Lords Sitting of 10 February 1902

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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE
  ASSURANCE SOCIETY [H.L.]

    BARRY RAILWAY [H.L.]
    RENFREW HARBOUR [H. L.]
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CHARING CROSS, HAMMERSMITH, AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Friday next.
MANCHESTER DISTRICT TELEPHONE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
To be read 2aon Monday, the 20th instant.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
KING'S ROAD RAILWAY (PUTNEY EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WHITSTABLE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (NEW LINES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CATERHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act,
794
1892, relating to Hamilton—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a, to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee. (No. 14.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY.
  1. (Imperial Yeomanry). Organisation and equipment.
  2. (Estimates). Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates for 1902–1903.

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Further papers relating to the working of the refugee camps in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 902], January 1902).
  AFRICA, No. 2 (1902).
  Instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel J. H. Sadler on appointment as His Majesty's Commissioner and Consul-General in the Uganda Protectorate.
  TRADE REPORTS—1. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2744. Italy (Naples).

  TRADE REPORTS—2. MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 2. (1902). Reports from His Majesty's representatives in Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, and Spain, respecting the conditions under which property is held by religious orders in those countries.
  No. 3. (1902). Reports from His Majesty's representatives in Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States, respecting the rules in force for preserving order in the legislative assemblies of those countries (in continuation of Miscellaneous No. 1 (1901) [Cd. 907].

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Appendix, Section I., to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1900.

  ACETYLENE GENERATORS.
  Report of the Committee appointed by the Department of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, to inquire as to

  795
  the safety of acetylene generators, with a covering report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES), 1900. (PART I. CRIMINAL STATISTICS.)
  Statistics relating to criminal proceedings, police, coroners, prisons, reformatory and industrial schools, and criminal lunatics, for the year 1900.
  Presented (by Command and pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Draft Order in Council for providing the manner in which a register of teachers shall be formed and kept.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES).
  Rules made by the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891.
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Florence Elizabeth Fagg, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Florence Elizabeth Fagg to be at large on condition that she enter the London Preventive and Reformatory Institution, Euston Road, N. W.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACTS.
  Minute by the Board of Education sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889,for the county of Glamorgan (11th minute).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  Petition for re-appointment of Joint Committee of both Houses, to inquire and report on the subject of London underground railways of Mayor, etc. of Kensington.
  PUBLIC HOUSES HOURS OF CLOSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Temperance Committee of the United Free Church of Scotland; Inhabitants of Greenock; Directors of Edinburgh and Leith Licensed Grocers Association; Paisly United Free Church Presbytery; Corporation of City of Glasgow; Claremount Street, Glasgow, Wesleyan Methodist Gospel Temperance Society; and Meeting, of Temperance Societies in Glasgow:
NEW BILLS.
  MARINE INSURANCE, BILL [H.L.] (No. 15.)
  A Bill for codifying the law relating to Marine Insurance: and—

  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.] (No. 16.)
  A Bill to consolidate, with amendments, the enactments relating to naval prize of war.
  Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a, and to be printed.

  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend certain provisions of the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1894: Was presented by the Lord Alverstone; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 17.)

  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  LORD GLENESK: My Lords, I have to present to your Lordships to-day a Motion of some importance. Parliament is being besieged with Bills for tube railways, which are being proposed in every direction, but there is no central authority to control the presentation of these demands. There is no authority to lay down what is desirable in the public interests, no mapping out of districts nor arranging for connections. Each company comes forward and claims what it likes. In one instance I have just laid a Petition on the Table from the Royal Borough of Kensington, where five companies are seeking power to run tubes under the High-street, which is a physical impossibility. The Kensingtonians are panting for a tube, but who are going to decide what scheme is to be adopted? Take the Fulham Road. That thoroughfare is threatened with a connection all along the line of hospitals, the Consump-

  797
  tion Hospital, the Cancer Hospital, the Hospital for Women, and others, and such a tube may materially effect these hospitals by vibration and otherwise. The laying down of these tubes has the effect of producing a drainage of the soil in their neighbourhood and a shrinkage of the clay, and this in turn causes cracks, which become dangerous. There is no guarantee in the schemes now being applied for that there will be any cross lines; they are all longitudinal, seeking to connect the City with the various parts of the West of London. My third ground for referring these schemes to the Joint Committee may seem superfluous, but it is not. Although the original Twopenny Tube obtained at first the credit of being well-ventilated, complaints are very numerous now, and a great deal of care is required to find out by what means the atmosphere of these tubes can be purified. The Motion which I propose is meant to to encourage the development of tube railways, but to do that in a systematic and not in a haphazard way. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, to resolve, That it is desirable that the Joint Select Committee on London Underground Railways appointed last Session be re-appointed to consider and report—(1) Whether any of the lines of route for Underground Railways in and near London proposed by the Bills which have been introduced during the last and present session afford adequate facilities for present and probable future traffic; (2) whether any extensions or alterations of route are required for the purpose of providing cheap and rapid travelling communication throughout London and the outskirts, and whether the making of such extensions or alterations should be a condition of the grant of powers to make any proposed railways; (3) what is the best method of constructing, working, and ventilating such railways, having regard to the safety, health, and convenience of persons travelling by them?—(Lord Glenesk).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, the question which my noble friend has brought before the House is one of very great importance to London, and at the same time it is one of so intricate and
  798
  difficult a character that I think it well deserves the consideration of your Lordships. I thought it well to intervene immediately after my noble friend's speech, so that I could place the House in possession of the facts of the case as they at present stand. My noble friend justly said that these projects for tube railways are increasing every year. The present position with regard to these Bills is this. There are at present in London eight authorized lines of railways. Of those, two are in actual operation, and two in course of construction; and there are four in connection with which no works have as yet been executed. Last year eleven Bills were introduced into Parliament, seven of which dealt with entirely new schemes, and four had reference to extensions of the authorized railways to which I have already referred. The Bills were referred to a Joint Committee, the reappointment of which my noble friend now moves. The reference to that Committee was, briefly, to consider (1) The general lines of route for underground railways; (2) what special provision should be made for the protection of owners of property adjacent to the railways; (3) the conditions as to construction and working; and (4) whether any, and which, of the eleven Bills to which I have referred should be allowed to proceed during that session. At that time a Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of Lord Rayleigh, to consider the question of how far the vibration caused by existing railways was affecting adjacent properties, but they had not reported, and therefore my noble friend Lord Windsor's Committee had to deal with that question in a hypothetical manner. On all the other points the Committee presented to the House a very able and interesting Report, and suggested that seven of the eleven Bills which were before them should be allowed to proceed in the ordinary course. As regards four of the Bills—those with which my noble friend is particularly interested, namely, the lines which it is proposed should run under the main thoroughfare between Putney and Hammersmith and the City—the Committee strongly reported that it was desirable that there should be a continuous line between Hammersmith and the City.

