this country. One circumstance which shows that even foreign nations, through which these people pass, are astonished at our leniency in this matter, and are certainly not disposed to imitate it is, that when a few years ago the Jewish Board of Guardians and others in London were in the habit occasionally of sending Jews, who had come to this country without money, back to Germany and to Russia, a Police Order was issued at Hamburg forbidding foreigners to come into Germany unless they had a through ticket to Russia, or unless they were able to maintain themselves in Germany. Now, what does that mean? It means that the Authorities of Hamburg will send over to this country paupers whom they will not receive when sent back again a few days afterwards. The Americans do not allow us to send over paupers to that country, and, in my opinion, quite rightly. By an Act passed in 1882, it is stated that if, on examination by the officers, whose duty it is to go on board any ship and examine the condition of the passengers, they shall find among such passengers any person unable to take charge of himself or herself without becoming a public burden, they shall report the same in writing to the Public Collector or officials of such port, and such person shall not be permitted to land. Now, I do hope that we in this country will take some step of that sort. Our colonies would not permit us to send over to them paupers. They are at this moment too far away to be affected by an influx of paupers from Europe; but they legislate against the introduction of the Chinese, and they place a Poll Tax upon each Chinaman who enters the country. Of late this subject has come a good deal under my attention, owing to my being Chairman of an Association which endeavours to persuade the Government to assist colonisation; and although this
  636
  Association has received the support of some 130,000 working-men belonging to Trades Unions, whenever we have received a rebuff from Trades Unions it has almost invariably been owing to the immigration of foreign paupers. They ask us, "What is the good of your recommending working-men to be sent out of this country, and sent off to America or to the colonies if for every man who is sent out, as is now the case, two foreigners come into this country?" And it is an argument which is exceedingly difficult to meet; in fact, it is impossible to meet it, and, therefore, gradually it has been forced upon my attention until the conviction has grown in my mind that if we desire to improve the condition of the working classes in this country, and to assist the poorer classes to emigrate to our colonies, or to colonise elsewhere, we must at the same time do something to prevent this country from becoming the dustheap of Europe.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I cordially acknowledge the great importance of the subject which the two noble Lords who have just spoken have brought before the House. I also acknowledge the promise upon the part of the Board of Trade to get as accurate information as possible as to what is really the existing state of matters with regard to this foreign immigration, and I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that that promise is in process of being fulfilled in spirit and in letter. I have also to acknowledge the promise to make the information public as soon as it can be put into a form which would be practically useful for any purpose. I do not propose to follow the noble Earl who spoke last into the important question of policy which he raised. I will just say this, that undoubtedly there were Acts in force during the Continental Wars at the beginning of the present century prohibiting aliens from landing on our shores. Those Acts were subsequently, after deliberate and long discussion, repealed, and undoubtedly there would be great difficulties in re-imposing disabilities upon people landing upon our shores. However, these are important matters of policy upon which I should not like to express a definite opinion without grave consideration and preparation. The real matter with which

  637
  we are concerned this evening is the question of getting accurate information upon the subject. With regard to that, I "will, with the permission of the House, state the exact position of matters at present. There is, I venture to think, some misapprehension in the mind of the noble Earl who has moved for the Return as to the use of the word "Report." The documents which are technically known as Reports would not, I think, be of great service to him. What the noble Earl no doubt really wants are the "alien lists." The Reports of ships are Customs documents, and they include a great number of things. I hold one of them in my hand, and it includes information as to the cargo carried, the stores, at what station the ship is lying, information which is important only to the Customs, and which is not necessary for the purpose which we have in hand tonight. But one of the things which has to be included in those Reports is a statement whether there are any alien passengers on board the ship. If there are any alien passengers on board a ship then, by an Act of William IV., a list of them is to be furnished to the Custom House Authorities, with the names, rank, occupations, and other descriptions of the persons so mentioned. The furnishing of those lists of aliens had, up to the beginning