Lords Sitting of 8 July 1902

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the:—
  Fleet wood Urban District Council Bill, ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  Read, and agreed to.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee (on re-commitment), with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  CHARD GAS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Moved, That the order made the 14th March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, arid returned to the Commons.
  BUCKIE BURGH EXTENSION AND BUCKIE (CRAIGENROAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioner against the Dorchester Order had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: the orders made on the 19th and 27th of June last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): an Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
  IRVINE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, 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. 141.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
  Seventh Report, by the Board of Trade, of proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, including proceedings upon complaints made under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.
  Annual statement of the trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, 1901. Volume II.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2844. Brazil (Pará).
  No. 2845. Germany.
  No. 2846. Portugal (Mozambique).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour of; of the Manchester, Salford, and District Temperance Union (two petitions) — Free Churches of Eccles—read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 140.)
  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 142.)
  LABOUR BUREAUX (LONDON) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee, without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES) (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I think I ought to explain that the Amendments which have been inserted on behalf of the Irish Office are simply verbal Amendments with the object of making the Bill easier to understand. I beg to move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Moved, That the Standing Committee be negatived.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I should like to know why it is considered necessary to negative the Standing Committee in the case of this Bill. This is a long Bill and there have been a good many Amendments inserted. There is no special reason, so far as I can see, why the Bill should be exempted from the Standing Committee Stage.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My only object is to get the Bill through as quickly as possible. It has been already considerably delayed, and the sooner it is passed the better it will be for the country to which it applies.
  EARL SPENCER: I certainly cannot support the Motion of the noble Earl to negative the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is by no means slow in its proceedings, and the delay that would be caused by the Bill going to that Committee would be practically nil. I think it would be contrary to our general rule to negative the Standing Committee on a Bill of this sort.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 143.)

  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYproposed to amend Clause 2, which repealed the exceptions in the Act of 23rd and 24th

  1045
  years of Victoria, Chapter 45, of proprietors and others from the penal and other provisions directed against fishing for trout by net (except in ponds or lochs exclusively belonging to such persons) and other practices, provided that it shall still be legal and permissible for such proprietors and others to fish for trout by net in such rivers, waters, or lochs where such fishing is prosecuted for scientific, breeding, or restocking purposes. He moved to omit the words "exclusively belonging to such persons" and to substitute the words, "all the proprietors of which have agreed to permit such fishing."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 13, to leave out from 'exclusively' to 'persons' in line 14, and to insert 'all the proprietors of which have agreed to permit such fishing.'"—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOR; of BURLEIGH), said he would have preferred the form of words which he suggested to the noble Earl after the discussion in the Standing Committee, but as the noble Earl preferred his own form, he would not oppose the Amendment. In accepting the Amendment he did so because it was evidently the sense of the Standing Committee that such an Amendment should be made, and it was especially advocated by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYthen moved to add the words, "Provided also that nothing in this Clause contained shall affect ponds or lochs which are the exclusive property of a single proprietor." He asked to in forgiven if, to a certain extent, he repeated the arguments he made use of when the Bill was in Committee, but there were, very few Members in the House at that time, and the drift of the Bill was evidently not understood. Had the details been observed, he felt quite certain that noble Lords would not have accepted the very drastic terms of Clause 2. The Bill was brought in for the purpose of extending the close time for trout in Scotland, and, so far as it achieved that object, the Bill had his support. But he took exception to a provision
  1046
  which had been dove-tailed into it in the other House, and which bristled with penalties to owners. Where different proprietors owned parts of a loch, he thought that perhaps it might be as well to have legislation on a subject of this sort, but where a loch or pond belonged exclusively to one proprietor, he could not see why the legislature should dictate to him how he should catch his own trout. If they did that, they might extend it to other things. For instance, there might be people calling themselves sportsmen who would object to a man shooting with two guns, or they might object to the setting of nets to prevent hares escaping. Others might object to the use even of a breech-loader. There was no end to the length legislation of this kind might run. It was part of the modern tendency to dictate to owners what they should do with their own property, and it was for that reason that he asked the House to adopt his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 24, after 'purposes,' to insert 'Provided also that nothing in this Clause contained shall affect ponds or lochs which are the exclusive property of a single proprietor.'"—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHhoped the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland would not accept the Amendment, which would simply sanction, on the part of proprietors, the most destructive form of poaching it was possible to conceive. If the Amendment were adopted a proprietor, provided the water was his exclusive property, could fish for trout by burning the water, or by striking the fish with any instrument, or by pointing, or by putting into the water lime or any other substance destructive to trout, and in other ways which were prohibited in the case of the general public. While he was entirely in favour of protecting the right of a proprietor to do anything of a legitimate character with regard to his own fishing, yet he thought he should be prevented from fishing in an unsportsmanlike manner. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and in this case the same law should apply as applied to the general public. Trout fishing in Scotland stood on an entirely different footing from trout fishing in England. In Scotland they had no

