Lords Sitting of 4 July 1907

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Irish Tobacco.

2. Destructive Insects and Pests.

3. London Government Scheme (Southwark Borough Market).

4. Marriages Provisional Order.

5. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

6. Oregon Mortgage Company, Limited, Order Confirmation.

7. Canal Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation.

8. West Riding Tramways.

9. Med way Lower Navigation.

10. Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions).

11. Basingstoke Gas.

12. Falmouth Gas.

13. Staveley Coal and Iron Company.

14. Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier.

15. North-East London Railway.

16. London and North-Western Rail way (Superannuation Fund).

17. Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment).

18. Borax Consolidated.

19. Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways.

20. Manchester. Ship Canal (Bridgewater Canal).

21. West Yorkshire Tramways.

22. Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas.

23. Birmingham Corporation.

24. Newquay and District Water.

25. Middlesbrough Corporation.

26. Royal Bank of Scotland.

27. Society of Apothecaries of London.

28. Maidstone Gas.

29. Bristol Corporation.

30. Burnley Corporation.

31. Tyne Improvement.

814

32. Keswick Urban District Council (Water).

33. Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway.

34. Port Talbot Railway and Docks.

35. Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers).

36. Shanklin Gas.

37. South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.

38. Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund).

39. Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited.

40. Grays and Tilbury Gas.

41. Brockenhurst Gas.

42. Boston Spa Gas.

43. Harrison's Patent.

44. St. Neot's Urban District Council.

45. Sutton Coldfield Rectory.

46. Birmingham Corporation Water.

47. Great Yarmouth Port and Haven.

48. Taff Vale Railway.

49. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited.

50. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation.

51. Baines' Name.

52. Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation).

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl Beauchamp Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl of Halsbury, the Earl of Waldegrave, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Lord Loreburn. The said Commission was read.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rawtenstall Corporation Bill. Read 3ª, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Bude Gas Bill. Consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Aberdeen Corporation was presented by the Earl Beauchamp for the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read lª; and to be printed. (No. 93.)
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 20th 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; agreed to. Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selecton in regard to the Dunstable Order.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Amendments reported (according to order); and Bills to be read 3ª on Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read 3ª (according to order) and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] —(Fleetwood Victoria Pier Order); Barry Railway Bill; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill—(Dunstable Order). Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the
816
House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.,
E. Eldon,
L. Zouche of Haryngworth,
L. Manners,
L. Lyveden,
L. Brougham and Vaux (chairman);
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read lª; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 94.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3848. France (Budget for 1907).
  No. 3849. United States (New Orleans).
  No. 3850. Western Pacific (Friendly Islands).
  No. 3851. Turkey (Erzeroum).

  MINT.
  Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1906.
  Presented (by Command:, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPPING.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I desire to put a Question of which I have given private notice to the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade, namely, when will the Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of certain foreign countries towards their captains, officers, and seamen, for which I moved on 28th May of last year, be laid on the Table?
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Return to which my noble friend

817
refers is one which was granted on 28th May of last year with reference to foreign shipping. The Return was of a somewhat complicated nature as we had to obtain the information from different foreign Governments. I can assure your Lordships that there has been no delay whatever, so far as this country is concerned. It was only the day before yesterday that we received the information asked for from Hungary. It will therefore be readily understood that it was not possible to publish the Return before, but as soon as the whole of the information is to hand and we have had time to edit it, the Return will be laid on the Table.

THE INFANTRY MILITIA.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE My Lords, I have a Question on the Paper, addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for War, with reference to the six days annual musketry training proposed for the Infantry Militia, but I understand from my noble friend that circumstances at the War Office do not make it convenient that the Answer should be given to-day. I am informed that the Army Council have not yet approved certain things about which I ask for information, and I therefore postpone the Question.

QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate on Lord Belper's Amendment to the Motion that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, viz., that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the said Committee to consider and report whether the cooperation of women in certain matters of local government entrusted to county and borough councils might not be more effectively secured by methods other than that of election by the council as aldermen or by the ratepayers as councillors.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, by an unfortunate occurrence in dealing with this Bill on the last occasion I am afraid
818
that most of the noble Lords who sit on this Bench are in the condition of exhausted volcanoes, and they have no further opportunity of addressing your Lordships. Therefore it is that I would ask the House to allow me to say a few words on our present position with regard to the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council moved that the House be put into Committee, and that proposal was followed by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Belper that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Then, following upon that, came a suggestion from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the effect that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to lay before your Lordships' House any information that they had which might be of value if the proceedings on the Bill an the debate that was then proceeding were postponed. Upon that, as your Lordships will remember, the debate was adjourned, and that is the position of affairs we have to meet to-day.
But we now have before us, of course, the Paper which was promised by His Majesty's Government showing, as regards England and Wales, the total number of members of boards of guardians, urban district councils, and rural district councils, and the number who are women, and so forth. I think there was a good deal more that it was suggested we, on this side of the House, would like to have had in the way of information, and I am not able, of course, to say for what reason it was impossible to provide that information. The noble Earl will remember the information that was asked for, and will doubtless be able to explain why more has not been afforded. This is not a very voluminous document to be produced after a fortnight. I should have thought that this information must have been in the pigeonholes of the Department, and could have been produced without delay. But that is a point I do not wish to labour. I accept what we have, and will deal with it as far as I am concerned as it stands. This Paper does give us certain of the facts which my noble friend Lord Belper suggested would best be obtained by

