Lords Sitting of 9 August 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Carlisle Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; De Trafford Estate Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Aberdeen City Improvements Order Confirmation Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Oakengates and Dawley Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Glasgow Corporation (Sewage) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill; Glasgow and South-Western Railway (Darvel and Lanarkshire Railway Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the object of the Motion standing in my name is to effect some Amendments in the Standing Orders rendered necessary by the transference of a Department from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture. It is also
1490
proposed that hereafter there should be a Standing Order that when under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act a Joint Committee is required it shall always consist of three Member from each House unless the Standing Order is suspended.
Moved, That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
26. In cases where tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides are to be acacquired or in any way affected a copy of the plans and sections shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the Office of the Harbour Department, Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters," and on such copy all t dal waters shall be coloured blue and, if the plan include any bridge across tidal waters, the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridges, if any, across the same tidal waters, above and below the proposed new bridge, shall be marked thereon; and in all such cases, such plans and sections shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend, or are to be carried, with their position and extent, or route accurately laid down thereon.
And in cases where the work is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, a copy of the plans and sections, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited—

(1) if the river is in England or Wales, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; or

(2) if the river is in Scotland, at the office of the Secretary for Scotland; or

(3) if the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office. Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin; and

(4) If the river is subject to a Board of Conservators, at the Office also of such Board.

30. Where by any Bill power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or

1491
where power is sought to take any common or commonable land, as the case may be, a copy of so much of the plans, sections, and books of reference required by these Orders to be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments in respect of such Bill as relates to such churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, common or commonable land, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November, be deposited at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a copy of so much of the said plans, sections, and books of reference as relates to such common or commonable lands shall, on or before the said day, be deposited at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
33. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy shall be deposited—
(1) Of every Local Bill at the Office of His Majesty's Treasury, at the Local Government Board, and at the General Post Office;
(4) Of every local Bill relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters,"
(5.) Of every Bill of the Second Class whereby it is intended to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the Office of the Conservators of the River (if any);
(7.) Of every Local Bill—

(a) relating to a local court or stipendiary magistrate;

(b) whereby power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or to take any common or commonable land;

(c) in which provisions are contained relating to houses inhabited by the working class in London.

(d) promoted by any Municipal or other Local Authority, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations which deviate
1492
from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to the general law;

at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department;
(12.) Of every local Bill which relates to the drainage of land in England or Wales, or which relates to the improvement of land in England, Wales, or Scotland, or to the erection, improvement, repair, maintenance, or regulation of any market or market place at which cattle are exposed for sale, or to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or which proposes to alter the boundary of any county, urban or rural district, parish, or any other administrative area in the United. Kingdom, or whereby power is sought to take any common or commonable land. at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Leave out Standing Order 38 and insert as a new Standing Order—
38. Where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as defined for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves, or may involve, the taking in of that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and at the office of the central authority, on or before the 21st day of December, a statement giving the desscription and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited plans (if any) as relates thereto.
This Order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
For the purposes of this Order the expression "local area" means—

(1) As respects London, the Administrative County of London;

1493

(2) As respects England and Wales (outside London), any borough, or other urban district, and elsewhere than in a borough or other urban district, any parish;

(3) As respects Scotland, any district within the meaning of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; and

(4) As respects Ireland. any urban district;

The expression "house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.
The expression "working class" means mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons, other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.
The expression "central authority" means, as regards London, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, as regards England and Wales (outside London), the Local Government Board, as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, and as regards Ireland, the Local Government Board for Ireland.
The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
77. The Examiner may admit affidavits in proof of the compliance with the Standing Orders, or may require further evidence; and such affidavits shall be sworn, if in England or in Ireland, before a justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths, and if in Scotland, before any sheriff depute or his substitute, or a justice of the peace.
104 a. The Committee on any Local Bill may, if they think fit, admit affidavits in proof of any allegation, deed, or document mentioned or set forth in the Bill or in any schedule thereto, or may require further evidence. Such affidavits shall be entitled "In the matter of a Bill now pending in the House of Lords, of which the short title is [insert the short title]," and shall be sworn, if in England or in Ireland, before a justice of the peace or a commissioner for oaths,
1494
and if in Scotland, before any sheriff depute or his substitute, or a justice of the peace. Such affidavits shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
111. In the case of every Bill which gives, revives, or extends power to take land in Scotland or in Ireland, compulsorily or by agreement, clauses shall be inserted—

(1) Providing that the promoters shall not in the exercise of such power purchase or acquire in any local area any house or houses, occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons belonging to the working class, as tenants or lodgers unless and until

(a) They shall have obtained the approval of the Central Authority to a scheme for providing new dwellings for the persons residing in such houses, or for such number or proportion of such persons as the Central Authority shall, after inquiry, deem necessary, having regard to the number of persons residing in the houses liable to be taken and working within one mile therefrom, and to the amount of vacant suitable accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood of the houses liable to be taken, or to the place of employment of such persons, and all the other circumstances of the case; and

(b) They shall have given security to the satisfaction of the Central Authority for the carrying out of the scheme.

(2) Imposing adequate penalties on the promoters in the event of houses being acquired or appropriated for the purposes of the Bill in contravention of the foregoing provisions;

(3) Providing that the expenses or any part of the expenses incurred by the Central Authority under this Order shall be defrayed by the promoters of the Bill, or out of moneys to be raised under the Bill; and

(4) Conferring on the promoters and on the Central Authority respectively any powers that may be

1495
necessary to enable full effect to be given to the said scheme.

Expressions defined in Order 38 have the same meanings in this Order.

NEW STANDING ORDER.
186A. Where under the provisions of Section 9 of the Procedure Act, a Confirmation Bill has been referred to a Joint Committee, the Committee of this House shall consist of three members.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Agreed to.
Standing Orders amended accordingly, a id to be printed as amended. [No. 187.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I made it a condition of agreeing to the suspension of the Standing Order in this case that there should be no opposition to the Provisional Order. I have had communications both from the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland that that is so, and I am satisfied that the request for the suspension of the Standing Order is a reasonable one in all the circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  STATISTICS.
  1. Statistical Abstract for the several British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates in each year from 1889 to 1903. Forty-first Number;
  2. Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates.

BRITISH COLONIES (DUTIES ON IMPORTS).
Return relating to the rates of import duties levied upon the principal and other articles imported into the British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. 1904.
PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
Appendix to the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. Vol. III. Appendix and General Index.
TREATY SERIES, No. 5 (1904).
Accession of China to the Convention, signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
No. 3250. Turkey (Salonica).
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1904, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
Supply of Electricity Bill [H.L.]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) Bill [H.L.]; Sea Fisheries Bill [H.L.]; Chantrey Trust. Message from the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., from the Select Committees. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
Private Legislation Procedure (Wales) Bill. Report, etc., of the Select Committee of the House of Commons communicated, pursuant to Message of Thursday last, and to be printed. (No. 186.)
County of Suffolk Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LICENSING BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not propose to vote against the Third Reading of this Bill, but I wish to state as strongly as I can the views which we on this side of the House hold on the subject, and to make what must be a final protest. It may be as well to refer to what has been done in the past on this subject. There has been a great deal of legislation on the liquor question. There was legislation in the eighteenth century, which has been strongly alluded to by the great historian, the late Mr. Lecky, who wrote that the liquor legislation of the eighteenth century was—
  "Incomparably more momentous than any event in the purely political or military annals of the country."
  Then, as we all know, in the earlier part of the nineteenth century there was an attempt to introduce free trade in liquor, with the intent to benefit the country; yet that was a signal failure. I am sadly afraid that the present Bill will have no better success than the legislation to which I have referred. All I wish to say upon that is that the responsibility for this Bill, if it be a blunder, rests with the present Government; we, the Opposition, entirely wash our hands of it.
  The Prime Minister some time ago, in the course of a speech on this subject, indicated that he did not expect legislation to effect a great deal of improvement with regard to drunkenness. I know that that view is held by various people, who think that, just as in Victorian years there was an enormous change for the better in regard to sobriety among the upper and upper-middle classes, probably a higher standard of morality and custom will gradually permeate the working classes. I cannot help thinking that those who urge that view forget the entirely different circumstances in which the working classes are placed. They live in squalid homes, with overcrowded and insanitary rooms, homes situated in slums in which there is a congestion of licensed houses. Can we be surprised if in these circumstances the working classes are open to the temptations of drink? I feel certain that the excessive number of public-houses in many places is of serious detriment to the morality of the poor. I think the way in which this Bill has been carried in the House of Commons must have a great effect in the country. It is
  1498
  a piece of legislation of a most complicated character, and therefore required lengthened and instructed criticism. No doubt there was an immense number of Amendments; but the Prime Minister himself declared on one occasion that he could not say there had been real obstruction. The Government themselves and their supporters proposed over 200 Amendments to the Bill, which showed, I think, the great necessity for the consideration of the Bill and of those Amendments, of which only one-tenth, I believe, were discussed. Therefore I would venture to say that this legislation represents more an edict of the Cabinet than a matured measure coming from Parliament I deeply regret this. I do not find that His Majesty's Government have been at all inclined to consider many of the Amendments which have been urged against the Bill, or many of the Amendments which have been proposed.
  The first of what I believe to be the two great objections to the Bill is the alteration in the jurisdiction of the licensing magistrates for the future. My own opinion is that the alteration is exceedingly harmful. Under it the power of brewster sessions will be extremely limited. It destroys the close touch which brewster sessions had with the immediate locality, and I cannot for a moment believe that, so far as the question of redundant licences is concerned, they will be half as effectual as they were under the existing arrangement, while I am quite certain that a division of authority among brewster sessions, petty sessions, and quarter sessions will weaken and impair the value of the measure. I was somewhat surprised at the horror expressed when my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge proposed an Amendment to place on the committee of quarter sessions county council representatives. I would like to remind His Majesty's Government that they pronounced a very distinct opinion in favour of representatives of the people managing licensing matters in the Bill which they themselves introduced in 1888. In moving that Bill Mr. Ritchie, who was I think Home Secretary at the time, Proposed that quarter sessions should divide their jurisdiction into districts

