Lords Sitting of 20 May 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5.) BILL. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
WISHAW WATER BILL.
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  WATH-UPON-DEARNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  ILKESTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Orders made on the 3rd and 9th of May last discharged; Bill committed for Monday next.
  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICK-SHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Read the second time and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  HAMILTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  GLOUCESTER GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILYAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  MARIANAO AND HAVANA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MORLEY CORPORATION GIAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Sixteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1897; Parts I, II., and III.:
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

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

  No. 2092. France (Dunkirk);

  No. 2093. Germany (The Grand Duchy of Baden);

  No. 2094. Venezuela (Caracas);

  No, 2095. Netherlands (Java);

  No. 2096. Switzerland;

  No. 2097. Uruguay;

  No. 2098. Turkey (Bagdad and Basrah;

  No. 2099. France (Calais):

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIA.

  POST OFFICE ACT, 1898.
  Papers referring to Amendments in the law relating to the Post Office in India.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PENAL CODE AND CRIMINAL PRO- CEDURE CODE AMENDMENT ACTS.
  Papers referring to Amendments in the law relating to sedition and defamation.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Twelfth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales) for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated 13th May, 1898, intituled the Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1898.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Abstract of accounts of loan societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1896, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PROVISIONAL OBDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5.) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6.) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1.) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
NEW BILL.
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
  To amend the law as to marriage contracted in the Colonies with a deceased wife's sister; presented by the Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal; read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

  DEATH OF MR. GLADSTONE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, before we go to the business of the day, it is our duty to record the occurrence of a great calamity. The most distinguished political name in this century has been withdrawn from the roll of the living. It will be in accordance with tradition, in cases somewhat similar, and I am sure in accordance with the feelings of this House, that we should address the Queen on this sorrowful occasion, and combine our voice with that of the House of Commons in urging that the greatest possible public honour may be bestowed on the memory of him who has been taken away. I propose, therefore, to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be publicly interred in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, and that a monument be there erected, with an inscription expressive of public admiration and attachment, and of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great offices of State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will concur in giving effect to Her Majesty's directions."
  My Lords, very few words are necessary, or would be fitting, to commend this Motion to your acceptance, or to dwell upon the great career which yesterday was closed. His history, his merits, his wonderful qualities, have been dwelt on by many tongues and many pens, and I need not repeat them here. But the point which seems to me remarkable,

  81
  and which, I think, will attract the attention of foreign nations and of future generations, perhaps more than any other, is the universal consent of all persons, of all classes, and of all schools of thought in doing honour on this sorrowful occasion to a man who has been more mixed up in political conflict than probably any man that our history records. The conflicts of the past are so far forgotten that there is no difference of feeling or of opinion in the honour which we pay to his great qualities, or in our desire that that honour should be duly displayed before the eyes of all the world. What is the cause of this unanimous opinion? Of course, he had qualities which distinguished him from all other men; and you may say it was his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and the convictions of his contemporaries. But these things would not explain the attachment and the adoration of those whose ideas he represented. They would not explain why it is that feelings almost, if not quite, as fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas he has not expressed, and whose policy he has invariably withstood. My Lords, I do not think the reason is to be found in anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and controverted questions of the policy of the day. They have nothing to do with it. Whether he was right or whether he was wrong in all the Measures, or in most of the Measures, which he proposed, those are matters of which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate here, but which are really remitted to the judgment of future, generations, who will securely judge by experience what we can only decide by forecast. But it was considerations more common to the mass of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any controverted questions of policy—it was that men recognised in him a man guided, whether under mistaken impressions or not it matters not, but guided in all the steps that he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal. What he sought was the achievement of great ideals, and whether they were based upon sound convictions or
  82
  not, they could have issued from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he is honoured by his countrymen because through so many years, because through so many vicissitudes and conflicts, they have recognised this one characteristic of his action which has never left it, never ceased to colour it. He will leave behind him, especially to those who have followed with deep interest the history of his later years—I might almost say the later months of his life—the memory of a great Christian statesman, set up necessarily on high, from which the sight of his character, his motives, and his intentions was situated so that it could strike all the world. It will have left a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be long remembered, not so much for the causes in which he was engaged, or the political projects which he favoured, but as a great example of which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian man. I beg, my Lords, to move the Motion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am under no ordinary difficulty in following the noble Marquess, because I do not conceive that anything could be said better, anything more appropriate, anything more touching, than the speech in which he has introduced this Motion. He has undoubtedly struck the keynote of the universal feeling towards the Statesman we have lost. I agree entirely with the noble Marquess that, whatever we on this side, who have acted with him so long, may think of his political career—which naturally we sympathise with in its details far more than the noble Lords who sit opposite—but, whatever we may think of that, we are as much aware as the noble Marquess is that this extraordinary manifestation of public feeling—I suppose such a manifestation is without parallel in this country—is not caused by his splendid political achievements—I speak of his eloquence, his guidance of Ministries, and the high position which he occupied so long in the counsels of the Crown. We are as well aware as the noble Marquess is that that is