819
dealing with this Bill by a Select Committee in the first instance, but there certainly was a great deal more that my noble friend had in his mind—a great deal more as regards facts even, and certainly a great deal more as regards opinions and evidence. But at the present time we have the facts that are contained in this Paper, and to that extent, and to that extent alone, we have dealt with that part of the question which my noble friend suggested would best be dealt with by a Select Committee. It is quite true that if this Select Committee were now appointed, and were to take evidence and go into the question of the opinions of other persons and of local bodies as to these matters, the inquiries would take some time; and with regard to that I cannot forget the statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when we were last discussing this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, after offering any information that His Majesty's Government possessed on the subject, said—
"I would add that whatever the intention may be—and, of course, I give the credit of good intention to every Member of the House— the result of the Amendment, if carried, would inevitably be to destroy the Bill for this year,"
and my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, also speaking in that debate, said—
"It seems to me that if we were to proceed with this matter to-night it is conceivable that that hope [the hope of dealing with this subject during the present session] might be disappointed."
Therefore we have from two strong authorities in this House the view expressed that if the Committee proposed to be set up by my noble friend Lord Belper were appointed, the result would probably be to destroy the Bill.
I do not think I am going too far when I say that there is a very general concurrence in the House upon two points— first, that it is very desirable indeed that we should enlist further than we do at present the valuable help and work of women on these local bodies; and, secondly, that it is very desirable that something should be done during this session, and by means of this Bill, in that direction. I think it would be a very deplorable thing if, after the discussions that have taken place here, and in view
820
of that general concurrence, which I do not mean to exaggerate, and I do not think I have exaggerated, we should by the setting up of the Committee destroy this Bill. There is another question which I am bound to say also weighs with me not a little. In the course of the debate on the last occasion the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council said—
"I think the noble Lord in moving this instruction has come very close indeed to, if he has not overpassed, the line of order."
The noble Earl was then speaking with the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I think I shall not be wrong if I say that the noble and learned Earl Lord Halsbury who sits on the Bench behind me holds that view equally, if not even more strongly. I think we should all feel disinclined to proceed on those lines when the view has been expressed by two such high authorities that the action which was then proposed might be trenching upon, if not overpassing, the line of order.
As I have said, I think it would be a great evil if anything that we did in respect to the setting up of a Select Committee destroyed this Bill. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn were correct nearly three weeks ago when they said that our action in setting up this Committee was likely to destroy the Bill, how much more certain is it that such action to-day or next week must imperil the measure? Under these circumstances I venture to suggest to my noble friend Lord Belper that he should consent to withdraw his Amendment, and that your Lordships should agree to go into Committee on the Bill. I believe that is the only way, assuming it to be correct that there is a danger in our setting up a Committee so far as the Bill itself is concerned, in which we can arrive at what I have already pointed out to your Lordships as, in my view, the general desire of the House on this subject.
One thing, of course, may be urged, and it was urged, I think, when we last dealt with this Bill by the noble and learned Lord Lord James of Hereford, namely, that noble Lords who had intended to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill supported the Second

821
Reading on the understanding that there was to be a proposal to set up a Select Committee; and the noble and learned Lord suggested that we should bear that in mind when we came to discuss the matter. I venture to put it to the House that noble Lords who are opposed to this Bill will be in no way injured by the suggestions I have made. Any one who feels strongly in opposition to the Bill can vote against going into Committee, and can afterwards amend the Bill, if it gets into Committee; or on Third Reading, if the Bill is not amended in the direction and to the extent which satisfies him, he can vote for its rejection. Therefore I do not think we can give much heed to the argument that by what is proposed now the position of any one who is really opposed in principle to the Bill as it stands is adversely affected. I trust that my noble friend Lord Belper will consent to withdraw his Amendment. In any case I am afraid that, as far as I personally am concerned, I should have to cast my vote against the proposal for a Select Committee and in favour of going into Committee on the Bill.
It may be said that if we were to go into Committee to-day, noble Lords who have strong feelings as to the desirability of modifying the Bill might be in a difficulty in regard to putting down Amendments, and I would therefore appeal to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider that point, and possibly, if the course I suggest is taken and the House consents to be put into Committee on the Bill, some short adjournment might be made before the actual clauses were taken so as to enable any Amendments that might be put down to receive careful consideration. In conclusion, I have to ask my noble friend Lord Belper to consent to withdraw the Amendment he has placed on the Paper.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG WORTH: My Lords, as I had not the opportunity of joining in the debate at the previous stage perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words now upon this important subject. The noble Earl who has just sat down made no reference to what perhaps I may be allowed to call the main point of my noble friend Lord Belper's Amendment, which was to ask the House to arrive, if they thought fit, at some other
822
method of electing women to county and borough councils than that of direct election, namely, by co-optation. I am inclined to think that, although there may be some general consensus of opinion that it would be unwise to keep out women altogether from these authorities, it is open to very grave and serious doubt whether it would be advisable to rush into new legislation without very careful consideration on the lines of allowing them to stand and to compete in the same way as men do for seats upon these local authorities.
As we all know, the women who are already co-opted on committees of county councils have done good and useful work. There are several committees which obviously call for the assistance of women, and it would be, perhaps, a drawback not to have their counsel and advice; but that is a very different thing from saying, without very careful consideration indeed, that they should be upon exactly the same footing as men on these local bodies. The matter has received a good deal of attention out of doors. It was discussed some time ago by the council of the County Councils Association, of which I happen to be a member, and although no very definite conclusion was arrived at and there was no direct vote at that time, there certainly was not any general consensus of opinion in favour of admitting women to this qualification without entertaining the idea of co-optation.
Another important point which I think we ought to bear in mind is that as yet we have received no very decided and clear information from the county councils themselves as to what their opinion is on the subject. I believe there has been some difficulty, owing to dates, in the way of their being able to meet and discuss this question upon its merits and arrive at a definite conclusion; but I humbly submit that it would be very unwise to rush legislation through, if I may use the phrase, upon this extremely important subject without consulting the opinions of the very bodies in question. If you are to bring about a drastic reform in these local bodies it sounds to me but commonsense that you should as carefully as possible arrive at the opinions of these bodies themselves.