  1499
  and should control the whole of the licensing in those districts. The Cabinet of the day assented to that principle, and therefore I could not understand why there should have been such protestation against the very mild suggestion of my noble and learned friend.
  The second great objection I have to the Bill is that it is no adequate reform. We have heard a great deal about the £1,250,000 that will be obtained by this fund for the abolition of redundant licences. I do not wish to dwell at any length upon this, but I would remind your Lordships that quarter sessions will not be bound to levy it and the whole money may not be collected. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London put that very strongly, and I cannot refrain from referring to what he said. It is so important that it ought to be thoroughly understood. The right rev. Prelate said—
  "Between March, 1890, and Mardi, 1903, 552 on-licences were suppressed in London, and if progress were made at the same rate there would be a reduction in forty-eight years of 2,038 licences, whereas under the operation of this Bill the utmost would be 1,855 reductions."
  Then the right rev. Prelate turned to the country and asked whether there would be any greater reduction than was now going on. He had figures which showed that there had been twenty-four licences refused in 1903 at brewster sessions in Liverpool. The reduction under the Bill, said the right rev. Prelate, would be eighteen. In Manchester forty were refused, under the Bill it would be seventeen; Exeter thirteen, under the Bill two; Canterbury nine, under the Bill two; Swansea sixteen, under the Bill five. The right rev. Prelate, continuing, said it was the same in the counties, and that if this Bill was to be recommended to temperance reformers those who brought it in must show that under it the reduction would be greater than if no measure was passed. That, I think, is a very strong statement as showing that the Bill will not adequately reduce licences in the country. Then I come to a very important statement made by the Lord Mayor of Manchester, who, speaking at a meeting of the Manchester City Justices, said—
  "The Bill in operation would not be of the slightest benefit to a city like Manchester, as
  1500
  it could not possibly effect within any reason able time either a material reduction in the number of licences or in the amount of drunkenness."
  He gave one striking example. In the district of Hulme, a part of Manchester, the brewers had agreed to surrender fifty licences before the last brewster sessions. But, said the Lord Mayor—
  "The fifty licences have not been surrendered in consequence of the anticipated passing of the Bill. Manchester, under the Bill, might be able to reduce twenty licences a year."
  The discussion on this Bill in your Lordships' House has shown the meaning of the monopoly value of a licence. It is quite clear that the holder of one of these licences has a much better investment than any other trader. He has a much richer business than the grocer, the fruiterer, or any other tradesman. And why? Because he has received a monopoly from the State, and a monopoly which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of us on this side of the House, is not a permanent monopoly because it is legally only for a year. This Bill increases enormously the value of the business of this trade. We, on the other hand, claim that this monopoly value should be the property of the State. We meet the Government's compensation by a claim for what I will call restitution—the recovery by the State of the monopoly which the State has created, and which, for its own Imperial purposes, the State in future must be endowed with. I do not think the Bill will settle this question. I say that with great sorrow, because I should have liked the Bill to have achieved that object, and I should like to have seen your Lordships' House rise to the occasion and force on the Government some proposal which might have had this effect. I have often heard it said that temperance reformers are extremely violent and immoderate in their demands. That may have been so in the past, but I maintain that temperance reformers during the discussions here and elsewhere have been extremely moderate and have made great concessions. The noble Viscount who presided over the Royal Commission on Licensing, and who was the author of the Minority Report which advocated the strongest measures of reform, waived his individual views on this subject in order to support

  1501
  the most rev. Primate in the very far-reaching proposal which he moved providing a time limit. I, and many of my noble friends waived our other objections in order to concentrate ourselves on this moderate proposal, which we regret was not accepted.
  I am not going to say what will happen after this Bill, which we consider neither just nor right, has passed. It may have a better effect than we think it will have, but I am afraid it will not. We have been continually told by noble Lords opposite that we will be able to alter it when we come into power. That is perfectly true; but I very much regret that it should have been thought necessary to make a suggestion of that kind with regard to a great measure—the only measure of the Government this session—which should have been framed with a view to a settlement of the question which is so greatly agitating the country. The noble Viscount used these very significant words—
  "We have before us a struggle for mastery between the State and the trade."
  I have always abstained front twitting the Government with being in the hands of the trade, but I am afraid there is a great deal of evidence that the Government have been strongly attacked by the trade, and I cannot help thinking that they have introduced many of the clauses at the instance of the trade. I find this remarkable passage in an article in the Licensing World and Licensing Trade Review, a paper which, I have no doubt, speaks authoritatively on this subject—
  "The Government Amendments proposed in the Upper Rouse do not materially affect its provisions."
  Everybody will agree with that—
  "And there is little doubt that the Commons will accept them. With these we must deal next week, merely—"
  and this is what I wish to lay stress on—
  "congratulating in the meantime both the trade and the Government on the extremely satisfactory majorities by which the various stages of the Bill have hitherto been carried. The promises of our friends have been nobly kept, and when the opportunity arises our appreciation thereof shall be proved."
  Such an organisation as that of the trade may be, and often is, a menace to the Government of the day. If the
  1502
  example of what has been done in reference to the brewing interest were followed we should be in nearly as bad a position in regard to the high character and morality of Parliament as some other countries are. I trust that the object-lesson supplied by this Bill will have the effect of preventing the carrying of those measures of a protective character which Mr. Chamberlain is pressing upon the country. I deeply regret the passing of this measure and the methods by which the Government has passed it. I consider that in its present form the Bill will impair and shackle the efforts of real and earnest licensing reformers, and will in no wax bring about a diminution of drinking and drunkenness in this country, with all its consequences of crime and poverty.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the Episcopal Bench has been perhaps unusally prominent in these discussions, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes from the purview of your Lordships' House. To say that we who sit on these Benches are not disappointed at the outcome of the week's discussion would be, of course, to stultify the action that we have taken throughout. We are disappointed. We did believe that we could. without unfairness to anybody, make the Bill a good deal better than it was when it left the House of Commons and came to this House, and we did hope for a more favourable hearing than we obtained from those who sit on the Government Bench. As the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, we modified the proposals we made at the risk of finding them regarded by our friends as having been emasculated to the point of uselessness. I do not think they would have been useless if they had been carried. I believe the Amendment we proposed with regard to the time limit would have made all the difference in the world as regards the future working of the Bill.
  Those who try to take a moderate position in matters of this kind are, I suppose, always exposed to two fires. We have been exposed to the fire of those who sit upon the Government Bench in this House. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, while speaking

  1503
  with perfect courtesy, let it be not obscurely understood that he did regard a good many of us who were opposed to him in some of these matters as faddists, or as men who were really at heart adverse to the existence of the trade and its licences altogether. Nothing could be further from the fact, but we have been undoubtedly so represented. On the other hand, we have found throughout these months of controversy that the advance wing of temperance reformers thought that they were not being helped as they ought by us, and that we (as it was put by a leading organ of a political kind the other day) would obviously prefer to see England remain drunk rather than to see it not under the dominance of the Episcopal Bench. That kind of acerbity may be disregarded altogether.
  But at the same time it ought to be remembered that when we have come forward and tried to make a move of this kind, it has not been without the compulsion of separating ourselves to some extent from those who would go further in the direction of reform, and who are actuated by deep-seated principles and by motives of a high and lofty sort. We did take that position. We have done our best. We have tried to fight for what seemed to us to be principles rather than worry over small details in the machinery. But we have been fairly beaten in those endeavours. The Government has been stiff, and, as we think, unduly unyielding. We may be mistaken, but we still believe that a great man of the details of this measure will prove extraordinarily difficult to work out in practice. All that I should like to say now is that if the time comes when it is found that there is a reaction against the provisions of this measure, because of their cumbrousness and unworkableness or their ineffectiveness in doing what they profess to do, I hope it will be remembered that we did make a genuine endeavour, without success, to obtain Amendments.
  We have now got the Bill, and, as my right rev. brother said the other night, we have got to live with it, at any rate for a time. Personally, I do not believe it will be a very long time that we shall have to live with it exactly as it is, and this, not so much because of the probe-
  1504
  bility of our opponents desiring to reopen the question at an early date—I think experience shows that to reopen this question is not a task that is much loved by any Government, or Party—but because, as I believe, the machinery will require re-setting; and incidentally, therefore, the question will have to be more or less reopened. But while we have got the Bill as it is, I desire to say most emphatically, speaking at all events for myself, and I think I may say for a great many others, that we do mean to do our very best to make it work well. We desire by public guidance, by private counsel and advice, and by loyalty to its principles, so far as they go, to make it work as well as ever we can for a cause we all have at heart. We can say, and we do say, that it will not be our fault if the Act does not work well. We desire to help forward the cause which we are told this Bill is designed to promote, and if our fears are falsified and the Bill turns out in working to be so much better than we have anticipated, no one will be more thankful than those whom I have the privilege of representing.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I have no intention of addressing your Lordships at any length on this occasion, but I do not think it would be respectful to the noble Earl opposite that on this, the last occasion that we have of discussing the details of the measure, his remarks should. go entirely unanswered. Let me say, in the first place, that I fully recognise the fair and reasonable spirit in which the most rev. Primate, and also the noble Earl opposite, have made the protest which they think necessary at this the last stage of the Bill. I know than their views with regard to this measure differ widely from ours, and I acknowledge that they have a perfect right, not having succeeded in carrying many of the Amendments which they proposed, in making their protest against the Bill, and at the same time I recognise that they have done it in a spirit to which no one could take exception. The first point to which the noble Earl addressed himself was, I think, the jurisdiction of magistrates. I ventured, in moving the Second Reading, to go at some length into the actual proposals of the Bill, because I felt.

