Lords Sitting of 30 July 1907

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill. —Read 3a ,with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; North British Railway Bill [H.L.]; Tees Conservancy Bill [H.L.] —Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Sunderland Corporation Bill. —Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill. —Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Camperdown be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Brougham and Vaux; and that the Earl of Camperdown be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1906).
  Vol. XLI., Part III. Prices and supplies of corn, live stock, and other agricultural produce.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1906.
  Part I. Criminal Statistics.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

EARL OF CROMER.
His Majesty's most gracious message of Wednesday last considered (according to Order).
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, it is with great personal gratification that I rise to make the Motion which falls to my lot on
698
this occasion, because it is a Motion tending to recognise the great and eminent services of a Member of this House, Lord Cromer, whom I trust I may count among my most valued friends, with whom I have been associated in office, and to do honour to whom is a great pleasure to myself. Lord Cromer's great services are so well known to your Lordships, and indeed to all his countrymen, that it would be out of place, and I may almost say a waste of time so far as the matter of conviction goes, if I were to describe them at length on this occasion. The great success of Lord Cromer's administration in Egypt has afforded signal justification for that belief, of which we are apt, perhaps, in this country to boast too much, that Englishmen are eminently qualified for the administration of affairs in any part of the world and on behalf of any nation in whoso government they may take part. During the twenty-four years which my noble friend as been at the head of the Egyptian Administration ho has done work of infinite difficulty and of the highest importance, a work beneficial to the people of that country, bringing order out of chaos, and laying firm and solid the foundations of prosperity in that country, achievements calculated to confer much honour upon the British name. I feel sure that your Lordships will unanimously concur in the Resolution with which I shall conclude my remarks.
Although most of us, here and outside, connect Lord Cromer's name chiefly with the great work he has done in Egypt, it would be a great mistake to suppose that his public services have been confined to that country. Lord Cromer was trained in a good school of administration. He was private secretary to my late lamented friend, Lord Northbrook, the eminent administrator, who was able to train his young secretary in the solid foundations of good administration. Subsequently I had the great advantage of having Lord Cromer as financial member of the Indian Council during the chief part of the time during which I had the honour to fill the office of Viceroy of India, and I was able then to watch from day to day his devotion to duty, his firm grasp of financial principles, and his high administrative ability. It is therefore with no hesitation that I submit to your Lordships this Motion asking you to express to the Sovereign your readiness to concur in doing honour

699
to one who has rendered such services alike to the Crown and to the people of this country.
Recognition such as that which it is intended to offer to Lord Cromer has very generally been confined to members of the naval and military services, but I rejoice that on this occasion we are about to confer a similar honour upon one whose services have been of a civil nature. If a precedent be sought we all know that a grant of the kind now in contemplation was made many years ago to the late Sir Rowland Hill for the great and eminent services which he discharged in connection with postal administration in this country; but if there had been no precedent I should have been glad to have created one on this occasion. I should have been very glad to have taken part in a step whereby the Parliament of this country, like the Crown, was prepared to recognise eminent service to the public weal wherever given, and in whatever branch of the public service they have been discharged.
I am sorry that in this I find against me the high authority of the late Lord Salisbury, who in moving a similar proposal in regard to my noble and gallant friend, Lord Roberts, thus expressed himself —
"We never depend upon the services of civilians in the sense and to the extent to which we depend on the services of great commanders."
That expression of Lord Salisbury's is no doubt true in a sense, but I think it was stated too broadly; at all events, it was a statement more broad than I individually am inclined to agree with. I think we shall do well if upon this occasion we do not hesitate for a moment to place my noble friend, Lord Cromer, in the same position and on a perfect equality with the eminent soldiers and sailors who have previously been honoured in this manner. I believe, and I do not think your Lordships will be inclined to differ from me, that there have been both in this and other countries statesmen and administrators whose public services have equalled if not surpassed those of many a naval and military commander. In order that we may take our part, humble though it may be, in conferring an honour of this description on a statesman like Lord Cromer, I beg to move that an humble
700
address of thanks and concurrence be presented to his Majesty in answer to his most gracious Message.
Moved, "That an humble address of thanks and concurrence be presented to His Majesty." —(Marquess of Ripon.)
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not yield to noble Lords opposite in our appreciation of Lord Cromer's services, and we desire to associate ourselves with all that has been said by the noble Marquess, and to accept our full share of responsibility for the proposal which His Majesty's Government has made. Lord Cromer has, indeed, conferred signal services upon this country and the Empire. I was glad the noble Marquess reminded us that, although we are apt to connect Lord Cromer's name almost exclusively with Egypt, it was not in Egypt alone that he did good work for us. I can well remember the reputation which Lord Cromer left behind him in India as Financial Member of Council. But it is upon Egypt that Lord Cromer has left an indelible mark, and it was the affairs of Egypt which enabled him to write a page in the history of this country which is all his own.
On such occasions as this one is apt to look for a parallel to the case before Parliament, but I really believe there is no case that stands exactly on all fours with that of Lord Cromer. Our position in Egypt is anal together exceptional one, and Lord Cromer's position in that country was also exceptional. I think it would be almost true to say of him that during his long term of office he was able to serve two masters with equal fidelity and success. Of British interests he was the faithful custodian, and nobody need be reminded of the importance of those interests. It is due to Lord Cromer that our position in that country, at one time undefined and, indeed, somewhat precarious, became assured and consolidated. But if Lord Cromer was a faithful guardian of British interests, he was not the less a faithful guardian of the interests of the country committed to his charge; nothing could have been more wholehearted than his devotion to Egyptian interests. His work, when one comes to review it, was indeed a marvellous achievement in the interests of Egypt. When we

701
consider how under his guidance the great natural resources of that country were developed, when we remember the manner in which he was able to reorganise its financial system and restore its credit, when we remember how every branch of Egyptian administration has during his tenure of office been put upon a sounder footing, we may indeed claim for him that under the guidance of no other man could so much have been done for the people of Egypt. I dare say many of your Lordships may from time to time have perused those admirable Reports which from year to year Lord Cromer was in the habit of submitting to the Foreign Office. I have never road them without a feeling of profound admiration—a feeling that this country might indeed be proud that we had such a man as Lord Cromer to represent us. But although the public generally has been well aware of the magnitude of Lord Cramer's achievements, although it has, so to speak, seen the great output of work of which he was the author, it was reserved for those who were behind the scenes, and who knew the conditions under which that work was performed, to realise in face of what great difficulties and apparently insuperable obstacles that task was so admirably accomplished.
Lord Cramer had to contend with many disappointments; he had to overcome many rivalries; but he triumphed over them all, and ho triumphed because he possessed in the highest degree two great qualities, qualities indispensable in a public man—the qualities of tact and tenacity. It would be unjust to Lord Cromer if I did not refer to my conviction that the satisfactory understanding attained by the late Government with the Government of France in regard to many outstanding questions, and notably in regard to Egyptian affairs, would not have been obtainable, or at all events would not have been obtainable on so satisfactory a basis, if it had not been for the exceptional position which Lord Cromer occupied amongst the representatives of the other Great Powers in Egypt. In this House, at any rate, I feel sure that no discordant note will be raised when we consider the proposal put before us by the noble Marquess. We feel that this proposed grant is no excessive reward for great public service. We trust that it may enable Lord Cromer to enjoy the
702
well-earned rest which we hope he will take after labours which it is well known have involved a serious strain upon his health. We trust that he may live long to see others carry out the great work in Egypt which will always be associated with his name.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed: and to be read 2a on Monday next; (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 1:59.)