  799
  The sitting of the Committee lasted practically the whole session, with the result that it was impossible for the Bills which had been referred to them to proceed. Following precedents that have been set in former years in the case of Bills which have been delayed by the direct action of Parliament, these Bills were allowed as a matter of privilege to be suspended and to be brought up in the present session at the point at which they were left last session. Nine out of the Bills have survived their period of suspended animation, and are now again before the House for consideration. In addition to those nine Bills, fifteen other Bills are now before the House dealing with tube railways. Of these, two deal with an extention of time in regard to railways already authorized, nine with extensions of works of authorized railways or of railways that had Bills in the last session of Parliament, and only four may be called new schemes. Of the twenty-four Bills now before Parliament I think I may say that, if you deduct the double Bills that have been introduced by these Companies, you reduce the schemes to seventeen, and if you further deduct the two Bills which merely ask for an extension of time, and the two which are very small additions to authorized railways, you bring the schemes down to thirteen. The whole of these Bills, except the four new ones to which I have referred, were before the Joint Committee last year. The only Bills that were not before them were the London United Railways Bill, which is a scheme new this year, following the route to which my noble friend has referred, from Hammersmith to the City; the Central London Railway Bill which is an entirely new scheme occupying the same route; a Bill for a small railway called the Edgware and Hampstead Railways, which may be regarded entirely in connection with the Euston-square and Hampstead Railway; and, finally, the Crystal Palace and City Railway.
  So your Lordships will see that, with the addition of the Crystal Palace and City Railway, there are the Bills which existed last year and two addition 1 schemes competing for the very important thoroughfare from Hammersmith to the City. Last year, as I have
  800
  already said, the Joint Committee so far approved of all the schemes except the four competing for that route as to say they might go to a Committee in the ordinary course. My noble friend now proposes that the schemes of this year should be referred to the same Joint Committee. So far as I read his notice, the ground he now takes was completely, or almost completely, covered by the Committee of last year. He asks in the first and second paragraphs that the lines of route should be considered, and in the third paragraph that the best method of constructing, working and ventilating the railways should be reported upon. The Committee of last year considered the lines of route and the methods of constructing and working the railways, though the word ventilation was not directly incorporated in their instructions. The effect of carrying my noble friend's motion would undoubtedly be that the Bills now before Parliament would be delayed for another year.
  LORD GLENESK: Not if the Committee had the power of passing them.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: The noble Lord is now suggesting quite another matter and one with which his Motion does not deal. The Motion of my noble friend is for a Joint Committee to sit as the Joint Committee did last year to consider certain principles. The Bills would then have to go as competing Bills before separate Committees. I have no doubt that if the Joint Committee which sat last year had to go over the whole ground again, with the addition of the Bills that have been recently introduced, the inquiry would last a very large part of the session if not the whole of it. At any rate, there would not be sufficient time left to enable substantial progress to be made with the Bills. I do not say that the question of delay, where matters of such great importance are dealt with, is an insuperable objection, but it is a very serious matter. When I tell your Lordships that the Bills of last year asked for the authorization of a capital of something like £30,000,000, and that the Bills of this year ask for between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000

  801
  more, you will see that it is a very serious matter for the promoters. A very large sum has been deposited in respect of the Bills of last year, which is lying idle. I agree with what my noble friend would probably say, that the interest of the promoters is not the most important thing we have to consider. We have to consider also the interest of the public, and there again the delay seems to be most inexpedient. Every day the traffic in our streets is becoming more and more conjested, and it is daily becoming more important that we should have railways constructed from the centre to the suburbs. This is also an important matter in connection with the problem of housing the working classes, and I earnestly deprecate delay in regard to these schemes unless any great object is to be gained thereby. I think I have shown to the House that there is really nothing new in the schemes of this year which has not been considered very carefully by the Joint Committee of last year. I think the House may safely leave to an ordinary Committee the relative merits of the different competitors for the important thoroughfare to which the noble Lord referred. On the ground, then, that delay should be avoided, if possible and that the Committee of last year had before them everything that they would have this year, with very few modifications, I do not think it is desirable to lengthen the proceedings by reappointing the Committee.
  Perhaps I may be allowed before sitting down, to give some indication as to the mode in which I think it is desirable these Bills should be dealt with. The suggestion of my noble friend that the whole of the Bills should be referred to a Joint Committee, not merely to consider the principle of them, but to pass them has been made before. I had the advantage of a communication with my right hon. friend the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House, before his extremely regrettable illness, and I have also been in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject, and though there is a good deal to be said in favour of that course, it is one almost without precedent. In fact there are only two precedents—the Irish Amalgamation Bills and a
  802
  certain Bill relating to Dublin; but those Bills had been the subject of a very acute Parliamentary fight in the previous session, and there were other circumstances connected with them which took them out of the ordinary category. I do not think that in the present circumstances it is desirable to adopt that course, and I am rather inclined to think that the ordinary method of procedure has a very considerable advantage in this particular case over the Joint Committee, The advantage is this, that a second hearing may be required to put right any oversight that may occur in the first House. I admit that it is extremely difficult to know how to group these Bills. It would undoubtedly be well to place them under a single Committee, but I am afraid that to do that would be to place a great tax on the noble Lords who would sit on that Committee; and, moreover, the proceedings would last such a considerable time that the prospect of passing the Bills in the present session might be jeopardized. I am endeavouring, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade and the officials there, to devise some means by which these Bills could be grouped and dealt with as far as possible by two or more Committees, who would, of course, be guided to a large extent in general principles by the valuable Report of the Joint Committee of last year.
  With regard to the recommendations in that Report, there are only three to which I think I need draw the attention of the House. In the sixth paragraph the Committee strongly recommend that the County Council and the City Corporation should be granted a locus standi in all cases of extension of time. There seems to have been some difficulty with this matter, and I venture to think this a valuable suggestion. Rules with regard to locus standi in this House are very elastic, and are dealt with by the Committee before whom the Bill is being discussed. I feel perfectly certain that, after this suggestion, the Committee will liberally interpret any precedents governing the giving of a locus standi to the County Councils of London and the adjoining counties into which the railways may extend, not merely with regard to an extension of