  1047
  coarse fishing at all; practically the whole of the fishing in Scotland consisted of trout fishing, and, thanks to the liberality of proprietors, it was indulged in by all classes. He thought it was desirable, in the interests of all concerned, that these poaching methods of fishing should be stamped as illegitimate. The first Amendment of the noble Earl's which the House had agreed to gave the proprietor power to catch fish in any legitimate manner. It was necessary to scan very closely all these proposals with regard to fishing, and he trusted that their Lordships would adhere to the wording of the Clause as it at present stood.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupported the Amendment, which he did not think the noble Lord who had just spoken had carefully read. The question simply was whether a man who owned a loch or pond should be allowed to do as he liked with the fishing of it. It was not necessary, in the public interest, to do away with the proprietors' rights. This was not a question of trout only. The destruction of pike was often very desirable, but without using the peculiar methods referred to it could not be done. It was impossible to do away with pike simply by netting them.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSStook the same view, and dissented from the use of the word "poaching" in connection with the exercise by a proprietor of his own rights of fishing in the way which seemed best to him. If his noble friend the Earl of Galloway went to a division, he would support him. The Amendment simply asked that where a fishing was in a loch or pond that belonged to one proprietor exclusively, the proprietor should be able to fish it in any way he liked. That seemed to him perfectly right and reasonable.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHexpressed the hope that the noble Earl who had proposed the Amendment would not go to a division. If he did, he was afraid he would have to vote against him. They had asked the general public, who valued the right of fishing for trout by fly and other lures, to give that up for a certain period each year, and he thought that, considering what
  1048
  they asked the public to give up, the proprietors should also grant a reasonable concession. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches had been severe upon him for describing these practices as "poaching," but certainly the methods of fishing which the House was asked by the Amendment to preserve were the methods of a poacher. He hoped the House would adhere to the Bill as it stood. In reply to the observation of his noble friend the Earl of Camperdown, he pointed out that the Clause was confined to trout in all its species. There was nothing in the Clause which extended it to other fish.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYcould not understand, if this was so, why the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland refused to accept an Amendment which he moved in the Standing Committee, substituting the word "trout" for "fish."
  LORD STANMORE-said that, though not a Scotch peer, his connection with Scotland perhaps excused his taking part in so essentially Scottish a discussion. With the application of restrictions to waters in which there was a public interest he quite concurred, but the case of a piece of ornamental water in a man's own grounds, or a pond before his hall door, was quite a different one. He pointed out that even with this Bill and its restrictions on methods of taking fish, the exclusive proprietor of a pond could drain it and leave all the fish high and dry to shift for themselves. But he would be unable to take the fish out of his pond in any other way than that prescribed by the Bill. This was, he contended, a very large interference with the rights of proprietors. And how were they to enforce it? Was there to be a Government spy in everybody's garden, or were the servants and gamekeepers of a proprietor to be encouraged to inform against him? According to the explanation which had been given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, lines might be set for pike, but if trout caught on, that would render the proprietor subject to a penalty. He failed to see how, without some miraculous intervention, such as that of a new St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the

  1049
  fish, a proprietor was to prevent trout taking the line which had been set for pike.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid that if the noble Earl pressed his Amendment to a division, he would feel obliged to support him. For him self, he could not see any reason for so large and apparently needless an interference with property, and one which was liable to so great an abuse. It would give the right of espionage, so to speak, inside sheltered parks and domains, which might, be exercised most vexatiously, and all for what? —for an object which was almost intangible.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNEsaid he did not think the object of the Bill was so intangible as the noble Earl imagined. It seemed to him altogether impolitic that, when they were attempting to deprive the general public of the right of using particular modes of taking fish, they should reserve that right for the owners of ponds or lochs. That which was made illegal on streams

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Melville, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Bute, M.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Pirbright, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller]

  Ashcombe, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough).

  Dartrey, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Lindsey, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Morley, E.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Rosse, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Scarbrough, E

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Ventry, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Cross, V.

  Hatherton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Falkland, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Hood, V.

  Kilmarnock L. (E. Erroll.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Killanin, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Goschen, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Portiand, D.

  Knutsford, V.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Gloucester, L. Bp.

  Ludlow, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E (L. Steward.)