COMPANIES (DEBENTURES AND DEBENTURE STOCK) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order.)
[The Earl of Onslow in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD AVEBURYsaid the now Clause 2 standing in his name on the Paper, and which he proposed to insert in substitution for the present Clause 2, did not differ in any way substantially from the Clause in the Bill; but there were Amendments which His Majesty's Government wished to introduce, and to which the promoters of the Bill had no objection, and in these circumstances it had been thought best to insert a new clause rather than submit a number of separate Amendments. But in moving the Amendment he wished to leave out the last subsection—subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause -2 and to insert the following new clause, viz.: 2. — (1) Where either before or after the passing of this Act a company has redeemed any debentures previously issued, the company, unless the articles of association of the company or the conditions of issue otherwise provide, or unless the debentures have been redeemed in pursuance of any obligation on the company so to do, and not being an obligation enforceable only by the person to whom the redeemed debentures were issued, shall have power, and shall be deemed always to have had power, to keep the debentures alive for the purposes of re-issue,

703
and where a company has purported to exercise such a power the company shall have power, and shall be deemed always to have had power, to re-issue the debentures either by re-issuing the same debentures or by issuing other debentures in their place, and upon such a re-issue the person entitled to the debentures shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the same rights and priorities as if the debentures had not previously been issued. (2) Where with the object of keeping debentures alive for the purpose of re-issue they have either before or after the passing of this Act been transferred to a nominee of the company, a transfer from that nominee shall he deemed to be a re-issue for the purposes of this section. (3) Where a company has either before or after the passing of this Act deposited any of its debentures to secure an advance, the debentures shall not be deemed to have been redeemed by reason only of the advance having, whilst the debentures were so deposited, been repaid."—(Lord Avebury.)
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid ho might at a subsequent stage have to ask their Lordships to insert subsection (4) which the noble Lord had deleted from his Amendment as it stood on the Paper. Subsection (4) ran—
"(4) The re-issue of a debenture or the issue of another debenture in its place under this section, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall be treated as the issue of a new debenture for the purposes of stamp duty, but it shall not be so treated for the; purposes of any provision limiting the amount or number of debentures to be issued:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall prejudice the operation of any judgment or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction pronounced or made before the twenty-sixth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and seven, as between the parties to the proceeding in which the judgment was pronounced or the order made, and any appeal from any such judgment or order shall be decided as if this Act had not been passed.
"Provided also that nothing herein contained shall derogate from or prejudice any power to issue debentures in the place of any debentures paid off or otherwise satisfied or extinguished reserved to a company by its debentures or the securities for the same."
The Inland Revenue were strongly of opinion that if this subsection found no place in the Bill the revenue would lose thereby. In these circumstances he hoped that at the Third Heading stage the noble Lord would himself move the insertion of the subsection, or allow him to move it on behalf of the Government.
LORD AVEBURYsaid his noble friend was, of course, master of the situation. There were, however, some points which
704
he was anxious to submit, for the noble Earl's consideration. He therefore hoped he might be allowed to move the Amendment without subsection (4) at the present moment. They could confer together between that and the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:—
LORD AVEBURYmoved to omit Clause 3—
"Where a company raises money by way of mortgage or charge on the security of debentures or debenture stock, whether issued by such company or by any other company, it shall be lawful for the company to give to the person making such advance and his assigns the option to purchase such debentures or debenture stock or any part thereof, and such option shall be effective."
He was prompted to delete this clause —and he would move a similar Amendment with regard to Clause 4—considering the late period of the Session.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 3.''— (Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:—
LORD AVEBURY: then moved to omit Clause 4—
"(4) Wherever there is a breach of contract with a company to take and pay up at a specified price, whether by instalments or otherwise, any debentures or debenture stock of such company, any Court having jurisdiction to award damages for such breach of contract shall also have jurisdiction to order specific performance of such contract as fully as it would have in the case of a contract to take and pay up shares in a company."
Amendment moved —
"To leave out Clause 4." — (Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to, Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 140.)

LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment to provide that every person who should cause or permit any vehicle to be in any street, highway, or road to which the public had access during the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, should provide such vehicle with a lamp or lamps "in proper working order." He understood that in the opinion of those who were responsible for the introduction of this Bill it was the owner who ought to be made responsible and not the driver. He moved the insertion of the words "in proper working order "to make it quite clear that that was the case. For instance, the owner might supply a defective lamp or one without oil or wick. By the Amendment the onus would be on the owner of supplying a lamp in proper working order, and he hoped the noble Karl in charge of the Bill would have no objection to its insertion.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word ' lamps ' to insert the words ' in proper working order and."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would accept the Amendment. The Government had a number of Amendments on the Paper, and he hoped their insertion would not make it difficult to get the Bill considered when it went back to the other House. He trusted that they would have the assistance of the Government in avoiding the loss of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELLendorsed the appeal of the noble Earl. He said the Bill had been for months in another place, where these Amendments, which were purely Departmental Amendments, ought to have been introduced. It would be a very unfortunate thing if, through the insertion of the Government's Amendments at this stage, the Bill were lost altogether. He hoped the noble Earl who represented the Home Office would give their Lordships some assurance on. the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid his Amendment to this Clause was in the same direction as the Amendment to which their Lordships had just agreed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'no' and to insert the words 'if a,' and after the word 'person' to insert the words 'driving or being in charge of a vehicle is.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
LORD AVEBURYmoved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 3, so as to give the council of any borough power to exempt any district from the operation of the Act. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had written to him on the subject of this Amendment. There were seven miles of road along the quay, and it was well lighted. They were anxious to avoid the requirement of special lights in order to minimise the danger of fire. This was recognised in the Bill, and the Secretary of State was allowed to exempt any vehicle which was carrying inflammable goods. This seemed a cumbersome, and in some cases quite unworkable provision; moreover, the driver often did not know whether his load contained inflammable materials or not. And if he did, how was he to get an order? He did not see what evil could follow from the Amendment. Surely the local authority could be trusted, and the Secretary of State would not give his consent except for good reason.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'any,' to insert the words ' district, or any— (Lord Avebury.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: held that the case of Liverpool was already met in the Bill. Under the

707
Bill the council of any borough might, by order approved by Secretary of State, exempt any vehicle from the operation of the Act; and Subsection (5) provided that—
"The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board shall as respects the area under their control have the same power to make an order of exemption under this section as the council of a borough have as respects their borough, and the powers of the council of a borough under this section shall not extend to any part of the borough which is situated within that area."
He admitted that Liverpool was a special case requiring special protection, but claimed that this protection had been given in the subsection to which he had referred.
LORD AVEBURYsaid his Amendment was not designed to give any power to any district, but simply to enable, the local authority to exempt any district. What the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Salvage Association desired was that the seven miles of road belonging to the docks, which was already well lighted and in which there was very inflammable produce, should be exempted. No doubt there might be similar cases in other parts of the country, and he thought there was much force in the suggestion that the local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, should be allowed to exempt any particular area to which these conditions applied. He would not, however, press his Amendment at the present stage.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the people of Liverpool already had the power, under the subsection to which Lord Donoughmore had referred, of excluding the particular district in question. What Lord Avebury's Amendment proposed was that, not only in the case of Liverpool, but in respect of every district throughout the country, the council of the borough should have power of exemption. That was an Amendment which His Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press it.
EARL RUSSELL: thought Lord Ave-bury could not have considered the effect of Subsection (1) of Clause 3, which pro-
708
vided that the council of any borough might exempt—
"Any vehicle which is carrying any inflamable goods of a kind specified in the order, or any vehicle being within any place specified in the order, in which, in the opinion of the council, it would be dangerous to enforce the provisions of the Act owing to the fact that inflammable goods are usually stored or dealt with in or near the place."
That surely covered any vehicle in the road along the quay at Liverpool and met the object of the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved the insertion of a new subsection to provide that the council of any county borough might, by order approved by the Secretary of State, exempt from the operation of the Bill any vehicle which was not proceeding faster than a walking pace. He explained that he moved the Amendment on behalf of the Employers' Parliamentary Council and the Liverpool Cart-owners' Association. The Bill enabled lights to be insisted upon everywhere, but there was no object in lights being carried on carts that went slowly through well-lighted towns. His Amendment was, therefore, strictly in accordance with common-sense, and the public safety would in no way suffer. He would also like to see it extended to carts in the country, where the danger was really caused by motorists and others travelling at a high speed rather than by carts going at a walking pace.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'place ' to insert the following new subsection: '(2) The council of any county borough may, by order approved by the Secretary of State, exempt from the operation of this Act, subject to any conditions mentioned in the order, any vehicle which is not proceeding faster than a walking pace.' "—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment, which appeared to be based upon the fallacy that a vehicle which was moving slowly or not at all was not a source of danger on a dark night. It was agreed that an abandoned cart without a horse left in the middle of the road would be a serious obstruction to traffic, and it seemed to him that a slowly-moving vehicle was almost as great a danger as one which was not moving at