of the present year, fallen into desuetude, and was only in force as regards the Ports of London and Hull, and even the lists from those ports were sent to the Home Office, and not to the Board of Trade. But for some months past all the Reports from the ports of London and Hull have been sent to the Board of Trade, and have been there carefully tabulated and examined, and, so far as those ports are concerned, if the noble Earl will refer to the Report which was furnished to both Houses of Parliament on the 21st March of the present year, upon emigration and immigration, at page 31 he will find some important information as regards those ports and the number of aliens who come into the country through them. It must be borne in mind that as far as the port of Hull is concerned a large number of those who come to that port went across the country, and on to America. I think the noble Earl who spoke from the Cross-Benches has largely overstated the num-
  638
  ber of the immigrants who remain. There is no information which we have which would lead us to believe there are as many as 30,000 of them coming into this country annually. Up to the end of last year there was, as I have stated, only information in possession of the Board of Trade as regards the ports of London and Hull, but during the last spring, in fulfilment of the promise given by the Board of Trade, those lists of aliens have been called for from the following ports, and have been regularly sent in: Aberdeen, Bristol, Belfast, Dublin, Goole, Grangemouth, Glasgow, Greenock, Burnt Island, Leith, Liverpool, Birkenhead, Queensborough, Sunderland, Newcastle, and North and South Shields and others. So that I think your Lordships will see, so far as the collection of information goes, we had in anticipation endeavoured to get and are getting even more than the noble Earl has asked for, a Return of the number of vessels as between London and Hamburg, and I venture to suggest to him that all the information that would be got from that is given in a convenient form at page 31 of the document to which I have referred. I would venture to suggest to him that it is not desirable to call for a Return at the present time—the present system has only come into operation quite recently—it would be better to wait until the immigration and emigration statistics for the present year are published, which will be early next year. The Statistical Department of the Board of Trade are now engaged in studying and tabulating those Returns as they come in, and it is their intention to include in their next Report a full account of the results arrived at. Our endeavours to get accurate information do not stop there, because it is obvious that aliens may come in by other ways. They may come in by some of the cheaper route passenger steamers, and reach the Metropolis or other large towns in this country by means of the railways. We have, therefore, asked the railways which run between London and the ports to furnish us with the number of second and third class tickets to and from London, and if there appears to be a large excess coming into London over and above those going away steps will be taken to find out whether it is caused by

  639
  any large immigration of aliens by that means. As regards the final question upon the Paper, whether any effort has been made to test the accuracy of the information given in such Reports, I have to reply in the affirmative, and say that the Customs Authorities are doing their best to ascertain whether there is any reason to believe that the provisions of the Act are being evaded, and, in addition to that, the Board has given instructions to our Consuls at Hamburg and other ports abroad to report when aliens arrive at them, and, if there is any ground for believing that aliens of the poorer class are being shipped from those ports to this country, to give such information to us here as will enable us to check the information upon this side. Under all these circumstances I would urge that the Motion should not be pressed on the present occasion, and I repeat the pledge that as soon as any information likely to be useful in a statistical form is obtained, no time shall be lost in placing it before Parliament.
  LORD THRING: Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to state whether an accurate account is kept of the emigration of aliens? Because, from the evidence given before the Sweating Committee it appears questionable whether the immigration is not counterbalanced by the emigration; in other words, whether England was not simply used as a means of transit for emigrants en route to America. I would only refer to the evidence of one witness, Mr. Stephany, the Secretary to the Jewish Board of Guardians, who stated that the emigration of the Jews was fully equal to the immigration. I think I ought to state, in justice to the Jewish Board of Guardians, that although Jews may be landed in England in very poor circumstances, yet they never fall upon the rates, because they are entirely supported by their own community.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, there are two sides to that question, and I would rather not open a discussion upon it at present; but the mere fact of the liberality of the richer portion of the Jewish community has been suggested as attracting these people to England. As to the question whether any reliable statistics can be
