Lords Sitting of 23 June 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
EDINBURGH IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with—
CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WAREHOUSES BILL
ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.

LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
Order made on Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS' CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
HEYWOOD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
To be read the third time on Monday next.
KEW BRIDGE AND APPROACHES BILL.
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with an Amendment.
ANDOVERSFORD AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
NORTHAM URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
Read the second time, and committed.
GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
Read the second time, and committed.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read the second time, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
Read the second time, and committed.
RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
Read the second time, and committed.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Read the second time, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read the second time, and committed; The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
THANET GAS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
EDMONTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
POOR LAW UNIONS ASSOCIATION BILL.
To be read the second time on Thursday next (The Earl Stanhope).
EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time on Tuesday nest (The Lord Balfour). [No. 121.]
LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
To be read the second time on Monday next (The Lord Kenry [E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl]).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 122.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
To be read the second time to-morrow (The Earl of Denbigh).
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House to be in Committee to-morrow.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS].
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Balfour to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit; and his Lordship (in his place) consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
SELECT COMMITTEE.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
    CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.

WIQAN CORPORATION BILL.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
    USE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the above Bills (viz.): E. Mayo, E. Egerton (chairman), L. Castlemaine, L. Manners, L. Monckton (V. Galway); agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2130. Germany (Trade);

  No. 2131. Morocco (Tangier);

  No. 2132. Corea (Trade).

  II. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:
  No. 466. Journey from Pekin to Shanghai over land.

TREATY SERIES, 1898.
No. 8. Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium referring to arbitration the case of Mr. Ben Tillett; signed at Brussels, 19th March, 1898.
No. 9. Convention between the United Kingdom, France, Greece, and Russia to facilitate the conclusion of a loan by the Greek Government; signed at Paris, 29th March, 1898 (Ratifications deposited at Paris, 18th May, 1898).

INDIA (CANTONMENTS ACT v. REGULATIONS).
Cantonments Act, 1897, and Cantonment Regulations, published 15th October, 1897.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM).
Resolution of the Council of the Borough of Cheltenham, altering certain polling districts within the borough; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
Scheme for the management of the Foundation called Queen Mary's Schools, in the Borough of Walsall, in the county of Stafford: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 120.]
PETITION.
  VIVISECTION.
  For suppression of the practice of: Of inhabitants of Bristol and Clifton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time I wish to enter a humble protest against a continuation of that oppressive mode of taxation which was adopted in the year 1894 by the late Government. I refer to the imposition of the death duties, and I, for one, wish to express my regret that Her Majesty's Government have not felt able or disposed to deal with those duties. I regret it all the more, because in the Bill which is now before the House they have provided for a reduction, to a considerable amount, of the duties on tobacco. It appears to me that this further remission of indirect taxation will render the Government less able in the future to deal with the death duties. In the year 1894, when this proposal was first made, there was no one who expressed a stronger opinion, or delivered more cogent arguments against the imposition of the death duties than the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, who I regret is not in his place to-day. Well, my Lords, are we to presume that the noble Duke has changed his opinion? I do not think so. I suppose we must conclude that he considers the exigencies of the public service so great that he cannot see his way to share in a Measure for the remission or the mitigation of taxes which he in 1894 said would be oppressive and unjust. Have the circumstances changed? Has the experience of the last four years altered the opinion which the noble Duke then held? On the contrary, we all know that these duties are found to be very oppressive. As to the income tax, that is imposed on such a scale as should only obtain in time of war or imminent danger. I cannot suppose that that is the state of affairs now. At all events, I trust that, in passing this Measure through your Lordships' House, it will not be considered that we regard the present high scale of duties as normal, or as a