  803
  time in the case of existing railways, but with regard to lines of route generally. The second clause I wish to draw attention to is clause 19, in which the Committee recommend—and I have great sympathy with the recommendation—that there should be some central body to control the general scheme for these different lines of railway. They suggest a public Department such as the Board of Trade, or the Light Railway Commissioners, or a Joint Committee of both Houses; but I think I am right in assuming that Parliament would be very jealous indeed of giving up any powers which it possesses over these railways, and would prefer to retain the control of them and the scheme regulating them.
  In Clause 20 the Committee suggest that, having regard to the inflation of capital and other matters, power should be given to the City Corporation and the County Council, as in the case of light railways, to construct, or to assist in constructing, these tube railways. I am not going to argue whether or not it is desirable to give this power, but I do not hesitate to say that personally I think it is of very doubtful expediency. It is an entirely new departure in the principles of municipal government, these tubes being absolutely different from light railways and tramways, which are comparatively small matters. They do not affect the surface of the streets in which the local authorities are directly and especially interested, and are schemes of enormous cost. But this is the suggestion of the Joint Committee. The point has never been discussed by the House, and I doubt if many of your Lordships are aware that it has been introduced into this Report. I am placed in this difficulty that in consequence of this paragraph, clauses have been introduced in many of the Bills this year giving the County Councils power to advance money for the purpose for which the Joint Committee recommend. It seems to me that that power should not be given unless Parliament has deliberately, after full discussion, come to the conclusion that it ought to be given. I do not think it would be right to sanction so large a development of the power of municipalities by a clause in a private Act. I gather that the House will support me in what I propose
  804
  to do on this occasion. I propose to strike that Clause out of every Bill in which it occurs before it goes to a Committee. I do so—and I wish it to be distinctly understood—not because it is my duty to express any opinion upon the policy of such a course, but because I think the principle ought not to be adopted without the distinct and deliberate assent of Parliament. For the reasons I have given in the earlier part of my speech, I do not favour the proposal of my noble friend to re-appoint this Joint Committee. At the same time, I wish to acknowledge most heartily the services which the Committee have rendered. They sat for a great number of days, took some very valuable evidence, and their Report is a most useful document, and will be of immense value in enabling the Committees, to which these Bills will eventually be referred, to come to a wise conclusion.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee which sat last year, and whose services the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has so pleasantly referred to in the course of his very clear statement, I would remind the House that the recommendation that County Councils should be empowered to advance money for these tubes, was carried in that Committee by a majority of one only. I think my noble friend has come to a wise decision in resolving to cut out this Clause from the Bills before the House this year. I oppose the Motion to re-appoint the Joint Committee, on the ground that they would be asked to do exactly what they did last year. Moreover, if the Motion is carried, all these Bills will be suspended again, and great expense will be unjustly thrown on the promoters, who had every reason to believe that their Bills would be properly discussed this year, and either passed or rejected. In the interests, also, of the working classes, to whom these tube railways will be of the greatest advantage, I hope the Motion will not be carried. Paragraph 1 of the Motion is almost exactly the same in terms as the reference to the Joint Committee of last year, and upon which we took evidence and reported very

  805
  fully. General principles were distinctly laid down to guide the Private Bill Committees upon these tube Bills, and no more could be done by a re-appointed Joint Committee. The third paragraph in the Motion raises important engineering questions, and to properly inquire into and report upon them, it would be necessary for the Committee to sit, not for one session, but for several sessions. The questions, moreover, are more suitable to a Royal Commission, with expert engineers upon it, than to a Joint Committee of this description.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel I ought to say a few words on the important discussion which has just taken place. In the first place I wish to thank the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees for the very clear and able statement he has made on this subject, which is one of very great importance to the Metropolis. I entirely share the views he has expressed with regard to the Motion of the noble Lord opposite. As far as I understand from the observations of the noble Earl and the noble Lord who sat on this Committee last year, nearly all the points in the Motion before the House was fully discussed, and it would therefore be a great waste of time to go over the ground again. It would be a very serious thing if the enormous amount of capital involved in these schemes were to be hung up for another year. I would urge on the noble Earl the importance of these schemes for tube railways being regulated, if possible, by one body. I quite admit that it would take a considerable time if all these numerous schemes had to be submitted to one Committee, but I think we ought to ask that Committee, in the interests of the Metropolis, to undertake a greater duty than falls to most Committees of your Lordships' House in order to secure a systematic scheme with regard to these railways. I fully admit that the arguments of the noble Earl as to the importance of two Committees, one in each House, the second Committee to overhaul the work of the first and to remedy any mistakes or omissions, cannot be overlooked. With regard to the recommendations of the Committee, I believe your Lordship will support the noble Earl in the decision he has come to
  806
  with regard to the third and probably the most important recommendation. In my opinion the principle should be fully discussed in Parliament before local authorities are given power to contribute to these gigantic schemes. I do not know what may be said about it when the point is thrashed out, but I think the House will support the noble Earl in what I consider to be the wise decision to which he has arrived. I hope the noble Lord will not press for the re-appointment of the Joint Committee, and that the Chairman of Committees will take care that all these schemes are referred, if possible, to one Committee, or, if that is impossible, that some uniform principle is laid down for the guidance of the Committees who will have to deal with this exceedingly important subject.
  LORD GLENESK: In withdrawing my Motion, which has not met with a too warm reception, I think it well that the public should be warned of the heavy price which one of these days it will have to pay for these undertakings being acquired by any public authority, if they are permitted to spring up indiscriminately all over the Metropolis.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the paper, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to Wei-Hai-Wei.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I do not think I need trouble you with the early history of Wei-Hai-Wei, because it is probably well known to you. But I may say that the Government have held a careful inquiry into the advantages of the place as a military and naval station, and they have decided that the idea which was at one time entertained of fortifying it and keeping there a large garrison has been abandoned. There is at present there a Chinese regiment. That regiment will be gradually disbanded or withdrawn; and in future the administration of the colony will be

