Lords Sitting of 8 July 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:— Rotherham Corporation; Selby Urban District Council.
"The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Lytham Improvement Bill, Reported, with Amendments.
Ulster Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House 8 that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. The order of the 21st of April last discharged. Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over Monday next.
North Western Electricity and Power e Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, "with Amendments.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [H L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Birkdale Improvement Bill; Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Message to the Commons for
1050
the Right Honourable George Wyndham, Chief Secretary for Ireland (a Member), to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of this House.
Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff) Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Kintore (E. Kintore), and reported from the Committee. (No. 137.)
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a"; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed, in moving an

1051
Amendment to this Bill, to say a few words on behalf of the Post Office. My noble friend the Postmaster-General considered that it would be disrespectful to your Lordships' House if his Department did not explain why they have taken the course followed in regard to this Bill. I gather from the Postmaster-General that a mutual agreement has been arrived at between the Post Office and the Great Eastern Railway Company with regard to the proposed Amendment, but my noble friend the Acting Chairman of Committees holds the opinion that it might have been possible for the Post Office to have proceeded in this matter by means of a public Bill. If they had considered it possible to get a Bill passed in their interests on these grounds during the present session, they would undoubtedly have taken that course; but they considered that at this stage of the session, and in view of the various important matters before Parliament, it would have been futile to have proceeded in that way.
But I would point out on behalf of the Postmaster-General, that it is very important that his Department should assert their rights in connection with traffic of all sorts and kinds. The Department fully recognise that in all probability it will be some time before the motor system is developed to its fullest extent, and until that is the case it may not be the duty of the Post Office to take advantage generally of that system of transport for their mails; but they also feel that they should lose no time in asserting the rights they undoubtedly have of making use of all kinds of locomotion. The Postmaster-General is extremely anxious that every respect should be paid to your Lordships' House, and has asked me, therefore, to make these few remarks in moving the following Amendment—
"And whereas it has been agreed between the Company and the Postmaster-General that the following provisions shall apply with respect to the conveyance of mails by omnibuses, coaches, carts, and other road vehicles, be it therefore enacted that—
(1) The Company shall convey by any omnibus, coach, cart, or other road vehicle provided, worked, or used on a regular or periodical service in connection with, or in extension "of, their railway system, and habitually moved by mechanical power, all such mails (with the
1052
officers of the Post Office in charge thereof) as may be tendered by the Postmaster-General for conveyance by such vehicle, and shall receive and deliver such mails from or to any Post Office or officer of the Post Office on the route of such vehicle."
Then follow conditions with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"That this clause be there inserted." (The Marquess of Londonderry).
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think it would be right for me to say a few words as to the reason which has induced me to insist that this Amendment should be moved in the House rather than be put in before me when presiding over an Unopposed Bill Committee. One of the clauses in this Bill provides for the running by the Great Eastern Railway Company of certain motor-car services supplemental to the services on the railway, and though this proposal is novel, I believe that it will be generally speaking, a convenience to the public in those parts of the country where it is found suitable to adopt it. It will be mostly with the object of meeting the requirements of excursionists and others, and it will be very often only an intermittent service. But in consequence of this power being taken by the Great Eastern Railway Company, the Postmaster-General suggested to me, through one of the officers of his Department, that the provisions of the Act of 1893 should be extended to this Bill, and that it should be made compulsory upon companies, and this company amongst them, when providing motor services to carry in those vehicles the mails and the servants of the Post Office in charge of them. That was proposed as a compulsory obligation. It is, as your Lordships know, compulsory now upon the railway companies to carry mails and servants of the Post Office either upon their ordinary trains or upon their light railways "or tramways.
The company in question contested the justice of making the Act of 1893 apply to motor-car services of-railway companies upon the ground that the circumstances were essentially different

1053
They were seeking for no monopoly, they were not laying down special tracks or getting Parliamentary powers to make roads; they were simply, as members of the public, using the roads which were provided by the community, and they argued that the only object of Clause 41 of the Bill—the clause now before your Lordships—was to legalise their doing a thing which they wanted to do in the interests of the company. I took that view, and I told the Postmaster-General that, in my opinion, if he wanted legislation of this kind it should be by a public Act, and not by making a precedent in what was otherwise an unopposed Bill.
I took that view mainly on the ground that the motor-car service which it is proposed to establish is essentially different from the general service of trains, inasmuch as there is not the same accommodation, certainly not the same accommodation to spare. Secondly, there is no monopoly given to the railway company for this service, and under those general conditions under which this traffic is carried on the granting to the Postmaster-General of this compulsory power might be placing a very unfair burden on the railway company. On these grounds I refused to insert the clause, but the railway company and the Post Office, I will not say behind my back, but after the decision I had given, agreed between themselves that the clause which is now before your Lordships—an agreement clause—should be inserted in this Bill. I then said that I thought, as this was the first occasion that such a proposal had been made, it should not be accepted by me even though it was agreed to by the parties, but should be moved in the House so that your Lordships should know what was done.
I do not offer any objection to the insertion of this clause, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that when a new precedent of this kind is made it should be done on due notice, so that the whole House may know what is being done. I do not altogether agree with some of the statements made by the noble Marquess. He stated that the Post Office had undoubtedly power to insist on this service under the existing law. It is precisely because they
1054
have not that power that they are seeking the insertion of this clause. All I wish to say is that as this is an agreement clause it must not, of course, be taken to form a precedent to be compulsorily imposed on all railway companies who come to Parliament for these services. As the clause in question is an agreement clause and the House has had an opportunity of considering it, I do not propose to offer on this occasion any opposition to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETITIONS.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition to be heard by Counsel against; of Association of County Councils in Scotland; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 419. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for 1903).
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) 1903.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.
  SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS.
  Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to consider the humane slaughtering of animals; together with minutes of evidence, appendices, and index.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3209. Brazil (Porto Allyre).

  No. 3210. Portugal (Pete).

  No. 3211. Portugal (Chinde).

  No. 3212. Japan.

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

NEW BILL.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable regulations to be made for carrying into effect conventions with

  1055
  respect to the prevention of danger arising to public health from vessels, and the prevention of the conveyance of infection by means of vessels—Was presented by the Earl Waldegrave (for the Marquess of Lansdowne); read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 138.)

