Lords Sitting of 10 June 1907

BARON HOOD.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Thursday last, that the right of the Baron Hood to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of William St. John Fremantle, Viscount Midleton in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Alton Military Hospital Bill [H.L.].—Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—Petition of Gwenllian Pascoe Killery by her agents, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, praying that substituted service of a copy of the Bill, together with notice of the Second Reading thereof, and all other notices or orders connected therewith may be made upon Messrs. Field, Roscoe, and Company, at 36, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London; Presented and read; and
1022
and to be taken into consideration on Wednesday next.
Taff Vale Railway Bill.—The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 8th of May and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]; Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Supply Corporation Bill H.L,].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
South Eastern, and London, Chatham and Dover Railway's Bill; Shanklin Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London and North Western Railway Bill.—Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Middlesex County Council. Leave given to present the said Petition.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Committed.
Great Central Railway Bill.—Report of the Board of Trade; laid before the House (pursuant to Standing Order No. 90).
Destructive Insects and Pests Bill [H.L.].—Petition in favour of; of county council of Haddington; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Oregon Mortgage Company, Limited, Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 3a(according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, RE PORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL REGISTRATION BILL.
  Further papers respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of 29th May last) and to be printed. (No. 65.)
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for technical schools, schools of art, and other schools and classes (day and evening) for further education (from 1st August, 1907, to 31st July, 1906).
  Letters patent and instructions relating to the Orange River Colony.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3814. Sweden (Stockholm); No. 3815. Hayti.
  VENTILATION OF FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Second report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the ventilation of factories and workshops. Part I. Report. Part II. Appendix.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS.
  Directory of industrial associations in the United Kingdom in 1907.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS FOUNDATION.
  Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers Foundation, for the year 1907–1908.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
  Account of receipt and expenditure under the Seamen's Fund Winding-Up Act, from 1st January to 31st December, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

MERCANTILE MARINE—LOAD LINE.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new official regulations permitting the deeper loading of British merchant vessels; to ask whether, on the ground of increased danger to life at sea, large bodies representing seafarers have strongly protested against these regulations; whether they apply to old as well as new vessels; when is it contemplated that a further revision of the regulations will take place; and to move for a Return showing the particular
1024
vessels more deeply immersed under the new regulations, giving in each case the extent of their deeper immersion, their type of build, and their age.
In the interests of the many seafarers who appeal to me in this matter I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice certain facts connected with the deeper loading of British ships, which, under the sanction of the President of the Board of Trade, is now permissible. The Shipping Gazette puts the position in a nutshell when it says:—
"Failing to get the Germans to come up to our standard of safety we have gone down to their's."
And why? Our seamen's lives have been placed in greater danger because our shipowners complain of foreign competition. But are our seamen to be considered the legitimate prey of competition, and are their lives to be exposed to unnecessary and avoidable risks for the sake of making profits? There is but one answer. We should give to the British shipowner a far greater amount of encouragement and assistance than we do, but at the same time we must insist on preserving the safety, as far as is humanly possible, of the men who servo in his ships. The shipowner has his capital at stake, that is if he is not fully covered by insurance, which ho generally is; but with the seaman it is his life we must consider.
I plead on behalf of British seamen because their own mouths are shut. Those who can best and most intelligently judge of the increased dangers which the Board of Trade compel them to run—namely, the captains and officers—dare not say a word, at the peril of losing the positions they hold. The Merchant Service Guild, their representative body, tell me of the indignation of all seamen at this new deeper loading; but, as in so many other things, the men themselves must remain silent and accept greater risk to their lives rather than lose their berths and suffer starvation.
With your Lordships' permission I will quote extracts from two letters, the sentiments in which, the Guild assure mo, are held by practically all nautical men:—
"This lifting of the load line will make a great difference to many ships, and I am afraid this present winter will tell its own tale, both as to loss of life and also vessels. The free-board of the ship I have just left was decreased by six and a half inches, and she was a totally