  640
  got as to the emigration of aliens, I am afraid there is no statutory power that would enable that to be done at present; but if any means can be employed to obtain that information, I will see whether it can be done. I would rather not give any pledge upon the subject until we see whether that can be done or not. As regards Hull, we are in a position to say, and can prove it if necessary, that a large number of aliens are in the habit of coming to Hull on their passage across the country to Liverpool and thence to America.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble Friend who has spoken for the Government that it is not desirable; in fact, I think it is impossible now to go into such a large question as whether the emigration is larger than the immigration into the country. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Thring, seems to consider that there is a considerable stream of very poor and even destitute foreigners who come here, and, at all events for a short time, reside in England, and after residing here a few months, may be passed on by the richer portion of their community to America. That is not a very satisfactory state of things, even if true. I cannot say whether it is true or not, but it is a matter which would require considerable time to discuss. After what the noble Lord has said on behalf of the Government, I will withdraw this Motion. I have heard with the greatest satisfaction what has fallen from the noble Lord's lips as to the intention of Her Majesty's Government to furnish Parliament and the country as soon as possible at the beginning of next Session, with full and accurate information on this most important subject. The only point I did not clearly understand was whether in these alien, lists, which the noble Lord has referred to, any mention is made of the material condition of the people, and whether they have any means of support, either in money or the knowledge of any handicraft or trade which is likely to enable them to make a decent living in this country. That is a point upon which I think the noble Lord might be able to give information; also whether there is any kind of penalty attaching to masters of vessels who fail to return the numbers of aliens on board. Of course, when I

  641
  asked for these Reports I did not mean the regular Reports furnished to the Customs; the words in my notice are Reports respecting aliens. I did not know the proper term to use; but the noble Lord has explained that they are termed "alien lists." But as I understand the noble Lord to say that steps are being taken to see that these regulations are not evaded, I should be anxious to know if he can inform me whether there is any way of punishing masters of vessels who in their Reports to the Custom House omit to state that aliens are on board their vessels. My noble Friend on the Cross B311ch.es has mentioned the question of the emigration of our own working classes. I cannot, of course, go into that now. I should, however, like to refer to the figures given of the foreign immigration in reference to the steps taken by the Government. My noble Friend estimated them at 30,000 annually; the noble Lord below me (Lord Balfour), considers that figure to be an excessive one. Now, that is the very point on which we want information—we want to know what the number is. Whether that number be too large or too small I do not know; but if my memory does not fail me, Mr. Lindsay, the chief of the Long Room at the Custom House, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), stated that in his opinion one line of steamers alone landed 400 of these destitute foreigners every week at Tilbury Docks. He estimated that 100,000 of these people arrived annually at our shores to remain, and was informed that, as a rule, they settled at the East End of London. On the other hand, in the evidence of an official from the Home Office, they were estimated at about 98,000. That, my Lords, is the great reason why I am so very anxious that accurate statistics should be furnished, and why I am so very pleased to hear that Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to furnish Parliament with accurate information as soon as possible.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With regard to the numbers, they were in 1887–8 9,194, landed from all ports, in London; in 1889, 9,846; that is from the German ports to London. In regard to Hull in 1889, the total number
  642
  was 41,960, as compared with 63,116 in 1888; but the whole of those with the exception of 234 in 1889, and 295 in 1888 went over to America. If we take the number, therefore, to be slightly in excess of 9,000, I think that is probably near the mark. With regard to the question whether any means exist of enforcing the penalties which are imposed for failure to make Reports, I beg to inform the House that the Statute of William IV., which I referred to before, finishes by stating that if any master of a vessel refuses to make such declaration, or makes a false declaration, he shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of £20. A further penalty is imposed for every offence if the master shall wilfully refuse to make the declaration. That appears to me to be sufficiently stringent to meet the case.
  *THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: May I ask is the Statute put in operation in that respect?