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
  LORD HENEAGErose to call attention to the present Army Regulations in regard to staff and extra-regimental duties, the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain in the artillery and cavalry, and the retention of officers in successive appointments on the staff for unlimited periods; and to move to resolve: "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system limits the number of officers duly qualified for staff appointments, is most unfair to regimental officers, and is prejudicial to the best interests of the Army. "He said: My Lords, in bringing this question again before the attention of your Lordships I do not propose to retraverse the whole ground, because the late Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to me last year, did not attempt to answer any of the statements I then made, but simply entered a non possumus attitude on the part of the Secretary of State. I intend to-day to call your Lordships' attention to the very unsatisfactory reply given me last year, and which was entirely based on erroneous facts and figures. The questions which I asked your Lordships to consider last year were whether it was not advisable (1) that more officers should be allowed to pass through the Staff College for shorter periods; (2) that all officers on the staff should be seconded, especially in the cavalry and artillery, and (3)
  1056
  that there should be more frequent interchange of duties between regiments and the staff.
  Now, my Lords, what was the reply that I received from the noble Earl, Lord Hardwicke, last year? He first of all said that as the whole Staff College question was under Sir Henry Hildyard's consideration he could say nothing, and I admit that that was a perfectly fair and reasonable reply. He then went on to say that they could not increase the number of staff officers as they would not have staff employment for them, and that though my Motion would, in the opinion of the military advisers of the War Office, very much increase the efficiency and discipline of the Army, the cost rendered it prohibitive. Now, my Lords, I desire to call your attention to facts and figures, all of which ought to have been known to the War Office at that time. First, I will deal with the question of the increase in the number of staff officers. The evidence of Lord Roberts and of other generals before the War Commission proved clearly three facts:—(1) That there were not sufficient staff officers; (2) that whilst some were efficient others did not know their work; and (3) that the regimental officers who were commandeered for the staff did their work very well, soon became efficient and were in no degree inferior to the general body of Staff College men. That, I think, is a very strong argument in favour of a greater interchange between the regiments and the staff, and of a larger number of officers being passed through the Staff College to qualify for staff work.
  The Royal Commission considered the evidence of Lord Roberts of such importance that in Paragraph 95 of their Report, page 53, they gave his evidence textually. They state that after referring to an absence of a definite system of staff duties, leading sometimes to neglect of indispensable precautions, the gallant Field-Marshal went on to say that—
  "Officers were often called upon to take up duties of which they had no previous knowledge; but whilst it was remarkable in the great majority of cases how quickly they became efficient, the mistakes that were made by the staff had most serious consequences. Many instances of indifferent staff work might be quoted, and it seems clear that the whole staff should be thoroughly trained, that a definite

  1057
  system of carrying out staff duties should be laid dawn, and that we should have enough trained staff officers to supply, in case of emergency, a large Army."
  That was precisely what I asked for in my Motion last year. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal went on to say—
  "Staff officers cannot be improvised, nor can they learn their duties like the rank and file in a few weeks or months, for their duties are as varied as they are important."
  And the noble and gallant Earl further said—
  I am decidedly of opinion that we cannot have a first-rate Army unless we have a first-rate staff, well educated, constantly practised in manœuvres, and with wide experience."
  This was supplemented by Lord Kitchener, who said—
  "The officers on the staff were very mixed. Some were excellent, whilst others had no staff training and had everything to learn. There was no reserve of qualified staff officers to fill vacancies."
  Now, my Lords, I will only quote one more passage from the evidence of Lord Roberts. It is in reference to regimental officers, who have come in for so much unmerited censure, and his opinion is amply endorsed by other general officers. Lord Roberts said—
  "There were certain failures among them in South Africa, but, so far as my knowledge of history goes, the general standard of practical knowledge, of devotion to duty, and of readiness under difficulties, was at least as high as in any army which I have known or of which I have read…. It was seldom that they displayed any want of initiation, and their knowledge of their duties in the field left little to be desired."
  It requires no further words from me, after these quotations, to urge the importance of more staff officers; but I would further point out that both Lord Roberts and General Nicholson represented that there was no adequate body of staff officers trained in the work of intelligence, study of country, strategical or tactical dispositions, direction of movements of troops, choice of camps, water, and sanitary matters. I think your Lordships will agree with me and also with these gallant officers that these are matters of the highest importance, and matters that ought not to be left to be learnt after an Army is in the field.
  I think it is clear, from what I have read to your Lordships, that more staff officers are required, and that, if given the opportunity, the general body of regi-
  1058
  mental officers would qualify for the staff. Why not give the opportunity to all those recommended, without competitive examinations, for one year's training in the Staff College, or even six months? There are many staff duties which do not require exceptional ability in languages or strategy. At the end of the year let there be a competitive examination, and retain specially good men for a second year. I will not trouble the House with any arguments as to unlimited service on the staff. It has become a by-word that staff officers once on the staff were always on the staff, notwithstanding the regulation that every officer was to go back to his regiment at the end of his five years term of service. But recently, during the period when Lord Roberts was Commander-in-Chief, I understand a new Order was issued enforcing that regulation, and, I believe, in many cases limiting the staff appointments to a term of three years. This will promote a greater interchange between the staff and regiments to the advantage of both and give more officers the opportunity of staff service and of becoming efficient.
  Now, I come to the question of seconding, and to the reply which was given me last year by the noble Earl the then Under-Secretary that it would increase efficiency and discipline but that the cost was too great and the money could be better expended in other ways. I would venture to ask your Lordships in what better way can money be expended than in promoting the discipline and efficiency of our Army? Notwithstanding the non possumus attitude taken up by the Under-Secretary last year, events have marched along with very rapid strides, and the position is much altered. A new Order has been issued to the effect that officers joining the Staff College shall be seconded, and that commanding officers of regiments and seconds-in-command shall not go to the staff unless they resign their regimental appointments. Again, I am told that within the last few weeks it has been decided that artillery battery majors in future are to be seconded when employed on the staff; so that the only officers who will now be left un-seconded if they serve on the staff will be majors commanding cavalry squadrons. I ask why, when justice has been done