  Winchester. L. Bp.

  Manners, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Belper, L.

  Napier, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Brassev, L.

  Raglan. L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Reay, L,

  Mayo, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  James, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  or lochs generally should not be made legal owing to a particular stream or loch being in the hands of one proprietor. He also drew attention to the fact that, although a loch might be entirely the property of one or more proprietors, the fish belonging to streams flowing in and out of it probably had access to and ran up to it at certain times. He thought it was impossible to contend that the fish of these lochs could be regarded in all cases as the peculiar property of the riparian owners of the lochs. He would vote against the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MAYOdid not think that cross-line fishing in a river did any material amount of harm. Moreover, in Ireland, where there was excellent fishing, a man could fish with cross lines if he paid a licence. It seemed extraordinary to prohibit cross - line fishing in Scotland and yet allow it in Ireland, providing a licence was taken out.
  On Question, the House divided:— Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 45.

  1051
  Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN FACTORIES.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department will reconsider the Order for fruit preserving under the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901, with a view of preventing the undue employment of adult women for excessive hours under Article 5 of the Order, and extending the exception given by Article 6 of the Order to young persons under eighteen, instead of only to those under sixteen years of age. In putting this Question to the noble Lord who represents the Home Office, I hope he will allow me to express the warm thanks of those who are interested in factory legislation for the very great step in advance which this Order makes. I wish to direct the attention of the noble Lord to Article 6, in which it is stated that no young person under sixteen years of age shall be employed before six o'clock in the morning or after ten o'clock in the evening. I would point out that even with this restriction it is possible for girls to be employed for no less than sixteen hours in the course of the day. The noble Lord probably knows that this Order was introduced in response to an appeal made in another place to the Home Secretary, when the Factory and Workship Bill was in Committee, and a young person is defined in that Act as a person between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. I should like to know why the age of sixteen is fixed in this Order. We should be very glad if the noble Lord could see his way to promise, on behalf of the Home Office, that the definition in the Factory and Workshop Act will lie reverted to in this case. It must be obvious to your Lordships that the two years between sixteen and eighteen, are very important years. Again, there is no limit at all with regard to women. For four months in the year, jam factories come under the exemption by which women work any number of hours—so many hours, indeed, that the only limit to them is the limit of their endurance. Cases are known in which they have worked eighty-six hours a week, and they have been
  1052
  found at two o'clock in the day going back to a spell of work of no less than nine hours, having been at work that morning from six o'clock. I cannot but think that your Lordships will see that there is some need for an amendment of the law in this case. This Order provides that after every five hours work, there shall be an interval of half-an-hour; that is a small allowance to give in a day of so many as seventeen hours.
  It practically comes to this, that during those four months these women get no time to themselves, until they are completely broken down through overwork. I quite understand that the fruit must be treated immediately, especially as it is frequently bought in a half-rotten condition. There is, on the part of some manufacturers, a disposition not to buy fruit in the morning when it is fresh, but to wait till the evening when it is cheap and half-rotten, and then these young persons are turned on to the work of preserving it till very late. This half-rotten fruit is bought day after day, and that is how the pressure arises. In these days of cold storage, it surely should be easy to devise some system by which fruit could be stored in cold chambers, until it could be treated by women better fitted to do it than those who have been working, perhaps, twelve hours in the day already. In some factories it has been found possible to do this, and I hope the Home Office will be able to spur on other employers to treat their workpeople in a more humane manner. I press this question, not only on behalf of the women, but also on behalf of the consumers, because it will be obvious that jam which is made out of fresh fruit is a great deal more wholesome than jam made out of half rotten fruit. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to promise some amelioration both in regard to the raising of the age limit to eighteen arid the limitation of hours with regard to women.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, I would first point out that these jam-making processes were formerly entirely exempt from the Factory Acts, and it was only by the Act of last year that they were brought under regulation at all. The exception from the general legislation in

  1053
  regard to hours only applies to those processes in which it is absolutely necessary in order to avoid the destruction of the fruit during the summer months. I followed the noble Earl with regard to what he said about fruit being purchased in some instances when not in a good state. The Home Secretary considers that the regulations already drawn up go as far as it is safe to go at present, but if, after a year or two's experience of the working of the Order, it is found that abuses still exist, it will be possible to impose more stringent regulations. The last section of the Order provides for an exact record being kept of all work done outside the ordinary factory hours, and therefore the Home Secretary will always be fully supplied with information, and will be able to watch the working of the Order as it now stands. I will represent to the Home Secretary what the noble Earl has said as to the raising of the age limit in the case of young persons from sixteen to eighteen.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not quite gather whether the Government are prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl that there are certain hours of the day when fruit ought to be bought and when it ought not to be bought, and that there is a certain degree of ripeness which fruit ought to possess before it is made into jam. I should like to ask whether the Government are going to bring in a Bill to carry that out.
  LORD BELPER: My answer to the last question is in the negative. With regard to the other question, I thought I fully covered it when I said that the Secretary of State considered that the Order he had made was quite sufficient for the present until he had had further experience.