  807
  undertaken by police, which will be raised by the Administration of the colony itself. The position has been found to be one which could only be fortified at very great expense; but it is an extremely useful place for small-arms practice and for gunnery practice for the Navy as the bay is large and the water is shallow. It is also an extremely healthy station, and it is believed that in the course of a very short time a number of persons will utilise it as a sanatorium for Hong Kong and Shanghai and other places on the coast of China. It will also be used as a sanatorium for our military and naval forces. It has been taken over by the Colonial Office from 1st January, and the new Administrator will be Mr. Lockhart, who has had many years official experience at Hong Kong. It is hoped that in his hands the place will be made to yield a much larger revenue than that at present, which is something like £2,000 a year. The inhabitants are mostly fishermen and agriculturists who are not rich nor very prosperous, but there are capabilities about the colony which lead us to hope that before very long it will yeild a much greater revenue than at present. Your Lordships will recollect that Hong Kong was in very much the same position as Wei-Hai-Wei is to-day. It has no custom duties, no railway communication with the interior, and yet it has proved to be a very important commercial port, and Wei-Hai-Wai has the advantage of being on the highway from the Gulf of Pechili to northern China. It has an excellent harbour, labour is cheap, and there is therefore every reason to believe that it will continue to be a useful and valuable possession. At any rate the rumour that there is an intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to give it up, either returning it to China or handing it over to any other Power, is entirely without foundation. His Majesty's Government have no intention of abandoning the place, which they believe to be a very valuable possession.
  The EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am sure your Lordships must have listened to the statement which has just been made with the same mingled feelings
  808
  with which I have heard it. I was in no degree prepared for the declaration just made by the noble Earl, or I should have refreshed my memory by reference to the statements which were made at the time when Wei-Hai-Wei was first occupied. I do not know whether I correctly pronounce the name of this place, but after the declaration made on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl it seems hardly worth while troubling to ascertain. I recollect that the acquisition of the place was announced with a flourish of trumpets, and now apparently all that is thought of it is that it is an important watering place. Am I to understand that the inquiry as to its naval and military value was held subsequent to its occupation by the Government? If so, some of the statements which were made at the time of its acquisition would appear to have been put forward with more rashness than was becoming in the case of a Government taking over an important port in an empire like China.
  The EARL OF ONSLOW: The inquiries were made subsequent to the lease.
  The EARL OF ROSEBERY: Wei-Hai-Wei is no longer a naval base. It is no longer a place of arms; no longer a protection for our commerce or our fleets. It has become a sort of second-rate watering place. We are encouraged to hope that its salubrious climate will induce people to come and spend what is known as the unhealthy season there. I have no doubt that, if your lordships consult the original authorities, you will find that the statements made by the Government when this place was occupied, compare somewhat strangely with the very piano announcement we have just listened to from the Under Secretary for the colonies.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I shall certainly refresh my memory with regard to the declarations of the Government on the occasion of the taking over of Wei-Hai-Wei. I am not at all sure that I did not myself point out some of its advantages; and as one who held a responsible position at the Admiralty when Wei-Hai-Wei was acquired, I have listened with a certain amount of sur-

  809
  prise to some of the statements of the Under Secretary for the Colonies. I do not think he conveyed the impression which the noble Earl opposite seems to have derived from his statement that it is only lately that any inquiry has been made with reference to the stratagic and international position of Wei-Hai-Wei I can assure your Lordships that long ago the most exhaustive inquiries were made into the capacities of Wei-Hai-Wai in various respects. The question of the number of guns requisite for its fortification was carefully examined; and the subject of a breakwater was likewise considered. In fact, dredgers had been sent out to deepen the water. The number of battleships which could find anchorage within the bay was also fully inquired into. There was no lack of information originally; but I am disposed to think that on review His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion on fresh information acquired that the first opinions as to the value of Wei-Hai-Wei as a naval and military base cannot be sustained. I have no doubt that the Government have consulted the best naval and military authorities on the subject. There can be no doubt at the same time that Wei-Hai-Wei occupies a most important position in the Gulf of Pechili; and any Power holding it possesses a strategical advantage. I am sure His Majesty's Government will be prepared to give your Lordships far more information with reference to the change of policy which has been considered advisable than has been afforded to-day. I hope the Government will state whether the decision not to fortify Wei-Hai-Wei is based on financial or stragetical considerations. I am glad to hear that if Wei-Hai-Wei is not to be fortified, there is no intention of handing it over to another Power or of returning it to China. Even if we do not fortify Wei-Hai-Wei, it would be very inconvenient for the whole of our naval operations in the China seas if it were held by any other Power. I feel that your Lordships have not sufficient information before you to enable you adequately to debate the the change of policy on the part of Government. As to the proposed disbandment of the Chinese regiment, I had always understood that the regiment
  810
  had been a very successful experiment. but if there are any international reasons against making a fuller statement as to why it is to be disbanded, I shall be perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the Government.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, when I saw the Question of the noble Earl on the Paper, I referred to the speeches which were made in both Houses of Parliament by the responsible advisers of the Crown at the time of the occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei. The First Lord of the Treasury stated in the other House, when this matter was being conisdered, that—
  "If any British subject is foolish enough to go to Wei-Hai-Wai for commercial purposes he will have every facility."
  It seems perfectly clear, therefore, that for commercial purposes Wei-Hai-Wei is not held in very high estimation by the Leader of the House of Commons. Within a very short time after that statement was made, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government stated in this House that—
  "It is necessary that we should have a coaling station and a naval station in that region, and Wei-Hai-Wei will answer that purpose. I have no doubt that in commercial advantages it will amply secure us, and will more than compensate us for any expenditure which may be incurred upon it."
  If the statement of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary today means anything, it means that the Government are not going to spend any money upon Wei-Hai-Wei. If Wei-Hai-Wei is not to be fortified and no money spent upon it, I maintain that the place will not be a strength but a menace to us, and that, therefore, if we are not to take the necessary precautions to strengthen our position there, we had much better retire. I cannot help being impressed by a sense of the extraordinarily flippant and careless way in which the matter has been dealt with on the part of the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I shall be prepared to go into this question at length on any occasion on which any one of your Lordships brings it again before the notice of the House,