709
all. An argument in favour of the Amendment was that it would only apply to boroughs where the streets were well lighted; but a cart so exempted might very easily get out of the well lighted locality and become a source of danger.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREentirely agreed with the view expressed by Lord Clifford. This Amendment was moved when the Bill was before the House of Commons Committee, and was rejected by a majority of 29 to 10; and if it were inserted now the Bill would probably be lost owing to disagreement with another place. But on merits he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment, for there could be no doubt that slow-going traffic was just as dangerous as fast-going traffic.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Home Office were entirely in accord with the views stated by noble Lords opposite, and he therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUDLOWmoved an Amendment to give the London County Council within the Administrative County of London the same powers under this section as the council of a borough had within their borough. The words at the beginning of the section were "the council of any borough." This would not include the London County Council, which was the authority in London for explosives; neither would any borough council in the metropolis be included.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 39, after the word 'rate' insert the following new subsection: ' (6) The London County Council shall within the Administrative County of London have the same powers under this section as the council of a borough have within their borough, and for the purposes of this section the county fund shall be substituted for the borough fund or rate.' "— (Lord Ludlow.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he hesitated to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on a question of law, but he understood that the Bill would include the metropolitan borough councils. The effect of the Amendment would be to make confusion worse confounded, because it would give the London County
710
Council powers which no other county council in the country possessed.
LORD LUDLOWsaid the London County Council were the authority in London for explosives, and they would be unable to take advantage of the exemption in Clause 3 unless they were included. The metropolitan borough councils had no powers whatever in the matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that one of the main objects of the Bill was to make the law the same throughout the country. The Amendment would give the London County Council powers which no other county council possessed, and for those reasons the Home Office were very unwilling to agree to the Amendment. At the present time the London County Council had powers to make a by-law practically carrying out this section, but, though they had this power, they had never exercised it. As they had not seen fit to exercise it in the past the Home Office did not think it necessary to give them this power in the future.
LORD AVEBURYsupported the Amendment and referred to the enormously valuable property in the London docks which it was desirable should be protected from fire. It was quite true that no other county council would have this power, but then no other county council was in the same position. The London County Council in this matter was in the same position as the borough councils throughout the country, and in the interest of fire prevention at the docks it was desirable that the London County Council should have the power suggested in the Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMPrepeated that the London County Council had had this power in the past, but had not exercised it. Therefore, as they had not thought fit to exercise it in the past, it was not proposed to give them the power in the future.
*VISCOUNT ESHERinquired whether the London County Council would in the future retain the power which it had been said they now possessed.
EARL BEAUCHAMPunderstood they would not; but the borough councils

711
would be able to exercise the power if they thought it necessary. The local authorities in whose areas the London docks were situated would know more about the circumstances than the County Council, and it would be better to leave the matter to them.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it would be advisable to give these powers to the central authority, as proposed in the Amendment, seeing that there were at least three borough councils in whose districts the docks were situated which might all adopt different methods. Moreover London boroughs were not on the same footing as other boroughs, and the London County Council was really the urban authority for London.
LORD LUDLOWsaid it was no good including the London borough councils in this clause, because they had absolutely no powers in regard to explosives. The authority for explosives was the London County Council, and that Council should therefore be included.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to insert the following new clause:—"The council of any county may by order exempt from the operation of this Act vehicles carrying in the course of harvesting operations any farm produce to stack or barn during such months or periods in the year as may be specified in the order, and any such orders may be made either to take effect throughout the whole county or to take effect in part only of the county." He said this Amendment was introduced in place of Sub-section (e) of Clause 4, which exempted from the operation of the Act "any vehicle carrying farm produce to stack or barn during the months of August, September, and October." Farmers would, by this new clause, be able to benefit from the exemption during the hay harvest, as well as during the corn harvest.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
"4. The council of any county may by order exempt from the operation of this Act vehicles carrying in the course of harvesting operations any farm produce to stack or barn during such months or periods in the year as may be speci-
712
fied in the order, and any such orders may be made either to take effect throughout the whole county or to take effect in part only of the county.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he understood one of the objects of this Bill was that the same law should apply to the whole of the country; but it was obvious that under this clause there would not be uniformity. However, if the House were disposed to accept this Amendment, he would not press his opposition to it.
*LORD CLIFFORD Of CHUDLEIGHsaid the effect of the Amendment would be that a traveller travelling from county to county or from one part of a county to another would be ignorant whether a cart in that locality was exempted from carrying lights. He thought it would be much better if the Bill could in this matter remain as it stood, so that the months during which this privilege was given should be laid down by Statute and be known by everyone.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that under the circumstances he would not resist the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:—
Consequential Amendment, agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON Of DALZELLmoved a new sub-section providing that the Act should not apply to Scotland. The Bill in the form in which it originally appeared in the other House contained a clause by which Scotland was exempted from its operations, and in consequence the Bill was not opposed by the Secretary for Scotland during any of its steps there. That clause remained in the Bill until the last moment, and then an Amendment was carried striking it out. It was to reinsert the clause that he now moved his Amendment. The references in the Bill were all to English Acts and to English procedure, and he was afraid that if the House did not agree to the exclusion of Scotland, it would be necessary for him to move a whole series of Amendments at a later stage, in order to make the Bill in any way workable in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the word 'road ' to insert the following subsection: (5) 'This

713
Act shall not apply to Scotland. ' "—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would be unwilling to do anything which would prevent Scottish people killing each other in any way they liked. He therefore accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DENMANmoved the insertion of a new clause. He explained that with out this clause every man, woman, or child in Ireland who had a bicycle would be compelled to carry a lamp on the off' side. Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 pro vided that
"This Act shall apply to every sort of vehicle except the following:—
(a) Any bicycle, tricycle, or velocipede to which the provisions of section eighty five of the Local Government Act, 1888, requiring lamps to be carried apply."
The Local Government Act of 1888 did not apply to Ireland, and therefore the provision as to the position of the lamp would apply in Ireland in the case of a bicycle or other similar machine. He did not know whether the offside of a bicycle could be defined; in any case, there would be considerable difficulty in fixing a lamp to the off-side. One way in which the difficulty could be avoided would be by cyclists carrying two lamps; but as cyclists frequently considered one lamp rather superfluous he did not think that was a provision to which they would agree. It was to prevent an injustice being done to cyclists in Ireland that he moved his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
" ' 5. In the application of this Act to Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the provision as to the position of the lamp, if only one lamp is provided, shall not apply in the case of a bicycle, tricycle, velocipede, or other similar machine.' "—(Lord Denman.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREaccepted the Amendment, and said he was grateful to the noble Lord for his solicitude for his fellow countrymen.
*VISCOUNT 'ST. ALDWYNthought that what had passed with regard to this Bill should be to some extent a warning to their Lordships as to dealing with Bills of this nature which came up to them proposed by non-official Members in the House of Commons. The measure, they were told, as it now stood, would enact great injustice to cyclists in Ireland, and the Scottish Office said it could not give satisfaction in Scotland. He did not see why English farmers should be less considered than Scottish farmers in this matter, or why those who took a motor or carriage from England to Scotland should be subjected, more in Scotland than in England, to the danger of a loaded wagon which was not lighted. He was afraid the Bill had not been sufficiently considered by the House of Commons. He was told that it slipped through at half-past one in the morning when probably very few Members were in the House, and when neither the representative of the Scottish Office nor of the Irish Office was there.
LORD DENMAN: I think he was.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Bill was then sent up to their Lordships' House in a very imperfect state, by the admission of the noble Lord who had just spoken, and they wore expected to pass it practically without Amendment, because if any Amendments were inserted it would be probably lost this session, as no time could be found for its further consideration by the House of Commons. He thought it was rather hard on their Lordships to be placed in such a position, which could certainly not conduce to satisfactory legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Other clauses and preamble agreed to.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 141.)