  MERCHANT CRUISERS IN THK NAVY.
  LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the expenditure on shipbuilding for the Navy in the cruiser classes, and to the decline in the construction of merchant steamers under the British flag suitable for the reserve list. This subject needs examination under many aspects. In relation to the exten-
  1054
  sion of commerce it is before a Select Committee. The convertibility of merchant steamers into fighting cruisers is before the Committee, of which Lord Camperdown is Chairman. I propose to deal with merchant cruisers, not as fit to take the place of regularly built vessels of war, but as the eyes of the Fleet. The authorities on whom I rely, including Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, Professor Biles, Mr. Pirrie, Sir Donald Currie, the late Lord Inverclyde and others, have recommended State aid to auxiliaries as a plan of providing vessels in sufficient number at the least cost. Our latest cruisers are the most powerful as yet designed for any Navy. Vessels of great size and cost cannot be built in umbers, and numbers are required for scouting. Coal supply, armament, and protection could be reduced, but with the result that in fighting efficiency the regularly built vessel of war would have little advantage over the auxiliary cruiser. I have referred to considerations of cost. In dealing with naval raquirements, it seems vain in the present day to allude to economy. Influenced by the able writings of Captain Mahan, the country insists that the Navy shall be strong. Large Estimates are popular. Public opinion is not consistent. To spend freely on the Navy is approved: new taxes are resented. Some day an increase of Estimates, even for the Navy, may be difficult. In the present state of public opinion reductions need not be apprehended. With Estimates so liberal, it may be demanded that more should be achieved in the reinforcement of the Navy.
  Our Navy Estimates for the year are nearly £32,000,000, as against £1 2,000,000 for France, and £10,000,000 for Russia. What is the relative strength? In battleships built we are well above a two - Power standard. The ships building are the fleets of the future. Great Britain is building thirteen, France four, Russia seven ships; tonnage, Great Britain 193,000, as against 144,000 for the two Powers. Our advantage m shipbuilding is scarcely commensurate with our expenditure. Turning to cruisers, the fine ships we are now building are chiefly of the armoured type. Of this class we are building twenty-two, tonnage 238,000, as against one ship only of the same class for Russia. Descending to protected cruisers, Great Britain has 105 ships; tonnage 513,000. Russia, seven

  1055
  ships; tonnage 35,000. We have incurred a heavy expenditure in recent years on protected ships, without adding materially to our naval strength. With an effective reserve of cruisers we might have built more battleships of the efficient Canopus class with improved armament. It has been necessary to build the powerful cruisers of the Drake class to meet similar vessels, but the high speed of the armoured cruiser is most costly, and such ships must, therefore, be few. In every point except speed the Canopus class are superior ships. They steam 18 knots, and they can lie in line. A reinforcement of the Navy in this useful class, which combines in a large degree the qualities of the cruiser and the battleship, is desirable. For certain services in which extreme speed is neceesary, the Navy could be reinforced from the mercantile marine. It cannot give us battleships, armoured cruisers, or a torpedo flotilla, but it can supply scouts, perhaps more effective than any regularly built vessel of war. For scouts in search of an enemy whose position is unknown, high speed and long coal endurance are essential qualities, and these the mercantile auxiliaries possess in a high degree. The experience of the British Navy is limited to the employment of the "Oregon" in the peace manoeuvres under Sir Edward Seymour in 1898. In the war with Spain the value of mercantile auxiliaries was practically tested, as many ships were taken up by the United States and successfully used as cruisers. They were manned by their own crews, and the guns were fought by detachments of Marines.
  I turn to the relative position of Great Britain and foreign countries in oceangoing steamships having a speed of twenty knots and over. This is the type most suitable for auxiliary cruisers. Lloyd's Register gives a list of twenty-eight ships, but seven only are under the British flag. Since 1893, eleven ships have been built for foreign countries. The "Oceanic" of the White Star Line is the only vessel added to the British fleet; and no attempt was made to rival the speed attained under the German flag. The ships which carry mails across the ocean Tinder the British flag should be second to none in power and speed. We have lost the position we once held. It has been a difficult time for British shipowners. Competition with Germany in the building
  1056
  and manning of ocean greyhounds has been difficult, because in Germany that form of shipping enterprise is more concentrated than with us. According to Lloyd's Register, the Hamburg-American Company have a fleet of 117 steamships of 316,000 tons; the Norddeutscher Lloyd Company a fleet of 116 ships of 247,000 tons; the White Star Company, twenty-five ships of 115,000 tons; and the Cunard Company, twenty-two ships of 69,000 tons. Each of the German companies, as it will be seen, has the resources of an Atlantic Combine. Competition with the French companies is not on equal terms, because the Government is lavish in subsidies. Competition with American companies may become more difficult, because the railway companies can give an amount of support to Atlantic navigation which cannot be looked for on this side.
  Naval preparation must to some extent depend on the action taken by other Powers. If they develop along a certain line, we must follow. All the naval Powers of Europe give liberal subsidies. The policy of subsidies has been recommended to Congress by President Roosevelt, and Mr. Gage, the Secretary of the United States Treasury. It is contrary to our public policy to encourage commercial enterprise or to foster industries by bounties or Protection. The carrying trade, in which our shipping is mainly employed, needs no assistance from the State. To pay for a reserve of auxiliaries for the conveyance of mails, and for the means of rapid communication which have brought the Colonial Premiers to London, which carried the contingents to South Africa, and which do so much to unite the Empire, is certainly to the public advantage. Our mail steamers show the flag in distant harbours. They create an influence similar in kind and scarcely inferior in degree to the visits of ships of war. I will say no more on the general question. It must be for the Government to use opportunities. Canada may desire improved communication as a means of extending trade. The Mother Country may assist in order to obtain auxiliary cruisers. For the conveyance of passengers and mails to Australia the P. and O. and Orient Companies give an efficient service. If their ships could be made more effective