  811
  and I think perhaps later on we shall be in a better position to discuss it in the fullest detail. But I have now and at once to say that the decision of this question has not been financial. It has been purely strategical, and that strategy was purely naval. Lord Rosebery spoke of Wei-Hai-Wei as a possible protection to British commerce. I think on reflection the noble Earl would not repeat that. The only protection to British commerce in Chinese seas is the Navy, and the value and importance of Wei-Hai-Wei is purely relative to the Navy. Naval opinion as to the proper method of utilising Wei-Hai-Wei has differed, and does differ; but speaking as one who has closely studied this question for more than a year, perhaps I may say that the balance of naval opinion is very decidedly in favour of the course which the Government has adopted. There are, roughly speaking, two alternatives. One is to make Wei-Hai-Wei a fortress like Hong Kong, the other is to use it as a peace base, and not to commit ourselves to the custody of a fortress. The naval opinion has been pronounced, and I thoroughly concur with it, in favour of the latter course as against the former. While that decision has been taken, and while naval opinion has pronounced itself in the degree I have mentioned in favour of this course, naval opinion is unanimous as to the value—the very great value—of this base to the Navy, its value to the efficiency of the Navy, and its value to the health of the Navy; and while I should oppose personally any attempt to turn Wei-Hai-Wei into a fortress like Hong Kong, I should also determinedly oppose any idea of surrendering it.
  EARL SPENCER: The speech of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty shows that since the lease of Wei-Hai-Wei there has been a complete change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government to produce Papers and Reports on the subject, in order that your Lordships may judge how far the action of the Government can be justified.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sure the noble Earl will recognise that some of the Papers are confidential and cannot be published.
  EARL SPENCER: Yes, but there must be some that can be presented.

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD GLENESK: My Lords, the object of their Bill is to establish a system under which plumbers can, if they please, be registered. I have every reason to believe that the measure has the approval of plumbers and sanitary authorities throughout the country. It will enable a plumber who has properly qualified himself, to be registered under such conditions that he may thereafter be regarded as an absolutely efficient public servant. Registration, while it will give the plumber an additional privilege, will give the public the knowledge that they have before them a man who neither from haste, greed, nor ignorance, will endanger the lives of themselves or their children, and, perhaps, the sanitary condition of the whole neighbourhood. Plumbing requires special training, and a great deal of knowledge on the part of those who act as plumbers. It seems a very easy thing to conduct water into or out of a house, but a great amount of technical knowledge is required to make a plumber a first-class craftsman. I trust that the Bill will receive the approval of your Lordships.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  GOVERNMENT MEAT CONTRACTS.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War—(1) What was the contract price per lb. in the Government contract with the South African Supply and Cold Storage Company, who made a million profit on the transaction; (2) What is the contract price under the present arrangement with Messrs. Bergl and Company; (3) Was the undertaking

  813
  given in writing by the contractors that "Colonial meat should as far as possible be imported into South Africa" in the original contract with Mr. Bergl, or was it inserted after the protests of Messrs. Seddon and See.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN):My Lords, the noble Earl is, no doubt, aware that it is not usual to give the prices of these contracts, but on this occasion I am able to give the information. The price of the new contract made by Messrs. Bergl and Company is for fresh meat—that is to say live meat—about 8½d. per lb., and for frozen meat about 5½d per lb., which is about 1½d. per lb. cheaper than the former contract of the Cold Storage Company. I have no information as to the profits made by the Cold Storage Company, but I would point out to the noble Earl that they have a large civilian business in addition to their contracts for the Army. With regard to the third question, the actual undertaking was not signed until after the receipt of the telegrams from Mr. Seddon and Mr. See, but a distinct and definite undertaking had been given in the presence of witnesses more than a fortnight before.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the information he has been good enough to give me on this subject, which is one of great public interest. I would point out that the Cold Storage Company made a profit of a million, and a return of 140 per cent. on their money. Their contract was, I understand, 10d. per lb. for fresh meat?
  LORD RAGLAN: Yes.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Tenpence per lb. seems to me an enormous contract price for meat. Noble Lords probably know that the primest cut of the primest meat of this country—say the baron of beef supplied at the Royal Table at Winsor Castle—would not come to more than 11d. per lb.
  LORD RAGLAN: I wish to correct a misapprehension. The contract price is not only for the supply of the meat; it includes also its distribution. When
  814
  the former contracts were made the work of distribution in South Africa was more difficult than now.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not complain of the noble Lord interrupting me. Information by interruption is quite as valuable as in any other form. It is well known that frozen meat can be supplied at Cape Town from Australia and New Zealand—a supply ten times more than would be required to feed a quarter of a million of troops—at from 3½d. to 4½d. per lb. The noble Lord defended the contract on account of the cost of distribution. If the railways in South Africa were like, say, the Great Northern Railway here, who charge a prohibitive tariff which prevents farmers being able to sell their meat at a profit in London, I should say nothing, but noble Lords should remember that the South African railway is a miserable single line. I am informed, on good authority, that there was no expense whatever, either in sending men, amnunition, meat, or hospital comforts; and, therefore, I respectfully submit that the argument of the noble Lord breaks down. I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in bringing this matter before the House, I am not advocating any stinting of the brave troops who, for the last two and a half years have been fighting the battles of their country in South Africa. There is a great division of opinion on the Liberal side of the House as to the origin and conduct of the war, but on one thing we are all agreed—every responsible member of the Liberal Party is agreed—namely, that everything possible should be done in the interests of the soldiers at the front. I have brought the matter forward, in order to show that the original contract must have been entered into in a slipshod manner when the company were able to make a million sterling profit.
  We have been told by Ministers in another place that there is to be a saving of £700,000 on the fresh contract. It is pleasant to hear this, though it seems to me to be a curious contract. We are told that the lowest tender was that of Mr. Bergl, who, in tendering, said he did so on behalf of a syndicate, who wanted to form a company. Naturally, some backers were required. The sum of £200,000 was deposited and a com-