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Bill I have the honour to ask your Lordships to read a second time is for the purpose

715
of providing a sum of six millions for the construction of telephone trunk lines and London exchanges. The Bill is on the same lines as that passed in 1902, when a vote of one million was provided, and of that in 1904, when there was a sum of three millions provided, and I hope that the sum now voted will carry us on till 1911, when the Post Office acquire the whole of the National Telephone Company. It may be of interest to your Lordships if I state in a few words what was the actual position when in 1892 we took over the telephone trunk service of the National Telephone Company. In those days there were 29,000 miles of trunk wire. This year we own 145,000 miles of trunk wire and if we take into consideration London and the provinces, altogether there are something like 380,000 miles of telephone wires. Last year the telephone account was a very satisfactory one, because after paying 3 percent. on capital and writing off a certain sum of money for depreciation, etc., we had a total profit of over £37,000. As the noble Marquess opposite is well aware, the telegraph service is not a remunerative one, but as soon as we take over the telephones in 1911, we shall, as at present, run these telephones on a purely business footing. We are not giving facilities unless we can get a certain adequate return on the outlay. I might also mention that in certain parts of the country where we have developed a telephone system in fruit districts, and although we have done so at some slighter percentage of profits than we thought at first was justified, it has paid very well. Under these circumstances I venture to trust that your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Order of the day for Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid: This Bill is another Post Office Bill. As the noble Marquess opposite is well aware, it is to give the Postmaster-General power to acquire lands in certain districts.
716
The Bill has been laid on the Table of this House for some time, and there has been no opposition so far offered to it. The Bill has passed the House of Commons, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.

SECRECY OF OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
*VISCOUNT ESHERhad the following Question on the Paper: "To ask the Lord Chancellor whether written communications on official business of State between the Sovereign and members of the Cabinet, the Viceroy of India, and British Ambassadors to Foreign Courts, as well as between members of the Cabinet themselves, are protected under the Official Secrets Act, or are in any way safeguarded against unauthorised publication."
The noble Viscount said: Before putting the Question which stands in my name I should like to say a few words in explanation. Certain literary work in which I have been engaged during the past two years has led me to examine documents which have brought home to me, as I think it would to your Lordships, the grave risks which are run from the unauthorised disclosure of private political papers. I have no wish to exaggerate or to curtail in any way reasonable freedom of authors to write biographies or of the public to read them, nor have I any intention of referring to any specific documents, and 1 only mention them in order that your Lordships may see that my Question is not based upon theory or conjecture, but upon solid facts, which I must ask your Lordships to take from me are serious enough to warrant it. It must be within the recollection of your Lordships that the tranquillity of Europe has been disturbed before now by an expression or a phrase from some eminent statesman or monarch. I am ashamed to mention so well-known an episode as the famous Berlin telegram of 12th June, 1870, the effect of which was to bring about the war between France and Germany. That proceeding was calculated, and intentionally and carefully designed, as has since appeared, for the specific purpose of bringing about a war between France and Germany. It is not

717
to that species of document that this Question refers. But I want your Lordships to consider whether a similar effect might not be produced by an accidental— to use a comprehensive word—publication of a document which was never intended to see the light. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with illustrations, but I will take two periods within 20 years of each other, when the tension between this country and a great foreign Power was extreme, to explain the object of this Question. We were perhaps never much nearer to a war with our great neighbour across the Channel than after the attempt upon the life of the Emperor of the French, on 14th January, 1858, and nothing but the most guarded language on the part of the statesmen who at that time were responsible for the government of this country saved us from the calamity of a war. So ultra-careful was Lord Palmers-ton, so pusillanimous was he from the point of view of certain persons, that he was made to pay the penalty commonly exacted from any Minister who fails to re-pond to the hot fit of the people of this country when they are in a passion, and, as your Lordships will remember, at the first push of his political opponents his Government fell. The question I would ask the noble Lord upon the Woolsack to consider is this: what would have happened at that moment if one of the letters which passed freely between Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon, who was at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or Lord Cowley, who was Ambassador in Paris, written with the natural want of reserve with which one colleague addresses another, or one of the daily letters which passed between the Sovereign and her Minister, written with all the outspoken frankness which characterised the relations between the Queen and her Ministers, had fallen into the enterprising hands of some newspaper correspondent? And again, I would like to refer to a period 20 years Later, to two highly precarious dates in the year 1878, when war between this country and Russia appeared inevitable. On 25th January in that year the late; Lord Carnarvon resigned, and on 28th March Lord Derby followed his example. 1 would leave to your Lordships' imagination the nature of the correspondence which must inevitably have passed in those days—the natural reflections upon
718
the motives of the late Emperor of Russia, upon the attitude of the present Emperor of Austria, and the strong and dangerous light thrown upon the intentions in certain eventualities of the British Government. It only seemed to require an imprudence—a letter left upon a table, or in a railway carriage, a dishonest servant, an unscrupulous editor— and nothing could have averted the calamity of war. This period was specially interesting, because only three months later, the House will recollect, the Anglo-Russian agreement, a secret document of the first importance, was stolen from the Foreign Office and published in an evening paper, and it was mainly this publication which ten years later brought about the passing of the Official Secrets Act through Parliament. But the risks and dangers do not stop there. When Lord Melbourne died correspondence with his Sovereign and his colleagues, known to be of great importance, could not be found for many months. He was accused, quite falsely as it transpired, of having surrendered it into hands thought to be untrustworthy. There is another source of danger. It is quite true that the relatives and executors of deceased statesmen have hitherto shown great care and reserve. But in the last ten years a great change has come about in the ideas of the public as to the time which might properly elapse between the death of a statesman and the publication of his papers. The correspondence between Lord Grey and King William IV. was not published for thirty years after the passage of the Reform "Bill, to which it had reference. The correspondence of Sir Robert Peel, who died in 1851, was not published until somewhere about 1881. The "Lives" of Lord Dalhousie, Lord Durham, and Sidney Herbert have only recently been published, and they deal with events half a century old. A relative of my own, who was Belgian Minister in London for many years, and who, owing to the intimate connection between the late King Leopold and her late Majesty Queen Victoria, died in possession of very private documents, left the strictest injunctions that his papers were not even to be examined or touched for thirty years after his death. But that is not the modern practice. I do not complain or suggest criticism, and everyone must have welcomed the admirable biographies