  1505
  that some injustice had been done and that the proposals had not been fairly represented. Notwithstanding all the criticism that has been passed upon the proposed changes, I still maintain that the views and interests of the local bench are well protected.
  It is not fair to make the distinction sought to be set up between the local magistrates and quarter sessions. The latter are composed of local justices, and local opinion will not and cannot be ignored, while it is absolutely essential that the fund should be under the administration of the county authority. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London made sonic remarks on the Second Reading of a very trenchant character with regard to the number of licences that had already been done away with and the number that would be abolished in the future under this Bill. I think it has already been shown that the basis of his calculation was one which he would himself admit ought to be modified, in view of the facts that have been laid before him. He took a basis which was much higher than that which would probably apply to the average licence done away with, and in that way he made it appear that fewer licences would be abolished under this Bill than would otherwise be the case. By reference to what has been done in Liverpool, Manchester, and elsewhere in the reduction of licences, an endeavour has been made to show that the effect of the Bill will be small; but the broad fact is that while the highest number of licences clone away with in a year on the ground of non-requirement was 200, under the Bill the lowest estimate for the first year's operations is 1,500.
  It is perfectly true that this Bill does recognise monopoly value in licences at present in existence; that has been allowed to grow up, and the Government do not feel that they would be acting justly in ignoring it, especially when the compensation is to come out of the pockets of the members of the trade themselves. What I ask the House to remember, and I do not think it has been recognised as fully as it ought to have been in this House, is that for the first time in any legislation the trade is going to pay the whole of the compensation out of their own pockets.
  1506
  I venture to say that if that proposal had been made a few years ago there would have been little opportunity of its reaching this House. This fund which the trade will pay is not a small sum. A remark was made at the last stage of the Bill deprecating giving increased value to brewers who had more than one house done away with. It was said that the higher scale which they would be charged would be quite out of proportion to the increase in the value of their premises; but let the House remember that there nothing else out of which they can be compensated but this fund which they contribute themselves. Something like 80 per cent. of the total number of public-houses are tied houses, and I think it will be admitted that tied houses are of at least as great value as ordinary houses. If that is the case, it is making a very low estimate, supposing the provisions in this Bill are fully enforced, to say that the actual contributions of the trade themselves during each year will be about £1,000,000. That is not a small sum, and although they will get compensation for disturbance they will for many years before their houses are touched pay this very large levy.
  The proposal for a time limit the-Government could not see their way in. fairness to accept, and if it should be the desire of the country that licences should be reduced more quickly than the rate the Bill provides, then the only reasonable and logical way of doing it would be by the public providing the fund for the purpose. I had a conversation during the week with a gentleman who has had as large an experience in the management of hotels and houses in which spirituous liquors are sold as anybody in the country, and he stated that he looked for the promotion of temperance, net so much to, the doing away of a very large number of public-houses as to a change in the conditions, which will lead to the setting up of refreshment houses, in which direction Lord Grey and others have done such useful work, houses in which there will be discouragement of excessive drinking. I cannot see myself, why, when a reasonable number of houses have been red aced, the magistrates should not largely make use of the power they have of doing away with the present public-houses in order to set up houses under conditions which

  1507
  would be satisfactory to the public and tend against excessive drinking. Although we should have liked to have met the Amendments of the Opposition to a much larger extent than we were able to, I nevertheless sincerely believe that the Bill will prove a measure which will lead to a very appreciable reduction in the number of public-houses, and with a considerable reduction of the existing number of licences the Bill will, I believe, pave the way to a much better condition of things in the management of licensed houses.
  *TILE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): I hope your Lordships will not think I am taking too much upon myself if I intrude in this debate and say a few words upon this subject before we part altogether with the Bill. I took no part in the Second Reading of the Bill, and, for reasons which are known to your Lordships, it would probably not have been convenient if I had intervened at the Committee stage, and I will frankly admit that most of the experience which I can bring to bear upon this subject is derived from that country which is north of the Tweed, and does not enable me to speak with much confidence upon many of the intricate questions involved in the English licensing law. At the same time there are some, and not a few, general principles to be found in the legislation which Parliament hag passed at various times upon this subject which are common to the countries both north and south of the Tweed.
  The experience which I have had in this matter is this. I served for more
  than twenty years before the time I went into office as chairman of a licensing, bench, and I had last year to consider the whole licensing law of Scotland on behalf of the Government. We succeeded in codifying it and making some important reforms. It seems to me that some sound general principles of wide application are infringed by this Bill, and as there is always a danger that things which are thought good for the country south of the Tweed may have a tendency to apply themselves, or to be applied, to the country north of the Tweed I wish to put in a caveat and to say that from my experience of Scottish law, Scottish interests, and
  1508
  Scottish circumstances, there is hardly anything in this Bill which would be welcomed in Scotland.
  It is claimed as a great measure of temperance reform, and I have no doubt whatever that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is a measure of temperance reform. But I hope before this debate concludes some one on behalf of the Government will give us a definite list of the points in the Bill which they consider as tending in the direction of temperance reform. Having paid some attention to the discussions which went on in Committee the other night, I can only think of two. One is the changed position which will be given to the ante-1869 beer houses. That is a class of institution which, fortunately as I think, we do not know in Scotland, and I grant at once that it is a considerable measure of temperance reform that they will be to a large extent deprived, under proper safeguards and compensation, of the peculiar position of privilege which they have occupied up to this time. The second point tending in the direction of temperance reform in this Bill is the increased probability of a reduction of licences. That point has been challenged by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London, by the noble Earl opposite, and by others; but I venture to say that, in my opinion, on that point the Government have made out a certain case under this Bill, and that for causes other than misconduct, there is a considerable prospect of, at any rate, some reduction of licences.
  I do not desire to understate that matter, but to put it perfectly fairly. I think there is sometimes a tendency to lay too much stress on the probable effect of a reduction in the number of licences. We have all heard of the gentleman who can pass three public-houses but cannot pass the fourth. I venture to think that he is a somewhat mythical person. I believe that if a man passes three public-houses and goes into the fourth it is because he has some object in doing so. He either prefers the company he gets there or the beverages in the fourth establishment; and my belief is that so far as that class of person is concerned if you were to shut up the fourth public-house he would find his way into the third, and that if you shut up the third it is not improbable that he would

  1509
  find his way into the second. But there of a point in regard to the reduction of licences whch I think important. The had point about the excessive number of licences is the unhealthy competition which is created amongst the licence-holders for the custom of those who use the houses. Excessive competition is bad because it induces the provision of attractions, one house against the other, which, undoubtedly, do tend to the consumption of a greater amount of alcoholic liquor than would otherwise be consumed.
  The noble Marquess the Leader of the House claimed great credit the other day for the Bill in that it would put an end to licences where they were redundant. The noble Lord who spoke last confirmed that, and added that this compensation will all come out of the pockets of the trade. To a certain extent it will; but one of the objections which I have to he Bill is that the method by which that compensation is taken and the privileges whch are given in return for it are such as to put the public in a worse position after the Bill became law than they were before. The quotation which the noble Earl read to the House shows that the trade feel that even if this Bill passes in the form in which it is now before your Lordships, as it probably will, they as a trade can congratulate themselves upon having made a very good bargain in regard to this matter. Those are the two points, for what they are worth, on which I think the Government are justified in claiming this as a measure of temperance reform. I agree about the beer-houses altogether, and regard the other as too dearly bought.
  I think the Government have made a mistake in not attempting in this Bill to attack the tied-house system. I believe that that system as it has grown up in this country is the bane of the whole trade and of the public. I believe that to no single cause is the present state of things due more than to the fact that these houses are the property of great brewery companies, and that the people who are actually concerned with their management are obliged by the position they occupy in regard to those brewery companies to push the sale of alcoholic liquors by all means in their power, fair and unfair, and feel that their prospects
  1510
  and chances in life depend on the amount of return which they transmit to those who are really their masters. I believe that the noble Lord who spoke last was perfectly right when he said that one of the great points to be looked at in this question of licences was not so much the number of houses which remained as the kind of management under which they are carried on. I believe that there is more to be done by a wise, healthy, scrupulous, and conscientious management of the houses and strict conformity not only with the letter but with the spirit of the law, than by the mere reduction of their number, and it is because I do not see in this Bill any sufficient premium for good management that I think a great opportunity has been lost by the Government. I know there is a clause in the Bill that there is to be refreshment at reasonable prices, but I venture to think it is not so much a question of whether there is to be a mutton chop for 6d. or a sausage roll for 2½d. as whether the general management of the establishment is to be satisfactory or whether there is an indirect compulsion put upon the taking of the strongest class of intoxicating liquors as contrasted with other beverages.
  I deprecate greatly the interference with the discretion of the magistrates. I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said the other night, that this work was not in the strict sense of the term judicial work; but that it is administrative work which has to be done in a judicial spirit. In my opinion the maintenance of the absolute discretion of the Bench is the very keynote of all temperance reform. I do not believe you can get efficient work by hedging the Bench round with rules. You must put men on the Bench whom you can trust, and when they are there von must trust them. You must make them feel that they are responsible to the country for the action they take, and, if I may venture to say so, they must not be on a particular Bench in very large numbers. For this reason, the larger the number the less is the sense of direct personal responsibility. That was the principle upon which we went last year in Scotland, and although, as the noble Lord said, we allowed a considerable infusion of the elective element, we limited the

