Lords Sitting of 17 June 1902

DARCY DE KNAYTH, MEYNILL, AND FAUCONBERG BARONIES.
Petition of Marcia Amelia Mary, Countess of Yarborough, and in her own right Baroness Conyers, the wife of Charles Alfred Worsley, Earl of Yarborough, and of Violet Ida Evelyn, the wife of George Charles, Earl of Powis, for leave to lodge a supplementary case (with an amended and extended pedigree in lieu of that already lodged) in support of their claims to the said three Baronies; read, and ordered as prayed.
VISCOUNT MOUNTMORRES.
Petition of William Geoffrey Bouchard do Montmorency, Viscount Mountmorres, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).

Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes).

London (Poplar) Provisional Order.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

London Government Scheme (Southwark).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Pilotage Provisional Order.

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Finchley Urban District Council.

Manchester Corporation (General Powers).

Eastbourne Corporation.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed:—

Whitechapel and Bow Railway.

London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company.

That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Great Central and Midland Railways (South Yorkshire Railways) Bill,
ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 22 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the
Ystradfellte Water Bill [H.L.]
may, under the circumstances of the case, be dispensed with, and that leave should be given to the Petitioners to insert the

811
additional provision if the Committee to whom the Bill may be re-committed shall think fit.
Read, and agreed to.

KENT WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST HAM GAS BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
CITY OF LONDON (PUBLIC HEALTH) BILL.
  KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL,

    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL,
    BARROW HÆMATITE STEEL COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.],
    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL,
    LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.

    SWANSEA CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
    The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The order made on the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
    YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Re-committed for Friday next.
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; The orders made on the 2nd instant and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Read 2a and committed.
FELIXTOWE AND WALTON IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.],
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL,
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL,
    BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    TIVERTON MARKET BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
DARTFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL,
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  BUCKIE BURGH EXTENSION AND BUCKIE (CRAIGENROAN) HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2821. Germany (Hamburg);
  No. 2822. Turkey (Palestine);
  No. 2823. France (Pondicherry and Karikal).

  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901).
  Area, houses, and population, also population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, birth places, and infirmities of—

  I. County of Durham;

  II. County of Essex.

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Forty-fourth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with Appendices, for the year 1901–1902.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Orders in Council of 11th June, 1902, entitled—
  I. The West African Possessions and Protectorates (Fugitive Offenders) Order in Council, 1902; and
  II. (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 11th June, 1902, confirming a byelaw made by the Trinity House, dealing with qualifications of candidates for licences in the London and English Channel District.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents of the High Court of Chancery which are now in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1868.
  Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for the year 1901.

  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of the accounts of fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, for the year 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Leave given to the Lord Brassey to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons (pursuant to message of
  814
  yesterday) if His Lordship think fit; and His Lordship consenting thereto, a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I venture to think your Lordships will not have much difficulty in agreeing to pass this Bill, as on a former occasion when a Bill, if not in identically the same words at any rate having in the main the same object, was before you, it was agreed to not only unanimously but almost without discussion. The object of the Bill is to provide an annual close time during which trout may not be taken from the water. The time-fixed in the Bill is from 15th October to 28th February. Personally, I would not have objected to giving the trout a rather longer close time—from, say, 1st October to the end of March—but there would have been less agreement if that bad been proposed, and it might even have imperilled the passage of the Bill through another place. There is no restriction upon fishing where fishing is not now private property. The sole idea of those who are anxious to see this Bill pass in to law is this, that legitimate sport may be protected, and that the illicit taking of fish which are useful at the proper season, both for food and for sport, may be prevented. There is at present in England a close time for trout, and it has always been a matter of great surprise to me that in Scotland, where, relatively speaking, the trout is a much more important fish than it is in England, there has never been a close time enacted for its protection. I am sure your Lordships will agree that to take a fish when it is out of season, and when it is breeding is not only a useless and a senseless practice, but a practice which does a great deal of injury to a very legitimate form of sport, and deprives, or tends at any rate to deprive, people of a very pleasant recreation in the summer time. A large number of Angling Associations have petitioned in