  1057
  as cruisers, it would be worth while to pay the cost. I may briefly refer to a personal experience. In 1884, on the occasion of the Pendjeh incident, the Board of Admiralty, of which I was a member, was called on to make hasty preparation for war. We turned to the Mercantile Marine. The vessels were taken up and, at a great cost, converted into cruisers in China and Australia. They were not as efficient as we could have wished. If the vessels then employed in carrying mails had been effective auxiliaries, the Admiralty would have been relieved of grave anxiety, and wasteful expenditure would have been saved.
  Having dealt with the reserve of ships, I pass to the reserve of officers and men. I have twice addressed your Lordships on our naval reserves, and their training at home and in the Colonies. I have had the honour of giving evidence before the Committee on Manning. I have little to say that is new. Parliament and the country will be much more interested to know any recent decisions of the Admiralty on these important subjects. I have given to my noble friend private notice that I would ask him to make a Statement. The only new suggestion I desire to otter is this, that mail steamers could be used for training Engineer officers and stokers. We need a strong reserve. The State should train, not only stokers entered for long service in the Navy, but reservists. In foreign countries, the subsidised mail steamers are manned by the reserves. Similar ships under the British flag might be utilised in the same way. The work would be done at less cost, and, in some respect, more efficiently than in a training squadron and in ships not profitably employed in peaceful service. I have brought the subjects with which I have been endeavouring to deal before the First Lord of the Admiralty under circumstances which call for careful consideration of policy, rather than for hasty decision. The time seems opportune for those not in a responsible position to otter suggestions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (the Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord in introducing this subject was careful to disclaim any advocacy of the idea that merchant cruisers could be used as a
  1058
  substitute for building an adequate number of proper cruisers for the Navy. I am glad that he did so, because it could be easily shown that, while merchant cruisers have their proper place in our order of battle in time of war, they can never be regarded in any full sense as a substitute for cruisers of the Navy proper; nor do I think that our shipbuilding Vote would ever be materially, if at all, diminished by the possession of merchant cruisers. Why is it that we must have such a large number of cruisers? It is simply because the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine is so large, and the trade of the Empire is so vast. Cruisers are required as scouts and for other purposes with the battleships; but beyond that there is the whole of our trade to protect; and, if yon compare, the trade of the Empire for the year 1900—which in round numbers was considerably over 1,000 millions sterling—with the aggregate trade of any combination of Powers with which the imagination could conceive us to be at war, you will see at once how vast is the problem which our Admiralty has to face, as compared with that of any foreign Admiralty in the matter of the protection of trade. It would never do to rely in time of war on the possibility of all this country required being supplied by the merchant ships of other nations. I think it is greatly to the advantage of this country that the carrying trade of the world, and especially in those articles on which we so much depend, should be in the hands of other nations as well as ourselves. But if you eliminate the tonnage of British shipping from the calculation, you will find that this country simply could not be supplied by the tonnage belonging to and registered under foreign flags; and it could not be to the interests of this country that on the outbreak of war there should be any wholesale transfer of British shipping to foreign flags. Therefore, in considering the Navy Estimates these circumstances must be borne in mind. And beside this unique task which our Navy has to perform, it must also be remembered that our Navy is a voluntary service, and that we cannot fall back upon compulsory service as the great Continental nations can.
  A remarkable analysis of the Estimates of the Navies of the world was issued a few months ago by the Reporter on the French Nay Budget to the