  1511
  numbers of our Bench very carefully, and I know that that reform has been accepted with gratitude by the trade and with absolute concurrence by those who are engaged in the work of temperance reform.
  I do not venture to say that the reform of the Bench comes within the scope of this Bill. It does not. But who fixed the scope of the Bill? Who are responsible for that? I express my own personal opinion that if the Government had undertaken the reform of the Bench rather than a tinkering with their powers, their Bill would have had a more cordial reception and would have been likely to effect a great deal better work in the future. There can be no doubt of this, that the whole tenure of licences in England has been changed by this Bill. It will be a wholly different tenure after this Bill has passed from what it was before, and my objection to the change is that, in my humble opinion, it does not pave the way for that complete freedom to the public which will be the only final and permanent solution of this question. I go further and say I believe it will he an absolute obstacle in the way of that complete reform.
  We all agree that some interest has grown up in the licence. No noble Lord has taken the extravagant and, as I think. the absurd position of saying that no interest exists, and that you can suddenly deprive the holders of licences of their interest, such as it is, without compensation. There is no doubt whatever that partly by custom, partly by the apathy of the public, partly by the practice of the Bench itself, a very material interest has been acquired, and it has been acknowledged and accepted and acted upon by the Inland Revenue authorities, who have taken duty upon it when it has been transferred from one holder to another by death. Both sides of the House have agreed to accept that reasonable position. I do not know whether your Lordships recollect the retort which was made by Mr. Bradlaugh to some of Mr. Henry George's theories. He is reported to have said that there are only two ways by which one man can acquire the property of another—one was by purchase and the ether by stealing. There are only those ways, and you must either confiscate the
  1512
  property or give some fair form of recompense.
  No one, I think, can really contend that the interest which has grown up is anything like a freehold interest; and I venture to say that the blot upon this. Bill is that the interest has been put far too high, and that, in the future it will place in a far too greatly privileged position those who hold licences at the present time for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal said—
  "But you must remember that many people have invested their money in these licences, and to deprive them of what they have paid for would be pillage."
  That is a strong term, and if it was proposed to absolutely deprive the holders of licences of the interest they had acquired I should agree, but I think it is put far too high. You cannot at this time of day protect adult men and women against wrong and improvident investments, and to apply such a term as "pillage" to any proposal that has been made in this House is to place the argument far too high.
  I dislike the source of compensation which is provided by this Bill, and I dislike it because I see in it, I was going to say, no finality, but, if it has any finality, it is in the direction of making exceedingly difficult the absolute recovery of that freedom of dealing with licences which ought to be the whole end of temperance reform. I think that a time limit of sufficient duration, accompanied by a scheme of compulsory mutual insurance, would have been a sufficient solution of this difficulty. But if that was not sufficient—I am speaking only for myself, and I know that very few temperance reformers will agree with me—I would sooner have seen a fund established avowedly from national resources for the purpose of compensation, in order to secure to the public the complete freedom of dealing with licences without which no temperance reform can ever be complete. Having regard to the position of matters in Scotland, I do not think that the principles of this Bill could fairly be applied to that country, and I think it right to say so now, lest by my silence I might hereafter in this House or in Scotland be held to have tacitly passed

  1513
  for England, without having put in any caveat, a scheme which might be regarded as satisfactory for Scotland.
  There are three or four very considerable differences in our position from I that soath of the Tweed. In the first place, our licence is granted to the person who actually carries on the business, and the owner of the premises is very little, if at all, recognised. The brewers and distillers are not recognised as owners of licences. I have not been actively connected with licensing matters in Scotland for the past decade, but up to ten years ago the Bench over which I presided made it their practice to warn licence-holders that if they tied themselves to ally brewery or distillery the Bench would regard that as justifying the taking away of the licence. If that practice had been maintained in England it would have been better. As to the actual licence, when the interest which the holder has acquired in the goodwill, or whatever it may be, of the premises comes to be valued, it is carefully considered whether he is the tenant or the owner, and, if he is the tenant, what length of lease he possesses.
  Every licence-holder must be in one of four classes. He may be either a tenant with a lease or a tenant without a lease, or he may be the owner and occupier or the owner and not the occupier. The Inland Revenue authorities in Scotland have not given away the case so completely as I am afraid has been the case in England. When a man is a tenant with no lease, it is very rarely that any duty is got by the Inland Revenue. If there has been a sale to tic incoming tenant, or if the late tenant has recently bought, there is an effort to get at what he paid and something is taken, but generally the sale is conditional on the transfer of the licence being obtained. In the case where the man is a tenant under a lease his interest stands somewhat higher, and in the strongest case of all, when a man is both owner and occupier, a duty is got, but it is only obtained upon a very small calculation of the enhanced value.
  I was looking through the state of the law last year and came across a recorded case in the Court of Session where there had been a contest be-
  1514
  tween the Inland Revenue authorities and the owner of a licence as to the value of the goodwill. The case is that of the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Inland Revenue against the widow of a spirit merchant residing in Edinburgh. In that case the Inland Revenue claimed £3,000 or five times the annual value of the goodwill, which they put at £600. The owner of the licence contested both the number of years purchase and the value put upon the goodwill, and after consultation and the showing of figures an agreement was come to—it was not a decision by the Court but an agreement between parties ratified by the Court—fixing an annual value of £200 for the goodwill; but what was the gross sun paid? It was only £500, or two-and-half years purchase. That shows at once that if anything in the nature of this Bill was to he applied to Scotland we should be in an infinitely worse position than we are at the present time.
  I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for having entered upon this discussion. It is a matter on which, so far as England is concerned, I have no practical or personal experience, but I am apprehensive that an attempt may be made to extend the general principles of this Bill to Scotland, and I wish to take this opportunity of showing, not only that there is a difference in the circumstances of the two countries, but that it would be act of gross injustice to apply the principles of this Bill to the country north of the Tweed.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, considering that my noble friend who had just sat down did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, and proposed no Amendments on the Report stage, when the disabilitity to which he had called attention would not have attached to him, I think we might have been rather surprised at the tenor of his speech but for one consideration. I have always observed that when an Assembly such as your Lordships' House is addressed by a Member hailing from north of the Tweed, it is always necessary for them to listen to the observation, couched in very elaborate terms, but always to the same effect—"We are not as other men." And,

  1515
  my Lords, I think my noble friend's speech was an elaborate extension of that ancient phrase. He asked us, however, to state to him and to the House what were the improvements in temperance legislation which we claim to have effected by this Bill. Even as he himself related them, I think your Lordships will agree that the improvements were by no means inconsiderable. But his enumeration was not complete.
  When he was making this elaborate attack upon the provisions of the Bill, my noble friend absolutely omitted to notice all the provisions which have reference to new licences. That was a very astonishing omission. I admit that in regard to existing licences the Government have felt themselves restricted by their feeling of obligation to acknowledge that pecuniary interest in their licences which existing licensees, by the admission of my noble friend, possess. But with regard to new licences we were not hampered, and in respect of new licences by far the greatest change in the law in respect of temperance legislation is to be found. We have done our best to make it impossible henceforward for the monopoly value of the liquor trade to belong to anybody else but the State. As to the precise application of the money which will arise from the monopoly value of the new licences, we have had a good deal of discussion upon that in Committee and on the Report stage. We were able to make a very important concession to independent Members of your Lordships' House, and I think it will be agreed that, whatever may be the ultimate shape which that Amendment assumes, we have at any rate done this, we have removed from the legislation of this country that very gross provision by which Parliament gives to private individuals, with the licences, the monopoly value of the drink, to which they have no claim, to the detriment of the community. That is, I think, a very important element in the list which my noble friend entirely forgot.
  Then there are the ante-1869 beer-houses. My noble friend mentioned them, but only in order to convey the information to your Lordships that in that blessed country north of the Tweed there are no ante-1869 beerhouses. I
  1516
  congratulate my noble friend. It makes the task of dealing with Scotland, of course, easier; but I do not think that detracts from our merit in having dealt with the problem south of the Tweed. When your Lordships remember that one-third of the whole of the licensed houses south of the Tweed are ante-1869 beerhouses, and that for the first time they become by this Bill subject to the ultimate control of the magistrates of this country, so that they can, if necessary, be suppressed, I think your Lordships will admit that that constitutes a very large item to be placed to the credit side of the account when estimating what good for temperance this Bill will effect.
  Then there is the reduction of licences. My noble friend mentioned that, but with a good deal of criticism. Other noble Lords have minimised the merit of that provision, because they have said that the number of public-houses which we propose to reduce will be very few. I do not propose to go over the ground which was discussed on the other stages of the Bill, nor do I propose to repeat what my noble friend Lord Belper has just said, but I would like to remind your Lordships of this, that when we have mentioned the number of licensed houses which can be suppressed under this Bill, we have nearly always spoken of the money available as an annual sum. But if quarter sessions or the great municipalities are anxious to move more quickly they can capitalise the annual sum to the extent permitted by the Amendment inserted at the last stage, namely, for fifteen years. The money can be so capitalised with the consent of the Home Secretary and that will produce in London alone an enormous sum, and enable an immediate enormous reduction in the number of licensed houses. That is a method of dealing with this subject which I think your Lordships will agree to a large extent meets the criticism of the right rev. Prelate that very little is done under the Bill. You will have a sum which I calculate will be at least £2,500,000 if the full fifteen years term of borrowing is permitted, with which the licensed houses can be immediately reduced within a few months after the passing of