  83
  not the cause of this great manifestation of regret. It is, as the noble Marquess said, the appreciation of the moral qualities of the man, of the high-mindedness of his conduct, of the unvarying uprightness of his conduct, and the sense which the nation feels, as the noble Marquess has justly said, that in him we have lost not merely a Statesman of great power and great reputation, but we have lost a man who set an example to all who have occupied high places in this country, and to all the people of this country, whether high or low, of a life nobly spent, pure in its intentions, pure in its conduct, and which, I agree with the noble Marquess, will hereafter be considered a bright example to this nation. My Lords, I can add no more. I need hardly say how strong my personal sympathies are upon such an occasion. It so happens that I am now the only person remaining who sat in all the Cabinets over which Mr. Gladstone presided; but this is not the occasion to enter into any details. I merely wish to repeat that I am sure we on this side of the House warmly acknowledge the manner in which the noble Marquess has proposed this Motion, and I am certain it will meet with the concurrence of the whole House.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are some Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom belong to the Government and others who give a general support to the Government, who, however, occupy a position somewhat distinct from that of those in whose name the two noble Lords have just spoken. On behalf of those I desire to associate myself absolutely and unreservedly with what has fallen from the two noble Lords who preceded me. It has been my lot to serve in Parliament as a supporter, a colleague, and an opponent of Mr. Gladstone, and for that reason I and those whom I represent are, perhaps, better able even than any others to appreciate the full force of all that has been said by my noble Friends on both sides of the House. But for the events of 1886 it would have been unnecessary, and it would even have been an impertinence on my part, to add anything to that
  84
  which has been said as to the great qualities of Mr. Gladstone or any of the incidents of his great career. As to those events. I only desire to say this: to be placed in acute opposition to one with whom as a trusted Leader we had been in relations of intimate confidence and warm personal friendship must necessarily have been, and was, to us a most painful position. But, although it was not in the character of Mr. Gladstone to shrink from letting his opponents feel the full weight of his blame or censure when he considered that blame or censure was deserved, I can truly say that I can recall no word of his which added unnecessary bitterness to that position. My Lords, deeply as we regret the difference of opinion which caused the separation between Mr. Gladstone and so many of those who had been his most devoted adherents, we never doubted, and we do not doubt now, that in that, as in every other matter with which during his long public life he had to deal, his action was guided by no other consideration than that of a sense of public duty, and by his conception of that which was in the highest and truest interests of his country. My Lords, I beg, on behalf of some of the noble Lords in this House, to express our sincere concurrence in everything that has been said by the noble Lords who have preceded me.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, there would at first sight appear little left to be said after what has been so eloquently and feelingly put from both sides of the House; but as Mr. Gladstone's last successor in office, and as one who was associated with him in many of the most critical episodes of the last 20 years of his life, your Lordships will perhaps bear with me for a moment while I say what little I can say on such a subject and on such an occasion. My Lords, it has been said by the Prime Minister, and I think truly, that the time has not yet come to fix with any approach to accuracy the place that Mr. Gladstone will fill in history. We are too near him to do more than note the vast space that he filled in the world, the great influence that he exercised, his constant contact with all the great movements of his time. But the sense of

  85
  proportion must necessarily be absent, and it must be left for a later time, and even, perhaps, for a later generation, accurately to appraise and appreciate that relation. My Lords, the same may also be said of his intellect and of his character. They are, at any rate, too vast a subject to be treated on such an occasion as this. But I may at least cite the words, which I shall never forget, which were used by the noble Marquess when Mr. Gladstone resigned the office of Prime Minister, that—
  "his was the most brilliant intellect that had been applied to the service of the State since Parliamentary Government began."
  That seems to me an adequate and a noble appreciation; but there is also this pitiful side, incident to all mortality, but which strikes one more strongly with regard to Mr. Gladstone than with regard to anyone else, and it is this—that intellect, mighty by nature, was fashioned and prepared by the labour of every day and almost every hour until the last day of health—fashioned to be so perfect a machine, only to be stopped for ever by a single touch of the Angel of Death. My Lords, there are two features of Mr. Gladstone's intellect which I cannot help noting on this occasion, for they were so signal and so salient, and distinguished him so much, so far as I know, from all other minds that I have come into contact with, that it would be wanting to this occasion if they were not noted. The first was his enormous power of concentration. There never was a man, I believe, in this world who at any given moment, on any given subject, could so devote every resource and power of his intellect, without the restriction of a single nerve within him, to the immediate purpose of that subject and that object. And the second feature is one which is also rare, but which, I think, has never been united so much with the faculty of concentration, and it is this: the infinite variety and multiplicity of his intellect. There was no man, I suspect, in the history of England—no man, at any rate, in recent centuries—who touched the intellectual life of the country at so many points, and over so great a range of years. But that, in reality, was not merely a part of his
  86
  intellect, but of his character, for the first and most obvious feature of Mr. Gladstone's character was the universality and the humanity of his sympathy. I do not now mean, as we all know, that he sympathised with great causes and with oppressed nations, and with what he believed to be the cause of liberty all over the world; but I do mean his sympathy with all classes of human beings, from the highest to the lowest. That, I believe, was one of the secrets of his almost unparalleled power over his fellow men. May I give two instances of what I mean? The first time he visited Midlothian we were driving away from, I think, his first meeting, and we were followed by a shouting crowd as long as their strength would permit; but there was one man who held on much longer than any of them, who ran, I should think, for two miles, with evidently some word he was anxious to say, and when he dropped away we listened for what it might be. It was this: "I wished to thank you, Sir, for the speech you made to the workhouse people." I dare say not many of your Lordships recollect that speech; for my purpose, it does not particularly matter what its terms may have been. We should think it, however, an almost overwhelming task to speak to a workhouse audience, and to administer words of consolation and sympathy to a mass who, after all, represent in the main exhaustion and failure and destitution. That was the lowest class. Let me take another instance—from the highest. I believe that the last note Mr. Gladstone wrote with his own hand was written to Lady Salisbury, to ask her about a carriage accident in which the noble Marquess had been involved. I think it is pathetic, and characteristic of the man, that in the hour of his sore distress, when he could hardly put pen to paper, he should have written that note of sympathy to the wife of the most prominent, and not the least generous, of his political opponents. My Lords, sympathy was one great feature of Mr. Gladstone's character. There was another with which the noble Marquess has dealt, which I will only touch on in a single word, for it is a subject not for this moment or for this purpose. I mean