719
of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Lord Granville, which have appeared in recent years, and which are all of them free, thanks to the political experience as well as to the skill of their authors, from political indiscretions of any kind. But that considerable risk is involved no one who has ever had the onerous duty of preparing important correspondence for publication can doubt. Inexperience, carelessness, the natural love for an exciting episode, quite apart from malignancy and the spirit of mischief, might easily, by the publication of some inconvenient document, create an incident and a complication in the public life of the nation which all men would regret. Your Lordships are aware of the importance attached to a Privy Councillor's oath, and to the mystery which properly surrounds the deliberations of the Cabinet. Does it not seem somewhat inconsistent to attribute so much value to the spoken word, and to safeguard it under specially sacred conditions, and yet at the same time to take no adequate precautions against the risks which invariably attend placing secret and confidential matters upon paper? I am aware of the nature and extent of the laws of copyright. They are, as has been so often demonstrated, wholly inadequate for the purpose I have been indicating to the House. Letters improperly published can be suppressed, but meanwhile the mischief is done. A notable case, which occasioned great pain to a member of your Lordships' House, will be in the minds of many. That was a private misfortune, and private persons have their remedy under the existing law. But what is the remedy of the Sovereign if his trust is abused, and what is the remedy of the nation if its highest interests are jeopardised? If there is no remedy under the law as it stands, I would like the Lord Chancellor to consider whether, as the necessity was admitted in 1888, when the Official Secrets Act was passed, to protect by heavy penalties printed documents of State, similar protection should not be extended to the correspondence of those persons mentioned in my Question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I anticipated that I would have to answer a dry question of law, but the noble Viscount has certainly made a most interesting statement, and one
720
touching upon questions of the very highest public importance. If he will permit me, I will first answer the Question on the Paper which relates to the law as it is, and will afterwards make a few observations in regard to other interesting subjects which the noble Lord dealt with. The documents specified in the Question have no protection beyond that which is extended to ordinary private letters, except in so far as the Official Secrets Act affects them. The protection extended to ordinary private letters is that arising from the law of copyright, which leaves in the writer of the letter, or it may be in his employer or official superior, the property in the letter itself, and enables him to ask for the protection of a Court of law to prevent its publication against his will. There is a right of secrecy in an ordinary private letter which would be protected as a right of property in the Courts. It is quite manifest that for all the purposes indicated by the noble Viscount the law of copyright is wholly inadequate to afford any shelter. Then comes the Official Secrets Act. It is not an Act of Parliament which I should hold up as an example of skilful or even accurate drafting—I was almost going to say that I would scarcely admit its title to grammatical accuracy. The Official Secrets Act affects documents of the kind in two ways. In the first place certain documents cannot be made public when they have relation to fortresses, arsenals, factories, dockyards and camps; but that is a very limited protection. The Act also provides that a person who has obtained documents by means of his holding office under the Crown, or as a contractor under an obligation of secrecy, can be prosecuted if the communication of these documents is against public interest, and the person discloses them corruptly or contrary to his official duties. That also is a very limited protection, and is practically unavailable in the cases suggested by the noble Viscount. Therefore I am obliged to say that under the law as it at present exists the dangers which have been pointed out by the noble Viscount do exist, and are not adequately precluded by any existing law in the degree of their importance and of the risk attaching to their publication. My noble friend has indicated the kind of dangers which might arise. The statement in substance amounted to this, that at a time when public feeling is inflamed there may be

721
most disastrous results from the undue or careless publication of some State documents. Well, I think that is so. No doubt very great discretion has been observed ordinarily by public men and by the Press. Indeed, it is wonderful to me that important documents which come from Departments or are used in the Cabinet are not more frequently disclosed. Of course in some crises of history their disclosure might be followed by the most serious consequences. I am bound to say, and I do not see why we should not say it, or why we should be afraid to say it, that some of the recent developments of a section of the Press of this country do not hold out the expectation that there will be the same reserve or the same fairness in the future as generally there has been in the past. For my own part, I believe it is well worthy of our consideration whether some further safeguard should be imposed, without in the slightest degree restricting any honest freedom—such honest, patriotic freedom as I feel sure would be fairly exercised by the great majority of the Press of this country. This is a subject on which it would be highly improper for me to pronounce any opinion without consideration by myself and by others; but I think there is a good deal of ground for taking into consideration the very important subject which has been raised in so interesting a way by my noble friend.

THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE AND THE NAVY.
*LORD BRASSEYsaid: In bringing very briefly under the consideration of your Lordships the discussion at the Colonial Conference relating to maritime defence, I once more cake the opportunity of expressing full confidence in the administration of the Navy in all its leading features. As to ships, manning, and training, we have at no time during my recollection—and I look back across the years —stood so well as we do to-day. There must always be occasion for suggestion or criticism. With regard to maritime defence, the result of the recent deliberations at the Colonial Conference was disappointing. The Premiers came to the Conference desiring to assume a larger-share of the Imperial expenditure on the Navy. The Colonies have taken a first step by the enrolment of Naval Reserves. And they have taken that step at the instance
722
of the Admiralty. At the Conference of 1902, the enrolment of Colonial Naval Reserves was strongly urged by Lord Selborne. I may quote from his speech—
"I want the Colonial Governments to regard the Navy as their own, at least as much as ours, and with that object I wish to see in the Navy more Colonial officers and a contribution of Colonial seamen. I want, in fact, if I may use such a term, to increase the maritime spirit of the Empire. After all, we are not in this country all sailors, yet we are all imbued with the maritime spirit. Here you have the great Colonies covering vast geographical tracts of country. Is there not a danger that in the far interior, unless we take precautions, the maritime spirit may be lost? "
The appeal of Lord Selborne fell upon attending ears. The Colonial Governments called for volunteers, and the call has been answered with enthusiam by our fellow-subjects across the sea. Naval Reserve men have been enrolled in considerable numbers in Australia, Newfoundland, and Malta. A beginning has been made in South Africa. In his Memorandum on the Navy Estimates of the current year my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty bore testimony to the quality of the Colonial Naval Reserves. He had himself inspected 120 men from Newfoundland, during their visit to the port of London. A most favourable impression was created by their general appearance. In raising men for the Reserves, and in providing for their shore training, the Colonies have done their part. At the Conference, the Premiers asked the aid of the Admiralty to complete the work of training by the loan of suitable vessels. These; reasonable demands of the Colonies were not complied with. The policy of the Admiralty in relation to the Naval Reserves generally has changed. My noble friend said in effect that the Navy was already over-manned, and that Reserves were no longer needed. If we compare our numbers with those of foreign Powers the Admiralty may truly say the Navy is over-manned. The reduction, to be gradually made, should not fall wholly on the Reserves. It is the permanent force which has been increased beyond our needs, and at burdensome cost to the taxpayer-. At the Conference my noble friend rightly insisted that all the higher ratings—-in the engine room, in gunnery and in the torpedo service—required a training of at least six years. These highly trained men are a limited proportion of the crews.