823
On the main question I would venture to point out that, supposing women were allowed by some method of co-optation instead of direct election to sit on these bodies, it would have a two-fold advantage. In the first place, you would be much more likely to secure a better class of woman in that way than by direct election, which might open the door to persons who were rather aiming at notoriety and the excitement of an election than to do good work; and, in the second place, it would be much better for women who wish to do this excellent work to be able to have a seat upon these committees and on various portions of the local bodies without having to go through the rough and tumble and turmoil of an election. Therefore, whatever the House may deem fit to do this evening, I would venture to ask your Lordships very seriously to consider this question as to whether it would not be better, if any reform is effected at all, to adopt in some form or other the principle of co-optation instead of resorting to direct election.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE):My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I am entitled to speak in this debate, but it is usual to extend to the Peer who happens to be in charge of a Bill that indulgence to which he is ordinarily entitled, in circumstances such as these. We are very much obliged to the noble Earl opposite for the exceedingly fair and moderate speech in which he has expressed his views on this question, and we sincerely hope that Lord Belper will agree to the suggestion thrown out by the noble Earl and allow the Bill to go to Committee. I may say at once that if that is done we should cheerfully fall in with the further suggestion of the noble Earl that we should not proceed to-day with the clauses of the Bill, because that obviously would be unfair to noble Lords who might desire to put down Amendments; and therefore we shall move that the House be immediately resumed if we are allowed to get the Bill into Committee.
I would only say one word about the Return to which the noble Earl alluded. It is quite true that the time which it has taken to prepare may seem out
824
of proportion to its size, but we were asked to put the whole matter aside for a fortnight, and we thought ourselves bound, therefore, not to proceed with it before the lapse of that time, even though it might have been possible to produce the Paper some few days earlier. It is also quite true that the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, desired that the Return should have been of a more extended character and he was good enough to intimate to the Local Government Board what his views on that point were. I can assure him that my right hon. friend Mr. Burns has been very anxious to meet his views in every possible way, but we have taken up the ground, and it is one to which we are obliged to adhere, that in a matter of this sort it is not of any real service to collect mere evidence of opinion.
I think the noble Marquess suggested that all the chairmen of county councils might have been invited to express their opinion. I do not think that that would have been a very valuable collection of opinions in itself. It might have been of some value if the matter had been brought before each county council and discussed there, in which case I am pretty confident that there would have been a general disposition to support the Bill. But that would have been a matter of months. And I confess that our views of the merits of the case would not be modified by more expression of opinion on the part of chairmen of county councils. The opinions of these gentlemen are, of course, entitled to respect. Some would have gone one way and some another, but I do not think those opinions would have been of material assistance to us in deciding whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with or not. Consequently we have confined ourselves to evidence of fact, upon which noble Lords can, of course, form an analogy, and from which they can draw any conclusion they please. I think it would not be any use for me to attempt an analysis of the Return at this stage. If that is necessary, it can be done on some Amendment in Committee. I therefore merely repeat that I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the suggestion of Lord Cawdor, and in that event I trust there is good prospect