  1517
  this Bill. I hope it may be some comfort to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London that, after all, he will not find the Bill so useless as he imagines. But my noble friend who has just sat down is still dissatisfied with what the Bill can effect. He forgot the great facilities which will be given by this Bill to my noble friend Earl Grey to carry out his system of licensing reform. I suppose that does not interest our friends north of the Tweed.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I happen to be President of the trust in Scotland which is working the same scheme.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to find that there is one particular in which Scotland is content to be taught by England. It is rather wonderful to hear the example of Scotland trotted out in temperance discussions. Though perhaps in most respects Scotland is far better than England—I have no doubt my noble friend would assure us it was so—yet in temperance matters Scotsmen have fallen a little behind their friends south of the Tweed, and perhaps the difference of our licensing law may have had something to do with it. It does not follow necessarily that because the licensing law in Scotland differs from the licensing law in England we stand in a worse position than the sister kingdom. My noble friend, however, said he would have preferred that we had established a rational fund, contributed by the ordinary taxpayers, with which we might have bought out all the interests in licensed premises. That is not a proposal which, I think, at the present moment would have successfully been made to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, as a matter of fact, there is nothing whatever in our Bill, when it becomes law, to prevent my noble friend or noble Lords opposite, if they have the control of the Government of this country, from establishing such a national fund. Let them, by all means—it will not be inconsistent with our Bill—come to Parliament and ask for powers to collect the taxes with the view of buying out the interest of publicans. That would undoubtedly
  1518
  produce much more rapid results than we shall be able to obtain under this Bill, but I doubt very much whether noble Lords opposite will take that course, and I very much doubt whether my noble friend will be in a position to propose it.
  Therefore, my Lords, we must come back to the Government Bill, and the principles on which it is worked. We think that it is calculated to carry out a great many temperance reforms. We do Lot agree with my noble friend's condemnation of the tied-house system. We see no reason to pronounce this condemnation ex cathedra of that system. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission states that there is a great deal to be said for the tied-house system. I do not say that if we had to start completely afresh we might not invent something better, but where the tied-house system is in the hands of good brewers, the Majority Report found that it was not a bad system but a good system, and that the large brewers used their influence, not for mischief, but in order to do good to the community. I respectfully protest against this unmeasured, this unlimited condemnation of a perfectly respectable body of men.
  My noble friend said there was nothing in our Bill for good management. I imagine he has not noticed that the amount of compensation which will be awarded to the publican if his licence is suppressed depends on good management. In the ordinary case of a publican whose tenure is a year or less than a year, the amount the publican will get out of the compensation money will depend on his good conduct. Is that not a provision in the interests of good management? Then my noble friend, having attacked His Majesty's Government, made a general attack on all the magistrates south of the Tweed.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Marquess quote my words
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Lord to say that what we had to do was not to think so much about public-houses but to reform the Bench. I happen to have the great honour of being a magistrate myself, as

  1519
  has nearly every one of your Lordships, and I utterly repudiate the idea that we are unfit for our work in this respect. Why should the noble Lord say so? Why should he think so? What interest have we, the magistrates, to do anything but our duty in regard to the licensing law? For myself, I believe that the changes in the law in our Bill with respect to the magistrates are for good. They do not limit their powers—in some respects they extend their powers; and as quarter sessions will necessarily include the best magistrates of a county, we may expect from them a still further improvement in the administration of the licensing law.
  I will say one word with regard to the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. He regretted the Bill, and he regretted more than the Bill the method by which it had been carried. I share with him that regret. I think it is a profound pity that the Parliamentary machine does not seem to work as well as it used to. I have been seventeen years in the House of Commons, and I have some experience of the reason and causes of these things. It does not, perhaps, become a Member of your Lordships' House to make criticisms on the methods of business in another place; but I may say this, that if the object of those who discuss a Bill is not merely to improve it, but also to break the Government programme for the session, then you will never get a Bill properly discussed whatever your rules or constitution may be. That being so, it is not surprising that the Bill should have come up to your Lordships with so many of its provisions not properly submitted to the other House of Parliament.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Marquess is alleging what I should describe as pure obstruction, but the Prime Minister absolutely stated on one occasion that he did not consider there had been any obstruction in the Amendments which had been put down and in the discussion which had taken place on the Bill in the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better avoid epithets. I will not call it anything. All I say is, that if there is not a desire to amend the
  1520
  Bill, but an unavowed desire to make the progress of Government business difficult, and to break the session, you will never get a Bill properly discussed. I was very careful, knowing that these debates in your Lordships' House were impending, to carefully read everything that was said in the other House. I find that nearly all, if not all, the important points in this Bill were in fact discussed, not necessarily upon the specific clauses or lines where they arise in the Bill, but in the course of the various discussions upon the Bill. I have only one word more to say, and it is to thank the most rev. Primate for the great moderation of his speech this evening. I do not think he ever could have entertained the hope that the Government would accept the time limit which he proposed. But I recognise that the time limit having been rejected, it is, if I may say so with great respect, exceedingly creditable to him that he should be able to speak so well of the Bill. He has told your Lordships that though he does not agree with the Bill, though his opposition to it remains, vet he intends to do his utmost to make it work well, and that, I think, is a sentiment which every one of your Lordships will approve. I hope that the light which we have been able to throw on the provisions of the Bill in another place, and in your Lordships' House, may have led some noble Lords who were originally opposed to the Bill, to take a more charitable view of it, and to share with the Government the hope, nay, the expectation, that some good to temperance may at last be effected.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I only rise to say one word before the Bill is read a third time and passed. The critics of the Bill have been reinforced by the speech of Lord Balfour, who is one of the most level-headed and fairest-minded Members of your Lordships' House. There is an old saying about erring with Plato; there are many subjects on which I would rather be beaten with Lord Balfour than win with many another. In reference to what has been said about my figures, I presume that I may scrutinise carefully the string by which any attraction hangs which is held out to me. It was the Colonial Secretary who held out the attraction

  1521
  that the public-houses of London would be reduced 25 per cent., the string by which it hung was the estimate of £3,000 per licence. I was perfectly justified then in taking this as the estimate. Put this £3,000 into the £5,565,000 and it gives the exact number I mentioned, 1855. My figures, therefore, have by no means been shaken by any criticism. Let me add, however, in the spirit of the most rev. Primate, that if more public-houses are closed titan I expect under the Bill, no one will be more glad than I. Though I have opposed the Bill, as I think your Lordships will agree it was my duty to do, I, too, will do my best to work the Bill in London. If it does more good than I expect, I shall be very glad indeed.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION.
LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the programme of shipbuilding for the Navy. He said: My Lords, British naval administration has reached a high standard of efficiency, due to the efforts of a long succession of able Ministers—to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Spencer, and to-day to the First Lord, aided as he has been by his naval colleagues, and especially by Lord Walter Kerr, now retiring full of honours from active service. The Navy must always call for the supervision of Parliament. The Estimates for 1904–5 have reached an amount unprecedented in time of peace—in round figures £4,37,000,000 under Estimates; £5,000,000 for naval works. Are reductions possible under any heads of charge? The Votes for manning have increased in ten years from £5,400,000 to £9,100,000. A voluntary service must be costly, and our numbers have been increased in ten years from 86,103 to 131,100 men.
Compare our permanent force with that of other naval Powers—France, 50,000; Germany, 34,000; United States, 45,000 men. Our permanent force is too large and our Reserves are too few. It is an agreeable duty to acknowledge the successful efforts of the Admiralty to
1522
strengthen the Reserves. With stronger Reserves we might have more power of expansion with less expenditure. Some economy is possible in our training service. We have too many boys in harbour ships. The Admiralty have wisely decided to reduce the number. Boys entered at an older age in seagoing training ships have done well. The aggregate Estimates for naval works, as proposed under the Bill of 1895, were under £9,000,000. The total has now advanced to £27,500,000. It can hardly be contended that all the new works are of urgent necessity. Take as an example the estimate of £3,500,000 for Simon's Bay. Here, certainly there was a case of over-lapping. Our commercial base at Cape Town, with all its resources in docks and skilled workmen, was close at hand, and must be strongly held. With a subsidy from the Admiralty the Cape Government would have provided new docks or enlarged existing docks, and at less cost. New docks for the Navy entail a permanent addition to expenditure. They are useless without workmen, who must be paid at the Cape at Colonial rates. Parliament should be more vigilant in examining all new proposals, more especially for works in distant parts of the world.
Turning to the Votes for shipbuilding, their amount has increased from under £9,000,000 in 1895 to £18,420,000 for 1904–5. The increase has been necessary to maintain the two-Power standard in shipbuilding. For the years 1895–1904 the aggregate outlay for construction was officially given by the Secretary to the Admiralty at £70,000,000 in round figures for Great Britain, as against £83,000,000 for France, Russia, and Germany. We must look for reductions in future years. The shipbuilding Votes for the present year have been abnormally increased by the purchase of the "Swiftsure" and "Triumph." We have now reached a total of no less than £12,000,000, or more than the shipbuilding Votes of France, Russia, and Germany. And we build at least 25 per cent.—in a case lately given in a French official report, 44 per cent.—more cheaply than is possible in Russia or in France. By the efforts of recent years our naval supremacy is, for the time at least, assured. We are the better