  87
  the depth of his Christian faith. I have heard, not often, and have seen it made a subject for cavil, for sarcasm, for scoffing remarks. Those remarks were the offspring of ignorance, and not of knowledge. The faith of Mr. Gladstone, obviously to all who knew him, pervaded every act and every part of his life. It was the faith, the pure faith, of a child, confirmed by the experience and the conviction of a man. And that last word brings me to the other, and the only other point of his character, on which I would say a word. There was no expression so frequently on Mr. Gladstone's lips as the word "manhood." Speaking; of anyone—I can appeal to his friends behind me—he would say, with an accent that no one who heard him could ever forget, "So-and-so had the manhood to do this"; "So-and-so had the manhood to do that"; and no one, I think, will, in the converse, ever forget the extremity of scorn which he could put into the negative phrase, "So-and-so had not the manhood to do this"; "So-and-so had not the manhood to say that." It was obvious, from all he said and from all he did, that that virile virtue of manhood, in which he comprehended courage, righteous daring, the disdain of odds against him—that virile virtue of manhood was, perhaps, the one that he put the highest. This country, this nation, loves brave men. Mr. Gladstone was the bravest of the brave. There was no cause so hopeless that he was afraid to undertake it; there was no amount of opposition that would cow him when once he had undertaken it. It was then faith, manhood, and sympathy that formed the triple base of Mr. Gladstone's character. My Lords, this is, as has been pointed out, a unique occasion. Mr. Gladstone always expressed the hope that there might be an interval left to him between the end of his political and of his natural life. That period was given to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the sphere of politics. Those four years have been with him a special preparation for his death; but have they not also been a preparation for his death with the nation at large? Had he died in the plenitude of his power as Prime Minister would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced Opposition to allow to
  88
  pass to him, without a word of dissent, the honours which are now universally conceded? My Lords, that has all changed now. Hushed is the voice of criticism, hushed are the controversies in which he took part, hushed for the moment is the very sound of Party conflict. I venture to think that this is a notable fact in our history. It was not so with the elder Pitt. It was not so with the younger Pitt. It was not so with the elder Pitt, in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivalled services, and of his feeble old age. It was not so with the younger Pitt, in spite of his long control of the country and his absolute and absorbed devotion to the State. I think that we should remember this as creditable, not merely to the man, but to the nation. My Lords, there is one deeply melancholy feature of Mr. Gladstone's death, by far the most melancholy, to which, I think, none of my noble Friends have adverted I think that all our thoughts must be turned, now that he has gone, to that solitary and pathetic figure, who for 60 years shared all the sorrows and all the joys of Mr. Gladstone's life; who received his every confidence and every aspiration; who shared his triumphs with him, and cheered him under his defeats; who, by her tender vigilance, I firmly believe, sustained, and prolonged his years. I think that the occasion ought not to pass without letting Mrs. Gladstone know that she is in all our thoughts to-day. And yet, my Lords, putting that one figure aside, to me, at any rate, this is not an occasion for absolute and entire and unreserved lamentation. Were it, indeed, possible so to protract the inexorable limits of human life, that we might have hoped that future years, and even future generations, might see Mr. Gladstone's face and hear his matchless voice, and receive the lessons of his unrivalled experience, we might, perhaps, grieve to-day as those who have no hope. But that is not the case. He had long exceeded the span of mortality, and his latter months had been months of unspeakable pain and distress. He is now in that rest for which he sought and prayed, and which was to give him relief from an existence which had become a burden to him. Surely this should not be an occasion entirely for grief, when a life

  89
  prolonged to such a limit, so full of honour, so crowned with glory, has come to its termination. The nation lives that produced him. The nation that produced him may yet produce others like him; and in the meantime. it is rich, in his memory, rich in his life, and rich, above all, in his animating and inspiring example. Nor do I think that we should regard this heritage as limited to our own country or to our own race. It seems to me—if we may judge by the papers of to-day—that it is shared by, that it is the possession of, all civilised mankind; and that generations yet to come, through many long years, will loot for encouragement in labour, for fortitude in adversity, for the example of a sublime Christianity, with constant hope and constant encouragement, to the pure, the splendid, the dauntless figure of William Ewart Gladstone.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  RATING OF THE CLERGY.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is likely that the Royal Commission on Rating will soon be able to make an ad interim Report with respect to the rating of the clergy. I am asking this inquiry of my noble Friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, not in his capacity as Secretary for Scotland, but as chairman of the Royal Commission, on Rating, which, as your Lordships are aware, has been sitting for some time. During the last 10 years the clergy have suffered, heavily owing to the fall of tithes, and there is a strong feeling out of doors that some alleviation with regard to rating should be proposed in the present Session of Parliament. The hardship of the whole matter is that the Act of last Session—the imperfect Act, known as the Agricultural Rating Act—while it gives alleviation to ratepayers, and does give alleviation to clergymen who hold their own land, gives no alleviation to tithes. I think, my Lords, that it is a great
  90
  injustice that clergymen, with their largely diminished incomes, should be rated, not only on their houses and their glebe, but also on their tithes. Moreover, if a clergyman chooses to let his glebe, he receives no abatement whatever. In the Midland counties, especially in Northamptonshire, there are many cases in which land has been allotted in lieu of tithes, and in those cases the clergyman does get relief; but the general rule is that tithes pay rates but get no relief under the Act of last Session. I am sure we all sympathise with the clergy in this matter, and will view with equal sympathy any Measure which might be proposed to alleviate their condition. That is the reason I ask this question. I feel that without legislation it will be difficult to give any considerable relief. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Local Government Board to issue an Order to the1 various Assessment Committees by which, tithes would be exempted from, rating. I trust, however, that if I cannot get a sympathetic answer from my noble Friend as to a Report being shortly laid on the Table, the time will not be far distant when Her Majesty's Government will see their way to bring in a Measure to relieve the heavily-rated clergy.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFQUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords,. I have no hesitation, in expressing my sympathy with many of the views of the noble Earl. I am afraid, however, that this is a matter in which sympathy alone will not be wholly satisfactory. I can assure the noble Earl that the Royal Commission over which I have the honour to preside has given, and is still giving, a great deal of attention to the subject of the rating of tithe rent-charge. We have received a very considerable amount of evidence from various representative organisations. We have also been, I think I may say, almost inundated by the large number of communications from individuals which we have received, and received quite recently. We have also a very considerable amount of documentary information to look through, and I can assure the noble Earl that there are still a very large number of those who have expressed a sincere desire to be