  1171
  scale which should be permanent. I remember the noble Duke [the Duke of Rutland] saying of Budgets, "They come to-day, and they go to-morrow." I have no doubt the noble Duke, with his long experience in the other House of Parliament, meant that the provisions of the Budget might be changed from time to time, and that we were not to regard these duties as a permanent portion of the taxation of the country. I think it would be satisfactory to learn from Her Majesty's Government that they do not regard the present high rate in that view. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer on this occasion, but I did not think it would be well to allow this Bill to pass without a few observations, and without entering my protest, as regards the future, against the continuance, at their present scale, of duties which are regarded by the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council and by others as oppressive and unjust.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I will only say a word in reference to my noble Friend's speech. My noble Friend has, in general language, laid down a doctrine which I think cannot be safely adopted by either House of Parliament, and it is that if on the adoption of a Measure of great and far-reaching importance one party take a very strong view of the evil tendencies of that Measure and resist it, they are, therefore, bound, whenever the vicissitudes of politics place them in power, to use all their efforts to repeal the Measure. That view, if adopted, would reduce the legislation of Parliament very much to the condition of Penelope's web. What is known as "the pendulum" has seemed to establish itself as the law of English politics. I do not wish to express any complaint, but it carries with it the necessity that to a certain extent, and within reasonable limits, each party should accept the work of its predecessor and try, as far as it can do consistently with the public interest, to work it out to a satisfactory conclusion, and I do not think that in doing so we can be exposed to the imputation, of inconsistency or of having changed our opinions. With respect to the ques-
  1172
  tion of whether the death duties ought to have been imposed, my opinion very much agrees with that expressed by the Duke of Devonshire at the time, and it has not changed since; but I do not deduce from that statement the same conclusion as my noble Friend. The demand on the Public Treasury is enormous. The state of the world requires armaments of an unparalleled description, and the bill of costs may also be described as unexampled. While those are the facts of the case it is impossible that we can part with a richly yielding source of revenue, even though we may entertain doubts as to whether the Measure by which it is raised is one which we should consider the most just.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Marquess are valid, so far as they go. There is no doubt this is a time of peculiar pressure upon the National Exchequer, but I entirely concur with my noble Friend on my right (the Earl of Feversham) that the duties as at present levied and forced, if I may say so, out of the pockets of the survivors of those who have departed this life are unjust in themselves, and are extorted with an amount of severity which I for one strongly deprecate. I frankly admit it is not possible for us in this House to do much or anything to diminish the burden of these duties, but I think my noble Friend has done well to raise his voice in protest against this system of taxation, the origin of which, unless I am greatly mistaken, is to be found in the finance of M. Robespierre in the year 1792. That is not a system of finance which is likely to make itself agreeable to the people of England—that is to say, to that portion of the people of England who come under its incidence—and I for one should heartily rejoice if on a future occasion Her Majesty's Government are able to say that they see their way to greatly diminish the injustice and the severity of these duties.
  Bill read a second time, Committee negatived, then Standing Order XXXIX. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Bill read a third time and passed.

SEA FISHERIES BILL.
House in Committee according to order.

CLAUSE 1.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 19, leave out sub-section 4."—(Lord Heneage.)
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill I stated that there were two additions in it which were not in the Government Bill of last year. I stated then that if the Board of Trade objected to the proviso No. 4 to clause 1 I should be perfectly willing to take it out of the Bill. My noble Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade did take exception to the clause, and I must say I am inclined to agree with him that the sub-section is better out of the Bill. Therefore I moved that sub-section 4 be omitted.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 12, at commencement insert 'in England.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
LORD HENEAGE: With regard to the Amendment which I have now to move, the Scotch people have taken exception to the Fishmongers' Company having any jurisdiction in Scotland. We do not want to force upon Scotland what Scotland does not desire to have, and therefore I move the Amendment standing in my name.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 14, after 'Scotland' leave out 'also.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"Page 2, line 16, after 'Ireland' leave out 'also.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended.

CANALS PROTECTION (LONDON) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third tin e To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LLIBILITY OF SHIPOWNERS) BILL.
Amendment reported, according to order.
Further Amendment proposed—
"Page 1, line 10, after '1894' insert—
"Provided always that such owners, builders, or other parties interested as aforesaid shall not benefit under this section for a period beyond three months after the launching of such ship."—(The Earl Vane.)
EARL VANE (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): Your Lordships will remember that this Bill passed its Second Beading in this House without dissent; but at the same time the noble Lord on the Woolsack informed your Lordships that he would consider himself justified in making suggestions in Committee with regard to this Measure. I approached him on the subject, and with the greatest courtesy and equal justice he pointed out that the Bill was incomplete, inasmuch as no specific time was mentioned between the launching of the vessel and registration. After consultation with friends in another place, who are interested in this matter, we came to the conclusion that, if agreeable to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I should insert an Amendment providing three months as the period in which registration should take place. I gather that the noble and learned Lord will

1175
accept that Amendment, and I hope the Bill will pass without any opposition through your Lordships' House.
Question put.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.

LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
LAND CHARGES BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which comes from the other House. It has been considered there for two Sessions of Parliament, and has been promoted by gentlemen who are most fully conversant with the rather difficult and complicated subject of the use of the highways by traction engines. The Bill, I must inform, your Lordships, does not touch light locomotives at all; it only deals with heavy traction engines. The Bill was founded upon the Report of the Select Committee of the other House of Parliament on the
1176
use of traction engines en highways. It contains provisions of considerable detail, which, I think, will be far more conveniently dealt with in Committee than on the Second Reading. Speaking generally, I would say the Bill endeavours to protect the ratepayers and the authorities that have the responsibility of dealing with highways from any unnecessary damage by traction engines, and at the same time it endeavours to remove certain difficulties which stand in the way of the use of traction engines, especially by providing means whereby there should be uniform by-laws for traction engines over the areas of different local authorities. I do not think it would be advisable on the present occasion for me to go any further into the particular intentions of the Bill, leaving, as I said before, the discussion of the details to take place in Committee. If any noble Lord should suggest an Amendment to be considered in Committee, I should be very happy to give the best consideration in my power to any such suggestion. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I should like to fix the Committee for this day week.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I presume there is a limit to the weight of the engine?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Yes, but power is given to local authorities to increase that limit in specific cases.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, whilst this Bill was before the Select Committee of the House of Commons it was carefully watched by the Local Government Board. Certain Amendments which they thought necessary were introduced in the Bill, and it was to some extent assisted by the Local Government Board in its passage through Select Committees. Subject to the consideration of any other Amendment that may be suggested, either in Committee of the whole House or in Standing Committee, the Local Government Board is disposed to think that it might pass. It alters to some extent the weight which traction engines may now carry, increasing the weight slightly. On the other hand, it limits the number of waggons that may be drawn behind a traction engine. It empowers counties and boroughs of 10,000 and upwards to make by-laws for this traffic, which will

1177
have to be submitted to the Local Government Board, who are to take care that these by-laws are of a fairly similar character in the different counties. It also fixes a minimum fee which may be charged in one county, and a minimum fee which may be charged where a traction engine works in two or more counties. Those are the principal provisions of the Bill. It has been very carefully considered in the Select Committee; and, as I have said, the Local Government Board are of opinion that the Bill might pass its Second Reading.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I would ask my noble Friend, as this is not a Government Bill, whether the provision for four persons to attend to any locomotive is new, or whether it was in the old law. I hope those noble Lords who are familiar with rural matters will examine the Bill with care.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am sorry I cannot answer the question of the noble Marquess. I will take care to have the answer when the Bill is in Committee.
Question put.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

ARMAMENT OF BATTLESHIPS.
LORD HOOD OF AVALON: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the very unsatisfactory condition of the armament of seven first-class battleships—namely, Sanspareil, Benbow, Anson, Camperdown, Collingwood, Howe, and Rodney—and to recommend certain modifications in armament which would have the effect of very greatly increasing their fighting power. At the present time, when so very much is being done abroad to increase the power of armanents of foreign battleships, I consider it to be very important that the present unsatisfactory condition of the seven battleships I have named should be modified in such a manner as to render them, at all events, capable of meeting on equal terms the first-class battleships of foreign
1178
Powers. The ships I refer to were built 10 years ago, but they are still, with the exception of their armaments, very powerful vessels. They have very thick armour belts and thick armour protection for their principal armaments, they have good speed and good coal-carrying capacity; but since they were built considerable advance has been made in the construction of heavy guns, with the result that their power has been greatly increased and their weight very considerably diminished. There has also been a great advance in the construction of quick-firing guns, which in every future naval war must produce most disastrous effects on the armaments of ships not properly protected from them. The most grave defect in the armament of these seven ships is the unprotected condition of their secondary armament, which consists of 6-inch breechloading guns mounted on the broadside, without any protection from the deadly effect of quick-firing guns. The result must be that in a naval engagement the men whose duty it will be to fight those guns could not possibly live at them. The objects I have in view are, first, to substitute modern naval guns of greater power and considerably less weight for the principal armament of these ships; and, secondly, to use the weight thus saved for the protection of the guns of the secondary armament, which are now utterly unprotected. I will now proceed to state the armaments of these seven battleships in detail, and the modifications which I recommend in order to greatly increase their fighting power. The principal armament of the Sanspareil consists of two 110-ton breechloading guns, mounted in an armoured turret in the fore part of the ship, and one 29-ton breechloading gun mounted in the after part of the ship. This gun is very weakly protected. The secondary armament consists of 12 6-inch breechloading guns mounted on the broadside, without any protection from the destructive fire of quick-firing guns. In the Benbow the principal armament consists of two 110-ton breediloading guns, each mounted in an armoured barbette. The secondary armament consists of 10 6-inch breechloading guns mounted on the broadside without protection. The