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not able to say whether it is put in operation; but the Customs House Authorities have been instructed to see whether there is any ground for believing that it is evaded. With regard to the particulars which are given, the Christian names and surnames are given, and the profession and native country. There is nothing given as to the circumstances of the immigrant; and I must say it is extremely difficult to get accurate information as to the circumstances. Some might say they were independent, and others might not give correct particulars, and there are no means of testing that. If the noble Earl would like to see what the Reports are, I have copies of them here.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: lam informed, I do not know whether rightly or wrongly, that in some of these Returns when information has been given of these immigrants, only the head of the family has been put down, and not the children. Of course, if that is the case it would account for the discrepancy in the figures given in evidence before the Sweating Committee.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD BRASSEY,in rising to call attention to the state of the Royal Naval Reserve and Artillery Volunteers, and to ask whether officers, seamen, and stokers of the Reserve will be embarked in the fleet during the forthcoming manœuvres, said: My Lords, in putting this question to the Government, with reference to the Naval Reserve, it is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with many remarks. It is obvious that in any emergency we must be largely dependent on the Mercantile Marine for the manning of the Navy. The Royal Naval Reserve is an essential element of the Naval Force of the country, for it is impossible to maintain in peace all the men required for the Navy in time of war. There must be a reserve both of officers and of seamen in the Merchant Service. In time of war we should be short of lieutenants, short of experienced engineers and firemen, and short of seamen. The first point which I desire to press on the Admiralty is the necessity of making the lieutenants' list of the Royal Naval Reserve thoroughly efficient. Every officer whose name is retained on the Active List of lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve should be capable of doing duty at sea in a junior rank, and every officer whose name is retained upon the Active List should be called upon periodically to serve afloat in Her Majesty's Fleet for a short time or to go through a short course of gunnery in the gunnery establishments of the Navy; that is, on the Excellent or the Cambridge. In the Medical Department it is evident we shall be essentially dependent upon the Mercantile Marine for the supply of experienced men in any time of emergency. On the question of the mobilisation of the Navy, I would mention that last year 3,000 additional stokers were required for service afloat. In point of numbers the reserves in the ports were equal to the demand; but many inexperienced men were embarked, and a severe strain was thrown upon the officers responsible for the effective working of the machinery of Her Majesty's ships engaged in the manœuvres. I would urge that every year reserve stokers should be called out for duty
    644
    during the annual mobilisation. A certain number of stokers of the Naval Reserve should be called out for service. At present even a limited number of experienced men would be of great value to the raw hands on board the ships and would give useful instruction to the newly-entered men from the naval ports. The arrangements for calling out stokers of the reserves should be worked out in consultation with leading shipowners. In connection with this subject, I would submit to the Admiralty that it is exceedingly desirable to secure for the young engineers, and for the newly-entered stokers of the Navy more opportunities for gaining experience in running powerful machinery at high speeds and for long distances in all states of weather, and I would suggest that arrangements should be concerted with the owners of the finest steamers in the Mercantile Marine by which the young engineers and the less experienced stokers entered for the Navy might be enabled to serve in their finest merchant ships for limited periods. Turning to the seamen of the Naval Reserve, I desire to ask the Government whether it would not be possible that some men from the Reserve should be called out on the occasion of the mobilisation of the Fleet. A short period of service in the Navy occasionally would be valuable to the Reserve men both as a training and as a reminder of the very serious obligations they had taken to serve in the Fleet when called upon; and I venture to add that if they were occasionally called upon for service, it would be an encouragement to them as giving a proof of the confidence felt at the Admiralty in the efficiency of the Naval Reserve. From an Admiralty point of view I hold that the calling out of a certain number of seamen of the Naval Reserve from time to time would be useful both as a test of their efficiency and also as suggesting improvements when weak points are discovered. Now, I will pass on to say a few words with regard to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. That force was first called into existence when Mr. Goschen was at the Admiralty, and in answer to his appeals to the patriotism of the men both in London and Liverpool. All the admirals who in succession have held the office now so ably filled by Sir George Tryon have

    645
    reported favourably on the force Patriotic feeling has not been wanting and I think it is no exaggeration to say that in the last year 3,000 additional volunteers might have been enrolled if the Admiralty had been disposed to avail itself of their services. All offers of services were refused, however, by the Admiralty, and mainly, it was assumed, because no scheme had been matured for utilising in any effective way the services of the new force. The consequence is, that the force barely holds its own, and now stands at less than 2,000 men. In many ways the Volunteers might be valuable. They could relieve the coastguard in the duty of watching the coast and transmitting information. They could help to man the coast defence vessels whose crews would be wanted in time of war to make good the wastage in our sea-going battleships and cruisers. Many of the Volunteers could do duty as gunners in a sea-going ironclad. I would strongly urge that the whole question of the organisation of the Naval Volunteers should be carefully considered at the Admiralty with a view to putting the force on a permanent footing; and I have no doubt that upon consideration of the subject, it would be found desirable that the Naval Volunteers should be assimilated rather to the Marine Artillery than to the Seamen Gunners of the Navy. I think the Volunteers should be re-organised and placed on a permanent footing as a corps of Marine Artillery. No doubt the Volunteers have taken a pride in considering themselves a reserve to the Seamen gunners of the Navy, and the changes I suggest might deprive the present force of some of its most enthusiastic members; but I venture to say it is possible to make too large a concession to sentiment. At an earlier period of the Session I had placed on the Paper a notice of Motion with reference to the Colonial Naval Reserves, but on reflection it seems undesirable to press the Admiralty to take any initial steps. It is obviously, however, most desirable that the Colonial Governments should undertake the organisation of Naval Reserves for themselves, and it might be intimated through the proper channels that, should steps be taken for that purpose by the Colonial Governments,
    646
    the Admiralty are ready, as I feel sure they are, to render them assistance whenever it is sought. I have no wish to impute to the present Admiralty indifference to the Naval Reserves. On the contrary, they have done a great deal to promote the efficiency of that force, and I have much pleasure in making that well-deserved acknowledgment to the Government. I beg to ask the question of which I have given notice.