825
of the Bill becoming law during the present session of Parliament.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I regret that I did not hear the statement which was made to the House earlier in this discussion by my noble friend Lord Cawdor. I was detained elsewhere. I wish to say that, as far as I am personally concerned, I do not intend to dwell on the necessity of a Select Committee. I gathered from the speech of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne on the last occasion that the sense of the House was directed against a Select Committee, and I think, therefore, the better course is to accept the line which I understand has been intimated by Lord Cawdor and allow the Bill, with the time for consideration that Lord Crewe has mentioned, to go into Committee. We will watch events in Committee, and those noble Lords who desire to do so can propose Amendments; and on the Third Reading after the Bill has left Committee we shall have an opportunity of saying what we may think appropriate on the Bill.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I think it is within my privilege to reply on the debate, and it is also due to the House that I should say something upon the present position. I must say I feel very strongly that the House has put itself in an unfortunate position by the course pursued. My noble friend Lord Cawdor has alluded to the very small modicum of information which has been given us by the Government in a Paper with a very large and imposing title-page, and I cannot admit that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has given any answer to that complaint by saying he confined the information to questions of fact. There are questions of fact on which it is exceedingly desirable we should have an authoritative opinion, such as could be given by the Local Government Board, and some of those questions were set out in the Memorandum which was sent in to the Government.
I am rather surprised that the first official copy of this Paper, which is dated 28th June, was sent to me under cover by the President of the Local Government Board yesterday evening—that is to say,
826
on 3rd July. It is perfectly obvious that this information, even if it took nearly a fortnight to collect, could have been printed the day after the date which is placed on the Paper itself; and one would have thought, that when, with the authority of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, we were promised all the information that was available at the Local Government Board, and also the answers to questions which we might like to ask, the information, a small modicum of which is contained in this Paper, would have been placed in your Lordships' hands as soon as possible. Even now the Paper has not been distributed to all your Lordships. I venture to think that if the Government were as anxious as they professed to be to give information they would have taken care that what information they gave should be in the hands of your Lordships at the earliest possible date.
With regard to this Paper, I should like to make one or two remarks. No doubt the information, though small in amount, is very important from a particular point of view. The first part of the statement gives the number of women who have seats upon boards of guardians, rural district councils, and urban district councils. On boards of guardians, as we all believed would be the case, there are a considerable number of women taking a useful part in the work; but when we come to rural district councils the number is very small. Out of a total number of 656 rural district councils, there are only 108 on which women sit; and the total number of women who have seats on these authorities is 146—or something like one in five of the total number of authorities. When we come, however, to the most important of these three authorities—urban district councils—the result is truly surprising, if not almost ludicrous. Urban district councils are the authorities which have to deal with similar work to that of the borough councils; in many cases they are bodies of great importance, representing a very large population, and they discharge those very duties which, in the petition that was sent to the Prime Minister, the ladies expressed themselves as anxious to take part in.
What is the case in regard to urban district councils? Out of a total of 812

827
throughout the whole of England, there are only two district councils with women representatives upon them, and in each case there is only one woman member. Therefore, in regard to these particular bodies which deal with matters suitable for women to take part in, only two women throughout the whole of England have taken the trouble to seek, or, at all events, have been successful in obtaining, seats on those councils. If any statement were necessary to confirm what I said in moving that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee I do not think there could be any more pregnant statement than that. If we had had a Select Committee we might have discovered the reasons which prevent women securing seats on these councils.
Then there is a statement in regard to the number of women who have seats on the education committees of county and borough councils. That is a piece of information which is strictly bounded by Statute and by the schemes drawn up under the Education Act. What we were anxious to get was, not only the number of women who have, under statutory powers, seats on present education authorities, but what was the number of women who sought and obtained seats on the old school boards, because they wished to take part in educational matters. If we had had that information it would have been some guide as to the keenness which women had shown in attempting to get seats on educational bodies.
I should like to call attention to one piece of information which we asked for, and which the Local Government Board could have given themselves if they had devoted half-an-hour's attention to the matter. The statement has frequently been made that if you co-opt women they have no opportunity of defending before the full council the policy which they advocate if the council takes objection to the work of the committee. I pointed out that as far as county councils were concerned there were only two important committees on which the work of women would be desirable—I was going to say almost necessary. Those two committees are the Health Committee with regard to midwives, and the Asylums Committee
828
with regard to lunatics. I asked for information as to what were the powers of an Asylums Committee with regard to their work compared with those of the other committees appointed by the county councils. I could have answered that question myself. The answer is that the Asylums Committee have almost independent powers. They need not even make a quarterly Report to the county council, the money they spend is within their own control, and the county council have no purview over it, so to speak, except that they elect the members of the committee, and therefore can alter its constitution if they are dissatisfied with the way the work is being done. But, practically, this committee is an independent committee.
What I complain of is that we have no guidance or information from the Local Government Board with regard to these matters. We have a right to expect that the Government, when they bring in a Bill and recommend it to the House, should give us the information which is in their possession as to the facts and the practice of these different committees. If the Local Government Board had given a Memorandum of the kind that was asked for it would have cleaed up these points authoritatively, and thrown some valuable light on many of the remarks which have been made with regard to this Bill. We should have liked very much, as the noble Earl said, to have obtained the opinion of the county councils, but that unfortunately within the time at disposal would have been impossible, because many of the county councils do not meet until late in July; but, tailing that, my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who discussed the matter with me, thought it might throw some light on the question if we could get the opinion of the chairmen of county councils and the chairmen of the education committees, who are probably the two people who can speak with most authority on this matter. I do not wish to labour that point, but I do say that we are somewhat disappointed, after we had adjourned the debate owing to an offer that was made by the Government that they would give us all the information at their disposal, that no attempt should have been made to give us information.