1179
principal armament on the Anson, Camperdown, Howe, and Rodney consists of four 67-ton breechloading guns mounted in two armoured barbettes; and of the Collingwood four 45-ton old-pattern breechloading guns in two barbettes. The secondary armament of all these ships consists of six 6in. breechloading guns, mounted on the broadside without protection. The modern 46-ton wire gun, although less than half the weight of the 110-ton gun mounted in the Sanspareil and Benbow, possesses very nearly the same power of penetration of armour, combined with far greater rapidity of fire. The 46-ton gun is also very superior in all respects to the guns which now form the principal armament of the Anson, Camperdown, Collingwood, Howe, and Rodney. The modifications of armament which I recommend, in order to very greatly increase the fighting power of these seven ships, are the substitution of 46-ton wire guns for the guns now forming the principal armament in all seven ships; also that each of the 6in. breechloading guns forming the secondary armament should be placed in a casemate, as has been done in all our later battleships, and thus efficiently protected from the disastrous effect of quick-firing guns. The results which would be produced by the modifications of armament which I recommend would be as follows:—In the Sanspareil three 46-ton guns to replace the two 110-ton and one 29-ton guns, thus increasing the gun power, with a reduction of 112 tons in the weight of the guns; in the Benbow four 46-ton guns to replace the two 110-ton guns, thus doubling the fighting power, with a reduction of 36 tons in weight of the guns; in the Anson, Camperdown, Collingwood, Howe, and Rodney, replace the guns which now form their principal armament by 46-ton guns, thus greatly increasing their gun power, with a reduction of 84 tons in the weight of guns in each ship. My Lords, the question of the efficiency of the armaments of our battleships is one which, in my opinion, is of great national importance. I feel strongly the unprotected condition of the armament of these first-class battleships and therefore I have considered it to be
1180
my duty to bring this question to the notice of the House, and I trust, my Lords, that the facts which I have laid before you will have the effect of convincing you and the country of the extreme desirability of modifying the armaments of these seven first-class battleships, and thus greatly increasing their fighting power.
THE EARL OF HOPETOUN: My Lords, the Admiralty have the very responsible duty of deciding between the rival claims of construction and reconstruction. The capacity of our dockyards for work is, no doubt, immense, but it has limits, and the question has to be decided as to whether it is better policy to proceed with new ships, about whose perfection and power there can be no doubt, or to lay aside some of the new work in favour of the alteration and improvement of old ships. The question, too, of the best moment to carry out these alterations has to be carefully considered, and the number of ships which it would be politic to withdraw from the fleet at the same time must be governed by strategic considerations. The ships mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, though not entirely up to date, are capable of meeting on equal terms all but the most modern ships of foreign Powers, and it would be most unfortunate if the idea got abroad that, even in their present state, they are not excellent and efficient fighting machines. Plans for the reconstruction of the vessels of the Admiral class have been prepared and are under consideration. It is not considered, however, that much improvement could be made in their defensive power without large and costly alterations, as they are already too deep in the water. The substitution of 46-ton guns for the 67-ton guns carried by four of these ships would reduce their offensive power, as, while the penetration at 1,000 yards of the 46-ton gun is about the same as that of the 67-ton gun, the energy of the latter is greater, and it carries a larger shell. The saving of weight in these ships by this change would not be nearly sufficient to provide casemates for the guns of the secondary battery. In the Benbow the saving of weight, if any, would be small, and in the Collingwood there would be a loss; in the case of the