723
All foreign navies fill up complements with Reserves. In dealing with the Reserve forces for the Navy we cannot put out of view the fact that the mercantile marine has ceased to be a nursery for seamen, as in the old days. If the supply of seafaring men is falling short at home, it becomes the more desirable to encourage the Colonies to help us. This we can do by the loan of vessels which we are well able to spare, suitable for the training of seamen.
I turn to another point of view. Cruisers are needed in Australian waters, not only for the training of seamen, but for the protection of trade. In an able report by a Committee of naval officers of the Commonwealth, which was laid before the Conference, the over-sea and inter-state imports and exports of Australia are valued at £170,000,000 a year. The officers urge that a local naval force is required for the protection of this important trade. War operations might at any time require the service of the Imperial Squadron at a distance from Australia, Another report on Colonial maritime defence was laid before the recent Conference. I refer to that of the Committee on Imperial Defence. They took a different view from that put forward by the naval officers of the Commonwealth. They recommended that the defensive preparations of our Colonial fellow-subjects should be directed rather to the protection of harbours and the development of military forces. The Committee of Australian Naval Officers dissented from those views. The vast distances, the sparse population, the insufficiency of railway communication, make it impossible to mass troops to meet any possible invasion, and the lines of communication along the coast are of great length. Mr. Balfour's observations in the House of Commons in May, 1905, are appropriately quoted. Dealing with the contingency of the Fleet—that is to say, the Mediterranean Fleet—the Atlantic Fleet, and the Home Fleet, being away from the British shores, Mr. Balfour felt it necessary to give the assurance that England would not be left in maritime helplessness. He enumerated the strong force of battleships and cruisers, the torpedo flotilla and the submarines, which would always remain in home waters. The contention is surely not unreasonable that the same
724
means of local defence which are necessary for the homeland are desirable for Australia. The naval force available should include vessels capable of holding their own in the fierce winds and long seas which sweep the Australian shores. Sea-going destroyers may be useful. Large cruisers are essential. It is beyond the present resources of Australia to provide such vessels. The mother-country can supply them.
A Return has recently been presented to Parliament, on the motion of Lord Cawdor, giving the strength of our own and foreign navies in battleships and armoured cruisers. The comparison shows our overwhelming superiority. And the list officially presented to Parliament does not include six cruisers of the most powerful type, which are near completion, nor does it include more than eighty cruisers on the Navy list, many of which are not obsolete, or even obsolescent, for the protection of trade in distant waters. There are other ships, not suitable perhaps for the protection of Australian trade, but well fitted for the training of reserve men. From this long list, some vessels, I submit, might be handed over to the Commonwealth.
In helping the Colonies by the loan or gift of a few cruisers we shall incur no new expense. We are bound to build up to the two-Power standard. In shipbuilding, invention will never cease. As new ships are completed, the older ships pass out of commission. They should be sent to Australian and other Colonial ports. They would do service for the training of seamen, and would give security to Australian trade.
There was another proposal before the Conference, of the first importance, indirectly connected with maritime defence, as to which I need not address any observations to your Lordships. I refer to what is popularly known as the "all-red "route. It is satisfactory to know that this proposal is under consideration. We have the assurance of the Government that they favour a liberal policy. Fast ocean services expand trade and promote intercourse. It is certain that swift communications are a bond of Empire not open to criticism from any point of view.
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I think the whole House will agree that there is no person here who is more fitted to give an opinion with regard to the Colonial naval defences than my noble friend who has just sat down; he is an expert navigator and seaman; he is the owner of a world-famed yacht; he has discharged high duties in the office of the Admiralty; and he has been Govenor of a great Australian Colony; so that he ought to be in a very good position to express an important opinion on this subject, and I am sorry that my noble friend seems to think that the result of the Colonial Conference this year, so far as naval defence is concerned, was not altogether satisfactory. I thought myself that we had gone long way in coming to an understanding with the Colonial Premiers on this subject. The question is a very important one, and one that has caused a great deal of anxiety to myself and to the Board of Admiralty to which I belong. It is an intricate and difficult, as well as an important question, as the King's Dominions beyond the seas are very scattered and have various wants. They have various ideas of what is best for themselves, and there is, in fact, very little homogeneity to be found among them. Still, I believe there is a solid basis on which we can found a scheme for joint Imperial naval defence; it can be summed up in six words—"One Empire, one sea, one Navy." I do not think any scheme can be worked that does not acknowledge the supremacy of the great Navy of this country, and that our great Navy must defend our Colonies as well as ourselves; at the same time, a great deal can be done by the Colonies to help us and to help themselves. That was the basis on which I endeavoured to discuss the subject with the Colonial Premiers.
I think it is perhaps desirable that I should state very shortly the exact position in which we stand. In 1887, when Lord George Hamilton was First Lord of the Admiralty, this question of help from the Colonies was first raised, and a certain amount of progress was then made. At the time of the Colonial Conference of 1892, Lord Selborne, who was first Lord of the Admiralty, and Mr. Chamberlain, who was Colonial Secretary, both pressed very hard for increased help
726
from the Colonies, and especially pressed for it to be done by way of subsidy. In consequence of the Conference of 1892 an arrangement was come to with the Australian Colonies for ten years, until 1913. By that agreement Australia was pledged to give £200,000 a year to this country, and New Zealand was similarly pledged to give £40,000 a year, on condition that a certain squadron should be kept in Australian waters. That agreement is still in effect, and cannot be broken without the vote of the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments, as well as of our own. The annual cost of that squadron is £581,954. With regard to South Africa, also, there is an arrangement by which Cape Colony gave £50,000 and Natal £35,000 to the old country. A squadron has been kept there, but there is no special time mentioned for that arrangement to last. The squadron at the Cape costs us £155,355, and we have spent out of the Naval Works Loan Account no less than £2,104,076 for harbour works at Simon's Bay. Of course, in the event of war South Africa would become a centre of our general connection with the East and with the South. These are considerable sums which are charged to us annually, and it is not fair to say that we have shown ourselves in the past at all neglectful of the interests of the Colonies. The case of Newfoundland is different, because there we have no agreement with regard to ships, but only that a certain number of Naval Reserve men should be raised and trained, and this is done to large extent on ships which go to Newfoundland from this country. These men are, as the noble Lord said, extremely good sailors. Newfoundland pays £3,000 as a subsidy. The case of Canada, too, is totally different. The Canadians have always refused to give anything by way of subsidy, and at the Conference the Canadians, as a set-off, and as showing that they were willing to help the general naval interests of the Empire, talked about the protection they gave to the fisheries on the Labrador coast, the work they did in the great lakes inland, and the fact that they took over the works at Halifax and Esquimalt as involving a considerable relief to the Imperial funds. The cost of the establishment at Halifax had been £31,600, and at Esquimalt £27,300 a year. Providing the Canadians keep up these two docks and harbours in a proper condition they will be doing a very great service to the Empire at large.

727
I am sorry, however, the Canadian Government do not see their way to give more direct help to the naval defence of the Empire, but with regard to these defensive questions they have their own ideas and views, and I thought the line we ought to take towards the Colonies is that it must be very much a matter for them to decide in what way they are to help the Imperial Government in the matter.
His Majesty's Government have made no change, and proposed no change, with regard to the agreements made with the different Colonial Governments. What we do say is that we want to get as much help as we can from the Colonies, and to take that help in such a way as would be most convenient and useful to the Colonies as well as to the Imperial Government. His Majesty's Government said they would like more substantial help, and questions were discussed as to how that could be given. The Australians, by the mouth of Mr. Deakin—I do not take all that he said as the absolute opinion of the whole of Australia—put forward very strongly their desire for the establishment of something in the nature of an Australian Fleet. The Admiralty raised no objection to that. They only pointed out that they thought, to start with, the best defence they could have was to establish a flotilla of destroyers and submarines. That would form a very substantial defence against any casual raid, and in the event of a war a flotilla of well-manned destroyers and submarines would be of the greatest possible assistance to a British Fleet which had to operate in those waters. The smaller class of vessels cannot be taken over the ocean, and they would be of great advantage in defending those particular Colonies. Of course, during peace-time, they would be entirely under the control of the Colony who adopted them, but in war-time, we insisted that, if we had to send out a big Fleet, the flotilla of destroyers and submarines should be attached to it, and be under the command of the British admiral. That is a plan which involves the assent of the Colonial Parliament and of the Imperial Parliament. I think the various discussions we had brought us nearer to agreement, and before long I hope an agreement will be arrived at. As to New Zealand, that Colony has preferred to adhere to a subsidy. Since the Conference
728
I have heard that the New Zealand people are to raise their subsidy from £40,000 to £100,000, but they do not altogether refuse the idea of having also a submarine or destroyer flotilla as part of the subsidy, or instead of the subsidy altogether if they found that the cost of it was greater than the amount of the subsidy. South Africa is inclined to increase the number of its naval volunteers and to include their training. There are three different sets of Volunteers in South Africa—at Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, and Natal. The suggestion made to Cape Colony and Natal was that they should join up their three different companies, and that one ship should go from one to the other station to train the Volunteers at each place. 1 do not at all think that is an impossible arrangement to arrive at. In the first place, however, Acts of Parliment have to be passed in the Colonies themselves in order that we may put the Naval Volunteers there on a footing of Royal Naval Volunteers, and those Acts have to be sanctioned here. There, again, there is no desire to reduce the amount of help to be given to the Imperial Government below the cost of the subsidy now given, but there is a desire possibly to take a portion of the subsidy now paid to the Imperial Government for the purpose of carrying out some sort of naval defence in the Colonies themselves.
Then Lord Brassey raised a question about men and Reserves. His argument was that, if at any time the active service ratings and Reserves of the Navy aggregated larger number than were estimated to be required, the consequent reduction in numbers should be shared by the active service men and the Reserve. He argued that in the last nine years the number on active service ratings had increased from 97,000 to 129,000. It is now 128,000. It is perfectly true that foreign navies largely depend upon Reservists to man their navies. But the position of foreign countries is totally different from our own. We depend upon our Navy as our first line of defence, and to preserve the safety and the prosperity of our country. We cannot afford to wait for the mobilisation of our Reserves. We must, if we want to bring our fleet on to the sea and into operation, have it ready to go to sea at once fully manned and fit to meet