1523
able to follow other Powers in a policy of retrenchment. It is useless to spend large sums on shipbuilding unless we have some expectation that the costly ships we lay down will be retained for a reasonable time on the list of effectives.
As to types, our naval architects fully hold their own. Our first-class battleships, whether designed by Sir William White or Mr. Watts, are not surpassed in any foreign navy. The rivalry of constructors under peace conditions tends towards exaggeration of size. The cost has advanced for the eight ships of the "Edward VII." class—and doubtless for the "Nelson," our latest design—to no less than £1,500,000. As the cost increases the numbers which can be built for any given sum must be less, and superiority in numbers must tell. That was the lesson of the Great War. The fleets of Lord Nelson consisted chiefly of 74's. At Trafalgar there were no four-deckers in the British line of battle. Superiority in numbers is even more important in modern naval warfare. The largest ships are as vulnerable below the belt as those of less dimensions. Size gives no immunity from the risks of stranding, collision, and fog. We are bound to build ships equal to the most powerful in foreign navies, but we need a less costly type. The "Swiftsure" and "Triumph," designed by Sir Edward Reed, lately purchased into the Navy at a cost per ship of £950,000, combining as they do the fighting power of battleships and the speed and coal endurance of cruisers, should find a place in future programmes. They could be built in the proportion of three to two of our largest types.
I have no criticisms to offer as to cruisers. I congratulate the Admiralty on their policy of cutting out vessels of no value for naval purposes. We built too many in times past. For the protection of commerce in distant seas and along the ocean routes our largest cruisers are the most satisfactory. Scouts are necessary. They are the eyes of the fleet. In the olden days the scouts were the frigates, of which Lord Nelson never had enough. Last year four vessels of the new type, officially designated as "scouts," were laid down. In the programme of 1904–5 we have four more vessels of the same class. The scouts are to steam twenty-five knots on an eight
1524
hours trial. The speed is high, but the displacements are too small to carry the supply of coal required in vessels designed to sweep the ocean. The scouts can hardly be reckoned as fighting vessels. They cannot compare with cruisers in armament; they are without protection. They will break up in a few minutes under a heavy fire; and their complements number 268 officers and men. Vessels of the scout type could, of course, chase destroyers, but no vessels have as yet been designed as effective as destroyers for repelling torpedo attacks upon a fleet of battleships. The greater the superiority in numbers the more complete the defence. Destroyers cost £50,000; scouts little less than £300,000. I would urge that no more vessels of the scout class should be laid down until those in hand have been tried at sea.
The scout class is not an untried type. In the years 1896–1900 twelve third-class cruisers of the "Pelrous" class, similar in dimensions to the scouts, and designed for similar services, were laid down. They had a speed of twenty knots. Their coal endurance was insufficient for scouting. It was soon seen that the "Pelorus" class must be failures. Lord Goschen's criticisms, in introducing the Navy Estimates on the 26th February, 1900, apply with equal force to the scouts—
"Then there is another point," he said, "connected with the programme of last year, namely, that we have dropped our proposal to lay down three third-class cruisers of rather larger dimensions than the 'Pelorus' class, intended to be very fast, and designed for special purposes We were guided in the matter to a certain extent by the experience of other countries. France had also intended to lay down some very fast small cruisers, but the French naval architects like our own appear to have found the task impossible to perform, and the French Government have withdrawn the small third-class cruisers from their programme just as we have dropped them from ours. The attempt was to put an enormous amount of machinery within a vessel of very small dimensions. That has been accomplished in the torpedo destroyers. They are light and very delicate instruments; but when we came to try it on a larger scale it was thought that these third-class cruisers would only be torpedo destroyers on a larger scale, and that they would not have the necessary seagoing or fighting power, and, therefore, it was thought better not to embark on an ambitious attempt which, though it would result in the appearance of a great success, might turn out to be impracticable in war.

1525
It would seem scarcely necessary to build special vessels as scouts. In the third class we have many cruisers no longer effective for the protection of commerce which should be effective for scouting duties. They have a speed of twenty knots, and a coal capacity far superior to that of the scouts. Their speed might be considerably increased by reducing armaments. As the eves of the Fleet, no regularly built vessels of war can compare with the greyhounds of the mercantile marine. They were strongly recommended to the Committee on Subsidies by Lord Charles Beresford. In giving evidence before the Committee he said—
"In war the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy must be to a very great extent intermingled. In allowing your admirals a certain number of very fast merchant ships by way of auxiliaries to the Fleet you may save a campaign and you may win an initial advantage. These ships would form the line of communication. They would carry information to an admiral of the movements of an enemy's fleet. There is no ship that can do this service better than the ocean greyhounds that are built for speed in any weather. That is their utility."
Lord Charles Beresford gave suggestions as to the means by which the construction of such vessels should be encouraged by the aid of the Government, and the ships retained under the British flag. There are strong political arguments in favour of a policy of subsidies to auxiliary vessels as the scouts of the Fleet. Swift communications are a bond of Empire. It is satisfactory to know that some definite conclusion has been reached on the subject of boilers. As to repairs, large sums have been wasted in the past in repairs to ships of no value for naval purposes. The remedy is to put such vessels out of commission. I congratulate the Admiralty on the strength of the Fleet in ships, and in officers and men inspired by their traditions and always eager to do their duty.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with the greater part of what has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken, especially with regard to what he has said about the construction of smaller battleships. Large battleships take so long to build that in all probability a modern war would be over before new ships could be built to replace the losses
1526
that we are certain to incur. In addition It our losses during fleet actions, balanced it is to be hoped by equal losses on the part of the enemy, we may fairly expect that those sub-aqueous explosions which are playing so large a part in the Russo Japanese war will from time to time still further reduce the numbers of our first-class ships. Under modern conditions of warfare, however successful we may be, we are unlikely to be able to replace these vessels by captures, and we shall, therefore, in all probability emerg from the war, or find ourselves in the middle of it, with fewer line-of-battle ships than we began with, a position that we have never yet been in, a position which will place us at a disadvantage, especially if we find ourselves face to face with unfriendly neutral Powers.
I therefore suggest that the Naval Construction Department should now, in time of peace, design, but not build, a small type of heavily armed battleship, two of which should be superior to one first-class battleship. The ruling principle of their construction should be that it should be possible to build them quickly, so that several of the class could be put out to contract at the commencement of war with a reasonable prospect of their being finished in time to be of use. The expense of preparing such a design would amount to a few hundred pounds only, and if this were done, a small fleet of such vessels would be ready for sea some months sooner than would be the case if the drawings had to be thought out, and the ships designed, before the actual work of building could be commenced. The noble Earl has given us his peace programme of naval construction, but I hope that he either has, or soon will have, a war programme of ships, with designs completed and drawn to scale, ready to be put in hand the moment that such a misfortune occurs. I do not, however, wish to ask him for the details of that programme. I think that it is better that they should remain in the category of State secrets.
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I will take the opportunity afforded me by my noble friend of dealing with one or two of those points of naval administration which have formed the subject of