  815
  support of the Bill, and nearly every I County Council in Scotland has expressed an opinion in its favour. Three years ago, your Lordships were good enough to pass the Bill, and this year I am glad to say it has received the sanction of the other.
  Perhaps I ought to allude to two changes—not of very great importance—which have been made in the Bill since your Lordships last saw it. By the second clause a restriction is placed upon certain forms of fishing, as against the owners of water, which does not exist at the present time. At present as against everyone else other than owners and those who have their permission, it is prohibited to have recourse to certain methods of fishing which I think myself, and which I believe your Lordships will think, are not very much different from poaching. The public are not allowed to use cross lines or to practice what is known as other fishing or burning the water or spearing trout; but there is no prohibition against these methods of fishing so far as owners of water are concerned. I venture to think that the owner who desires to have recourse to these methods is not entitled to much sympathy from your Lordships, and I do not think that the insertion of that clause will interfere with the willingness of the House to pass the Bill. There is a restriction placed also upon fishing by net even as against the owner except where such fishing is prosecuted for scientific breeding, or restocking purposes, and I do not think that in that case any more than in the other your Lordships will care to preserve the power which at present exists. But this prohibition does not operate in waters which all belong to one owner. The other alteration which has been made in the Bill is one which will, I am sure, receive the hearty approval of the House. The use of dynamite in any form or in any way for destroying fish is prohibited. I am sorry to say that this is a practice which has been on the increase lately in some of the mining districts in Scotland. It has interfered very largely with the stock of trout in some waters; and by a recent judgment in the law Courts it has been decided that, although one may not put dynamite into the water, it is not, as I understand if, an offence to place it on a stone in the middle of the
  816
  stream or on the bank where, though not actually in the water, it operates to destroy the fish. The third clause of the Bill prohibits that, and I am sure it will meet with the sympathy of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  CREMATION BILL.
  Commons Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Friday next. (No. 119.)
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 120.)
  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Friday next.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The EARL of SELBORNE): My Lords, this is a very simple measure, and I shall not occupy more than a few moments in explaining its purport. When the Royal Naval Reserve was established by the Act of 1859, only those British subjects could be enrolled in the force who were not only seafaring by trade but who were practically domiciled in the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands. An Amending Act was passed in 1896 to extend this provision in respect of domicile, so that, for instance, a man serving on the Canadian Pacific line of steamers could be enrolled in the Reserve. But words were also inserted in the Act, the purport of which

  817
  was not at the time fully apprehended, to the effect that the men enrolled must be borne on ships registered in the United Kingdom. When Lord Goschen and the then Board of Admiralty wished to extend the Royal Naval Reserve by including Newfoundland fishermen, the point was not brought to their notice that the Act gave them no authority to take such a course. It was only after the men had been actually enrolled and a portion of them trained that it was found that there was no legal sanction for the proceeding. This Bill, therefore, is brought in to cover and indemnify the Board of Admiralty for the illegality they unwittingly committed. But I would ask the House also to take occasion to amend the law, so that in the future any British subjects whom the Admiralty think it would be to the advantage of the country to enrol in the Naval Reserve should be so enrolled, no matter in what part of the Empire they are domiciled, or whether the ships in which they are serving are registered in the United Kingdom or in one of the colonies.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of drawing the noble Earls attention to one particular point with regard to this Bill. I need hardly say that attach very great importance to an increase in the Royal Naval Reserve. There can be no doubt that to raise up a large force of Reserve men would mean an enormous addition to the Naval strength of the Empire. I, therefore, entirely endorse what the noble Earl has said as to the desirability of legalising the enrolment of the Newfoundland fishermen. I agree that it would be a good thing to enrol the men serving on the Canadian Pacific line of steamers. To the splendid character of these men, I can personally testify, and I am glad that they are allowed to be enlisted in the Naval Reserve. The point I wish to call attention to is this, that the present Bill will introduce an important modification by repealing the provision of the Act of 1896 to the effect that the men serving in this Reserve should be British subjects serving in vessels registered in the British Isles. As far as the Newfoundland fishermen are concerned, I entirely approve of that being done; but there is some objection,
  818
  if we are to enlist men, and pay and train them, who may be serving in foreign ships. It may not be a serious difficulty, but I should like some assurance or explanation on the point.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As the noble Earl well knows, at present, in respect of the Mercantile Marine the difficulty is not that there are so many British seamen serving in foreign ships, but that there are so many foreign seamen serving in British ships. The purport of this Bill is really to enable the Admiralty to utilise the services of British subjects who have a seafaring avocation but who may belong either to fishing fleets or to merchant ships that are not registered in the British Islands. Such ships may be registered, as is the Newfoundland fishing fleet, at St. John's, or as the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand ships may be, at Halifax, Sydney, or wherever the colonial port is. That is the real intention of the Bill. Then the noble Lord raised another question, which is rather in the nature of a supposition. He asked us to suppose that the Admiralty found that many British seamen were serving, not in colonial ships, but in foreign ships, or that the Royal Naval Reserve men belonging to a colony, who were trained by the Admiralty, were absorbed into some foreign navy afterwards. I quite admit that the noble Lord has assisted the House in the consideration of this subject by bringing those two possible suppositions forward. I would not go so far as to say that under no circumstances would it be wise to allow a man to be enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve who was an undoubted British subject and thoroughly reliable as such, and who happened for the moment to be serving in some foreign ship. But it would have to be very carefully safeguarded, and in each case great care would have to be exercised. I think the regulations of the Admiralty which govern the application of this law must be framed with a careful view to the points the noble Lord has brought forward, and I will take care that they are borne in mind.
  Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