  1059
  to all the other majors, justice should not be done to majors commanding squadrons of cavalry?
  There were during the war, and there are even at the present moment, large numbers of captains commanding cavalry squadrons who have never had major's rank or major's pay. At the time when Mr. Childers was Secretary of State for War there was a great change made in the cavalry. Up to that time the troop system had obtained in those regiments, with a captain and two subalterns, whilst the colonel, adjutant, and riding master bossed the show. But Mr. Childers brought about the squadron system. When that system was adopted, it was decided that the squadron should be under a major with a captain and three subalterns, and Mr. Childers considered that the officer commanding a cavalry squadron should have the rank, as he had the responsibilities, of a major. The major of a cavalry squadron is practically the commanding officer of his squadron, with an appeal to the colonel. He is entirely responsible for the pay, drill, mounting, uniform of men, saddlery, discipline, leave of men, and recommendations for promotion, and he is responsible to the colonel and to no one else for the efficiency of his squadron. Therefore, when a squadron major is taken away and placed upon the staff, a captain has to perform all those duties and take all those responsibilities without the rank or the pay of major.
  It is a very small question at the present moment, but I would mention that when a major is removed to the Staff he gets his pay practically doubled. He has sometimes under £300 a year as a regimental major, but he gets from £600 to £700 a year the moment he goes on the staff. A staff captain receives £500 a year, but the captain who undertakes all the responsibilities of the major when the major is put on the staff only receives the pay he had before. The War Office and the late Commander-in-Chief have done a great deal to promote justice in regard to this matter, and I would ask the authorities, having swallowed the camel, not to strain at the gnat.
  I have been careful to look through the number of officers who would be affected at the present moment if
  1060
  justice was done in this matter, and I find that it is only a question of a dozen captains, and the difference of pay, 2s. a day, would only amount to £36 10s. per annum. The sum of £500 would pay the lot and give them major's rank. I do not say that there are not more than a dozen majors on the staff, but the other majors are either students at the Staff College, in colonial employ, or they are majors who have been allowed to continue as adjutants of Yeomanry after they have been promoted, and, therefore, they do not come within the same category. Nor do I include vacancies of those who are seconded, but whose places are not filled. Those I have deducted. I conclude by moving my resolution and asking the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information with regard to the new Staff College regulations, with regard to the new rule about staff service and whether it is to be enforced, and with regard to the seconding of officers on the staff; and I would express the hope that since justice has been done to the artillery it will not now be withheld from cavalry captains in a like position.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House the present Army Regulations in regard to staff and extra-regimental duties, the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain in the artillery and cavalry, and the retention of officers in successive appointments on the staff for unlimited periods limits the number of officers duly qualified for staff appointments, are most unfair to regimental officers, and are prejudicial to the best interests of the Army."—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord who has just sat down, and, with your Lordships' permission, I would particularly like to point out the great deficiency in the trained staff of our Army as at present constituted. The fact is again brought to our minds that the War Office does not march with the times. Five years ago few, I think, would have suspected the latent power which lay in our Auxiliary Forces and in the untrained patriotic

  1061
  thousands in the country. There is hardly a Minister, to whatever Party he may belong, who, in after dinner speeches, has not congratulated the country on its extraordinary patriotism, but only one Minister has taken any trouble to see that that patriotism, if it is to be called upon again, is directed on proper lines. I refer to Mr. Brodrick. He is the only man who has brought forward a really workable scheme.
  We in England have the smallest Regular Army of any European nation, but there is the certainty that if we called upon them we should have probably the largest number of Volunteers which any nation in Europe could produce. Yet we have got no means of working this body into anything which could be called an Army. We are in that position because we have no adequate staff. May I point out the actual number of trained staff officers we have in England at the present time. I am not including those who are already employed, nor those who are at the present moment in service abroad; neither am I including those who are first or second in command of their battalions, because they could not be taken away without seriously interfering with the efficiency of their regiments. In respect to the cavalry we have only two officers who are free, so to speak, to do staff work. We have on paper one cavalry brigade. The second cavalry brigade is on paper, but there are no names below it. Therefore, we should start, if we filled this second cavalry brigade, with a deficiency of cavalry staff officers. Again, when we come to the infantry, we have only seventeen majors and captains who are qualified —that is to say, we have only two officers in the cavalry and seventeen in the infantry who are ready at the present moment to take up staff appointments, a id this at a time when we ought to have thoroughly learned the lesson taught by the late war.
  The inequality of the staff work in South Africa, as pointed out by many witnesses who gave evidence before Lord Elgin's Commission, arose from the fact that the majority of these officers were taken direct from the regiments without any staff education. We all know that before two divisions had left these islands
  1062
  for South Africa the Staff College men had run out. Messengers were sent to various regiments asking them to supply staff officers, and the officers supplied were sent at once to the front. What happened? The staff work was most inefficient at times of utmost crisis, and the work of the Army throughout was seriously hampered. I would like to point out the hardships which occur in regiments whose officers ale taken away in time of war. A regimental commanding officer is ordered to send out a couple of captains or majors for staff work. Naturally he does not send his best men, because he cannot afford to lose them. He sends in all probability the worst officers in the whole of his corps; but when these men return to their regiments, although they are not the best officers and were sent to the staff on that account, they will be for all time above the heads of better men and above the very men who were not sent to the staff because they were better men. That is not justice, and it spoils the work done by the brigade, because the second-class or third-class men sent by the regimental commanding officer for staff work are not up to their duties.
  It is a well-known theory, laid down by Moltke and other writers on the subject of military work, that it is essential to have some consecutive pattern of ideas for staff work; but this is quite impossible if you get men in this haphazard manner. Now, with regard to the Auxilary Forces. The Imperial Yeomanry have two majors upon whom they can rely for the whole of their staff work, they had a captain a short time ago, but, unfortunately, he has gone to learn Japanese and has had to be struck off the list; so that at present there are only two staff officers for the whole of the Yeomanry— some 25,000 or 27,000 men. We cannot have our own Yeomanry officers for staff duties because they have not the knowledge. I command a Yeomanry unit, but I should not dream of sending one of my best officers away. It is unreasonable to expect us to do so simply because they do not take care at the War Office to have these things arranged in readiness for mobilisation in time of war.