1527
debate elsewhere during the session. I admit that I am glad of the opportunity of speaking on them; for I have not the privilege of defending the Estimates for which I am responsible in another place, and it is only such opportunities as this occasion affords me which enable me to defend the policy of the Board for which I Jam responsible. In the first place, the great size of the Navy Estimates has attracted a great deal of attention and a good deal of adverse comment. I am responsible, of course, principally for the Navy, but I also, as a Cabinet Minister, share to the full the responsibility of my colleagues for the state of the finances, and I am glad of this opportunity of saying that in my opinion a sound condition of finance is as important to the strength and well-being of this country as the sound condition of the Navy.
I would say that the Navy and our national credit are the two pillars on which in every material sense the safety of this Empire depends. The fabric of the Empire is built up by the character of our people and our national industries; the maintenance of that fabric depends upon our finances and upon the Navy together. If the Navy is weak, our national credit never can be assured; if our national finance is not in a thoroughly sound condition; if we have not a margin on which to fall back in time of emergency, then proper provision cannot be made for the Navy. Therefore, I am the last person to complain of the criticism which is being levelled against the size of the Navy Estimates. The responsibility for the justification rests upon me and upon my Board. Now, an offer was made a year or two ago by Lord Goschen, and repeated by my right hon. friend Mr. Ritchie, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if other nations would agree to diminish the rate of shipbuilding we would not be slow in acknowledging their lead and joining them in that movement. That offer has never been withdrawn. But the conditions of the case are more complicated and difficult now than they were a few years ago.
A few years ago it would have been sufficient if France and the United Kingdom had agreed mutually to diminish expenditure on shipbuilding, for in those days there were only two really great
1528
Navies—the Navies of France and the United Kingdom; but now the case is entirely changed, and there are more than half-a-dozen great naval Powers, some of them pressing on shipbuilding from year to year; and neither France nor the United Kingdom, however anxious they might be to curtail the rate of naval expenditure, could do so without considering the expenditure of other countries as well as their own mutual expenditure. What is the standard at which successive Governments have endeavoured to maintain our naval strength It has always been called the two-Power standard. Now I have looked back through the records of discussions on the subject in both Houses for some years, and I find that the date at which this standard may be said to have met with general acceptance was when Lord George Hamilton was First Lord of the Admiralty; and it is to that standard successive Governments have since worked.
Now what Lord George Hamilton really meant, and what the House of Commons meant, was that we should be prepared to face any two naval Powers with a reasonable probability of success. That was what the standard meant; and in those days the two next naval Powers were France and Italy, and as Italy was very friendly disposed towards us no one was anxious about the naval programme of Italy. The standard was convenient so far as battleships went, and it was possible to work to it, always bearing in mind that the strength should offer reasonable probability of victory, and that it should not be a mere arithmetical comparison. It has been a convenient standard for battleships; but in respect to cruisers and torpedo craft the standard has never had a real application, because the strength there must be in proportion to the work the Navy has to perform; and it has never been possible to assess that in proportion to tile cruisers and torpedo craft of the next two naval Powers. Our Board of Admiralty has before it a totally different naval problem from any which any other naval authority has to consider. The Admiralty of another country can concentrate its efforts on producing a formidable fleet of battleships, or it may make a leading feature of its strength cruisers to prey on the commerce of this

1529
or any other country with which that country might be at war, or it might direct its attention in other directions, such as the creation of a formidable Defence Mobile.
But this country has to consider much more. No other Admiralty in the world has to consider its Navy as the one safeguard of the country from invasion, or the fact that on the Navy depends the supply of food to the people. No other nation has to accept the responsibility of safeguarding so far as it may a vast preponderating ocean commerce or the shores of an Empire spread over continents and islands in all parts of the world. Our Navy is responsible for the safety of the whole Empire, to ensure reasonable immunity from invasion or raid. When you consider that is not an exaggerated statement of the functions the Board of Admiralty has to consider, I think I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say you cannot compare with any reason or fairness the naval expenditure of this country with that of any two or more Powers, because what our Navy has to do is totally different from what the navies of any one, two, or three other Powers have to do. There is an essential difference in the problem. And, although I welcome financial criticism and fully feel the importance of financial considerations, and agree that naval expenditure ought to be carefully scrutinised from the financial point of view, vet I do altogether deprecate a comparison of our naval expenditure with the naval expenditure of any two or three other naval Powers as the standard or basis of criticism.
It seems to me that it is quite possible to say that this country shall maintain a certain naval standard whatever the expenditure may be; that is quite possible, it has been quite possible, but it may cease to be possible in times to come. Or it is possible to say that the country will spend so much money and the Navy shall be as strong as it is possible to produce for that money. The country can take either of these courses. But what the Admiralty should not agree to accept is the responsibility of keeping up to a standard for which the money provided would not suffice. It is for the nation to decide whether at a given moment
1530
finance or the Navy is the more important, but do not attempt to deceive the nation by stating you are maintaining a standard when you have not asked for the money to do it. Lord Brassey has admitted in criticising the details of our shipbuilding policy that we must build battleships the most powerful that are built, and there is no difference of opinion between us there. He also said we ought to build a less costly type of battleship, that we should have two standards of battleships, battleships that are the most powerful and others less powerful; and there I differ from him. I do not see why we should spend money on comparatively inferior battleships. Time is automatically supplying comparatively inferior battleships, and why the Admiralty should hasten that automatic process and build ships which a generation hence will be still more out of date than those we have now I fail to see.
Now there must not be exaggeration about the way battleships pass out of date. Some misconception has been caused in this matter owing to the fact that our muzzle-loading ships are now out of date; but the same thing will not apply to breech-loading battleships. I take the "Nile" and "Trafalgar" as dating from the time of which Lord Brassey spoke. They are still valuable battleships of the second line, valuable reserve battleships, and I believe the battleships we are building now will be valuable battleships for the reserve line twenty-five years hence. Lord Ellen-borough made a useful suggestion that we should have in reserve war designs upon which ships could be more quickly built than modern ships can be. I will give the suggestion careful consideration, but I may point out that the difficulty in building battleships is not with the hull or armour; it is with the machinery and more particularly with the gun-mountings. It is the gun-mounting that limits the speed of construction. If gun-mountings could be turned out with the same speed as the hull then I think, given certain circumstances and the crisis, the time occupied in producing a battleship could be materially shortened.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I know that was the case once, but I thought we had got over it.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No. The number of places where gun-mountings can be supplied are very limited. Armstrong and Vickers are the only firms in this country, I think, where the big gun-mountings are made, and, apart from the capacity of these two firths to turn out gun-mountings, the process itself is exceedingly slow and complicated. One word on the "Lord Nelson" type of battleship Intentioned in another place the alter day. We have endeavoured to avoid increasing the displacement. We have put on that displacement a very powerful armament—an armament of four 12-inch guns and ten 9·2 guns, and the speed will be the same as in all the later battleships, a little over eighteen knots. The cost is roughly a little more than that of the "King Edward" class. I regard that displacement and those proportions as about the limit which we are likely to reach, because if the displacement is largely increased you limit the number of ports and docks the vessel can use and the general utility of the ship is decreased.
I take this opportunity of deprecating the kinds of methods that are used in comparing our battleships or cruisers with the battleships and cruisers of other nations. It often appears that writers in newspapers and magazines forget that every warship is a compromise. It is an essential element that it should be a compromise; one feature is predominant in one ship, another feature will be found in another. No ship combines every feature in its highest degree. I saw the other day an instance of what I mean. When the German squadron was at Devonport I saw in one paper a review of their characteristics, and the conclusion of the writer was that this fleet of eight battleships was more powerful than either the Channel Fleet or the Home Fleet. I am not going to discuss here the comparative merits of our own individual fleets and the corresponding foreign fleets, but what I want to draw attention to is the process by which this conclusion was arrived at. There was a very inadequate examination of any of the qualities of the ships possessed by either the Germans or the British except the number of guns; and the whole of the argument was really based on the fact that, speaking broadly,
1532
each of these German ships carried eighteen 6-inch guns, whereas twelve was the number carried in the British ships.
Anybody who did not know the subject might have read that article from end to end and never would have guessed this somewhat important fact—that, whereas every ship of the Channel Fleet had four 12-inch guns—that is, thirty-two 12-inch guns in the Fleet—and four ships of the Home Fleet had four 13½-inch guns each, two others four 12-inch guns each, and two others four 10-inch guns, each, there was not a single gun in the-whole of the German Fleet above 9·4-inch in calibre. That was to say, the Channel Fleet had thirty-two 12-inch guns against thirty-two 9·4-inch guns of the German Fleet, and our Home Fleet had sixteen 13½-inch guns, eight 12-inch guns, and eight 10-inch guns against the thirty-two 9·4-inch guns of the German fleet. It is therefore of no assistance to the corn-parison of naval architecture to approach the subject in that kind of exceedingly-unscientific spirit. Lord Brassey has so kindly expressed his concurrence. with the policy of the armoured cruisers that I will only repeat the information given in another place, that the new class of armoured cruisers—the "Minotaur" class—will carry an armament of 9·2 guns and 7½-inch guns and steam at twenty-three knots.
I now come to a class which has been. a great deal criticised by Lord Brassey and in the Press—what is known as the "Scout" class. It has been said that they are wanting in coal endurance and that as destroyers they are too large. Now, is their coal endurance inadequate for the duties which they have been created to perform? Remember the Admiralty in one sense made an experiment. We desired to give the great firms in this country an opportunity of showing what they could produce, given certain conditions, without the initiative of the Director of Naval Construction, and we went to four of the leading firms and said, "This is the kind of ship we want; make your own design." Each of the, four firms supplied two of the scouts. They differ somewhat in characteristics but, roughly, this is their average coal endurance: At 12 knots, 2,500 nautical miles; at 20 knots, 1,000 nautical miles;