1025
different ship in a seaway from what she was on the voyage before with the same cargo, only this time we had more of it."
The chief officer of another large steamer writes as follows:—
"This ship (an old one of the partial awning deck type) is put down seven inches more, which means 170 tons more cargo. She was wet before, but we call her the Submarine Al. now."
I am well aware that the new regulations were adopted upon the recommendation of Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, the Bureau Veritas, and the British Corporation for the Survey and Registry of Shipping, all of whom, it must be carefully remembered, are closely connected and mixed up with shipowners.
But when I asked in this House why His Majesty's Government had not taken the views of seafarers before effecting changes which so closely concerned their safety, I was told that they were not competent to give advice on the subject and therefore were not asked. I cannot imagine a more callous reply, especially as insult was added to injury by insinuating a want of ordinary intelligence on the part of those serving in the merchant service. I do not impute callousness to my noble friend who gave this reply, for he has no experience of that most valuable and intelligent class of our fellow-subjects, the captains and officers of the merchant service, but I can find no Parliamentary term strong enough to condemn those who inspired that reply. I would like to know who are more competent. It is all very well for experts ashore to indulge in intricate calculations and carry on experiments with a model ship and a tank; but who are the best judges of a ship in a seaway when her safety is really at stake, and who from practical experience must be the best judges of the many and various dangers which face our ships on the high seas? With the greatest respect I say it is not marine architects or engineers who can be the most competent judges of the behaviour of a ship at sea.
In the early part of the present year the President of the Board of Trade stated in the House of Commons that the statutory tables of free-board under which load-lines are assigned to vessels were so modified as to permit of the deeper loading in varying degrees, ranging from six to twelve inches, of
1026
certain classes of vessels of modern construction and approved strength, but the older vessels which did not come up to this standard were allowed no such deeper loading. I ask your Lordships to mark these words. Twelve inches is given as the greatest margin of deeper immersion, and we are told, in so many words, that the older vessels are not given this doubtful privilege. I have at times complained of the nature of the replies which we receive to questions raised in this House in regard to ships and seamen. I would ask how the President of the Board of Trade reconciles his maximum of twelve inches deeper immersion with the fact that it is by no means the maximum. Coupled with this I would ask how his statements as to the older vessels not being deeper loaded can be reconciled with the following statements written from abroad by an officer for public use in case his vessel never arrived homo again—
"I was much surprised, when reading the Guild Gazette, at the report of remarks made by Mr. Lloyd-George with reference to the new load-line for British vessels."
This officer, in commenting on the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons to which I have referred, says—
"It may interest my colleagues and possibly Mr. Lloyd-George to know that this steamer is one of the oldest of our fleet. She is over sixteen years of age and her load-line has been raised fourteen inches, whilst the more modern vessels of the company have only suffered to the tune of six or seven inches."
The officer further states that he once experienced a full dead-weight cargo in the vessel when the original load-line was in vogue. In encountering some heavy weather on her voyage, it appears she was not an enviable ship by any means, and needed some very careful nursing. The officer remarks—
"God help us if we are ever loaded to the draught permitted by the President of the Board of Trade and meet heavy weather before the greater part of her coal has been consumed."
The letter written by this officer is from a very distant port abroad, and he states that the vessel is now proceeding to Europe with a full dead-weight cargo, and that full advantage is to be taken of the alterations in the load-line, which the officer states has practically destroyed the great work of Samuel Plimsoll's life. He prays—and naturally so—for a fine

1027
weather passage, his shipmates sharing his doubts as to the consequences in the event of heavy weather.
My Lords, I have supplied you with actual facts which will show how different is the position from what we ourselves are led to believe. I have too much respect for the President of the Board of Trade to infer that he has the slightest intention to mislead, but I think that the information which is placed in his hands should more nearly approach the mark of accuracy. For my part, I feel bound, for the protection of the lives of our sailors, to revert to these matters and to endeavour to influence your Lordships to give your assistance in setting them right.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that seamen get no extra consideration for the additional risks they run, and it is to us that they look for protection. If we disregard their pleas, if we treat their safety as a quite unimportant matter compared to, for instance, the Street Betting Bill, or shorter hours for shop assistants, we take upon ourselves a most serious responsibility. Human life should be as sacred at sea as it is elsewhere. Though the Marine Department of the Board of Trade may consider otherwise, I venture to think that it is for us, with the powers at our disposal, to protest against the national scandal of lowering the standard of safety at sea to that of the alien competitor, whoever he may be. We, who take a pride in the greatest industry the world has ever seen—the British mercantile marine—should have a regard for its fair fame, and I would beg you not to remain impassive when its credit for safety and efficiency is at stake, as it is now.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the particular vessels more deeply immersed under the new official regulations, permitting the deeper loading of British merchant vessels, giving in each case the extent of their deeper immersion, their type of build, and their age." —(Lord Muskerry.)
*THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what, my noble friend has said as to the need for every precaution being taken to protect the lives of our seamen when at sea. We all recognise what they have done for the Empire, and would be very sorry
1028
to think that any regulation of the Board of Trade or of any public Department in this country had an injurious effect upon them. I can only say, with regard to the special subject under discussion, that the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the various bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, came to the conclusion that with safety the free-board of certain ships could be decreased. The noble Lord in referring to some remarks made in the House of Commons by Mr. Lloyd-George, said that my right hon. friend had stated that the present rules only applied to new ships. What Mr. Lloyd-George intimated was that the rules permitted of the deeper loading of now ships and of older vessels when they comply with the same regulations as to strength and other points.
With regard to the Return for which the noble Lord has moved, I very much fear that it will not be possible to grant it, simply on the ground of expense. If we had to go through the different assessments of load line for every single ship of the mercantile marine it would entail a very large expenditure, and I very much doubt whether the result attained would be of any use to your Lordships. There was one other question raised by the noble Lord with reference to the competency of captains and officers of the merchant service to give advice on questions of this kind; but from information at my disposal I am inclined to think this would not be the case. This subject is a very technical one, and one which I am informed can only be dealt with by naval architects and that class of people. It seems to me, therefore, that it would have been useless to ask any member of the Merchant Service Guild to have joined with the other experts in assessing the load-line. We all recognise that the subject is a very serious one, and all I can add is that if it is brought to our notice that any revision of the load-line is required, and that there are good reasons for it, we shall consider it; but at the present moment His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of revising the load-line.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has said very frankly that the subject of this conversation is a very serious one, and that undoubtedly is the case. Any proposed