  1063
  With regard to the Militia, we know that a large number of the junior officers are merely birds of passage, who only come in for a short time. It would be impossible for a Militia colonel to part with his senior officers. The discipline of the Militia is not such as to enable it to stand much knocking about. We had during the war orders and counter-orders. That may be all right in the case of Regular troop's, but Volunteers will not allow themselves to be messed about by men who do not know their work. I certainly think Mr. Brodrick's Army Corps scheme was a good one. It gave us a skeleton on which we could graft our various battalions, and in dropping that scheme we have, in my opinion, gone back. This scheme could only come into force if we had more staff officers. We have not got a sufficient staff, and surely now is the time to remedy that deficiency. Previously when the War Office took men for the Staff College they took them more or less in the dark, and were only able to judge of their capacity as the result of an examination, but here we are at the end of a war. We know who are the good men and who are the bad men; we know who were good staff officers in South Africa and who were bad staff officers. Surely now is the time to get hold of them, and to put them through the Staff College.
  Why should we not at the present moment put 100 or 150 officers through the Staff College? They could be given one year's course, as the noble Lord who preceded me suggested, and this large number of trained men would constitute a reserve of staff officers on which you could rely in the event of mobilisation. The argument against this increase of staff officers is one of cost. Could anyone imagine that this cost, if ever we had a war again like we had in South Africa, would not be recovered over and over again if we had efficient staff work? You have only to read the Report of Lord Elgin's Commission to see how money was thrown away broadcast through inefficient staff work in South Africa. I think the extra cost of educating more men at the Staff College ought not to weigh at all in considering this matter. With regard to the argument that there will not be sufficient employ-
  1064
  ment for them, I would say that you want, in the first place, to get your staff in touch with the Auxiliary Forces. The whole question of concentration at a critical point is entirely a matter of the close study of distances, and the time that men will take to travel over distances; and if you have not got a staff capable of calculating this, how can any general be expected to do well or to get his men at critical points at the right time? Therefore, I think that if the principle of extra staff officers is admitted there would be plenty of work for them to do. They could be attached to the infantry and Yeomanry brigades, and would be most valuable in bringing the troops up to a greater state of efficiency.
  Of course, a very large proportion of the staff, in case of mobilisation, will have to come from the Auxiliary Forces, but I think it will be admitted that it is absolutely essential that, at all events, a nucleus of a staff, as given by Mr. Brodrick's Army Corps scheme, should be there to point out the lines on which the Auxiliary staff would be able to work. There were at the end of the war three great lines of reform, and I venture to think this one of staff is quite equal to the other two. First of all, there was reform of the War Office, which His Majesty's Government have gone into in no half-hearted manner. Secondly, there was the question of the training of officers, which they have gone into by the appointment of an Education Committee; and, thirdly, they have this great question of the staff. I hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to obtain a reserve of staff officers, so that if the nation has to fight again and to produce 300,000 men for defence, we shall at all events have some nucleus of a Staff who can be relied upon to educate the staff officers from the Auxiliary Forces who they will have to help them.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of UONOUGHMOEE): My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion made one general observation with which I should like to deal at once. It was to the effect that the figures produced by my noble friend behind me last year were entirely erroneous. I should have been very interested to know in what

  1065
  particular they were erroneous. I have still those figures. They were, I am sure, most carefully worked out at the War Office at the time, and I have not seen or heard any statement by the noble Lord seriously impugning them. We have a body of trained actuaries at the War Office whose one business it is to make calculations of this kind, and I think that without some very strong proof it is rather a sweeping statement to make to say off-hand that the calculations were inaccurate.
  LORD HENBAGE: I took exception to the figures immediately after the noble Earl's speech. A great number of other subjects were brought in to make up the amounts which had nothing whatever to do with the pay of cavalry majors.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have read last year's debates carefully, and the impression I got was that the noble Lord did not make it clear on the first occasion that he was not considering the case of all majors.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Question was on the Paper, and it distinctly stated that I was only dealing with cavalry and artillery majors.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am quite prepared to accept that. The figures given by my noble friend Lord Hardwicke did include the infantry and my noble friend opposite did not, I think, say anything at that time which would convey the impression that he meant to exclude the infantry. But he did say a few days afterwards that that was his intention, and my noble friend then corrected the figures he gave on the first occasion. The noble Lord, in raising this question to-night, suggested a scheme by which we should take a larger number of men into the Staff College for one year and a smaller number for the two years course. I admit at once that that is a very alluring proposal; but the difficulty in the way is a practical one. The course at the Staff College is very carefully thought out, and that for the first year is very different from the course in the second. It is a different style of
  1066
  thing altogether. The first year's course deals with military history, artillery, and fortification, staff duties, military administration, and other subjects. The second year's course goes into bigger questions, what I might call general staff questions—questions of Imperial defence, practice in reconnaissance, practice in training of troops, and tours of inspection—and it is quite impossible to tell at the end of the first year whether a man will be any use at the things he is going to study in the second year until after he has entered on the second year's course. It would make things very much easier to pass a larger number of men through the one year course and a smaller number through the full two years; but I am afraid the system would not benefit the Army in the end, and we might lose the services of many men who might not be so good at the work in the first year, but who might turn out useful staff officers in general staff work.
  I am entirely at one with the two noble Lords who have spoken as to the necessity of more staff officers for the Army; and I am glad to see that they recognise that the Staff College training is absolutely necessary in order to turn out efficient staff officers. The output of staff officers at the present moment is not anything like large enough for our requirements. Our requirements are growing every day. It is not quite germane to the subject, but it may interest your Lordships to know that in the organisation of the General Staff at the War Office we intend to employ sixty-five officers to do the work that has hitherto been done by thirty-two. That at once creates a large number of staff appointments of very great importance, for which we have got to find the very best candidates. In the Intelligence Branch, which is now under the Director of Military Operations, and in which we have hitherto employed twenty-seven officers, we shall find plenty of work for forty-three, and the remainder will be employed in the other branches of the department performing work for which only a very small staff has hitherto existed. This fact alone has vastly added to the necessity for turning out more staff officers, and we are fully alive to the fact that we have to meet these necessities.

  1067
  Lord Tweedmouth made some strong remarks the other day as to the Government's unsettled convictions in this matter. He said that we were unable to make up our minds as to the reforms recommended by the Esher Committee. The noble Lord displayed an innocence of knowlege which did him infinite credit, bat I think the statement I have made will convince him that we are not moving so slowly as the outside world seems to imagine, because we do not always talk about what we are doing. With regard to the suggestion that we should enlarge nomination and pass a great many more men through the Staff College, I would point out that our experience is against too great an extension of the system of nomination. The late Commandant at the Staff College has said that when a limited number of officers were selected by nomination it was frequently found that amongst them were some of the best officers of the College, but that when a large number were selected it resulted in the whole falling below the normal. We are fully alive to the need for further staff officers, and the matter is being most seriously considered. Your Lordships have no doubt read the recent Army Order issued by Lord Kitchener. You will see that Lord Kitchener is contemplating the establishment of a Staff College in India; this matter is now the subject of discussion between the War Office and the India Office, and I hope a decision will be come to at an early date.
  Now I come to the second point raised by Lord Heneage, as to the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain in the artillery and cavalry. The noble Lord does not include the infantry, and, therefore, I will say nothing about them beyond stating that the case for the non-inclusion of the infantry is very strong. It has been decided that artillery majors extra-regimentally employed are to be seconded, that is to say, they are to be succeeded in their appointments by majors. The first objection of the noble Lord's therefore falls to the ground. The noble Lord's point I think is that an artillery major commands a unit — a battery — and therefore ought to be seconded on going to the staff, and that a cavalry major commands a unit—a
  1068
  squadron—and ought therefore to be also seconded. I should like to say first that it would be much more difficult to work in the cavalry with small regiments than in the artillery where there are a lot of officers. There are 1,100 officers in the the Horse and Field Artillery, and 900 in the Garrison Artillery. We cannot recognise that a squadron is exactly the same unit as a battery. The squadron is a third of the cavalry regiment, and the regiment is commanded by a colonel who has authority over the majors, which does not exist in the case of the artillery.
  It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that since 1887 the major eommands the squadron, and that since that year his authority as squadron commander has been to a certain extent increased. In 1897, however, we added sixteen majors to the cavalry, with the result that promotion already in the cavalry is faster than it is in any other branch, and any alteration in the direction which the noble Lord suggested might very reasonably be argued to be unfair to the officers in other branches of the service. I now come to a point on which I really do lay stress. It is this, that we do now want the squadron majors away from their regiments and on the staff. We recognise that they are approaching the time when they will have to command the regiment, and we do not wish to encourage them to go away on the staff during those years. We want them to remain and get fully in touch with their regiments preparatory to assuming command a few years later. That is our great objection to seconding. There is a contention at the back of this that it is unfair that while the major is away the captain should do his work and not get full major's rank and pay.
  LORD HENEAGE: That is my whole point.
  The EARL of DONOUGHMORE: My first answer to that is that we do all we can to prevent the majors going away, and the second is that though, in some cases, it may cause hardship, it is not an unknown thing in other walks of life for men to do the work of a higher post while occupying the lower one. Officers are glad of the opportunity of