  1059
  French Chamber. Although, of course, that official had valuable criticisms to offer on all the Estimates, yet he undoubtedly came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the British Estimates showed good value for the money. In fact, he compared the results obtained under our expenditure with the results obtained in some other countries distinctly to our favour. I may be pardoned if I do not follow the noble Lord into the large question of large versus smaller battleships. There is an important school of officers who think we might be content with a smaller class of battleship than we possess. I do not say they are right, nor do I say they are wrong. I merely indicate, on the other side, that it will be noticed, if the tonnage, of other countries is observed, that the displacement of their battleships is steadily and constantly rising. Although I do not think merchant cruisers can ever be regarded as a substitute for cruisers proper to the extent that some advocates have supposed, yet, of course, in time of war a merchant cruiser would perform an important function as an auxiliary to the regular battleships. There are all kinds of purposes to which they could be turned, including that most important one of scouting, to which the noble Lord referred. But, whatever function they are fulfilling, it must be remembered that they will never be able to meet in action any ship, except corresponding ships of other nations—they never could engage a regular cruiser.
  How to secure a sufficient number of these ships for use in time of war—either by some retaining fee or by taking them up on an emergency—is not a difficult problem so long as we are dealing with ships of a moderate speed; but, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is when we get to the highest speed that the real difficulty supervenes, and the figures which the noble Lord has given you are, if you examine them, most eloquent. He showed that although the tonnage of the British Mercantile Marine is superior to an immense degree to that of other nations, yet, in the matter of ships of over twenty knots, not only have we lost all the proportion which is to be found in the percentage of aggregate tonnage, but we have fallen far
  1060
  behind. The explanation is perfectly simple. These vessels of high speed are not built purely for commercial purposes. As commercial investments they do not pay, and therefore they can only be built by trading corporations if those corporations receive extraneous assistance in the shape of Government subsidies or material advantages; and it is because foreign nations have given those advantages and those subsidies on a higher scale than we have ever yet contemplated that we have fallen behind in the number of ships of this class. But when you get to the high speed of twenty-three, twenty-four, or twenty-five knots, the horsepower becomes so great that the corresponding cost of the ship rises immensely. It has been roughly calculated that whereas a ship of about seventeen knots might be built for something under half a million, one of twenty-three knots would cost over a million. I only mention these figures in the roughest way as being the personal calculation of one who is interested in the subject. It follows, of course, that no country can afford many ships of this class. But can we afford altogether to be without them? Would this country be content if in any conceivable war we found ourselves confronted with merchant cruisers of a foreign country while we possessed nothing afloat—man-of-war or merchant cruiser—which could overtake and capture them? I do not myself think that the country would be content with that position. Therefore, this is a problem with which we have to deal. The expense involved is so large, and a subsidy policy so insidious, and a subsidy contest between us and other countries would be so disastrous—that, in my opinion, the subsidising of commercial corporations for the building of steamers of this speed should, be and must be confined to a limited number for a special and definite purpose.
  I cannot pass from this question without making an allusion to that Atlantic combination which has aroused so much attention, and by which this question is affected. Your Lordships will remember that on first receiving the information of the probability of such a combination taking place, the Admiralty took immediate steps to safeguard those merchant cruisers which might be affected by it during the period of three years, which