829
which was available at the Local Government Board and which would have been of great assistance to us in coming to a decision on many of the subjects which have been discussed.
It has been said that the appointment of a Select Committee would kill the Bill. It could only be killed if the Government withdrew the Bill in consequence of its being referred to a Select Committee, or in consequence of their not being satisfied with the decision to which the Committee came; but, as far as I was concerned, I certainly had no intention or wish, in moving for this Committee, to kill the Bill. My object was to get the necessary information and evidence to enable the House to come to a right decision on the question. I pointed out that in my opinion there were other ways in which we might secure the valuable assistance of women on these bodies, and that very few of the ladies whose services we wished to have would take part in contested elections. Whatever decision the Committee might have come to on the facts before them, I should have been perfectly willing to accept that decision whether it had been in favour of the Bill or in favour of the course I suggested.
It only remains for me now to state the view I take of our present position. Unsatisfactory as, in my opinion, has been the course pursued—and I am sure it will not be adopted as a precedent in the future—I recognise that the position is very different to-day from what it was three weeks ago. I am very much inclined to agree with a large part of what my noble friend Lord Cawdor said, and it was not even necessary that I should listen to his remarks to feel that if we pressed the Amendment referring the Bill to a Select Committee, we should be laying ourselves open to the charge of wishing to kill the Bill. I still feel that the appointment of a Committee would have been the best course to pursue. I believe that in that way we should have got at what we wanted—namely, the real facts of the case. But under the present circumstances, and knowing what the general feeling of the House is upon the matter, I think it will be meeting the views of your Lordships if I withdraw the Amendment, which I now beg to do.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg to move that the House do resume.
Moved, "That the House do resume." —(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I rise to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) What is the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships and cruisers, and what is its actual strength at the present date; (2) What battleships and cruisers belonging to this Fleet are now undergoing repairs; at what place or places are such repairs being carried out; and by what ships are those undergoing repairs replaced; (3) Are the vessels replacing ships, now under repair, fully manned; (4) What training, if any, in night practice, is being given to destroyers and torpedo boats which are attached to the Nore Division; (5) Are ships manned with nucleus crews given night practice; (6) What is the number of destroyers in the Channel and Home Fleets, and in the Home Ports—(a) In full commission, (b) With nucleus crews, (c) Under repair or laid up, and what is the number available for sea in twenty-four or forty-eight hours in (a), (b), and (c) respectively; and to ask for Papers.
In putting these questions to the noble Lord I do not think I need assure your Lordships that I do so in no hostile or critical sense whatever. The defences of this country and the efficiency of the Navy are interests far too great, to my mind, to be the playthings of Party; and in so far as I am able it will certainly always be my endeavour to keep them absolutely free from anything of the kind. But, my Lords, there has been much—shall I say?—wild statement as to what are said to be the facts with regard to the present condition of the

831
Navy. I refer to statements not alone in newspapers, because, with all my great respect for the Press, I should not, merely on newspaper articles, think it necessary to raise any question as a rule in your Lordships' House. But the remarks to which I refer have gone a good deal further than that. Rumours have been put about with respect to the want of repair of the Fleet, the small numbers of the Channel Fleet as it exists at present compared to what is its prescribed strength, and with regard to other matters of the same kind, emanating from quarters which ought to know the facts.
There are other Questions besides those on the Paper which I should like to have addressed to the noble Lord, but I feel that I have already pressed him upon them and I accept the Answers he has given. I pressed the noble Lord not very long ago on the question of repairs. The noble Lord gave me a perfectly straight Answer, namely, that in his opinion the vessels were being kept in a proper and sufficient state of repair, and that the staff in all the dockyards in this country and abroad were in a condition to maintain those repairs at a proper standard. I cannot continue asking the noble Lord Questions of that kind, because I accept his statements when he makes them. There is another Question which I have not put on the Paper, and I will tell your Lordships why. For some reason which I cannot explain, the perpetual statement seems to be made that the Fleet at the Nore is nothing but a Fleet in reserve. The Fleet at the Nore, as I understand it, is made up at the moment of six battleships, two having been withdrawn from each of the three Fleets—the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, and the Atlantic Fleet—and six first-class cruisers also withdrawn from those Fleets; and we have had the assurance more than once in the noble Lord's Memorandum on the Navy Estimates and from himself personally in this House that the intention of His Majesty's Government is to maintain those twelve vessels in full commission and absolutely efficient as a foremost fighting Fleet. But it does not seem to matter what is said. Certain persons continue to assert that the Fleet at the Nore is nothing but a Fleet in
832
reserve. I take upon myself the responsibility of not asking the noble Lord that Question again, because I accept the statement he has made that the Fleet at the Nore is in an efficient state, that it is fully manned, and that it is in the front rank of our fighting Fleets. Of course, the noble Lord will correct me if I am not quoting him correctly.
I think the time has come when it is very undesirable that so many statements of the nature I have referred to should be made without being authoritatively contradicted. It is very easy to say sometimes that these rumours do not harm, but if persisted in they create a certain amount of unrest in the public mind. I merely say these few words because I wish to tempt the noble Lord, if I can, to state to your Lordships as clearly and as definitely as possible what is the real and actual position of the Channel Fleet, and, if he will, of the Home Fleet as well; and if the noble Lord will unburden himself on the subject he will not only be satisfying your Lordships but will also be removing a feeling of uneasiness which I am afraid is beginning to permeate all classes in this country. I have asked for Papers. I do not know whether any of the matters I have referred to are matters on which the noble Lord can lay Papers. If so, it would be satisfactory that we should have the information in black and white. I therefore beg to-put the Questions which stand in my name, and to ask whether any Papers on the subject can be aid on the Table.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend for putting these Questions on the Paper. because the somewhat elastic procedure of this House enables me if the House will allow me, not to confine myself to the Questions on the Paper, but to go rather into the general question of the position of the Navy. We do not desire to keep anything back from the House or from the country, but I wish to maintain a certain amount of reserve. I do think there are circumstances connected with the Fleet, and the policy with regard to the Fleet, which it is not desirable to announce too publicly. I will give as full information as I can,