    *LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I am very glad that this question has been brought forward by my noble Friend, for the subject is one of enormous interest to this country in case of war, and certainly no one is better fitted than Lord Brassey to go into the question. I most cordially concur in everything that has fallen from my noble Friend. It is most desirable, on all grounds, that when the mobilisation of the fleet takes place in the summer of every year a large number of officers and men from the reserves should be brought on board for a certain amount of training. It is very important that we should have as large a contingent as possible of officers, seamen, and stokers so employed. It is most desirable that in time of peace the Navy should be made to harmonise as far as possible with our mercantile marine. It would be very unsatisfactory if, when we had suddenly tr expand our fleets, we should find our Naval reserves in the state, which is so often the case, of raw and untrained levies. I quite agree, as my noble and learned Friend has said, a great many difficulties have been overcome by the Admiralty, and they are very much to be congratulated upon a great deal they have done, and the Admiralty certainly deserve to le specially congratulated upon the arrangements they have made for inducing a number of officers from the merchant navy to serve in our ships for a whole year's training. But, while I say that I should also like to say that I hope they will go a step further, it would be most desirable to have double the number of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants on the list as being held in reserve. There are at present, I believe, 106 lieutenants and 209 sub-lieutenants. That is all very well, but in time of war undoubtedly we should want a very large number of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants. I think

    647
    it most desirable that these numbers should be at least doubled, and I sincerely hope steps will be taken to double them. In regard to our reserve seamen, there is one point which I think has been forgotten, and which I should like to mention. So far as I can understand, we give a retaining fee to our seamen in the Merchant Navy witout taking sufficient care to see that any misconduct would forfeit it, and I have heard a good many times in the Mercantile Marine that the Naval Reserve men are not looked on with satisfaction with which they ought to be looked upon. It frequently happens on large merchant passenger steamers that seamen who belong to the Royal Naval Reserve are apt to give themselves airs and become somewhat troublesome, knowing that, whatever happens, they will have their pay in the Naval Reserve. It appears to me that if a seamen misconducts himself he ought to be taken off the Reserve List. It appears to me that if it were distinctly told them that their retaining fee depended upon the character of their discharges this difficulty might be easily overcome. It is a small matter, but one hears the complaint so constantly that I thought it ought to be mentioned. There is, however, one question of great importance. Your Lordships are aware that our ships are no longer what they used to be. They are, in the present day, nothing more or less than huge gun carriages with an enormous amount of expensive machinery in them, most of them without yards and without sails. I apprehend that, although it is undoubtedly necessary to have a large number of executive officers and men, it is, as my noble Friend said just now, of even greater importance that you should have a large number of competent engineers, mechanics, and stokers ready. If you have not you may depend upon it you will not be able to exert the same force that you otherwise would, and the ships would be absolutely powerless in time of war. No retaining fee whatever is given to engineers or assistant engineers to go into the Reserve. As a matter of fact, there are only at this moment 60 engineers on the list, and instead of there being an inducement to them to take a commission it is a ques-
    648
    tion rather of money out of pocket. If you look at the mercantile marine there is no doubt you have a splendid reserve of officers of the highest quality and capacity as engineers. In our great passenger ships the engineers are accustomed to very excellent work; they run at high rates of speed; they steam on day after day, and it is very rarely if ever that you hear of any accident happening. This, I think, proves that these men are of undoubtedly high character and ability. My Lords, it seems to me, that it is suicidal in time of peace not to take steps to get more engineers on your Reserve Lists. Undoubtedly there is some truth in the statement that is very often put forward, that in times of war we should have a large number of steamers thrown out of employ, and that we should, therefore, have a great number of men available. That may be true to a certain extent; but, on the other hand, we must remember that we have upon our ships a complicated mass of machinery—in some of our ships there are up to 60 or 70 steam engines, and I apprehend that no engineer could go on board those ships without, for a considerable time, feeling himself adrift. It would take some time before he could know exactly what to do. I hope the Admiralty will really consider this matter, and see whether a considerable extension might not be made in that respect. Then the other question