1181
Sanspareil, to substitute 46-ton guns for the 110-ton guns would make a great reduction in offensive power, and to replace the 10-inch gun, which she carries at present by a 46-ton gun, heavily protected, as the noble Lord suggests, would bring the ship more down by the stern than she already is, and increase her draught—a serious consideration, since she already draws nearly 30 feet of water aft. It is fully recognised that the present condition of these vessels leaves something to be desired, but no proposals for reconstruction or alteration of armament can be profitably discussed without a careful consideration of the cost of those alterations, and of the time that the ships would be placed hors de combat. Alterations in engines, boilers, guns, and armour such as would bring these ships up to date in all respects would entail a heavy cost, and would require at least 12 months to carry out, during which time they would be off the strength of the Navy.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am not able to speak with any knowledge on this subject, but I merely want to ask the noble Earl a question with regard to one statement which I understood him to make, and which, I think, is in contradiction of what the noble Lord said who brought this matter before the attention of the House. I understood the noble Earl to say that to replace the 110-ton guns in one or more of these vessels with 46-ton guns would reduce the offensive power. That appears to be in contradiction of what the noble Lord said. Can the noble Earl explain how the offensive power would be reduced?
THE MARQUIS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the 16-inch guns in the Sanspareil and the Benbow are not muzzle-loaders? I also understand from the noble Earl that a 13-inch gun has more penetration at a thousand yards than a 12-inch gun, and if that be so, I do not understand why in that case the most modern class of ships—the Majestic class—have been armed with 12-inch guns instead of 13-inch guns, with which the Sovereign class is armed?
THE EARL OF HOPETOUN: In reply to the question of the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Lothian), I have to state that the 110-ton guns referred to are breech-loading guns, not muzzle-loaders. With regard to the question put to me by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), I can only state that the opinion which I have given to the effect that the changes suggested by the noble and gallant Lord would reduce the offensive power of these vessels is the opinion of the experts at the Admiralty, and as such I am bound to lay it before your Lordships. The 46-ton gun has undoubtedly less penetration than the 110-ton gun, and less energy and bursting power of shell than either the 110-ton gun or the 67-ton gun. The reason of the adoption of the lighter gun in our most modern battler ships is, I understand, that, in the event of a breakdown of the machinery connected with it, it can be more easily worked by hand.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: It strikes me that the argument of the noble Earl who answered for the Admiralty that these things cannot be done that the noble Lord wishes to be done because it would be a great expense is not a good one. How are you going to have a Navy without great expense? Every day brings change, and you must change if you want—to use a horrible expression that I do not like—to be up to date. You must change, and you must go to great expense. I think the noble Earl said that 67-ton guns did not do better than 46-ton guns, except by delivering a bigger shell; that the amount of penetration at a thousand yards was the same in each; so that I think that argument would break down. What I do venture to say is that I think the excuse of expense is one which ought not to be brought forward by the Admiralty.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: In supporting the answer of the noble Earl (Hopetoun), I would point out to your Lordships that the reasons given are not, as I understand it, entirely based on the question of cost. The reasons given were the difficulty of withdrawing ships from active service, it being necessary to consider our ships in various parts of the world before making alterations,

1183
and also the difficulty of dealing with the work in the dockyards in regard to new construction and the repair of ships. I can assure you that it is a matter of very considerable difficulty to distribute work and to choose what is the most desirable work to be done at any particular time. I think, after the answer of the noble Lord on behalf of the Admiralty, your Lordships may be satisfied that the Board of Admiralty will take into consideration the desirability of altering the armament of the ships pointed out and suggested by the noble and gallant Lord opposite, and in all probability, at the proper time, take measures to improve the armaments of those ships, which improvement has become necessary in consequence of the great improvements in. naval ordnance, especially of the introduction of the quick-firing gun.
The subject then dropped.
House adjourned at 5.25.