  91
  heard by the Commission for whom we have not yet been able to find a place. My Lords, I do not propose to go on this occasion into the history of the rating of tithe rent-charge, which is intricate and would require a considerable amount of time to explain; but I understand that in the main the case which is put forward by clerical tithe owners at the present time is that tithe rent-charge has been unfairly and unjustly valued, and not assessed in accordance with the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836. I think it must be obvious to everybody that the principle laid down in this Act for ascertaining the rateable value of properties generally was nor very applicable to tithe rent-charge, and although the Court's have decided that tithe rent-charge is to be assessed, like all other property, according to what it might be reasonably expected to let for, a certain amount of hardship has been created by that decision. I may say that I came to the consideration of this matter with a strictly impartial mind, because until I was made a member of this Commission, and heard the evidence which we have taken, I am afraid I must confess that I knew absolutely nothing about the matter; but I have, so far as I am personally concerned, come very distinctly to the conclusion that the tithe rent-charge, as a class of property, is rated nearer to the gross value than any other. I think I am justified in saying that on that ground the clerical tithe-owner at the present time does bear a heavier burden of local rates than any other owner of property. My Lords, we have got to that length that, while it goes to some extent to justify the anxiety of those for whom the noble Earl has spoken, it does not go very far in the direction of deciding what will be the best remedy to apply. I must say that in this matter I find very considerable difficulty. I do not think I should serve any useful purpose if I were to express my own opinion upon it here. I think that it had better be reserved for the Commission. We have not, as a Commission, ventured as yet entirely to close the inquiry. We frankly admit that there is a grievance, and it is quite possible that, when we do come to issue a report, we shall find our-
  92
  selves able to go the whole length of meeting the wishes of those for whom the noble Earl has spoken. I think he will admit—I believe every member, or nearly every member, of the Commission will agree—that, until we see our way clearly in the matter, it will be a dangerous thing for us to announce that the inquiry is wholly closed. I cannot, therefore, make a definite promise that there will be a Report. I do not wish to be understood, on the other hand, to say that there will be no Report in the course of the summer. It is not at present absolutely decided whether we shall find ourselves able to recommend a remedy. Some of the Reports which have been published in the usual channels of information have been entirely premature. I hope that, under all the circumstances in which we are placed as a Commission—the somewhat difficult circumstances—the noble Earl, and those for whom he speaks, will accept my assurance that we are thoroughly alive to the fact that the state of things, as they exist at present, constitutes a real grievance, and that we shall not delay longer than is absolutely necessary in endeavouring to find a solution.

  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  The Report of the Amendments to this Bill was received.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'consent,' insert 'of the heritors, if any, and.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I have an Amendment to this Bill that I desire to ask your Lordships' acceptance of. The object of the Bill is one with which I am entirely in harmony. It is to enable churches and manses to be removed from places where they have ceased to be of use to other parts of the same locality where they are more required; but, in making the provisions for the change of site, it seems to me that one class of persons—the heritors, or the land-holders of the parish—have been somewhat forgotten. In the 5th clause of this Bill the

  93
  liability of heritors is carefully reserved, whereas in the preceding clauses, with regard to the removal of the churches or manses, no reference whatever is made to the heritors. The object of my Amendment is to secure that, when it is proposed that churches and manses should be removed under the Bill, the heritors of the parish should be consulted in the matter, and their consent obtained.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment. The Bill will really not come into operation in any town or borough in which heritors are likely to have an interest in the church. I believe that in most cases the churches affected will be churches which are vested in the magistrates and the town councils. The Amendment suggested by the noble Lord was the subject of some discussion in the Standing Committee, and, after full consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the words suggested to be added, if they do not do any good in those cases to which we think the Bill will apply, cannot do any harm. Therefore, I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL ((SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

  LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL.
  EARL COWPER: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. This is rather a small Bill, but its object is to remedy a practical and a very appreciable grievance. It is recommended by the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, which is composed of the most able local men in the country, who would not be likely to give other than good advice. The Bill has nothing to do with the main question of licensing. It appears, my Lords, that no justice having any interest in the retail sale of liquor is
  94
  allowed to act on the Licensing Committee of the district in which his interest lies, or in the neighbouring district. It has been determined that this applies to any magistrate who has shares in any railway company which has refreshment rooms in the district, or, in other words, shares in any railway which runs through the district in which, or near which, this magistrate resides. It is quite clear that the shares in a railway company would not be appreciably affected—would not be affected in the smallest degree—by the amount of liquor sold at these small refreshment rooms, and that his interest in them is nominal. The present state of the law has been found to deprive the licensing committees of the services of many useful men. The Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time provides that a justice of the peace shall not be disqualified from acting for any purpose under the Licensing Acts, 1872–74, or under any Act for regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, or the granting of licences for such sale, by reason of his holding any share or being otherwise interested (whether beneficially or otherwise) in any railway company which is a retailer of any intoxicating liquor in the licensing district, or in the district or districts adjoining to that in winch such justice usually acts, or which is wholly or partly the owner, lessee, or occupier of any licensed premises. Care has been taken not to alter the Statute more than is necessary, or to weaken the action of the law in other respects. I hope your Lordships will not object to give this Bill a second reading.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl opposite. I know from personal experience that very great inconvenience has been caused by the present state of the law. There are so many disqualifications of magistrates from acting on licensing committees that some of the best men for the duty are excluded. I cordially support the second reading of this Bill.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, as chairman of the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, I highly approve of this Bill. Cases

  95
  have come under my notice where practically there was no magistrate who could act on account of the disabilities imposed. I welcome this Bill as one which will remove these disqualifications.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL of HALSBURY): I had some doubt as to whether the disqualification referred to was ever contemplated to apply in such cases, but, technically, I suppose it does. The disqualification is certainly one that should be removed.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to move to resolve—
  "That in view of the serious need that exists of insuring in time of war an adequate reserve for our Navy, and also a constant supply of food to this country, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as may be deemed advisable (1) to encourage and assist the British shipowners in their competition with foreign vessels to man them exclusively with British subjects; (2) to ensure that men shipping as seamen shall be bona fide of the class that their certificates and discharges would show them to be; and (3) to amend the law relating to such certificates and discharges."
  My Lords, I alluded last week to the subject embodied in this Motion, and I now bring it before your Lordships in a more extended form, in order to call your attention to a very important and a very serious matter—a matter of national importance which requires legislation. My Lords, I spoke of the mercantile marine as the First Reserve of the Empire, and I think, my Lords, I did right in so doing. It is universally acknowledged that the Royal Navy is our first line of defence; it is our first fighting force. The Royal Navy, my Lords, has no Reserve to fall back on, except the mercantile marine. It is on the mercantile marine that we shall have to depend for men to man our ships in time of war, and for the supply of food to this country. Since I mentioned last week that, in my opinion, the true granary of England was her ships, I have
  96
  been informed that England can grow enough corn to supply the country; but at the present time the country seems to, be dependent on the corn brought over the sea. The Reserve I am referring to—the mercantile marine—has been neglected. We have foreigners in command of British ships. We have men of all nations serving in those ships, and there are some British vessels that are not only commanded, but entirely manned by other than British subjects. We have men entering the shipping as seaman who know very little of their duties, and who really are not seamen. This is due, my Lords, to the present practice of granting discharges. It is an utter fallacy, my Lords, to say that in these days of steam you do not require seamen, and that a man can go on board a steamer and learn all that is required of him. So long as you have vessels afloat you must have seamen, whether they are steamers or sailing vessels, and to have those vessels you must have the shipowners. Therefore you must treat the question in its entirety—from the shipowner down to the ship's boy. I recognise that it is a difficult question, but it is one that must be dealt with sooner or later, and the sooner the better for the welfare of this country. It is a subject that must be dealt with in a thoroughly comprehensive manner. It is no time now to take half measures. When there is so much interest taken in the Army Reserve—when the Army Reserve is deemed of such great importance that there is even some talk of conscription—how very much more necessary is it to take in hand the First Reserve, a body to which in a great part England owes its existence as a nation, and which has helped largely to extend the Empire. I speak of the mercantile marine as part and parcel of the Royal Navy, just as you speak of the Militia and the Army Reserve as part and parcel of the Army., In the old days, my Lords, when our power was being built up—in Queen Elizabeth's days—the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy were one and the same; and in Nelson's day a great part of the men who served in his ships were merchant seamen. The merchant service was looked upon then as the nursery of the Royal Navy. We have a