to which I desire to call attention is with regard to our firemen and stokers. In the Navy there has been for some time very great difficulty in obtaining good stokers, and at the time of the two last mobilisations, I understand, it was with the greatest possible difficulty that some of the ships could be got to sea owing to the want of this class of men. The policy of the Admiralty has been to create a small reserve of stokers. There are now 557 stokers on the Reserve List, who receive £5 a year, but never have any training, and it is very doubtful whether they are thoroughly trained stokers or not. The curious thing about these men is that, although as regards other Reserves you take care to test them, call them out and see what they are worth, the stoker is never called out. You pay him £5 a year, and you do not know whether or not he is a competent stoker. Surely it

    649
    is absolutely necessary that these men should be called out from time to time to see what they really are. In some of our large passenger ships, such as those of the Peninsular and Oriental and other large Steamship Companies, it is the habit to employ in the engine-room, as firemen, natives of the East, who are accustomed to very great heat, and who have no objection to working in the stokehole. It has always appeared to me a great act of cruelty to place Europeans in the stokehold in a hot climate if it could be avoided, and, if you can get men of the kind I have mentioned, it seems to be absolutely unnecessary. The class of natives that have been employed in the P. and O. Service for many years are negroes from Zanzibar, who go to Bombay and are readily obtainable, making excellent stokers. Latterly their numbers have a good deal decreased; but their places have been taken by natives from the Punjab, who have proved themselves eminently fitted for the work. I have made careful inquiries on the subject, and I find that there would be no difficulty in getting large numbers of these Punjab men at Bombay who would be very willing to work in our stokeholds, both in peace time and in war. Of course, it would be necessary in all our ships to have one or two European firemen; but, with this exception, I do not think any ship ought ever to be employed on a foreign station in warm climates unless we have this class of men as stokers instead of Europeans. Indeed, I do not see any reason to anticipate any difficulty if we were to employ these men in all our ships, not only in hot climates, but also in the Mediterranean. It is said that in time of war we could not employ these men; but no one who is acquainted with the Punjabis could think that we should have any difficulty. The Punjabi men are as brave as any in the world, and, provided they understood when they were engaged that they would be employed if there was war, we should have no difficulty whatever. I make these suggestions believing in the enormous importance of the strength of our Naval Reserve and the urgent necessity of harmonising our Navy with the merchant navy, so that in time of war we could easily expand it. They occur to me to be in con-
    650
    nection with the question asked by my noble Friend, and I sincerely trust when the noble Lord answers on behalf of the Admiralty he will be able to say that they are looking into this question.
    THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I do not wish to enter upon any long discussion upon this subject, but merely to put one or two questions. I think the House will admit that the two noble Lords opposite have done a valuable public service in directing attention to the condition of our Naval Reserve. We are accustomed in this country to regard it as drawn from the cream of the Merchant Service; but both my noble Friends have pointed out that the conditions of service in the Navy are so different from what they are in the Merchant Service that it is impossible to regard the Reserves as a thoroughly efficient force unless they consist of men who have been brought into contact with the sailors of the Royal Navy face to face with work on board a man-of-war. The handling of one of our battle ships, cruisers, or gunboats requires an experience very different from any that can possibly be obtained on board a merchant vessel of whatever kind. Merchant seamen, therefore, are not fitted without special training for service on board a man-of-war, and unless they are brought into communication as often as possible with the sailors of the Royal Navy. The question which I want particularly to put to my noble Friend who will reply is this, what proportion of the whole number of 18,000 men of the Royal Naval Reserve are called out every year? For without that information it is impossible to know whether the whole force has ever been called out, and unless all are periodically called out and trained on board Her Majesty's ships it is impossible to have a thoroughly effective force. If the noble Lord can tell us what proportion is called out every year we can form our own conclusions as to what number of years would be required for training the whole force. It is important also to know whether in all cases gunnery practice is required to be carried on at sea by the Naval Reserve. Those are two points upon which I should like to have some explanation, and I think the House will admit they are very important ones, in order that we may know whether the

    651
    Naval Reserve is in that state of efficiency which it ought to be.