  1069
  showing that they are capable of doing the higher work, and at the same time they gain experience which is bound to be of use to them in their future career. I do not wish to pretend that that entirely does away with any hardship, but, if I may use the expression, it materially gilds the pill. In conclusion, I would only repeat that the reason we cannot meet the noble Lord on this point is that we do claim that the main cavalry unit is the regiment and not the squadron.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lord that after a period of staff service the officers should return to their regiments. There is an unwritten law at the War Office to this effect, and I have made careful inquiries and find that it is strictly enforced. There have, however, been exceptions during the last few years, but they were cases in which it was to the advantage of the Army that exceptions should be made; and although exceptions are always unpleasant things, we must have a free hand sometimes to dispense with rules. I can assure the noble Lord that there are no two opinions at the War Office that this rule ought to be enforced in every case where it is possible. I hope I have shown that in the main I am not antagonistic to the noble Lord, and I trust that in the circumstances he will not find it necessary to press his Motion to a division.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Motion after what I think is a very satisfactory explanation given by the noble Earl. I do not wish to say anything more with regard to the erroneous figures than that a lot of other calculations connected with the infantry were brought in last year by the noble Earl which largely increased the amount. With regard to the seconding of cavalry officers, I did not base my argument entirely on the question of a cavalry squadron being a unit. I do not see why cavalry majors should be the only majors in the whole service who are not seconded when they go away for staff work.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not intend to rise to the fly thrown by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary and to state my opinions as to the
  1070
  convictions, settled or otherwise, of His Majesty's Government. But, plausible as the speech of the noble Earl was, he entirely failed to touch upon the most important point raised by the noble and gallant Lord behind me, Lord Lovat. My noble friend pointed out, I thought with great force, that from the fact of our having been at war for three years the War Office had attained very good and complete knowledge of the relative merits of the men who served on the staff throughout that long campaign—a campaign that involved the employment of a large number of men on the staff and a continual shifting of those men. The point my noble and gallant friend urged was this, that having got this information the War Office should make use of it, and not allow to drop back into obscurity those men who had proved themselves good staff officers Whatever arrangements may be made for securing a sufficient supply of men to serve in His Majesty's Army, we are obliged to keep ready a set of officers capable of taking charge of the men who come forward; and it does seem to me that we have a right to ask from His Majesty's Government some more definite answer than the Under-Secretary has given on the points raised by Lord Lovat. Most people who take any interest in the fortunes of the British Army recognise that a good supply of the very best class of officers, instructed in the latest methods of warfare, brought up to the highest state of efficiency, is one of the most pressing needs of the country. I hope His Majesty's Government will take note of my noble and gallant friend's speech, and may even now tell us they have ready at hand, some scheme for dealing with his suggestions.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  NAVAL INTERPRETERS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the fact that, according to the June Navy List, out of 123 naval interpreters only two officers on the executive list have passed in Russian, that the only executive officer who has passed in

  1071
  German is on the Reserve List, that no officer of any branch of the Naval Service has passed in Japanese; and to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the advisability of giving a certain number of selected officers further facilities and inducements for the study of the German, Russian, and Japanese languages; also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the 123 officers who have passed as interpreters, and how many of the eighteen executive officers who have passed as French interpreters, are in receipt of the extra allowances payable to naval interpreters.
  According to the June Navy List there are 123 officers in different branches of the service who have passed as interpreters in various languages. Sixteen of these have passed in German, and eight in Russian. But although fifty-five have passed in Oriental languages, not a single officer of any branch of the service "has yet passed in Japanese. But what is still more extraordinary is that not one of the sixteen officers who have passed in German is on the regular executive list. Lieutenant Simpson-Baikie, who has passed in that language, is an officer in the Merchant Service and is on the list of the Royal Navy Reserve. Thirty-seven officers have passed in French, of whom eighteen are on the executive list. Surely the French Navy is not eighteen times as important as the German? From the little that I know about the latter service, I consider that its methods are worthy of the most careful study. Yet such studies can scarcely be undertaken except by those who, in addition to a knowledge of the language, are well acquainted with technical details, with the manœuvres of fleets, and who have done duty on the bridge. If we were acting in alliance with the German Navy we should not be able to derive the full benefit of such an alliance, as more than a usual number of misunderstandings would take place.
  I am, however, glad to see that eight Marine officers, one Engineer officer, and six officers of other branches of the service have passed in German. Executive officers have less leisure than those in other branches, are more likely to be disturbed at odd hours, and have had in
  1072
  consequence fewer opportunities. Of the eight officers who passed in Russian, only two—Commander Kemp and Lieutenant Duncan—are on the active list of executive officers. Naval men have not neglected the Oriental languages, for I find that eight have passed in Persian, nine in Arabic, twenty-eight in Hindostani, twenty-four in Swahili and two in Chinese. Yet no officer of any branch of the service has passed in Japanese, though one has passed in Chinook. I heartily congratulate the noble Earl on the addition he has lately made to the number of officers employed in the Intelligence Department, and though I have no doubt that that department is carefully studying the war in the East, still I consider that this ignorance of the languages of naval Powers of importance may be the cause of mistaken expenditure in time of peace, and a source of danger to the State in time of war.
  Every naval officer is now studying the Russo-Japanese War. To do this thoroughly he must have translations before him. The ordinary civilian writer will not help him much. The translator must have technical as well as literary knowledge. The tactical arrangements of the Japanese, the means they have adopted to protect their convoys, how they make use of the secondary and improvised bases, such as the Elliott Islands, and how they repair most of their ships without sending them back to Japan, should be thoroughly studied by officers acquainted with their language. The systems used on both sides as regards telegraphy, wireless or otherwise, the methods of laying down and removing anchored explosives, of blocking and clearing the entrances of harbours, ' the details of the fittings of turrets ' and gun-carriages, the sighting of guns both for day and night firing, the plans adopted for torpedo attack and defence, and how far original fittings have had to be discarded or altered under the stress of actual warfare, are also well worthy of attention. I am aware that a large number of both Russian and Japanese officers are acquainted with our language, but that is not quite the same thing as our officers knowing theirs. We require officers with technical knowledge, able to translate whatever either side may publish. At the close of the war we may