  815
  pany with a capital of £650,000 formed, and the company has been registered, not in London, but in Pretoria. Mr. Bergl is a gentleman of Polish and Hebrew nationality, and, as Lord Stanley admitted in another place last week, was fined £10 for putting a false label and description on meat exposed for sale, the magistrate making some very strong remarks on the transaction. I am told, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, that the principal backers behind Mr. Bergl are gentlemen called Houlder, the proprietors of the Houlder Line of steamers, and Burt, Potter, and Hughes of the Federal Line, trading direct with Argentina. Behind these backers, I believe it is an open secret in the City, are certain gentlemen named, Samuel Weil, Benjamin Weil, David Harris, Carl Meyer, Carl Hanan, John Stroyal. Isaac Lewis, Agar Beit—better known, I believe, as Alfred Beit—and Solly Joel, "Solly" being, I am informed, an abbreviation for Solomon. Lord Stanley, when asked a Question in another place, said he was not aware whether Mr. Bergl had resold his entire interest to Messrs. Wernher, Beit, Leiss, and Marks for £100,000. But in today's Daily Chronicle there is a statement that in a paper called Cold Storage, Messrs. Wernher, Beit & Co. state that they are not interested in any meat contract. So that if Mr. Agar Beit is interested in this contract he must be interested solely as a private individual.
  So that, as the matter stands now, the Argentine Shipping Companies are the carriers, Solly Joel and Company are the distributors, and Bergl and Company are the providers. No wonder, therefore, we have a protest from Australia and New Zealand, from which countries meat can be supplied at Cape Town at the identical cost of meat from Argentine, owing to the difference in the cost for coal. I think there is something in the uneasiness that is felt in Australia and New Zealand as to their meat—their staple product—being rather unfairly treated, and an undue preference given to Argentine meat; and it seems to me that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War was rather drawing the long bow when he described this syndicate, which certainly does not sug-
  816
  gest Antipodean or Australian names, as one having close and intimate relations with Australia and New Zealand. Mr. Bergl, no doubt, has a very warm corner in his heart for Australian meat, because he got into trouble by describing meat which was not New Zealand as "prime Canterbury lamb." I think we may fairly say that there is some justification for the strong and spirited protests of Mr. See and Mr. Seddon, the Prime Ministers of New South Wales and New Zealand. Mr. Seddon, in the course of a very patriotic speech at Wellington on February 4th of this year, when the last contingent was being despatched to South Africa, referred to the grave injustice done to Australia and New Zealand by the taking of a large quantity of meat from Argentine for the use of the troops in South Africa. He went on to say—
  "This action had caused widespread irritation, and the feeling about it was becoming intensely bitter. Every Chamber of Commerce had passed resolutions against this action. He was informed that already a large steamer had been withdrawn from Australia in order to proceed to the Argentine for meat."
  Mr. Seddon concluded by saying that no reply to his protest had yet been received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The House ought to be informed distinctly whether Mr. Berg had any opportunity of amending his contract after the tenders were sent in and before the completion of the contract, and why the Government let the contract without ascertaining who the Company were and who were to execute it? When this question was asked in another place—it was not answered—the Secretary of State for the Colonies was reported to have interpolated the remark—
  "What does that matter."
  That seems to me to go to the root of the whole question. What does it matter? The Government appear to be so secure in their three to one majority in the other House, and in their twelve to one majority in this House, that their motto seems to be, "Nothing matters." But I venture to think this question does matter, and it should be probed to the bottom. I am so dissatisfied with the manner in which these contracts have been made by His Majesty's Government that on an early date I shall move for Papers relating to

  817
  the whole of the Meat Contracts to be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, and if these are refused I shall most certainly take the sense of the House upon the matter.
  LORD RAGLAN: I can assure the noble Earl that the work of distribution was not such an easy matter as he seems to imagine. It involved distribution over the entire surface of British South Africa, and the meat had to be delivered how, when, and where, and in what proportions of fresh and frozen the officer commanding the troops desired. The noble Earl has accused me, somewhat unfairly, of drawing the long bow with regard to Mr. Bergl's backers. I am not in the habit of doing that either in private or official life, and when I make a statement in this House I make it to the best of my belief and according to the information at my disposal. Messrs. Houlder, one of Mr. Bergl's guarantors, are partners with him in owning large meat works in Queens land. The other guarantors, the Federal Steamship Company, own meat works in New Zealand, and in Brisbane and Sydney. Therefore, I think I was hardly wrong in describing the guarantors of Mr. Bergl as gentlemen with very large financial interests, in the meat line especially, in Australia and New Zealand. The noble Earl also read out a long list of gentlemen who, he had been informed, had shares in this company. That list was practically correct, and it appeared to me that many of the names were those of gentlemen of considerable financial stability.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I desire to express my regret if anything I have said has caused the noble Lord any annoyance. My reference was in no way personal. All I meant to convey was that the noble Lord was the official mouthpiece of the Government; but if any word I have used has given him pain, I most unhesitatingly withdraw it, and express my regret for having used it.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the composition of the Committee appointed to inquire into offences against discipline and other matters in the Mercantile Marine. On 13th January last a Com-
  818
  mittee was appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the following matters:—(1) the causes that have led to the employment of a large and increasing proportion of lascars and foreigners in the British Merchant Service and the effect of such employment upon the reserve of seamen of British nationality available for naval purposes in time of peace or war; (2) the sufficiency or otherwise of the existing law and practice for securing proper food, accommodation, medical attention, and reasonable conditions of comfort and well-being for seamen of British merchant ships; (3) the prevalence of desertion and other offences against discipline in the Mercantile Marine, and to make such recommendations with regard to these matters as they may think fit. Now, with regard to the gentlemen appointed on this Committee. The first is Sir Francis Jeune, the Chairman. To this appointment no exception can be taken, as the learned Judge very worthily and ably represents the legal element of the Committee. The second member is Mr. Anderson, a shipowner, and I agree that the shipowners have a right to, and should, be represented on a Committee of this description. The third member is Captain Blake, an Elder Brother of the Trinity House, who, I presume, is supposed to represent ship-captains. But, as I understand, he does not do so, as you will see by this extract from a letter addressed to the Board of Trade by the Merchant Service Guild—
  "The only nominal representative of the cloth—Captain H. Acton Blake, whose personal ability and integrity are unquestioned—holds, unfortunately, opinions which are entirely dissented from by the members of the Guild, and of other bodies. I am to refer you to his Paper, 'Seafaring as a Vocation,' as read before the London Shipmasters' Society, on the 26th October, 1900. The great majority of members of the profession differed from his opinions expressed in the Paper. The Secretary of the Society characterised it as applicable, not to what a sea life really is, but, rather, to what it ought or might be. Two captains who were present, utterly dissented from the views set forth in the Paper, whilst another member stated that the experience of the majority was dead against the contentions of Captain Blake, and that he appeared to regard the Mercantile Marine from the point of view of one who sat in the sunshine and preached to those in the