    *LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, if I fail to meet all the points which have been raised by my noble Friend opposite, I must remind him that it was only at 12 o'clock to-day that I was put in possession of the questions he wished to put to me. Although this question as it stands on the Paper is a very innocent-looking one, as put to me by my noble Friend, it has assumed rather formidable proportions. However, I will endeavour to the best of my ability to reply to the points which have been raised. I will at once say that the importance of the Royal Naval Reserve iss fully appreciated and recognised by the Admiralty, and, in fact, by all parties. It is not difficult to make suggestions that in the abstract appear admirable; but when these suggestions are investigated in detail, they are not found to lead to practical attainable results. We have two classes of Naval Volunteers. The first is the Royal Naval Reserve, a force composed of nearly 20,000 officers and men who have followed the sea as a profession; the second is the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, a force of 2,038 with an entirely different organisation, the members of it being recruited from every profession and trade. In the question, as put by my noble Friend Lord Brassey, he calls attention to the state of those two forces. The state of the Royal Naval Reserve is in every way satisfactory. There has been a steady increase in all the ranks during the last year, as shown by the following figures. There are 558 officers of all ranks, which is an increase of 183 since June, 1889. Of men of all classes there are 19,293, an increase on the year of 267. These figures make a total of 19,851, an increase on the year of 450. It is not intended to embark any of the seamen or stokers of this reserve during the forthcoming manœuvres, but officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who may volunteer will be appointed to ships, and I may mention that up to the present time 15 have volunteered. This is totally independent of the number of Royal Naval Reserve officers, who were allowed to go on board for their annual training in the fleet, and that number, limited to 20, are already serving their year in Her Majesty's
    652
    ships, namely, five lieutenants, 11 sub-lieutenants, and four engineers. The reason why it is not intended to embark any of the Royal Naval Reserve during the manœuvres is that the embarking section of the coastguard, numbering 1,972, will be embarked, and will be quite sufficient to fill up all the ships employed in the manœuvres without calling out any of the Reserve Forces. It is found in every way advisable to employ our own coastguardmen on board ship. In order to keep this thoroughly reliable and always available reserve in a state of efficiency it is absolutely necessary that they should be embarked every other year. They are the first people we look to to put on board, even before the Royal Naval Reserves. As to the number of inexperienced stokers, to which Lord Brassey has referred, it is not possible suddenly to increase the number of men employed in any one trade unless-there is an extraneous source of supply, and that particularly applies to stokers The number of suitable men in the Mercantile Marine is not considerable, and, indeed, is barely sufficient to meet its own requirements; but satisfactory progress has been and is being made on this point, and it is one which has been occupying really the serious attention of the Admiralty. In the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers there has been an increase of 21 during the last 12 months. The manner in which their services could be most usefully employed in the event of war is a question that has received a great deal of consideration at the Admiralty. One of the difficulties, as I have explained more than once during last Session, is that by the Act of Parliament under which they were enrolled the Admiralty has power to employ them (unless they otherwise consent) only in ships engaged in the defence of the coasts of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and the seas adjacent. Under such circumstances, the Admiralty would naturally hesitate to embark these men on board a ship of war, which might at any moment be ordered on distant service. Lord Sidmouth, who put a question to me on this subject last year, said that the Volunteers were ready to go to any part of the world, and I say all praise to them for that; I have no doubt that Lord Sidmouth was right, and the

    653
    majority would be actuated by that patriotic sentiment. Lord Brassey suggests the possibility of affiliating them with the Royal Marine Artillery. There is much to be said in favour of such a proposal. I wish I could see the probability of that being carried out, and I think Admiral Sir George Tryon, to whom he referred, is also in favour of that proposal. But I would ask my noble Friend has he ever fairly considered the difficulties—for there would be very serious difficulties—in carrying it out. Has he ever seriously considered those difficulties himself? Of what are the two forces composed? As I have already explained, the Royal Naval Reserve is composed of men who have followed the sea as a profession, both as to officers and men. Among them are to be found some of the very best men in the Mercantile Marine. The Naval Artillery Volunteers, on the other hand, are men enrolled from all professions and trades. Has the noble Lord ever seen Returns of the various professions and trades of which this force is composed? They are very remarkable. The Returns of last December show that it contains members of no fewer than 254 different professions and