  97
  number of officers and men of the mercantile marine who are embodied in the Naval Reserve, and who, when we go to war, will be required to serve on board Her Majesty's ships. Who, then, will be the Second Reserve? Who will be the men to man the ships conveying food to the United Kingdom? Who will be the men to man the ships required to carry coal to the Fleet, and to man the warships? The Royal Naval Reserve men are presumably picked men from the merchant service. When they are required, who will you have left? Very likely you will have a number of very good men; but I will ask you, my Lords, is it not of vital importance that we should see that the whole of this service is efficient and capable of taking its part in the defence and support of this great Empire? I think, my Lords, you can no longer look on the merchant shipping as a merely private concern. It is a public concern now, and the country must be prepared, my Lords, to assist the shipowners in their competition with foreign vessels, and, if necessary, to give them State aid. You will also require, my Lords, to have a certain number of sailing vessels to train your seamen. You will have to see that the men who ship as seamen are seamen. You will have to revise the whole of the present system of granting discharges. I know, my Lords, that all this will entail trouble and expense; but is it not far better to have that trouble and expense now than have greater trouble and far more expense hereafter? I know that these reforms will take some time, and that they cannot all be effected at once. I am sorry to say that at the present time it would be impossible for us to man all our vessels with British subjects, but I think, my Lords, that in time this could be accomplished. I would strongly urge the necessity of legislation tending in this direction. I now beg to move the Resolution.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, it seems to me that the propositions laid down by my noble Friend rest, to a certain extent, upon the supposition contained in the early part of the Motion, that the present reserve of seamen for our Navy would be inade-
  98
  quate in time of war; and the chief part of my noble Friend's speech has been directed to establishing that contention. My Lords, that, of course, is a very large question, in which the Department that I am connected with is only indirectly concerned. It is, therefore, not for me to argue that point with my noble. Friend. All that I can say on that score is that the Board of Trade fully realises how important it is that the supply of British seamen for the Naval Reserve should be fully maintained, and my noble Friend can rest assured that no means for advancing that object is ever ignored or lost sight of by that Department. Now, my Lords, what does my noble Friend ask the Government to do? In the first place, he desires that encouragement should be given to British shipowners to employ British seamen exclusively upon their ships. Well, if he had omitted the word "exclusively" I should have been prepared to sympathise with him to a great extent.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I said British subjects.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Well, that is much the same thing. Everyone, I suppose, my Lords, deplores the fact that the proportion of foreign seamen in our mercantile marine is excessively large, and I am afraid the proportion tends to increase every year rather than the reverse. If, then, the Government saw any equitable means of discouraging that increase, I think it is perfectly safe to say that they would readily make use of it. The great difficulty, however, is to find a means of discouraging that increase which is equitable. I confess that I listened with great attention to my noble Friend's speech to hear if he suggested any means by which that object could be attained, and I, personally, was not able to gather from his speech any definite plan. I do not know whether my noble Friend contemplates any return, or any partial return, to the Navigation Laws, under which, as your Lordships know, certain proportions, varying in different instances, of British seamen were compelled to be carried on British ships. If that is his opinion, at any rate, it seems

  99
  to me that that would be rather drastic encouragement to the British shipowners, even if it can be carried out; and I confess that in my opinion I do not think it can be. In the first place, it would entail the absolute reversal of our policy during the last 40 or 50 years, by which we have sought to remove restrictions upon trade and commerce; and, in the second place, it would, I think, create such an agitation among shipowners that I doubt if any Government would attempt to persevere with it. Moreover I would point out to my noble Friend that if it is his desire, as he states in his Motion, to encourage the British shipowner and to help the British shipowner against the competition of the foreign shipowner, the last way in the world to set about it would be to place restrictions on his trade, and to hamper him, and prevent him carrying on his business in the way which he considered most advantageous and profitable to himself. As my noble Friend knows very well, this large proportion of foreign seamen that are now in our mercantile marine is not due to any scarcity of British seamen. There are plenty of British seamen in our ports to man our ships if made use of. The large proportion of foreign seamen is due to other causes which I do not care to enter into at the present time. There is no doubt that in many instances the shipowners employ foreign sailors deliberately, in preference to English seamen, and, although I deplore that fact, no doubt as much as my noble Friend does, I confess that I do not see how, by legislation, you can interfere to prevent the shipowners taking advantage of their undoubted rights of discretion in that matter, or go back to a state of things which existed 40 or 50 years ago, under totally different conditions. The next thing my noble Friend wished the Government to do is to take measures to ensure that men shipping as seamen shall be bonâ-fide of the class that their certificates and discharges would show them to be. Well, my Lords, that is by no means a new question; it has been brought before the Board of Trade for many years past. The Royal Commis-
  100
  sion on Loss of Life at Sea reported in 1884 that—
  "With respect to the rating of able seamen it is now the law that no man is entitled to be so rated unless he can prove four years' service at sea before the mast. There is, however, great laxity in this matter. Men are constantly rated as 'A.B.' without any inquiry as to their past service, and without sufficient qualification. Practically it rests with masters of vessels; nor does it appear to us that there is any certain method by which this can be prevented."
  The state of the law as defined in the Report of the Royal Commission is still the state of the law; but since this Report was issued a circular has been sent by the Board of Trade to their superintendents, in which those officers are instructed to add the letters "N.P." (which mean "not proven") to the letters "A.B." in every case where a seaman has failed to produce his discharge showing that he has four years' service. And I am afraid, that although that may seem a very inadequate provision, it is the only thing that can possibly be done under the existing law; for, although the law lays down that a man shall only be entitled to the rating of "A.B." after he has served four years at sea, still, under the Act, there is no penalty against a man rating himself as anything he chooses. There is no penalty on the master for giving him an "A.B." rating, nor is there any power to prevent the superintendents allowing men to sign, themselves as "able seamen," "excellent seamen," or anything they choose. Moreover, my Lords, there is no provision to compel ships to carry able seamen at all. They can carry ordinary seamen or seamen; and therefore, as long as that law exists, I cannot see what use it would be to insist upon any qualifications of able seamen being more fully observed. I daresay my noble Friend will ask, "Why not amend the law in this respect?" In my opinion, although I hesitate to express one on this subject, it would be impossible to amend the law with satisfactory results, for it is obvious that so long as a ship is not required to carry "A.B.'s" at all, it will serve no useful purpose to insist on a certain number of men being rated as "A.B.'s." Moreover, the case is different as regards masters and mates. In that case, of