  NAVAL ARMOUR AND ARMAMENT.
  THE EARL OF WILTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the advance in penetration of modern projectiles and energies of guns forming the armament of many foreign cruisers, it is intended to increase the thickness of the belt and casemate armour of the ten ships of the "Monmouth" class, of which none are, at present, ready for commission, having regard to the fact that the Krupp non-cemented-armour as utilised in these ships is quite ineffective to resist the attack of modern projectiles with moderate striking velocity; and whether it is intended to supply the Fleet with an adequate number of capped armour-piercing shot so that our war vessels will not be at a disadvantage in this respect with the other great Navies of the world. I would point out that the French cruisers of about the same date as the Monmouth class are armed with heavier and more powerful guns than our vessels, and they would make very short work of the 4-in. armour. The French cruisers of the "Montcalm" class have 6-in. armour, and a speed of twenty-one knots. The "Monmouth" class, with 4-in. armour will have a speed of twenty-three knots. I believe that if an additional 2-in. were added to their armour it would only reduce their speed by one knot, so that they would still have the advantage in that respect of the French cruisers I have named. As to the capped armour-piercing shot, these are used by all the principal foreign Navies.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is No. I am very glad to find that the noble Lord takes an interest in this question, and I hope he will continue to do so and to bring these questions before the House; but I entirely object to his attempting to deal with anything so big as the issues hero involved, merely in the form of such a Question as he has asked. I submit that it is impossible for such a subject to be dealt with merely in the form of a Question, and in a speech so brief as that which the noble Lord has delivered. His Question is full of suggestions, and,
  820
  although it may not be intended, it is full of insinuations. The suggestions are that the British Navy is, in respect of a certain class of ships, in a position of inferiority which is not to be paralleled with the case of any other Navy, and that a very important improvement in projectiles is being neglected. But that is only part of the objection that I take to the form of the Question. There is also a suggestion that it is very easy to deal with the ships of the "Monmouth" class because they are not at present ready for commission. No, they are not at present, but some of them are very nearly finished, and all of them are far advanced towards completion. You do not put a new belt of armour on a ship designed to have another belt with the ease with which the noble Lord puts on a clean collar. The armoured belt is part of the design of the ship, which is nothing but a mass of compromises. The noble Lord says the "Montcalm" cruiser can only go twenty-one knots with thicker armour, while the "Monmouth" class are designed for twenty-three knots. Exactly, that is the kind of compromise which every ship, whether cruiser or battleship, represents. The Board which preceded the present Board, whether rightly or wrongly may be a matter of opinion, deliberately sacrificed part of the armour which is to be found in the "Cressy" class, which has only twenty-one knots, in order to obtain the speed of twenty-three knots which is to be found in the "Monmouth" class, if at this present moment the Board was so ill advised as "to endeavour to recast the whole design of the ships, I am quite sure of one thing, the result could not be satisfactory, and the delays would be very great. What we want is to have these ships in commission to fulfil the purposes for which they have been designed, not to throw them back months, or perhaps years, by endeavouring to recast the whole compromise of speed, armour, and armament, just at the moment when they are verging towards completion.
  There is a complete fallacy at the bottom of the suggestion that there is one ideal type of cruiser, any departure from which is a falling off from the needs of the country. The House knows perfectly well that in cruisers, as in battleships, the whole thing is a process of development, and the "Monmouth"