833
and I will further pledge myself that such things as I think it undesirable to state publicly I will at any rate offer to communicate to the noble Earl who has raised this question, to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this House, and to the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition in the other House.
Now Lord Cawdor has referred to— shall I call it?—the mosquito campaign which has been carried on in the Press and other quarters against the Admiralty and their policy, and the new arrangements with regard to the Fleet. During my public life I have been brought a good deal into contact with the Press and I know what "good copy" means. But I think those who search for good copy do not always found that copy on actually ascertained facts. I attribute no mala fides, but I think a great many of these attacks have a very ill-informed foundation. I do not want to fall into a difference with the Press in this matter, but a great many of these statements are a good deal like sheet lightning, which after a certain amount of illumination passes away leaving greater darkness than before. But I do resent and protest against some of these statements being re-echoed by officers retired, and, I am afraid, sometimes also by officers on active service. I think that is contrary to the good discipline of the service. I am sure these officers would feel aggrieved if officers who serve under them had been lacking in that self-control which they have recently, some of them, exhibited.
What are the points that are raised against us? This sort of argument has been put forward. The Empire is in jeopardy; we are living over a live mine; we are sitting on a volcano. These are very vivid descriptions, no doubt, but I think they rest on assumptions which cannot be maintained. The people who put forward this sort of attack assume that the whole lessons of history are forgotten or rejected. For, my Lords, the history of the British Navy is of great antiquity; it goes back to the earliest times of our country. It is true that the Navy has had in its time its heavy knocks, its defeats, its disasters; yet, my Lords, I say with confidence that in the end the British Navy has always been successful,
834
it has always come out top dog in the fight; and I think we may trust the sea dogs of the present to give just as good an account of themselves as their predecessors have done in the past. Then it is said that the Home Fleet is a fraud on the public and a danger to the Empire. It is said we have now an emasculated Channel Fleet. I will deal with these two points a little later on.
Then, my Lords, it is said that the Sea Lords of the Admiralty are the subservient servants of a time-serving and parsimonious Government. I protest against such statements. There is no foundation for them. I can assure your Lordships that the whole of the Board of Admiralty, whether they be civilians or naval men, the moment they enter the Admiralty doors drop all questions of Party and devote themselves entirely to the advantage of the Navy and the safety of the Empire. How is the present Board of Admiralty constituted? I leave on one side my civil colleagues and myself. There are four Sea Lords. There is, in the first place, the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher; and nobody, at any rate, whatever fault they may find with him, can say he is a man with no power of asserting himself, or one who has not done great service to the country and to the British Navy. The Second Sea Lord is Sir William May, a man known to the whole world to have done admirable work at the Admiralty, and to have distinguished himself in every command which he has held. I have a third colleague, Sir Henry Jackson, a Fellow of the Royal Society, a man of great scientific attainments, the greatest expert there is in wireless telegraphy.. The Fourth Sea Lord is Admiral Winsloe, a man who has shown the greatest capacity in command, and in service generally. I hold that if these charges against them and against their civilian colleagues were to be maintained, we should be driven out of office; we should be hanged as high as Haman, if we left our responsibilities unfulfilled. I can assure you that no pressure is brought on the Admiralty Board, and that if such pressure were attempted the Board would not stand any such dictation.
There are three points you should carefully remember. In the first place the distribution of ships must be under