  1061
  was the unexpired portion of the term of the current agreement. I am not professing to discuss the general question or the principle of these combinations now. All I would say is that it seems to me the balance is one of disadvantage, because they do necessarily put very large powers in the hands of a few men, and they affect interests that are not confined to those private corporations—they affect National concerns. A good deal of what has been written on this subject has referred to what I may call the National aspect of this case, as between the British Empire and the United States of America. I have no sympathy of any sort or kind with any consideration of that aspect of the case. Your Lordships' House and this country and His Majesty's Government disclaim any sort of jealousy at the intention of the American people to have a mercantile marine of their own. It is, in my opinion, natural that they should desire to have a mercantile marine. They have a perfect right to a full share of the Atlantic trade, and I unhesitatingly say that it is to our interest that they should have it, and that it should not be, as it has hitherto been, almost a British monopoly. But, on the other hand, we cannot afford to see ourselves squeezed out of the Atlantic trade. It is one thing to express our complete readiness and pleasure to share that trade with America; it would be quite another thing if we were in danger of being squeezed out of our legitimate share.
  In considering this question we are justified in remembering that the natural state of such a combination as that which now exists cannot be that of rest; it must be one of absorption. Therefore, our attitude towards it may be easily described—it is in no sense one of hostility, but it is one of anxiety. Now, I was rather surprised, on taking up The Times the other day, to see the evidence that Mr. Pirie gave before the Select Committee of the other House. I was surprised to read that evidence, because I think the course he adopted was unusual and, indeed, inconvenient. It was a broad statement, and not a detailed one. Moreover, it necessarily referred to that shipping only in which the witness himself had an interest. But His Majesty's Government must regard the present position of British shipping engaged in the Atlantic trade
  1062
  as a whole; not only that which is included in the combination, but that which is excluded; and it is not until they have formed their final conclusions on the whole question, and can frankly state them to all concerned, that they can wisely or fairly enter into agreements-with one party or another. No avoidable or unnecessary delay in considering this matter has taken place, and I should not have referred to it at the present moment if it had not been for the evidence recently given.
  I think your Lordships always feel that the noble Lord, when he deals with naval matters, is dealing with questions that he thoroughly understands, and to which he has devoted his life. I thank him, therefore, for the contribution that he has made today to this1 particular aspect of naval policy. It is only one of a series of contributions which he has-made on different occasions and in other places on this subject. I also thank him for not having suggested that if it had not been for his action here and elsewhere the Admiralty would have paid no heed to this question. I am obliged to make that observation, because the pretensions which have been put forward on behalf of certain bodies in analogous cases have been so absurd. The impression on the Navy would be disastrous, if it really believed for one moment that it was administered by the Admiralty in such a manner as has been suggested, and therefore I am bound to give notice to your Lordships and to the country at large that the Admiralty is studying this question, as it us also studying a great many other questions allied to it, such as those on which the noble Lord has touched today; and it is studying these questions, although it does not think it absolutely necessary daily to advertise the action which it is taking. Take the question of the Reserve. I do not propose to deal with it at any length, because it is being, in a preliminary way, thrashed out by a particularly strong Committee under the able presidency of my friend Sir Edward Grey. That question is being examined, and we shall try to grapple with it once for all, because anybody who knows what the Navy is knows that the questions affecting the personnel are more difficult and more important than all the questions of matériel that we have to face.

  1063
  Nor are we neglecting the question of the training of the officers and men of the Reserve or of the Navy proper. These are big questions, as also are those which follow on them, such as the relation of the several branches of the Navy to each other, the organisation of those branches, and their mutual position. All these difficult questions are allied and dove-tail into one another, and the Admiralty is dealing with them all. I only state this now in order that if, some months hence, your Lordships learn that the Admiralty has decided to make certain changes or not to make certain changes — though I think some change is certain to come—you will remember that it in the result of our own careful and prolonged study, and that our decisions have not been excited by the pronunciamiento of some Irresponsible body which, just before we have announced our decision, has issued its views to an expectant world.
  Now I come to a subject which is, perhaps, the most important of all—the education of the naval officers. That is a subject which has been greatly discussed in the public Press and magazines, and discussed with great knowledge and great advantage to the Board of Admiralty. All that has been written and said on the subject I regard as contributions to our deliberations and aid to the final solution of the problem; for very difficult it is, and the difficulty is exemplified by the dilemma in which many of the writers on this subject find themselves. They find no difficulty in proving that the present system of naval education is contrary to all received theories of education; they can also prove that there are many anomalies in it. The results, therefore, ought to be bad. but they are good, and that is a fact that they find it difficult to explain. I notice that the general method of getting out of the dilemma is to accuse me of incurable official optimism. I repeat that the naval officers are good, and I think I can explain how this apparent paradox exists. Education is not a simple but a complex thing, and consists of two parts—the imparting and the acquisition of knowledge, and the formation of character. Now, these two things are by no means always combined, they are very often divorced. Take our elementary
  1064
  and our public schools. I believe our elementary schools are very successful as establishments where a certain amount of knowledge is imparted. I believe they are altogether failures in respect of the formation of character. Then, take the public schools, on the other hand—who can say they are great successes as places where useful knowledge is acquired? Yet there is only one institution more successful in the formation of character than our public schools, and that is the British Navy. But in endeavouring to improve the system of naval education, we must take great care not to mar that conjunction of circumstances in the boy's life which makes for the formation of naval character. There is no reason why we should not improve the knowledge and retain the school for character. But it' I had to choose, I would rather retain the school for character, than run the risk of losing it by unwise attempts to improve the Navy as a machine for acquiring knowledge. I say that, not because 1 do not believe the two are compatible in the Navy—I believe they are—but to show that I personally, and my colleagues, attach more importance to the formation of character than we do to the acquisition of knowledge. My Lords, 1 have endeavoured to deal with the points which the noble Lord has brought forward. Perhaps I have trespassed by going a little beyond the matters he dealt with, but if I have done so, it is only because I desired to take this opportunity of showing your Lordships that those great questions are not being neglected by the Board of Admiralty.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this very important subject, after the remarks of the noble Lord the head of the Admiralty, and those of my noble friend near me. And I join cordially in what has been said by the First Lord when he paid a tribute to the services which my noble friend has rendered to the Navy, in the way in which he has dealt with this and other difficult Navy questions. I shall not follow my noble friend in the latter part of his speech, and the First Lord has said truly that he has travelled rather beyond what has been