  1073
  expect to find that a great deal of literature is available if we are prepared to take advantage of it. Unsuccessful or superseded officers will find some means of defending themselves, even in countries where the Press is muzzled.
  At the close of the Franco-German conflict a large number of our military officers undertook the study of French and German for the sole purpose of being able to master the details of that struggle. Until the conditions of war had been altered by improvements in the weapons, I do not think that they could have employed their time better. While the Russians and Japanese are fighting, some of our executive officers ought to be studying their languages, so as to be able to take advantage of their experience directly the war is over. In the next great struggle for the supremacy of the seas, our success or failure may depend upon our having rightly read the lessons of the Russo-Japanese War.
  I will give your Lordships an instance of the foresight of the Japanese themselves, as regards this very question of learning languages. In 1858 Lord Elgin made a treaty with Japan, and several ports were it consequence opened to the British. In 1859 I was on board the ship that brought the British Consul to Hakodadi. £To our astonishment, shortly after we had anchored, a letter, written in English by the Governor of Hakodadi, was handed to our captain. It was on foolscap, in exact conformity with our Admiralty rules and regulations for correspondence, but written with a paint brush instead of a pen. There were only two "slight mistakes in it, which might have escaped notice had it not been carefully examined. The Governor of Hakodadi had been told off to learn English because his harbour was about t" become a treaty port, and I hope that the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty will at once tell off a few of our executive officers to learn German, Russian, and Japanese.
  I am not at all an advocate of making languages compulsory throughout the whole of the service. Some officers have a facility for learning languages, others, have not. The latter will be better employed in learning something else. But when a man has learnt another language besides his own he learns a second foreign
  1074
  language with much greater facility. On Monday last an excellent circular was issued by the Admiralty which goes far towards meeting the necessities of the case. It greatly increases both the facilities and the inducements for learning foreign languages. For instance, the number of officers who are to be allowed to study languages while on full pay is to be increased from ten to twenty. I think that that number may be a normal one. But we have great arrears to make up, and as the necessity for a proper study of the Russian and Japanese languages is immediate, I would suggest to the noble Earl that it would be desirable that executive officers studying the German, Russian, and Japanese languages should be considered as additional to the limit of twenty, until at least twelve of them have passed in each language. We ought to have a minimum of interpreters in certain tongues.
  I hope the Treasury will not object to the slight additional expense that will be incurred if my suggestion is adopted. Taking the difference between full and half pay at an average of 8s. a day for the various ranks, the extra charge for thirty-four officers would amount to less than £5,000 a year, for one year only. I put the number at thirty-four, because we have already two executive officers who have passed in Russian. It is false economy to employ an insufficient number of officers to criticise this war. Next year millions will be spent on the Navy. Whether they are rightly or wrongly spent depends entirely as to whether we shall have learnt aright the lessons to be derived from it or not. The £5,000 that I ask for is a trifle as compared with the expense of our autumn manœuvres, and there is far more to be learnt from a real war than from any manœuvres. During manœuvres the complaint is constantly made that in a real war the result would have been different. But when a ship is put out of action by being sunk in battle, there is no use in complaining of the rules, or of the stupidity or partiality of an umpire. There is no getting over the fact that she has been put out of action in accordance with the stern realities of war.
  There is another point in the circular to which I wish to draw attention. I

  1075
  regret to see that technical terms do not form part of the lower standard for Japanese. In the higher standard it is stated that some acquaintance with terms used in the naval service will be required. I have great doubts if one year is sufficient to allow for the study of Japanese. But if the Admiralty set twelve officers to commence their studies at once we shall be more certain about that in twelve months time. The candidate should certainly be made to translate a few pages from a gunnery book, and from text books on steam and torpedoes. Exact knowledge of the construction of sentences in Russian and Japanese classical works may be safely left to the gentlemen of the Foreign Office, who have to interpret treaties and protocols, and who are not expected to be naval interpreters. The exact construction of a gun or of a torpedo is of more importance to naval officers than the construction of a complicated sentence.
  I have the liveliest recollection of the first time that I ever acted as a naval interpreter. I was a naval cadet on board one of our three-deckers which touched at Brest for coal when on her way back from the Crimea. The master —that is, the navigating officer—told me to tell the French officer in charge of the moorings that he was going to get a hauling-line out of the starboard hawse-hole so as to be able to bouse in the bight of his cable. I know that many of your Lordships are well acquainted with the French language, but I doubt if even the noble Marquess at the head of the Foreign Office would be able to translate such a sentence at short notice. Ten years later I passed in French as naval interpreter. Had our parts been reversed I should certainly have rejected my examiner. He was a French Professor utterly ignorant of any technical terms. The question arises in my mind as to how far the Civil Service Commissioners are competent to examine officers in nautical terms. The term "maritime idiom" which appears in the circular is very vague. It appears in a former circular, in which 100 marks out of 1,200 are assigned to it, but I have no recollection of seeing it in any other document. It has been supposed by some persons to include words that are unfortunately still occasionally made use of by
  1076
  some nautical men when suffering from impatience. Whether this be so or not, I should suggest that in future out of the 1,200 numbers mentioned in the circular seventy-five numbers should be given for nautical terms, seventy-five for words used in steam, and seventy-five for words used in gunnery and torpedo work; and I further think that the Civil Service Commissioners would do well to call in nautical experts to assist them at these examinations. I have alluded to these matters because I am afraid that if the literary and grammatical standards are placed too high, officers may be deterred from studying these languages.
  What I suggest to the First Lord is that, while retaining a high technical standard, he should lower the literary standard required for Russian and Japanese interpreterships, and that he should give even more 'special facilities for the study of those languages, until we have at least twelve executive officers who have passed in each of them. The second part of my Question has been put because, hitherto, officers who have qualified as interpreters have been much discouraged by not receiving the pay that they considered to be due to them, on the plea that they had Dot been specially appointed as interpreters. But as the schedule attached to this circular says that—
  "Interpreters will be appointed to flagships,"
  and that an interpreter in French and German will be allowed in each ship carrying midshipmen, I hope that in future that grievance may be considered remedied.
  I heartily congratulate the noble Earl on his recent circular, which is, I think, well calculated to deal with the normal state of the Navy, when the arrears that I have referred to have been worked up. But I hope that he will ask the Treasury for that extra £5,000 and that he will at once appoint a number of officers to study the three languages I have referred to. It is a matter that might well be brought before the Committee for National Defence. I shall conclude by asking a favour of the First Lord of the Admiralty. When a person is suddenly surprised by being asked to do something unexpected and to pay some money, his first impulse is to say, no. I would therefore ask the noble Earl not to give a definite reply to