835
the control of the Admiralty Board, because the wants of the country change from time to time. The conditions as between ourselves and other Powers are constantly changing, and you want so to distribute your force from time to time as will make you as safe as possible, and ready to meet any emergency. Therefore I contend there must be no idea of finality with regard to the distribution of ships. The distribution of ships must go on changing from time to time according to the requirements of the moment; and to fix a particular fleet at a particular number for all time is making a great mistake, and not making a proper use of the forces at your disposal.
As regards the Home Fleet, about which so much has been said, it must be remembered that it is in process of development. I do not pretend that it is now complete; I do not pretend to prophesy in what position that Meet may be in eighteen months' or two years' time.
There is still a third thing that I think should also be carefully remembered and considered. That is the geographical position which this country possesses, and also the position that it has, not merely by the situation of the British Isles, but by its possessions in all parts of the world. We lie across the chief courses of all European commerce by the position of our island at the issues of the Atlantic Ocean. We hold also the Straits of Gibraltar, the mouth of the Mediterranean, and then we hold Malta, Aden, Bombay, Colombo, Singapore, and Hong-Kong. Then there is the Cape and Bermuda, and a number of harbours in our Colonies. In the future these Colonies can be of the greatest service to the British Navy. They can be of service by increasing their harbours, improving the docks and coaling facilities, perhaps by themselves starting flotillas of the smaller ships such as submarine destroyers. You cannot carry the smaller vessels which are the fringe and accompaniment of a fleet with you across the ocean. I believe if the time of danger came when you had to send a great war fleet across the ocean, it would be of enormous service to the fleet to find there
836
the small flotillas which are so important for naval operations.
I will bring before you what I think a very faithful representation of the strength of the Fleet as it now is. The figures are not exactly the same perhaps as in the Dilke Return, but I will try to explain in what small particulars they differ. I do not propose to make any comparison between either the various Powers severally as against England or any combination of Powers against this country. I am going to give you very shortly what seems to me to represent the full present strength of the five great naval Powers of the world. The list was made out for 1st June, 1907. On that date Great Britain had fifty-seven battleships of less than twenty-five year old. In the Dilke Return I think the number is sixty, but I take out the "Edinburgh," the "Thunderer," and the "Devastation," because of their age. These fifty-seven vessels also include eighteen vessels that are of a more or less obsolescent type. That leaves thirty-nine first-class battleships for Great Britain. The United States has twenty-two battleships less than twenty-five years old and of these four belong to the obsolescent class, leaving eighteen. Germany has twenty battleships, of which nine are obsolescent, leaving eleven. France has twenty-one battleships, from which I deduct seven obsolescent vessels and the "Iéna," which I do not think can be used again, leaving thirteen. Japan has eleven vessels, of which two are obsolescent, leaving nine. Therefore, so far as battleships of the first and important class are concerned. Great Britain has thirty-nine, the United States eighteen, France thirteen, Germany eleven, and Japan nine.
Taking armoured cruisers of twenty years old and less, I find that Great Britain has thirty-two, the United States twelve, France eighteen, Germany six, Japan ten. I am not going to compare the ships of the various fleets against one another. This I do say, however, that it seems to me that those who choose to go into this subject and see what the comparative value of the ships is, will undoubtedly be convinced that, whether it is a question of size,

837
speed, armament, or armour, British ships will show up extremely well against the ships of any other country in the world. That is lather a striking and, I believe, an accurate account of the various fleets as they stand at the present moment.
I now come to the Questions put to me by Lord Cawdor. The first Question is: What is the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet in battleships and cruisers, and what is its actual strength at the present date? The prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet at this moment is fourteen battleships, consisting of eight "King Edwards," the "Triumph" and the "Swiftsure," then the "Ocean" and the "Vengeance" of the "Canopus" class, and, lastly, the "Jupiter" and "Illustrious" of the "Majestic" class. These last six vessels will, I think, in a reasonable time be changed for a wholly homogeneous class. The battleship strength will be greater eventually than it is at present.
What. I should like to point out is this, that, though it is true that the number of battleships in the Channel Fleet at this moment is less than it was in Sir Arthur Wilson's time, yet the general strength of the squadron of battleships is, I think, greater now than ever it was, because the eight ships of the "King Edward VII." class outshine anything that was ever brought together before, and those eight ships at this moment entirely surpass the ships to be found in any other fleet in the world. I think that when the other six ships are made up into a homogeneous group you will find that the battleship portion of the Channel Fleet is a force which cannot be met by any other fleet in the world— I doubt even whether by any combination of fleets. Then there are attached to the Channel Fleet the four armoured cruisers that constitute the First Cruiser Squadron. There are three protected cruisers, a repair ship, and a despatch vessel. The next Question asked is, What battleships and cruisers of this fleet are undergoing repairs?
EARL CAWDOR: I asked for the prescribed strength of the Channel Fleet
838
and its actual strength at the present date.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am coming to that. The Channel Fleet at the present time is short of two battleships, which are undergoing their annual refit, and the First Cruiser Squadron has been away in American waters. But since 24th June a number of fully-manned ships of the Home Fleet have been temporarily placed under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet. At the present time these vessels are six armoured cruisers of the first type, which constitute a fifth new squadron, three scouts, one destroyer depot ship, and thirty-seven destroyers. These ships are under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet up till 10th July, and he is now carrying on a cruise and manœuvres with all these ships. The First Cruiser Squadron, which has been away during the last few months in America, has returned to-day to these waters.
I am next asked: At what place or places are the repairs being carried out? Two battleships, the "New Zealand" and the "Triumph," and the protected cruiser "Juno" are undergoing repair, the "New Zealand" at Devonport and the "Triumph" and "Juno" at Chatham. The "Juno" is under repair on an extensive scale, which amounts to more than the annual refit, and so she has been replaced in the Fleet temporarily by the "Gladiator." The "New Zealand" and "Triumph" have not yet been replaced, because they are only undergoing the usual annual refit, and as soon as that is complete they will rejoin the Fleet.
Then I am asked: Are the vessels replacing ships now under repair fully manned? The "Gladiator" is fully manned. Then it is asked: What training, if any, in night practice is being given to destroyers and torpedo-boats which are attached to the Nore Division? I suppose that by destroyers and torpedo-boats attached to the Nore Division the noble Lord refers to the flotilla under