  1065
  said by my noble friend. I am not going to discuss the great and interesting subject of the education of the Navy, though the noble Lord has introduced it very pertinently in the remarks he has made upon it. Nor shall I refer to what has been the common experience of nearly every First Lord with regard to outside opinions in relation to various naval matters of importance. Now I should like to come to the great subject of the merchant service, and what is to be done with regard to it. I am glad to hear the interpretation which the noble Earl has put on my noble friend's speech with regard to subsidies to merchant ships. I confess I thought he was relying too much on merchant cruisers rather than on the cruisers which have been added in large numbers to His Majesty's Fleet. He said a good deal about these merchant cruisers, and I confess I was afraid that he was going to place these merchant cruisers almost on the same level as our armed cruisers; but I entirely agree with the noble Lord in what he said on this important point—that you cannot place these merchant cruisers in the same roll with the cruisers of the Navy. They must not be considered as belonging to the line of battle.
  I have been impressed by the argument which has been used, that in the work which these merchant cruisers could do, we could at almost any moment, by paying sufficient sums, find a great number of this class of vessel without, resorting to the policy of subsidising in time of peace. I think that is a matter which is well deserving of careful consideration by your Lordships, by the Admiralty, and by the Government. At the same time, I am quite of opinion that there are many sound reasons which may be adduced to show why it is desirable that we should take care that we can lay our hands at a moment's notice on these vessels which my noble friend has described. It has been argued that these vessels have been of the greatest possible assistance as armed cruisers on more than one occasion, and in many ways. They have been spoken of as the "eyes of the Navy" in accompanying the Fleet. These points have all been brought out with the greatest possible clearness by my noble friend, and I do not deny
  1066
  that there may be strong reasons why subsidies should be given in time of peace to secure the service of this class of vessel. But I should not like to say that all the money that has been spent already on merchant cruisers has been wholly well spent. I am not at all sure about that. I think the general principle is this—You ought to pay, and pay liberally, for all service rendered, and for work done. There are cases, no doubt, in connection with the Admiralty and the Post Office where subsidies have had a great commercial and political effect—I would instance the Canadian Pacific Line, which would not have been formed if it had not been for these subsidies—but the principle for which I contend is this — that there should be nothing like a general subsidy.
  We have been told that there is no need for subsidies to the ordinary cargo carrying ships — ships that carry the trade of the country; that these are quite independent of subsidies; and that all we need regard in the matter of subsidies are the mail ships, which, no doubt, are of very great importance to the country. It has been said that it is impossible to get these ships of very great speed on ordinary commercial lines. I should like to know whether that has been absolutely and distinctly proved. We hear it from persons interested in those matters, but it seems rather extraordinary to my mind that the passengers in ships which carry the richest people should be unwilling to pay for what, no doubt, they desire very much—increased speed on their voyages from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or from hero to Bombay and Australia. Those who urge this matter upon us are very much interested in getting subsidies. The noble Lord says he does not wish to commit himself to any special policy. I would venture to say emphatically at the present moment, that I think it is most desirable that we should not commit ourselves to any great new policy, with regard to bounties to ships. We ought most carefully to look into the subject and to consider all the investigations which are being pursued at the present time in more than one place before we commit ourselves to any new policy. So far as I am concerned,

  1067
  I shall carefully consider any proposal that may be made, after due consideration and inquiry, by His Majesty's Government.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.