  101
  course, the law does lay down that every ship in the foreign trade must have a certified master and a certified mate, but the law, so far as I understand it, does not make it necessary for a ship to carry seamen at all.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Not "A.B.'s."?
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: No; they may be boys or landsmen.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Monstrous!
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The law merely says that no seaman shall have the qualification of "A.B." unless he has served four years at sea, but it does not, as I have already explained, place any penalty either upon the master or the seaman for misrepresentation as to rating. Therefore, as the law at present stands, I am afraid that we have not been able to do anything more than issue the circular to which I have alluded. Now we come to the advisability of amending the law, and I would point out to my noble Friend that if we amended the law we should have, I think, to make the condition that every ship should carry so many "A.B.'s." That would necessitate the introduction of a manning scale; it would entail the classification of every crew; and, in my humble opinion, I do not think it would be possible to do that. I may tell my noble Friend that last year, during the discussion on the Under-manning Bill, it was considered whether it was possible to produce a manning scale, and I think the overpowering preponderance of opinion of the shipowning interest was that it was impossible, taking into consideration the varying circumstances of the shipping industry, to attempt anything like a satisfactory or adequate manning scale. Therefore, so long as you are unable to produce a manning scale, I do not see how you are going to secure the object that you aim at by insisting upon the rating of "A.B." being in all cases observed. Now, my Lords, if the House will bear with me, I will go back to the point which I was alluding to when the noble Lord interrupted me—namely, that the case differs altogether from that of master and mate. In that case the law does lay down that a ship shall
  102
  carry a certified master and a certified mate, and, of course, the superintendents of our mercantile marine are able to prevent a ship going to sea unless she has a certified master and mate, but the superintendents have not the power to detain ships that do not carry a given number of able seamen. There are, however, I think, two safeguards against the evil to which the noble Lord has referred. The first is that, in my opinion, if a master uses adequate care in looking over the discharges which are presented when men "sign on," he can always judge what are the qualifications of the various seamen. That is the first safeguard. The second is that, under the Act of last year, the surveying officers of the Board of Trade have power to prevent a vessel from going to sea if she is not adequately manned, and I think it will be found in practice that in cases where men have "signed on" who are not competent seamen, and who are not fit to take a vessel to sea—that in those cases the surveying officers would consider that the ship is under-manned, and consequently unsafe, and prevent her going to sea in that condition. My Lords, I think I have been able to explain the position, so far as we understand it at the Board of Trade, to my noble Friend. I confess I think that probably the intention of the original framers of the Act of 1880 was to give compulsory power to the superintendents to prevent men "signing on" as "A.B.'s" who have not served for four years, but the law does not give that power, no matter what the framers intended. And I am informed at the Board of Trade that no useful purpose could be served in amending the law unless you can find some means of framing an adequate manning scale.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, no noble Lord, I think, in this House can have read the terms of this Motion without being struck with its extraordinary importance, particularly at the present time. I do not think your Lordships can have failed to recognise not only the importance of the Motion, but the admirable purpose for which the noble Lord below me has brought it forward; and I must say that

  103
  I looked, as many of your Lordships probably looked, with, great anxiety, not unmixed with curiosity, to the terms of the answer which would be given on behalf of the Board of Trade by the noble Earl who represents that Board so ably in this House. Now, my Lords, I speak as a landsman, and I do so with due respect to my noble Friend below me [Lord Muskerry], who speaks as a sailor. This question has occupied my attention for more years than I should like to tell your Lordships, and, as I represent, to some extent, the northeast coast of England, I feel justified in troubling your Lordships with a few remarks on this subject. One thing is certain—no Government could possibly attempt to deal with this question except with the full and friendly assistance and co-operation of the shipowners themselves. I have sufficient confidence in our shipowners, and in their ability to conduct their business, to agree entirely with what the noble Earl has said, that the best thing we can possibly do is to let them conduct their business in their own way. This is a very difficult question, and one which I can easily understand the Government is rather nervous about handling. In looking at it, it is very necessary to draw a distinct line between the different trades, and the tendency of different trades to draw different races into them. Now, we will divide the two great trades of this country into two parts—the Western trade and the Eastern trade. In the Western trade you will find a large proportion, I think, of the foreign element, composed of Scandinavians (Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes), some few being Dutchmen and Germans. If you talk to a shipowner on this subject, I apprehend he will tell you that these men are very excellent seamen. Some shipowners, I am almost confident, would tell you that they actually preferred to employ these men; and for this reason—they are obedient, and more easily satisfied than our seamen. They are more amenable to discipline, and above all, they are more temperate in their habits. I do not wish to be understood to say anything against our seamen, but I think I am justified by fact in making that statement. We now come to the Eastern trade. There you find a different class of seamen altogether. The seamen in the Eastern trade
  104
  comprise Orientals of various kinds. I am not for a moment attempting to say that you can compare a Lascar with a trained British seaman, but I would remind the House that in voyages to and from the East—through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, for instance—the climate is a very serious consideration, and it must be admitted that any Oriental is much more capable of bearing the extremes of heat than a British sailor. I can conceive it possible that even in Eastern ports the presence on board of a certain number of Orientals may not be without its advantage. Therefore, I am quite alive to the hesitation which has been shown by the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade, and which has been aroused by that unfortunate word—if the noble Lord will allow me to say so—"exclusive" employment of British seamen.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I said British subjects.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: Very well, I will accept that. I do not believe—and I say it not without conviction—that it would be possible at the present time to man our ships exclusively with British subjects. It will be necessary to refer, in dealing with this matter, to the larger question—namely, the Royal Naval Reserve. I should always desire to regard the two Navies—the Mercantile Navy and the Royal Navy—as one harmonious whole. It is absolutely necessary that we should do so; and we have gone a long way in the direction of uniting the two services through the personnel of the Royal Naval Reserve. You have got under the control of the Admiralty, by the payment of a retaining fee, the cream of the merchant service—men who are found mainly on the great lines of steamers trading all over the world. There has, however, always appeared to me to be a defect even in that carefully-considered organisation. We are every day learning how suddenly an outbreak of war may occur, and therefore it is impossible to press too strongly upon the attention of the Government the absolute necessity of having something in the shape of a complete organisation of our maritime population. I do not believe that any such organisation exists. I want