  1077
  my request for £5,000 and thirty-six interpreters at present, especially as I have given him no notice of it, but to think it over with his colleagues, and to consider the subject as an open one at present. I now put the Question that stands in my name.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, before the First Lord of the Admiralty answers the Questions which have been put to him by the noble Lord who has just sat down, I should like to say a few words with regard to the difficulty which may exist in removing officers for a considerable time from their proper work. I am quite certain that no man can thoroughly acquire languages, especially those very difficult languages to which the noble Lord has referred, without sojourning abroad. He must mix with the natives of those countries before he can acquire the language in a conversational form; and what I wish to ask the noble Earl the First Lord is, whether he will consider the necessity of giving officers facilities for studying abroad, at the same time allowing them to retain their former position in the Service? By that I mean that no man should lose anything in consequence of his having remained abroad; he should not lose his chance, for instance, of commanding a ship because he had spent the requisite time abroad to make himself proficient in a particular language.
  THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord who brought this question forward for his kind words about myself, and I am very glad to be able to say what I think will not surprise your Lordships, that I agree with almost every word he has uttered. I do not pin myself to adhesion to exactly every detailed proposal he has made, but to the general spirit of his remarks I cordially adhere. This question of foreign languages has undoubtedly been sadly neglected in the Navy, and it is, I think, essential that there should be an adequate staff of officers of the executive as well as of the other branches who can speak all the important languages of the world if the Navy is in all respects to be equipped for its work in war and the study of its
  1078
  profession in peace. I can assure the noble Lord that the war now in progress is being most deeply studied by the Admiralty, both here and on the spot so far as the opportunities present themselves; and he will, I think, be glad to know that the first officers, in both cases a captain, attached to the Japanese and the Russian Fleets were both able to speak the language of the nation to which they were attached.
  Although the number of officers in the Navy List who speak certain languages is meagre as analysed by the noble Lord, and although I agree with him that the general linguistic attainments of the Navy fall far short of what we desire, yet there are, as a matter of fact, a considerable number of officers who do speak foreign languages but who are not registered in the Navy List because they have never thought fit to endeavour to register themselves as interpreters.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: They are afraid of the high literary standard, I expect.
  THE EARL OP SELBORNE: Not necessarily, I think. The officer who is at present attached to the Russian Fleet in the Far East is a captain who had spent a considerable time in Russia, and he speaks Russian, I believe, excellently, but he had never, for some reason I do not understand, registered himself as a qualified interpreter. The circular letter of the Admiralty to which the noble Lord has referred was issued last Monday, and therefore it is much too soon to say what its effect will be. The Board of Admiralty will naturally watch its working very carefuly, and I do not for a moment put it forward as our last word on the subject. If experience shows that changes in the regulations are necessary, and that the movement is not progressing fast enough, we shall be quite ready to endeavour to improve our machinery. The number of officers on the list of interpreters in the June Navy List is not 123, as quoted by the noble Lord, but 122—a correction of no importance; but of this number only twelve are appointed at the present moment as interpreters. Two of these are executive officers, and of them, one

  1079
  is an interpreter in French. Allowances are payable in the case of each officer appointed as interpreter to a ship.
  That is the state of things which we find in existence. It is not the state of things which we hope will exist when the new regulations have been working for a year or two. In the last few years there has been such a dearth of lieutenants, owing to the expansion of the Fleet, that there really has been no possibility of giving them leave to study languages on the Continent. But the list is now so rapidly increasing that I hope we shall shortly have a margin. Perhaps those noble lords who have not seen the circular will allow me very briefly to recapitulate the principal points with which we have endeavoured to deal and to comment a little upon them. In the first place, the number of officers who are to be allowed to study abroad at any one time is increased to twenty; that does not mean twenty in the year, but that every day in the year there may be twenty officers studying abroad—a very different thing. They will be on full pay the whole time, and it will count as "service."
  The full pay will also be granted without any condition as to subsequent qualification; that is to say, an officer will not go with the dread before him that he may fail in his examination and have to refund half his full pay. Whether he succeeds or fails he will get his full pay for the period he is studying abroad. The period during which study abroad on full pay will be allowed is regulated according to the language which the officer is studying. The reward of the successful officer is to take the form of a gratuity according to a scale, a distinction being drawn between officers who qualify in the higher standard and those who qualify in the lower standard. In the next place, the allowances to officers appointed hereafter as interpreters will be regulated according to the language or qualification. Officers on the list of interpreters will be required to requalify every five years, and for this purpose they will be allowed to go abroad to the country speaking the language in which they are qualified on one month's full pay, in order to prepare themselves for requalification. Again, officers who are qualified
  1080
  to give instruction in foreign languages to junior officers on board His Majesty's ships will receive 5s. for each lesson of one hour's duration, the number of lessons for which payment will be made being limited to four a week. That, of course, is in addition to their pay as interpreters.
  The prizes to midshipmen who attain proficiency have been increased to the annual value of £130. That is, of course, with the object of encouraging midshipmen to keep up the language they may have learnt previous to entering the service, so that they may start with some knowledge when they go abroad to qualify as interpreters. With regard to the study of foreign languages at the new Royal Naval College at Osborne, I believe we shall do more there in respect of French and German than could be done through these regulations, or through any efforts made by officers at a later period of their career to learn French and German abroad. This is, perhaps, a rash thing to say in your Lordships' House, where the experience of public schools is so universal, but I do thoroughly believe that we are going to succeed at Osborne where the public schools have so notably failed. We are going to teach the boys French or German, or both, in a way which will enable them to make themselves understood in France or Germany, and to understand what Frenchmen and Germans say to them, and be competent to study any literature in those languages.
  As regards Japanese, the arrangements in respect to that are quite special. In addition to the institution of a special scale in connection with the study of Japanese, we are going to appoint a Japanese teacher at Wei-hai-Wei. In normal times the China Fleet is constantly using Wei-hai-Wei as headquarters for months together, and a Japanese instructor will be stationed there, who will be at the service of any officers of the Fleet. Officers who are now holding appointments as interpreters or acting-interpreters under the old regulations will be allowed to retain their appointments until the expiration of the commission of the ship in which they are serving, and an interpreter qualified in French or German will be allowed to each ship which carries