  819
  cold shade of neglect. Therefore, being in the possession of the pronounced views of Captain Acton Blake, there is much cause for alarm in the knowledge that the evils which are certain to be brought before the Committee, may be viewed from the optimistic stand point of his Paper."
  The fourth member of the Committee is Mr. Thomas Burt, M. P., who, I understand, was a miner and is now a miners' representative. I have heard nothing but what is good about this gentleman, but, however worthy he may be, I cannot conceive why he was placed on this Committee, or what possible knowledge he can have of purely maritime matters. The fifth member of the Committee is Captain Chalmers, the sole and only professional member of the Board of Trade, but as such, and as a paid Government official, the profession cannot in any way regard him as a representative. The sixth member of the Committee is Colonel Denny, a shipbuilder. He is a very necessary member of the Committee, when you remember that one of the matters to be inquired into is accommodation. The seventh member is Mr. Walter J. Howell, the Secretary of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. The eighth member is Vice-Admiral Lloyd. Now, if it had been an inquiry into matters concerning the Royal Navy, I could have understood this gentleman being on the Committee, but I doubt very much if the gallant Admiral has ever been much in touch with, or knows much of, the interior working of the Mercantile Marine. The ninth member is Mr. W. Milburn, a shipowner, and what I said about Mr. Anderson applies also to him. The tenth and last member is Mr. J. Havelock Wilson, who has certainly had some experience of the sea, in, I understand, the capacity of steward. I have not heard that he served in any other position. He is at present, I believe, Secretary of a Seamen and Firemen's Union, which is not registered. Whatever qualifications this gentleman might have to inquire into and report on Clauses 1and 2, I think your Lordships will agree, when you have heard what I will bring under your notice, that he is most unfit to inquire into, or report on Clause 3—the one dealing with desertion and other offences against discipline in the Mercantile Marine. Here is a copy of the circular which Mr. Wilson sent during the strike at Rotterdam,
  820
  to the seamen and firemen on British ships—
  "Fellow Seafarers:—The dock labourers and other port workers of Rotterdam, to the number of some 12,000, are now on strike, and I am informed that an effort is being made to compel the crews of British ships to work cargo, and to assist in defeating their fellow workmen in their struggle for fair conditions. I appeal to every one of you to absolutely refuse to do anything which will assist to bring about the defeat of the dock labourers. If you are on monthly boats, you are perfectly safe to refuse to touch or handle cargo. If you are on weekly boats where you may be discharged on arrival at the home port, and they insist upon your working cargoes, 'Ca' canny!'—that is to say, take it easy. There is no reason why you should overwork yourselves, and assist in injuring your fellow workmen. You may be offered extra pay. Don't accept it. Remember, every sixpence you take for such work means the starving of the wives and children of the dock labourers. Money taken for such work will never benefit you. Should this strike continue, I may find it necessary to visit Rotterdam at an early date to look after the interest of sailors and firemen.
  "Yours fraternally,
  (Signed)
  "J. Havelock Wilson.
  (General President of the National Sailors', Firemen's and Fishermen's Union of Great Britain and Ireland.")
  Your Lordships will see that he directly incited seamen and firemen to refuse to obey the orders of their captains and officers. A short time ago there was an article in The Times on this very Committee, the purport of which was that the President of the Board of Trade, having been bombarded with questions by the Irish Members on shipping matters, often of the most trivial kind, in pursuance of their compact with their friend Mr. Wilson, the President, in order to escape this worry, appointed this Committee and placed Mr. Wilson on it. The article is rather a long one, and, with the exception of a very short paragraph, I do not propose to read it. The paragraph I wish to quote is as follows—
  "The opinion is openly expressed in ship-owning circles that the Committee was demanded in the personal interests of Mr. Havelock Wilson, so that he might once more come to the front, and was conceded by Mr. Gerald Balfour in order that he might have a somewhat more comfortable time in Parliament this session than the Irish Party, acting as Mr. Havelock Wilson's representatives, would have otherwise have allowed him to have."
  I can hardly credit the statements made in this article. Surely, if any Minister