  821
  class do not stand in an isolated position. First of all, we started with cruisers that had not even a protected deck, then we passed to cruisers with a protected deck, then to cruisers like the "Powerful" and "Terrible" with casemates, then to cruisers with an armoured belt. In all these cases, it is a process of development which is not singular to this Navy, but is to be found in every Navy in Europe and other parts of the world. We have cruisers in some of which speed has been the main object. I take the "Monmouth" as a class. There are others in which other objects have been achieved, as in the case of the "Cressy." Take the "Drakes," where an attempt has been made to combine both speed, gun-power, and armour, and you have reached a ship of the dimensions of a battleship and the cost of a battleship, and vet one not fit to cope with a battleship. Each one of these considerations opens up problems and subjects of discussion which are absolutely endless. But exactly the same is true with the French or any other Navy. Almost the last important cruiser that has been added to the navies of the world is a very fine Russian cruiser, the "Varyag," which has no armour belt at all. Docs anybody suggest that she is not a valuable ship? She is of immense value. You cannot combine every quality in every ship. Of course there are some cruisers now building in meeting which these "Monmouths" would be handicapped. No cruiser can meet a battleship. Every cruiser, in nautical parlance, has its opposite number; there are cruisers it can meet with advantage; there are others which it cannot meet without being handicapped. All these cruisers have their uses, all have their part in the battle array of the Fleet; and I entirely demur to the suggestion that because these particular cruisers have only four inches of armour they are practically useless.
  I have only mentioned the compromises in respect of armour and engines and armament. But there is the question of cost too. It may be right or it may be wrong, but the "Drakes," which combine all the qualities that the noble Lord desiderates, cost £1,000,000 each. The "Monmouths" cost only about
  822
  £700,000 each; therefore it is quite obvious that you can get ten "Monmouths" for the same sum for which you get seven "Drakes." All these are questions that have to be taken into consideration by the Board of Admiralty of this or of any other country; and that is the reason why there is no sealed pattern of cruisers, but each class, as it comes out is designed to meet some special need of the time. Whether these designs were wise or unwise originally, there is nothing but unwisdom, in my opinion, in trying to turn one class into another when it is nearly completed.
  I will pass now to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, in which he alludes to the caps. He asks "whether it is intended to supply the Fleet with an adequate number of capped armour-piercing shot so that our war vessels will not be at a disadvantage in this respect with the other great Navies of the world." There, again, that is an insinuation that all the other great Navies of the world are provided with this particular improvement, that there can be no doubt as to its nature and capacity, and that the Board of Admiralty have not paid sufficient attention to it. That is exactly the same class of criticism that is perpetually coming up, and I had to deal with it last year in the case of what are called armour-piercing shells. I was asked how it was that this and that Navy had had these armour-piercing shells for years, whilst we were only just issuing them, and the answer I gave was a good answer. The armour-piercing shell the other nations had adopted, rightly or wrongly—I think absolutely rightly—was, in the opinion of the naval experts of this country, not good enough to adopt; and we did not adopt an armour-piercing shell until we had one which, we thought, fulfilled all our requirements. I give the noble Lord the same answer with regard to these caps. Other nations may have already adopted them—I know they have in some cases—but is it a simple question? It is a very difficult question. These caps, when they are properly made, as they appear to have been made in some recent experiments that have been published, when the shot strikes exactly at the normal, at absolutely right-angles, have a most remarkable effect of increasing its penetration. But what proportion of shots in