729
the emergencies which it will be called upon to meet. The recent policy of the Admiralty has been to perfect the machinery for mobilising the fleet, and the position we now hold in that respect is very different from that of the time my noble friend remembers when he was at the Admiralty; indeed, the number of men in the Navy are carefully estimated for on the principle that Reserves, though available, cannot be counted on as instantly available on mobilisation. The Navy cannot afford to wait; it must be in a position to man its striking force at once. To keep up this high standard it is necessary to have your men ready at hand to man their ships at a particularly short notice, and for that reason it is not desirable to trust to Reserve men to meet such emergencies. It must not be assumed that our Reserves are being reduced below a very considerable number. We have in the first place established a comparatively new Fleet Reserve, called the Royal Fleet Reserve, which consists of men who are engaged on a comparatively short time of service. The men serve five years on board ship, and for seven years they are in the Reserve, and ready at any moment to come up for mobilisation. There were on 1st January last 16,222 men with the Royal Fleet Reserve, and in the Royal Naval Reserve 21,167 men. The full number in the Royal Fleet and the Royal Naval Reserve on 1st January, therefore, was 43,389 men, besides the 128,000 men on the active list who are ready at any short notice to come on board if they are not on board ship at the time. Then another important Reserve has been established in the class of Royal Naval Volunteers. We had on 1st January 1907, 3,735 of these Naval Volunteers. They are situated in six places, viz., the Clyde, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Thames, the south coast of Sussex, and in the Severn. 1 do not think it is possible to speak too highly of the class of men who come in with the Naval Volunteers. As you see, they are all at big seaport places, places where shipbuilding goes on, and you get Naval Volunteers made up almost entirely of workmen in such works as Armstrong's on the Tyne. You get a lot of expert men, mechanics, shipwrights, engineers, and so forth—the very men you want at a time of emergency, men who can give the sort
730
of work so very necessary on modern battleships in time of war to keep things right. I think from the point of view of personnel we are really extremely well off. I know the Admiralty is accused of paying too much attention to material and not enough to personnel. I do not think it is a true criticism of the present policy. I think our personnel has been exceptionally well cared for, is exceptionally well trained, and will be found extraordinarily effective if it is called upon.
There was one more point my noble friend alluded to. It is the question of sending our cruisers to the Colonies instead of dealing with them in other ways. I am not myself very much attached to sending odd ships off to odd places in all parts of the world. I believe the very essence of modern policy is to concentrate your fleets as much as possible. 1 think, however, I may just hint to the House that we have in our minds a new and extended cruiser construction policy, which we shall bring forward in the next or following year. After all, the cruiser is the ship with which eventually we keep our dominance over the sea. The battleships are really only sort of policemen which keep the ring. The cruisers are the antennœ of the fleet who bring the news to the battleships. The battleships keep the sea free; it is their business to destroy the fleets of the enemy and to leave the sea free for our cruisers to safeguard our own commerce and to interfere as much as possible with that of our enemies. I hope, my lords, I have fairly well stated what is the present view of the Admiralty, and that my noble friend will think the answer I have given is a sufficient one.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I listened very carefully as I wished to hear the conditions connected with the grant Australia is going to give towards our Fleet. I did not gather what they all are. I think that some of them were not mentioned by the noble Lord, and I only rise to say it would be advantageous if he would issue some paper or document stating what those conditions are. Regarding the protection of Australia, all there is any chance of any European Power sending out there until she has smashed up our Fleet is an occasional cruiser, and the best way

731
to impede her is to keep torpedo boats available somewhere on that station. Every cruiser at some time or other has to put into harbour for repairs, and, if she knows that a torpedo boat is in the neighbourhood, she cannot act in the same way as if she knew the coast were clear. If the commander knows there is a torpedo boat about he has to keep a number of his men at the guns all night, and to keep the spaces round those guns clear so that he can work them. Men who spend half the night at their guns cannot work full hours at repairs. That will impede the ship, and, instead of the repairs taking a week, they will take a fortnight. During the extra week the cruiser will be doing no mischief, and our own cruisers will hear of her and be able to come up and engage her. There should be local defences in New Zealand and Australia, the officers and men should be kept together and worked together so as to give them training, and there should be competition of one ship against another, and then they could be afterwards dispersed if necessary. The Australian reserves certainly would not arrive in time for any decisive contest that might take place in our waters. But I think it would be a good thing to have more local reserves to fall back upon to fill up vacancies and repair our ships in cases of long war. We might easily spare, I should think, some of the vessels mentioned by the noble Lord, and the Percy Scott system of teaching the men how to fire is not expensive. It is very desirable to have electricians and mechanics of various descriptions in the reserve ready to assist in the repairs of our own vessels. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give some further information about the conditions of the Australian grant.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
LORD EVERSLEY: I beg to ask the noble Lord the President of the Council the Question standing in my name, viz.:—"Whether the Government will supplement the information promised to the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Doughnomore) as to the persons who will be entitled to claim under the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, by obtaining from the Estates Commissioners fuller details as to the three estates referred to in their recent Report, as bought for the purpose of reinstating former tenants, showing
732
the terms of reinstatement, the amount of the new rents or annual payments as compared with the former rents, the amounts paid for rebuilding or repairing the buildings and for stocking the farms, and the compensation paid to persons for giving up the holdings."
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): I understand the Question which my noble friend has asked refers to three estates named in the Report, viz., the Ponsonby, the Luggacurran, and the Coolgreaney estates. That is how we read the Question he has put on the Paper. I have to say, in reply, that the Estates Commissioners will be happy, so far as practicable, to give my noble friend the information for which he asks.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I would only like to express a hope that this will not delay the production of the Return. We are anxious to see this Return before the Bill is read a second time. I am sure all my noble friends will be glad to see these figures, and we are indebted to the noble Lord for asking for them. I hope that in the course of a day or two we shall see the beginning of the Return.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I understand that the first Return will be presented at the earliest possible date, and the Return asked for just now by Lord Eversley will be given later.

THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rise for the purpose of asking the noble Marquess the question which appears on the Paper in my name, viz.:—"With reference to the statement made on the 26th instant by the Prime Minister, as to the course of Parliamentary business, whether the Lord Privy Seal will give this House any information, and, if so, when, in regard to the dates at which the measures which His Majesty's Government hope to pass into law during the present session will probably come before this House, and approximately the number of days which, in his estimation, will be sufficient for the discussion of the more important of those measures."
I hope the noble Marquess will not think my curiosity is excessive, but the

733
matter is really one which very deeply concerns your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister has recently made a statement as to the course of business. He has set Parliament a task which I am sure the noble Marquess will not deny is one of extraordinary difficulty and magnitude. He has intimated that the session may be expected to end on 24th August, and he apologised for prolonging it to so unusual a length. The Prime Minister named no less than twenty-three Bills which in his anticipation Parliament might be able to pass within that limit of time. It is perfectly clear that this statement involves both Houses of Parliament, and my object in raising the question this evening is to ascertain on what data that part of the calculation which has reference to your Lordships' House was arrived at. I will not suggest that in making that calculation the Prime Minister for a momeat forgot the existence of this House. The Prime Minister is not apt to forget the existence of this House. This House is in his mind a kind of a spectre which apparently haunts him on all possible occasions. I therefore dismiss that hypothesis. I also dismiss another hypothesis, which is that the Prime Minister could have made his statement without first conferring with the noble Marquess and the noble Earl who sits beside him. If the statement had been made without such previous consultation both noble Lords would have had serious reason to complain of the discourtesy with which they were treated. Therefore I must assume that the noble Lords on the opposite bench were consulted by the Prime Minister, and that the result of those consultations was that the time during the remainder of the session was mapped out between the two Houses. I want to know how our time was mapped out. Of course, mapping out the time of the House of Commons is a comparatively simple task, because we all know the methods by which in that House time can be allocated to particular portions of public business. But those methods, I think, fortunately, do not prevail here, and therefore there must have been on the part of the noble Lords, and who must have advised the Prime Minister on this occasion, some intelligent anticipation of the course of events in this House. I want, with great respect,
734
to ask what the nature of that anticipation was.
The position is really a very serious one. I am given to understand that we are likely to have the Second Beading of the Evicted Tenants Bill on an early date next week—I think Tuesday. Unless I have altogether miscalculated the time at our disposal, I am under the impression that, even if we sit on Fridays, that leaves us about fourteen working days in which to get through the vast accumulation of business which at this moment lies before Parliament. I ask your Lordships to recollect that within that limited time we shall have to dispose of the Evicted Tenants Bill, of the English Small Holdings Bill, of the Scottish Small Holdings Bill, and of the Scottish Valuation Bill, besides a whole series of other Bills, not perhaps of the same importance, but still in many cases requiring examination.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The Criminal Appeal Bill.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend behind me reminds me that I have left out a very important measure, the Criminal Appeal Bill, which has already been discussed in previous years in this House, and in regard to which many noble and learned Lords undoubtedly would desire to express their opinions. I venture to say that in the face of those facts some explanation is due to your Lordships' House. I suggest that if the noble Marquess really does hope within anything like the limits of time indicated by the Prime Minister to make any approach to a satisfactory progress with all these Bills it would be far better that he should take this House into his confidence and tell us now, or at any rate as soon as possible, what his general idea is as to the time which might be devoted, at any rate, to the most important of the measures of which I have spoken.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS OF RIPON): My noble friend who has just sat down has based most of his observations upon a belief that I have consulted and discussed with the Prime Minister the course of proceedings in this House during the rest of the session, and that the speech made by my right hon.

735
friend on Friday last was the result of consultations of that kind. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that he is mistaken in that idea. I have, unfortunately, been obliged to be absent from this House on account of questions of health, and I did not return to London till Saturday last. Therefore my friend has raised up an imaginary consultation with the Prime Minister.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My imaginary consultation did not include my friend the noble Marquess.
*The MARQUESS OF RIPON: My answer applies only to myself. I know nothing beyond that I was not here at the time. I am obliged to my noble friend for giving me an opportunity of saying it. I feel I owe an apology to this House for my absence. [Noble Lords: No, no.] I should not have left unless I had found it necessary, and I hope your Lordships will excuse me for having taken that leave. My noble friend evidently, from his Question, does not expect any detailed information at the present time, because he says "I will ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will give this House any information, and, if so, when." When he put that Question down, he evidently felt that I could not at this moment have any fresh information to give to this House beyond that given to the public by my right hon. friend on Friday last. That is the case. I feel very strongly that my right hon. friend is perfectly justified in asking for the earliest possible information with respect to the prospects of the present session. I do not deny at all that, as far as this House is concerned, those prospects do not appear altogether satisfactory, but I shall be in a much better position before long, I hope, to give a statement as to the prospects of proceedings of Bills in the House of Commons than I can be in at the present moment. I must now rest my answer upon the speech made by my right hon. friend on Friday last. I quite agree that the number of Bills of which he spoke is a very formidable list. Some of them, I also agree, are measures of very great importance, but I can assure my noble friend that every effort will be made to bring those Bills up to this House at the earliest possible date. One of the Bills mentioned especially
736
—the Crimininal Appeal Bill—I believe passed its Third Reading last night or rather this morning and will therefore come up to this House immediately. The clerks at the Table inform me that it has come up and been read a first time in this House. I cannot at the present moment enter into more details with regard to the prospects of the other measures, but I will at a later date when I am able to speak with more certainty of what those prospects are. I will endeavour, if I can, to make a statement to my noble friend in regard to the whole of those prospects.
When I look to the last part of the Question as it stands upon the Paper, I confess that I am filled with considerable surprise. My noble friend asks me to tell him approximately the number of days which in my estimation will be sufficient for the discussion of the more important of these measures. My Lords, how can I give my noble friend any information upon the subject? It does not rest with His Majesty's Government, it rests with the noble Lord opposite—my noble friend himself is the leader of the vast legions in this House who settle the length of time discussion takes and the course which is to be followed. If we are able in any degree to regulate the proceedings in this House in that sort of manner, it is only due to the courtesy and the good feeling of the Opposition which is so powerful and which we have to face. It is for my noble friend to say what time he will require for the discussion of these Bills. I cannot say how long they will take. He must therefore excuse me if I do not undertake now and if I do not hold out any prospect of being able to undertake at a later period to answer that part of his Question. No doubt the position this session is one of which your Lordships—I admit it—have a right to complain, but I can only say, although August 24th may seem to be a very late date for the prorogation of Parliament, nevertheless I have in my experience known sessions which have lasted later than that under very different circumstances and with very different difficulties to encounter. I can only hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give to those measures, when they do come up and as soon as they come up, the fullest consideration you can. We will be prepared to afford every possible

737
facility for that purpose, but 1 cannot undertake to prophesy what may be the course which the majority of this House may think fit to pursue in regard to the discussion of those Bills.
LORD NEWTON: I venture to ask whether it is really the case that nobody upon the Front Bench has been consulted at all with reference to the disposal of the remainder of the time of the session. The noble Marquess is not the only representative of the Government on that bench; there are other noble Lords upon it who surely are qualified in every way for a consultation of this nature. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given utterance to certainly the most modest expressions that I have ever listened to either in this House or another place. He has assumed almost the position of a nonentity and thrown himself, so to speak, upon the mercy of the Opposition. As I have said, I have never heard an announcement of such a modest character made before, but in view of the treatment with which he has evidently been subjected by the head of the Government perhaps it is not altogether so surprising as it ought to be.

FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) BILL [H.L.]
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, before your Lordships adjourn, I ask leave to present a Bill dealing with the law of damages recoverable in cases of fatal accidents. Your Lordships will not desire me to explain the scope of this Bill on this occasion; out the law in respect of damages differs in cases of fatal and non-fatal accidents, and the purpose of the Bill is to assimilate it.

FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act —Was presented by the Lord Courtney of Penwith; readª to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Monday next. (No. 142.)
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.