  821
  did so prostitute his position and misuse his powers as to appoint, simply to save himself some worry, an utterly unfit person to a position of great trust, that Minister would be unworthy of his post, and should be called on to resign. I understand that Mr. Wilson has several times been convicted and punished for offences against the law. He was imprisoned for six weeks at Cardiff. Yet, my Lords, he has been placed on the Local Marine Board of the Port of London—a Board appointed to administer the Merchant Shipping Act, which Mr. Wilson has constantly set at defiance. I can only describe this, in place of a stronger term, as a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of those responsible for it, and one that badly needs investigation. The ten Gentlemen whose names I have mentioned comprise the Committee who are to inquire into and report on matters that are not only of great importance to the Mercantile Marine, but to the United Kingdom and the British Empire in general. Your Lordships will observe that of that body of men who are most interested and best able to give an opinion on these matters—Imean the ship captains of the merchant service—now in active service there is not one member. Can your Lordships wonder, therefore, at the feeling that is shown in the following extract from a letter received by me from the secretary of the Merchant Service Guild?—
  "The greatest indignation is being expressed throughout the whole service at the manner in which this Committee has been formed, and at the lack of a sufficient number of practical men who would be able to guide the Committee in their dealings, and elicit from the witnesses what would be required."
  There is no excuse for the Board of Trade. They could have applied to the Merchant Service Guild, the largest body of ship captains and certified officers in the United Kingdom or in the world; or to the Mercantile Marine Service Association, the London Ship Masters' Society, or other kindred societies, and there would have been no lack of eminently practical men to aid the Committee in their enquiry. But as the Committee is at present constituted, both shipowners and the educated members of the profession regard it with distrust, and consider it a farce. I am afraid that the result of the Com-
  822
  mittee's labours will be the same as what I once heard the Prime Minister describe as the usual result of a Royal Commission—namely, nothing. I would suggest that either this Committee be dissolved and a new one appointed in its place, or that the present one be reconstructed, and those members who are not qualified for an inquiry into matters concerning the Mercantile Marine replaced by practical men fully acquainted with the subject under discussion, such as ship captains who have not retired from active service and are fully up-to-date. Then the Committee will secure that confidence on the part of the shipowners and the profession which it does not at present possess. I may say that, important as the matters are that the Committee propose to deal with, they do not embrace the interest of the Mercantile Marine as a whole, which I understood was the primary intention of the Board of Trade. Two most important subjects have not been mentioned. In view of the rapidly increasing competition of other nations, who rightly, regard their merchant navies as most important factors, both in peace and war, and encourage their shipowners in every way, the Committee should consider what encouragement and assistance could be rendered to our own shipowners to enable them to hold their own against foreign competition. Another important matter is the presence of foreign masters and officers in our own ships. In Ireland we have suffered for the past thirty years from ill-advised and unstatesmanlike legislation, but though the mischief has been very great, Ireland is but a very small portion of His Majesty's dominions, and those who have principally suffered have been the friends and supporters of the Government. As yet the mischief has not extended beyond Ireland. But if there is any truth in the allegations made in The Times article it seems that the same disastrous policy is commencing to be applied to the Mercantile Marine. Then the evil effects will no longer be confined to a small portion of the Empire but will extend far and wide, to the detriment of that service on which, under the good providence of God, second only to the Royal Navy, the wealth, strength, and safety of this Kingdom doth mainly depend.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I regret very much to hear that the noble Lord is not satisfied with the composition of the Committee recently appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. I am afraid, however, that it will be an absolutely impossible task to attempt to satisfy all the conflicting interests and views on the subject of the Mercantile Marine. The views expressed by my noble friend on these matters are very similar to those held by the Merchant Service Guild, who are, no doubt, distressed that no member of their body has been appointed to serve on this Committee; but without any disrespect to them I see no reason why they should have been selected any more than any other Association (there are many) to supply the Committee with a representative of the shipmasters. Captain Blake, who has been selected, has had a very long experience of the sea. He has served in sailing vessels, in steamships, in tramps, and in men-of-war, and has only recently left the sea His knowledge is, therefore, what my noble friend calls up-to-date. Captain Blake is an Elder Brother of the Trinity House, and is in every way qualified to represent the shipmasters upon this Committee. It seems to me that the noble Lord has entirely misconceived the functions of a Committee of this kind. He seems to imagine that what is wanted is a conglomeration of individuals who have already formed preconceived opinions with regard to the subjects referred to them. That is not my view of the functions of a Committee. The President of the Board of Trade no doubt sought for unprejudiced people, men of sense and judgment, who had not formed any preconceived notions with regard to the subjects that they were to be asked to consider. In this sense I hold that Captain Blake is a most worthy representative of the class he represents. My noble friend then referred to Mr. Burt. He said, I think, that Mr. Burt was a miner or had been a miner, and therefore had no practical knowledge of seafaring matters. That may be perfectly true. No one imagined that Mr. Burt was an expert on seafaring matters, but he is essentially a man of good sense and great judgment.
  824
  He is known, I think, all over the country for those characteristics, and he is, to my mind, an excellent gentleman to put, not only on this Committee, but on any Committee to consider subjects upon which information is required. Mr. Burt at one time filled an official position in the Board of Trade, and he is therefore pretty well conversant with many of the matters he will have to consider.
  I am not going to follow my noble friend into his history of Mr. Havelock Wilson, for I do not know whether it was accurate or not; but I know of nobody else who could represent so well the seamen and firemen whom it is absolutely necessary to have represented on the Committee. Although it is true that the Board of Trade warned Mr. Wilson that his position on the London Local Marine Board made his signature to what was known as the "Ca' canny" circular most improper, I do not think that the issue of that circular is sufficient ground for calling in question Mr. Wilson's appointment as a member of the Committee. Mr Wilson, as I have said, represents very largely the seamen and firemen, and we hope that he will help the Committee with regard to many of the questions which they will have to consider. Then my noble friend alluded to Captain Chalmers. Captain Chalmers is, as he says, at present an official of the Board of Trade, but he has had a very long sea experience. We have always found at the Board of Trade that his judgment upon marine matters is very accurate and very good, and I am quite sure my noble friend may feel certain that any views which Captain Chalmers may express on this Committee will not be in the least prejudiced or coloured from an official point of view. My noble friend finds fault with the reference to this Committee, and contends that we have not taken into our net sufficient subjects for inquiry. It seems to me that the task which the Committee have been asked to perform is already large. I do not admit for a moment that my noble friend or any one else has any right to criticise the reference which a Minister makes to a Committee. The reference is merely an instruction from a Minister who requires information upon certain subjects, and

  825
  it may be assumed that on the subjects left out of the reference there is already sufficient information at the Board of Trade. I am sorry that my noble friend is not satisfied, but I think that with the exception of the Merchant Service Guild and one or two other Associations of that character, whose grievances may be of a similar kind, the composition of the Committee has been received with tolerable satisfaction in the country.
  LORD PIRBRIGHT: I should like to ask whether Mr. Havelock Wilson is the gentleman who made himself somewhat notorious for many years by his opposition to shipowners, and who was regarded as a dangerous agitator?
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Even if that is true, it does not affect the question. This is not a Shipowners' Committee, but a Committee representative of all classes in the Mercantile Marine. We have appointed shipowners, shipmasters, and representatives of the seamen and firemen. Whether Mr. Havelock Wilson has made fiery speeches in the country or not does not affect us.

  CONTINUOUS DISCHARGES.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl how the continuous discharges have been found to work, and if they have in any way diminished what used to be rather a prevalent evil—the practice of men failing to join their ships after engaging themselves and signing the ship's articles.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: It is rather early yet to say definitely whether they will be a success, because they have only been in operation for a year. But, as far as we can judge, they are working satisfactorily and we have every reason to hope that if they are properly supported by both owners and masters they will prove to be a success and tend to minimise many of the evils of which my noble friend is well aware.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.