  823
  an action are going to strike exactly at the normal? The noble Lord forgets to tell the House that once you get off the normal on to an angle, you soon get to a point where the caps not only do not assist penetration, but absolutely deter and diminish the penetrating effect of the shot. Therefore, if the noble Lord is going to ask a Question in this kind of way and dogmatise upon it, he must first of all tell your Lordships exactly what proportion of shots are going to be at the normal and what are not, and explain the point at which shots off the normal are not assisted by the caps. That is why I object to this form of question, because it is not a simple, but a complex, one. The matter is engaging the most careful attention of the Admiralty, along with all these questions—and most important questions they are—of the velocity and the nature of the guns.
  I know there is an impression in some parts of the Press that these artillery questions have not been receiving sufficient attention in this country. I do not think that this is a just accusation. The Admiralty and the War Office have now got two strong and well-equipped Committees working in combination on these questions—the Ordnance Committee and the Explosives Committee—and it is recognised that what we require is a higher velocity Again, that is very far from being a simple question. It has been suggested that cordite is not a good powder. I believe cordite to be a most admirable powder; but the reasons why we have not achieved the velocity with cordite that we first anticipated has been because of its erosive effect on the linings of the guns. The problem before us is to find a powder that will combine all the good effects of cordite with an increased velocity without that erosive effect that cordite has. But I would point out that the question is not one of muzzle velocity only. It is a question of what effect a given projectile will have when it strikes a ship at fighting ranges. That is a very different question from muzzle-velocity alone. That is the first question to be considered. The second is the trajectory at which that projectile will be propelled. I merely indicate these points to show that the Admiralty is studying them carefully, and the worst service that we could do would be hastily to adopt
  824
  a new powder that does not really fulfil all naval requirements. I have seen it stated over and over again here and there that such and such a powder has such and such a well-known velocity, and the question is asked why the Admiralty does not adopt it at once. No consideration is given in these allusions to questions which must be; always considered in regard to this matter—Will the magazines of the ships contain the charges of this proposed new powder; will the hoists, the cages, or the chambers of the guns themselves contain the charges of this or that new powder which alone could produce the muzzle-velocity named? It would be a mad Admiralty that ever adopted a powder which it was not certain would stand the climatic trials that a powder used in the British Navy would have to stand. AH these points have to be worked out before we can embark on a new powder; and all I want to assure your Lordships is that these points are not being for one moment neglected, and that we are, with these two committees, well equipped for the elucidation of these most important problems.
  I would make one passing allusion to our guns. I believe our guns to be very good indeed. I do not believe we have fallen behind foreign nations in our guns. I have explained to your Lordships the position of affairs as regards powder, and we are continually working at the improvement of our guns. No foreign navy is equipped with the last pattern of gun in all its ships. You take any Navy of any nation you like. You go through the guns in the ships, and you will find exactly the fame process of development in the case of guns as you do in the case of the ships themselves. The last ships have the last guns and so you go back from pattern to pattern, and the hierarchy of patterns of guns that you will find in our Navy you will also find produced in all other Navies. What the country has a right to demand is that in this matter of gunnery, in which I include powder, guns, and projectiles, we should not fall behind. I do not think this country is going to fall behind. We have skilled experts, well-trained in these artillery questions, and with their minds constantly turned upon them. We have the assistance, as I have

  825
  already said, of these two strong Committees, and we are working with those great firms in this country who have done so much for the development of the whole science of artillery. But even if we have the most perfect powder, the best projectiles, and the most perfect guns, all these will be useless unless the men behind the guns can shoot. It is far more important, in my opinion, than these questions of the chemical improvement of powder or of the manufacture of guns, that every officer in His Majesty's Navy should understand that his primary and most important duty is to make the men under him the best shots in the world.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords. I think we may congratulate the noble Lord who introduced this question, and who has been a little hardly dealt with, on having succeeded in inducing the First Lord of the Admiralty to make a most admirable and lucid statement on a very important subject. I am not going in detail into this matter; but it is evident, after the noble Earl's statement, that the idea of having every ship in the Navy fitted with all the latest improvements is an impossibility, for we cannot by a magic wand change old ships into modern ones. The question of changing the character of ships has always been a most difficult one, and has to be considered with the greatest possible care. Time after time proposals have been submitted for altering our ships, and those who have gone into them have always said that it would be wiser and more economical to build new ships rather than transform the whole arrangements of the old ones. The noble Earl has clearly shown that we must have what he calls a hierarchy of patterns of ships and of guns, and that that is the case not only in our Navy, but in all other Navies. From the speech we have just heard we may be assured that the present Board of Admiralty—as I believe every Board of Admiralty within, at all events, our recollection—has very strongly impressed upon it the necessity of bringing up our ships to the highest position of perfection, not only in regard to their defensive armament, but also in regard to their speed, coal endurance, the power of storing coal which is one of the most important of
  826
  all matters—their guns, and, lastly, in the skill and efficiency of officers and men. I think we may be assured that the present Board, certainly with the present First Lord at its head, is perfectly alive to this, and I do not think, whatever criticism may be passed upon it, that His Majesty's Navy need fear from comparison with other Navies in the world.
  House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past ten o'clock.