1533
and at 25 knots,600 nautical miles. I must not be understood to say that that is a test, because they are only tried for eight hours at 25 knots, and it would not be fair to say that they were always able to do continuous sea steaming at 25 knots for 600 miles, but the coal they carry would suffice for that distance at that speed.
There never was any idea of creating the scout class as destroyers of destroyers. They have been given armament to enable them to tight the only vessels fast enough to catch them, which are the destroyers; but the genesis of this class was the desire to meet the demands of the admirals commanding the manœuvring fleets. None of the old unarmoured cruisers or mercantile auxiliaries could come up to the speed of 25 knots on emergencies like the scouts, and cruisers are more expensive ships. We have to hand a case where the scouts would in my estimation be of great value. Admiral Togo would indeed be gratified if he had some of these vessels at his disposal. It would be improper for me to discuss a war between two friendly Powers, but the general situation to which I may refer is known to the whole world. There is a port in which there is a powerful fleet, and another powerful fleet lies at a considerable distance from that port ready to move at a moment's notice, and it relies for its information on scouts lying off the blockaded port. The whole issue of a war might depend on any admiral in a similar position getting information early enough of any movement of the fleet in the blockaded port. For such a purpose I can imagine nothing better adapted than the scout class.
I should like to refer to the submarine class, although it was not mentioned by Lord Brassey. Public attention was lately riveted on the submarine by the deplorable accident which happened off Portsmouth to Submarine A 1. In the opinion of the Admiralty, the value of submarines for defensive purposes is abundantly proved, and for offensive defence—the defence, for example, of our shores in the case of attempted invasion—they are a great addition to our national security. What further development may be in store for this class of ship I am not prepared to say. I am certainly not prepared to say we have reached the
1534
limit of the uses to which experience may show they can be put. I hope the public will not think they are dangerous to officers and men. I do not believe that the risks of navigating this class are in any kind different from those involved in the navigation of torpedo boats or destroyers, which at night or in crowded waters must always run a certain amount of risk, and I think the increase in degree practically nil. The safety of the submarine, as of the torpedo boat, depends on the nerve and skill of the officers. That is the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, and I am allowed by the parent of an officer now serving in a submarine, who is himself in a position to speak authoritatively on all naval questions, which he follows with keen interest, to say that this accurately describes the state of the case. All proper precautions should always be used. Manœuvres must continue; but every opportunity should be taken to warn the mercantile marine where these submarines are at work.
One word on the question of boilers. Two years ago, referring to Belleville boilers, I said that if properly manufactured and if properly managed they were able to fulfil the requirements of the Navy, and would not fail in time of war on those conditions. All that has happened since has confirmed me in that opinion, but it has also confirmed me in the opinion which I then added, that this boiler is too delicate an instrument for the rough-and tumble work of the Navy. That is my firm conviction now. But although the ships which have Belleville boilers have not failed their admirals, I regret to say that the cost of the repairs of these boilers has been very serious indeed, and I should never myself be responsible for putting in any more of these boilers, not because I think they would fail in a time of emergency, but because I think they are too expensive to the taxpayers of the country. The boilers which the Committee finally recommended, and which the Admiralty have adopted, are much simpler in construction and much easier to examine and keep in order; and the Admiralty have good reason to believe that they will cost far less in repairs than the Belleville boilers. But I must protest against a phrase which was used in another place, that the Admiralty have recklessly turned the Navy into a gigantic

1535
experiment in the matter of boilers. We had, of course, experiments on a large scale, because in no other way could we find out what was the best boiler for the Navy. But we have not put into one single ship of the Navy any boiler which we did not believe would serve that ship faithfully in time of war.
As to the cost of naval works. I am well aware how serious is the sum which Parliament has authorised to be expended on these works. But the reason of this great expenditure is that these naval works have been neglected for nearly two generations. If Parliament had, from year to year during the last half century, done what was necessary, this great expenditure in the last ten years to overtake arrears would not have been necessary. I submit that all that has transpired in the present war shows how essential it is that the Navy should be equipped with these works. In a naval war a country may have the ships and the men, but if she has no place where the ships can be repaired, renovated, and sent to sea again, she may well be defeated by an enemy with an inferior force but provident enough to have provided her navy with all those works so essentially necessary to keep a fleet in being in modern naval warfare. The whole of the expenditure on naval works has been of two classes—in providing proper accommodation for the men of the Fleet either in barracks or hospitals, and for the ships of the Fleet in docks, with the workshops by which they can be repaired, and in providing harbours where they can repair, refit, revictual, or recoal without molestation; and I do not believe that any one of these provisions has been ill-advised. I cannot admit what Lord Brassey said about Simon's Bay. Simon's Bay is a very important spot in the Empire, from the point of view of naval strategy. If the Suez Canal were closed, it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance, and when Lord Goschen's Board agreed to the spending of this large sum of money on works in Simon's Bay, I have no doubt but that they adopted the plan which would give the Navy what was required in the most efficient way, and with the least expense.
What are the great lessons which are taught by the present war? The first
1536
is the importance of the personnel. The officers and the men are of more importance than the ships, and that is the greatest justification of the policy of the Admiralty in years past in asking Parliament to provide us with so large a number of active service ratings. There must, of course, be a limit to the expansion of the active service ratings. Further expansion must be in the Reserve; and the Admiralty have done their best to increase the Reserves not merely at home but in the Colonies. Lord Goschen's Board started the way in Newfoundland; we have followed in the Commonwealth of Australia. New Zealand, and Malta. In addition to that, we have started the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. It is too soon to speak of how it has turned out, but I can say that it promises well. The second lesson which I deduce from the war is that we must have a margin of strength. It is plain, I think, to those who have followed the war how much turns on the existence or non-existence of a margin of strength; and I am quite sure that those who realise what a naval war must mean to this country know that the two-Power standard, properly interpreted, means a reasonable assurance of victory, and that reasonable assurance of victory predicates a margin over strict numerical equality. The question is sometimes asked, have the experiences of this war shown that battleships are out of date? Have the mine and the torpedo relegated the battleship from the leading place it has occupied ever since modern naval war began? I believe that nothing could be further from the truth. No lesson is more surely written across the pages of the history of the present war, so far as it has progressed, than that without the battleship no Power can hold or win the command of the sea. I do not ask you to take this opinion from me. I will conclude by reading an extract from an article by Captain Mahan in the New York Sun of 11th May this year, on the question of the survival of the battleship, viz.—
"Power so concentrated, if equally well handled, will always prevail—not only against an equal amount, but even against a decidedly superior amount dispersed among several. This is elementary military experience; appearing in another form in the commonly understood virtues of central position, interior lines, massed forces, and single command. This is, in brief,

1537
the argument for the battleship; single and concentrated force. There is further the utterly unappreciated, in fact wholly ignored, factor of economy. It is much more expensive to put the same aggregate tonnage into two ships than into one. Speaking within limits, you get less military efficiency at higher cost. You need two captains for one; nearly twice as many officers; and crews which, while they may not be the double of the one ship, will exceed it by a very large percentage. And the more you divide your tonnage—say ten or twenty torpedo vessels for one battleship—the greater the economical loss. This was the fatal economical error of Jefferson's seductive cheap gunboat policy, a measure which insured a minimum of military usefulness at a maximum of pecuniary outlay. In my opinion nothing has occurred so far in this present war to confirm the opinion that torpedo attacks by small vessels against battleships will be frequently succcessful. However, even as a matter of mere good luck, success at times must be expected; hence it is desirable so to regulate the size of the battleship that the loss of one may not be excessively felt. It will be impossible to contest control of the sea with vessels exempt by their draught from torpedo injury; and control of the sea is the one thing needful. For the most part, attack by torpedo vessels will be confined to coasts and the neighbourhood of ports, where they will generally be encountered, and in measure checked, by vessels of their own class."
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I think the House ought to be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brassey, not only for his own interesting speech, but for the very instructive and important statement which he has elicited from the First Lord of the Admiralty. I feel that we have been a little remiss in not having given the noble Earl an opportunity of making a statement such as he has made to-night at an earlier period of the session. I am not prepared to deal with the noble Earl's statement beyond referring to a few points. I am aware how important it is that the Fleet should have ships to scout for it, but I think that torpedo-boat destroyers, while admirably suited for work in narrow channels, were not intended to accompany a great fleet to sea. With regard to the question of boilers, when I was at the head of the Admiralty my Board were responsible for introducing the water-tube boilers. They introduced the Belleville boilers; and, although that particular class of boiler may be too delicate and expensive, yet I am glad to see that the recent Report shows that the principle of water-tube boilers is a right one, and of great advantage to the Navy. Turn-
1538
ing to the question of the two-Power standard, I entirely agree that we are not in the same position as other countries, but the noble Lord seems to consider that the enormous extent of our trade and the number of our colonies are the main factors which should regulate the standard.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said I believed these to be most important duties that the Admiralty had to consider which foreign countries had not to consider.
EARL SPENCER: I agree, but I thought the noble Lord had dwelt too much on that aspect of the matter. What we have principally to consider is where our enemies' ships will be, and what ships they will have. I am not quite certain whether the two-Power standard is a good one to go by. No doubt circumstances have changed in the last twenty years, but I think such tremendous strides have been taken that we have almost exceeded what was right and necessary. It behoves the Government, and every Government, to be very careful not to exceed what is actually necessary. I should be very much against trying to build two kinds of battleships, and I think that what the First Lord has said on this subject is eminently right. Besides the size, speed, and armament of battleships, a point of great importance for our consideration in the construction of battleships is coal endurance. In regard to naval works I feel some responsibility, inasmuch as when I presided over the Board of Admiralty naval works were commenced which since, I am afraid, have grown to a very great degree. But we found that the old-fashioned roads where ships of war used to assemble were absolutely dangerous in view of the possibility of modern torpedo attacks. I am unable to say whether the extension of naval works since that date has gone too far, but I do think that the time has come when some halt should be called in the enormous expenditure that is now taking place.

SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
POST OFFICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to order) and passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report of the Select Committee. Considered (according to order), and agreed to.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 188.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.