  105
  very much to know what will be the position of our great shipping companies when they find a large proportion of their best men transferred into the Royal Navy on the outbreak of a great naval war. I very greatly doubt, indeed, their means of filling the places of these men on an emergency. I am not able to speak with accurate knowledge on that subject. I apprehend that many of our great steamship companies have something in the nature of a Reserve, by means of which they could lay their hands on a certain number of able seamen; but what I want particularly to impress upon the mind of the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in this House is that the time has come when the country should possess a firmer grip upon the whole of its maritime population. There are hundreds and thousands of men who have spent the whole of their lives on the sea available, but there is no organisation, as there is in France, by which you can lay your hands upon them. France can command, I think, something like 100,000 men at any time, and they are trained men. We want an organisation of that kind. We want something behind the Merchant Navy—something analogous to the Volunteer Force behind our Army. No doubt that would imply a word which is very offensive, I am afraid, to English ears. It. would imply something in the nature of compulsion; but, my Lords, in my humble judgment the time has come when the country will be forced to look in the face that which is too often considered to be an interference with individual liberty. I deny that any able-bodied subject of Her Majesty ought to be allowed to claim liberty when the safety of the country is in the scale. It is the fashion among a great number of people—well-informed people—to tell you that love of the sea is innate in the British breast. That statement has been based upon the experience of former days, but I do not think it is safe for the Government to rely on the existence of that feeling to the same extent now as formerly. Many noble Lords have had some acquaintance with our school ships, and I think those who
  106
  have had the privilege, and many of them the pleasure, of visiting these vessels will bear me out when I say that nothing could be more perfect than the drill and discipline on board these ships, and the work done by these young boys; but you have no security whatever that those boys will go to sea. A large number of them do not. That is the defect in the excellent system of school ships. As I said before, your great neighbour—friendly neighbour, I trust, but your great rival, your most powerful rival at sea—has got an organisation which, I think, you would do well to imitate. It will imply a certain amount of compulsion, but I think a scheme might be worked out by which you would be able to lay your hand on a larger body of your maritime population. It will cost money, but the people of this country will back you up. They have set their minds upon maintaining the supremacy of the seas, and it is the duty of the Government to leave no step untried, even at the risk of introducing something like compulsion, which would help them to lay their hands on a larger number of their maritime population as a Reserve, not to the Royal Navy, but to the Merchant Navy of this country. The Government should, by judicious steps, forward a movement of that kind. My Lords, every year adds to the responsibilities of this country. I say it with, anxiety; and I want to ask the Government this question: Are you certain that the means at your disposal, that your Army and that your Navy, are able to meet these responsibilities? I have the greatest doubts in my own mind on the subject, and, unless you have some carefully considered scheme by which you will be able to command the services of your maritime population, you will not be in a position to meet these responsibilities. I speak with earnestness, and with the belief that some of the points I have ventured to bring before your Lordships will bear examination, and will be found to be true. The thanks of the House are due to the noble Lord who has brought his experience to bear on the question, and who has pointed out the

  107
  importance of this matter, and the desirability of paying more attention than we do to our Reserves. The noble Lord says it is the duty of the Government to assist British shipowners, in their competition with foreign shipowners, to man their vessels exclusively with British subjects. It is one thing to encourage, but another to assist, and I very much doubt whether the shipowners themselves would say that to debar them from the employment of foreign seamen would assist them largely in their competition with their rivals. I believe it is necessary that they should have some foreign seamen. I will not detain the House longer. I think the country will be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this question before their minds, and I trust it will be taken up in the country, and that some scheme in the direction of a more complete organisation of our maritime population may be the result.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not propose to enter at length into this subject. I rise rather to apologise, or to explain why I do not discuss it at any length. The subject is divided into two parts. The first part relates particularly to the Royal Navy, with which Service I had the honour of recently being connected; and the other part of the subject relates to most important questions connected with the management of the mercantile marine. Now, my Lords, I rather deprecate the discussion of abstract Resolutions of this kind without a concrete proposal being formulated, either by the Government or by a noble Lord, which the House, as a whole, could discuss. My noble Friend who has just spoken has made a most interesting and very able speech. With a great deal of what he has said I concur, but I must at once say I fear he is wrong in supposing this country will be prepared to depart from the voluntary system in connection with the enlistment of sailors for the
  108
  Fleet. During the time I had the honour of being in the Admiralty, I received, on several occasions, deputations on the subject of the manning of the mercantile marine, and I admitted to two deputations that I conceived it to be of the highest importance to the Royal Navy that the Merchant Navy should be well manned and prosperous. The two Services must go together. The happiness and success of the mercantile marine must be bound on to that of the Royal Navy. But, my Lords, the subject is so intricate and so difficult that I really must refrain from going into it on the present occasion. I am quite sure that the question is of great importance, and if, on a later occasion, either Her Majesty's Government, or any individual Member of this House, submits some concrete proposal on this subject, I for one should feel it then my duty to take part in the Debate, and I should do so with the greatest possible pleasure.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, I want to ask a question which fifty years ago I could have answered myself. Is a sailor entitled to the rating of "A.B." if he serves four years at sea, whether on a steamer or a sailing vessel? There is mighty little seamanship about now, and I think it is incumbent on the Board of Trade to see that the ships are better manned.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: In reply to the noble Viscount, I will read the section of the Act of Parliament—
  "A seaman shall not be entitled to the rating of 'A.B.'—i.e., of able-bodied seaman—unless he has served at sea four years before the mast."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press his Motion?
  LORD MUSKERRY: No, my Lord; I beg to withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at 6.20.