  1081
  midshipmen. Candidates for these interpreterships will have the opportunity of being examined by the Civil Service Commissioners three times a year, in April, July, and October, and I think the noble Lord need not be anxious lest the Civil Service Commissioners should be incompetent to examine these officers in technical naval phraseology. After all, it is not a subject with which we are altogether unfamiliar. There is drawn up for the instruction of cadets on the "Britannia" as perfect a comparative table of French and English terminology as exists in the whole world, and what his been done in the case of French could be done in the case of other languages. At any rate, I can assure my noble friend that the importance of the special terminology will not be forgotten.
  In this examination a thorough knowledge of the language selected by the candidates will be required, and he will be examined orally as well as by written papers. I do not think the noble Lord need be afraid lest the examination should de generate into one purely of grammar. Of course, it is desired that these officers should have a real grasp of the language they are acquiring in every respect, but the main point to be aimed at is that the language should be an instrument which the officer can use from day to day in his rough service as a naval officer, and, therefore, that he should be able to understand it when it is spoken, and to speak it fluently, is of the utmost importance.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the scale which has been drawn up. In respect of Japanese, an officer will be allowed to reside in Japan for twelve months on full pay for the higher standard, or six months for the lower, and, if he succeeds, he will receive a gratuity of £200 for the higher standard, or £100 for the lower standard, and his pay as interpreter will be 2s. 6d. per diem. In the case of Russian, the duration of residence abroad will be nine months for the higher stipend and six months for the lower; the gratuity on qualifying will be £150 and £75 respectively, and the additional pay whilst employed as interpreter, 2s. 6d. per diem. In the case of German, Dutch, and modern Greek,
  1082
  the duration of residence abroad will be six months for the higher standard and four months for the lower; the gratuity on qualifying, £70 and £35 respectively, and the additional pay whilst employed as interpreter, 2s. per diem. In the case of French, Italian, Spanish, and Portugese, the duration of residence abroad will be four months for the higher standard and three months for the lower; the gratuity on qualifying £50 and £25 respectively, and the additional pay whilst employed ls.6d. per diem.
  Noble Lords may think the period of four months in France very low, but it must, of course, be remembered that it is not expected that any officer will go to France with a complete ignorance of the language. The officers who will go are those who already have some knowledge of it, an when the cadets trained at Osborne are in the service they will be lieutenants who will really have had adequate instruction in the language already. I have only, in conclusion, to ask your Lordships to allow me to read the two concluding paragraphs of the circular, because they indicate exactly the point of view from which the Admiralty has studied this question—
  "In revising the regulations in the manner indicated my Lords have been influenced by a strong sense of the disadvantages attending the want of familiarity with foreign languages shown by officers of His Majesty's Navy, and of the importance of promoting among them a knowledge of the languages spoken by officers of foreign fleets, with whom friendly intercourse is of frequent occurrence. Their Lordships accordingly desire that these regulations may be made known generally in the Fleet, and it is their wish that officers should be encouraged to volunteer for study abroad in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.
  "It is further their Lordships hope that as the number of officers qualified to instruct in foreign languages increases, greater opportunities will be afforded to midshipmen to study foreign languages, especially French and German, while serving afloat. Advantage is to be taken, whenever possible, of the presence of a qualified instructor to form classes on board ship for this purpose."
  The object for which naval officers should study foreign languages is not only to enable them to converse with the officers of those fleets when they meet them, but to enable them to study the naval literature and the literature generally of those countries; because, great as is, I

  1083
  hope, the field of study which the British Navy offers to the other navies of the world, I am quite sure there is not a single navy from which we cannot learn something ourselves if we study it adequately, and it is in that spirit that I believe and trust the officers of the Navy will approach all naval literature emanating from rival navies.

  THE DE MOKLEY BARONY.
  LORD HAWKESBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Chancellor whether his attention has been called to the fact reported in the newspaper that the Judge of the City of London Court stated in Court that a suitor in that Court, a gentleman styling himself Lord de Morley, was a Peer of the Realm; and whether it was not the fact that the gentleman in question, who claims to be an heir or co-heir of that barony, has never had his claim considered by the Committee of Privileges, and therefore can have no claim to be designated a Peer. I should, perhaps, state that the barony is quite a different one from that in respect of which my noble friend Lord De Mauley sits in this House, and the title is spelt in a different way. I may say that I have no wish to criticise the claim of this gentleman to the title, which may, or may not, prove to be a good one when it comes to be considered by the Committee of Privileges, but it does seem to me that a statement made by a Judge in Court in this manner is very likely to be misconstrued by persons who are not conversant with the practice of the Committee of Privileges and of your Lordships' House, for they may attach to it a weight and authority it does not possess, and it is for that reason, and knowing how rightly jealous your Lordships are of the dignity and privileges of this House, that I have ventured to call attention to this matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am sorry that I have not been able to verify the exact quotation from the learned Judge, chiefly because I suspect that he must have been misunderstood or misreported. It is probable that the learned Judge was endeavouring to disclaim, on
  1084
  the part of this gentleman, with whom he seemed to be acquainted, that he was a mere impostor, the phrase used apparently being that the gentleman was "by no means a bogus Peer. "The Judge was evidently endeavouring to say that the gentleman was not claiming to be what he had no right to claim, but that he was a perfectly respectable gentleman. I believe that to be true; I know nothing against the gentleman. He appeared before me when I was presiding over the Court of Claims, and claimed to be a Peer, and I informed him that he must prove his case before the proper tribunal. No one can entertain any doubt as to the impropriety of a Judge, or anybody else, pronouncing judgment upon a matter which has not been heard, and which can only be heard by your Lordships' House. I think it extremely improbable, however, that the learned Judge actually used the words attributed to him, and that the misapprehension was due to an error in the report.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.