839
the immediate orders of the Torpedo Commodore in the Home Fleet. This flotilla consists, apart from the attendant scouts and depot ship, entirely of fully-manned destroyers, usually twenty-four in number. No torpedo-boats are attached to this flotilla. This flotilla has constant and systematic night training, with and without lights. The ships manned with nucleus crews are given night practice.
I am further asked: What is the number of destroyers in the Channel and Home Fleets, and in the Home Ports (a) in full commission; (b) with nucleus crews; and (c) under repair or laid up; and what is the number available for sea in twenty-four or forty-eight hours in (a), (b), and (c), respectively? I am afraid that in regard to a portion of that question the answer is one which I would rather not give to the House, though I am quite ready to give it to the noble Lord privately. My answer to the rest of the question is this—that 123 destroyers are in home waters, and belong to the Home Fleet; but, when required, the destroyers are detached for service with the Channel Fleet. At present there are seventy destroyers in commission with full crews; thirty-seven are attached to and are cruising with the Channel Fleet, fifteen are attached to the Home Fleet under the immediate orders of the Torpedo Commodore, ten are attached to the Home Fleet and employed on duties with the gunnery and torpedo establishments and on experimental duties and eight are in Home Ports. Of the remaining fifty-three destroyers, all have nucleus crews except three that are in dockyard hands.
The question has been raised more than once—What proof is there that the ships of the Home Fleet are ready for sea and are properly trained? I have only this morning received a gunnery return which, I think, does no small credit to the Home Fleet as a whole— that is, including the reserve vessels with the Nore Division. We all know that the weather latterly has been extraordinarily unfavourable for shooting, as well as for human beings, and these tests this year have been carried
840
on under quite exceptionally difficult circumstances. In spite of this and all other drawbacks, the Home Fleet occupies third place in the whole six principal fleets from which we have returns. I can give the House the actual order of merit, which is—(1) the Mediterranean Fleet, (2) the Altantic Fleet, (3) the Home Fleet, (4) the Australian Squadron, (5) the Channel Fleet, (6) the Third Cruiser Squadron. I may say that this order of merit is based on an official scale of points which takes into consideration both the accuracy and rapidity of firing. I think that is a very creditable place to have been taken by the fleet at the Nore, with the reserve ships, which I have included; and I think it should go far to assure the House that the Home Fleet really is in its present undeveloped condition a very formidable force, and one which will be able to give of itself a very good account, if it is called upon, in time of war. I hope that I have been able to give the information that I promised, and I hope that noble Lords will consider that, after all, we have a very good defence to make of the present efficiency of His Majesty's Navy, and that the Board of which I have the honour to be the head is really active in promoting the best interests of the service.
LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, before this discussion closes I desire to make a suggestion arising out of the decision recently taken to offer His Majesty's ship "Collingwood" for sale. I do not question the discretion of the Admiralty in regard to the sale of the "Collingwood." The list of battleships named in the Dilke Return includes, however, five ships of similar type and approximately even date to the "Collingwood," and three other ships of approximately the same date as the "Thunderer" class. I desire to express most earnestly the hope that those ships may not share the fate of the "Collingwood." I would strongly urge that all of those ships, or, at all events, some of them, may, when the time comes to pay them out of commission or otherwise to deal with them, be placed in Australian harbours. In those distant waters the ironclads of an

841
older day would, I am convinced, be found extremely valuable both for the training of the Colonial Naval Reserve and also in an emergency for harbour defence.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I should like to tender my thanks to the First Lord for the courtesy and fulness of his reply. I hope that what he has said may tend to do away with many of the rumours to which I have referred, and to create confidence. In regard to the shortage of the Channel Fleet in battleships, can the noble Lord tell the House how long the strength has been twelve instead of fourteen, and whether that is the outside shortage that there has been in the fleet in recent months? In the event of two battleships allocated to the Channel Fleet undergoing considerable repairs at any time, their place, I take it, would be taken by other vessels. I presume that it is only in the case of shorter repairs that they would not be replaced.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: There are two different classes of repairs. One is the annual refit, and that is the case of the two ships I have mentioned. Then there are times when vessels have to undergo considerable repair, and then the ships would be replaced.
EARL CAWDOR: With regard to the question of Papers, the noble Lord has given the House some extremely interesting figures with respect to the proportionate strength of the fleets of Great Britain, the United States, Germany, France, and Japan. I do not know whether he would consider it desirable that they should be issued in a Paper. The figures are of considerable value, and they appear to me to be a slight modification of the Dilke Return.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Very little.
EARL CAWDOR: I again thank the noble Lord for the statement he has made.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.