trades. All good and gallant men, no doubt, but they are not seamen. The class most fully represented is that of clerks, of whom there are 439, and the number of men in any way, however remotely, who are connected with the sea, is under 150. That is the position of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. It is difficult to mix oil and water, and I would venture to ask whether Lord Brassey does not think that it would be very difficult to get those gentlemen to join the Marine Artillery? I do not know whether the noble Lord has taken any steps to ascertain their feelings in the matter, but I am afraid it would be found that there were difficulties in the way. I stated last year that the Admiralty suggested that the commanding officers of the different divisions of corps or stations should meet and submit a plan by which the services of the Royal Naval Reserves could, in their opinion, be utilised to the greatest advantage. They met in Spring Gardens in June of last year, and they sent in suggestions and submitted their views. I can only say that those suggestions have not been lost sight of; but the matter, involving
    654
    as it does so many serious considerations, is not one that can be settled without very careful thought. Lord Sudeley has practically put three questions to me. First, whether able-bodied seamen should be given their retaining fee in the Royal Naval Reserve unless they could show good discharges from their merchant ships. When my noble Friend first told me of his intention to put this question I confess it struck me very favourably, but on further consideration of the matter I am not at all so clear about it. This is virtually a proposal to discipline merchant ships through the Royal Naval Reserve, and it might in some cases act very prejudicially on the men themselves. For instance, the captain of a merchant ship might hold the granting of a "good discharge" in terrorem over the seaman, the good discharge might be withheld, and the seaman would in that case lose his retaining fee. The Naval Authorities prefer to judge of the men as they find them for themselves, and I may add that very few complaints, indeed, are received or offences recorded against them. Then the noble Lord asks, in the second place, why Punjabees should not be employed in the Royal Naval Reserve, as they were in the P. and O. Company, as stokers in time of war, and for that purpose be trained in time of peace. It is perfectly true that the P. and O. Company employ Punjabees as stokers, but do all the other great steamship lines follow the same system? I am not at all sure that they do. No doubt for ships exceptionally employed, that is to say, in hot climates, those men would be of use as an addition to the stokehold staff; but does the noble Lord suggest that they should be brought to this country and employed in the Channel? Because, once taken on board ship, they must, of course, go wherever the ship goes, and they would scarcely be able to stand our cold climate. In the years 1887 and 1888 a good deal of correspondence passed between the Colonial Office and the colonies on the subject of raising Royal Naval Reserve forces out there, and in June, 1888, a question on that subject was put to me by Lord Brassey. In my reply I told the noble Lord that the answers received were generally unfavourable, and it was therefore decided to take no further action in the matter. That is really a

    655
    question which, must rest primarly with the colonies themselves, some of whom, notably Australasian Colonies, have already a very considerable Naval Service of their own. The noble Lord has pointed out that no inducements are held out to engineers to join the Royal Naval Reserve, and that, in the event of war, it would be impossible to obtain them from merchant ships. The noble Lord further said that similar inducements should be held out as to lieutenants, and that engineers should be bound to serve a certain time. The subject of engineers has been very much discussed this year at the Admiralty, and it is intended to somewhat improve their position in the Royal Naval Reserve, and to increase their pay when called out for service. The number of engineers enrolled has considerably increased. During the last year it has increased by 33, or double the increase of last year, and the number of firemen has been increased by 50. As my noble Friend will allow, there are, of course, considerable difficulties to be overcome in reconciling the interests of the State with the interests of individuals. The Admiralty want to get the best men, but the best men are fully employed in the mercantile marine and elsewhere. Shipowners, of course, have a difficulty in sparing them, because their ships are hardly ever at rest; and if the men left their ships, even for a short time, to meet Admiralty requirements for training, their places would at once be filled up, and their professional interests would suffer materially, to an extent far beyond any advantages the Government could offer. The only other point to be mentioned, I think, is that all officers and men enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve, or Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, are bound to serve when called out. The noble Earl, Lord Ravensworth, put two questions to me just now, but I am afraid I am not in a position to answer them at present. He will see that the question put to me by the noble Lord opposite did not lead me to expect that I should be asked those two questions, but I will endeavour to get him the information if he desires it. I should not like, by attempting to answer them off hand, to perhaps mislead him.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.