1029
change, or any change which has been carried out, in regard to the load-line of our vessels, seeing that it involves the safety of a number of His Majesty's subjects, is, of course, a very important matter. The noble Earl stated, in reply to my noble friend, that ho is not able to lay on the Table the Return asked for, and he added that ho was unable to do so on the ground of expense. The noble Earl is the best judge of that, and I certainly should not attempt to controvert the opinion on which that answer is given; but I do think that your Lordships are entitled to a little more information as to the grounds upon which the change has been made to which my noble friend has called attention.
I apprehend that no Papers of any kind have been laid before Parliament with reference to this subject. Therefore we are not seised of the reasons which have led the Board of Trade, on the advice of those bodies to which reference has been made, to change the load-line conditions. I think we are entitled to have that information. We ought to be told why it is that suddenly the Board of Trade have been advised that, in cases of certain vessels, they may be immersed to the extent of a foot deeper than has hitherto been the case. I say so all the more emphatically because there appears to be a certain ambiguity as to what vessels this change applies to. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade seems to have said, in another place, that the only vessels affected are new vessels, or, at any rate, vessels of now construction; but it appears, from the modification the noble Earl has just made in his chief's assurance, that that was not strictly and rigidly accurate, and that there are a certain number of older vessels to which this new change will apply. That affords, perhaps, an additional ground why Parliament ought to be informed of the reasons which have led the Board of Trade to this decision. The question, therefore, which I would with great respect put to His Majesty's Government is whether they will lay Papers on the Table so that Parliament may be informed of the reasons which have led to this change.
My noble friend behind me indicated in one observation what he appears to
1030
think was the motive which led to the change. He hinted, apparently, that the change was made in order to meet the statutory provisions of the German law. I have no ground for agreeing with my noble friend in that suggestion, and I do not know what led him to make it: but it gives me an opportunity of asking the noble Lord the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom we are all glad to see in his place, whether any progress has been made in the negotiations for an international agreement as to load-line, which formed part of the discussions on the Merchant Shipping Bill in the last session of Parliament. My noble friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will re-member that on that occasion both sides of the House were agreed that we could not pass a certain Amendment which was said to infringe International law, but my noble friend took the opportunity of saying that the Foreign Office were engaged in trying to persuade foreign Governments to agree to an international load-line, and he added that in the case of Germany, Norway, and Spain those negotiations seemed to be likely to be fruitful. I feel that I ought to have given my noble friend notice of this Question, and if he wishes it I will postpone the Question until another day.
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I make no complaint of my noble friend for putting this Question, but I shall take advantage of what he has just said and ask him to give notice. There are a great number of delicate considerations involved in these negotiations, and I would be anxious that any Answer I gave should be accurate.
*LORD ELLEN BOROUGH: My Lords, I had not intended to address the House on this question, and I only do so in consequence of a remark which fell from the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade as to architects and such persons being the only people capable of giving advice in this particular matter. I would point out that there are in the mercantile marine a large number of master mariners who have passed extra first, some of whom are perfectly capable of dealing with these highly technical subjects. I would, therefore, suggest that in future the aid of

1031
such men should be called in, and Committees and Commissions on these questions should not be left entirely to naval architects.
*LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, I would regret to say anything which might be considered to give approval to any course taken by the Board of Trade which implied an increase of risk to those whose employment is on the sea. But it may interest your Lordships to know that according to the latest information we seem to be steadily making progress in the diminution of loss of life at sea. In the first paragraph of the last issue of the Wreck Register it is stated that the total number of sea casual ies reported in 1904–5 was less by 937 than the average for the previous twenty years, and less than in any of those years except three. In the return of loss of life by foundering, which is the matter particularly at issue with reference to the load-line, in the case of steam vessels the loss of life by foundering in 1902–3 was 113. The number fell in 1904–5 to twenty-three. In the latter period the loss of life by the foundering of sailing vessels was thirty-three as against fifty-six in 1902–3. That is very satisfactory as showing the results of close attention on the part of the Board of Trade in regard to all that has reference to safety of life at sea.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, after what the noble Earl has said I will not press my Motion; but I would ask him for a Return in the case of the "Manningtree." This ship took advantage of the new load-line and went to the bottom, and the Court found that she was not overloaded "according to the new regulations."
*THE EARL OF GRANARD: I can assure the noble Lord that we shall be very pleased indeed to give him a Return in the case of any particular ship. As regards what the noble Marquess opposite said, I will inquire whether it is possible to lay on the Table any Papers relating to the matter at issue.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCES.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: rose to call attention to the Answers given by the Under-Secretary for War to Questions addressed to him on Monday, 29th April last, regarding the "hoped for" "speculative" Territorial Army, and further, to give the Answers to the Questions to which the Under-Secretary failed to reply.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the glamour of grandiloquence and miles of tall talk about national armies resting on patriotism and self-sacrifice seem to a certain extent to have mesmerised the common sense of the nation, assuming that the present majority in another place represents the common sense of the nation. The Bill which is described as a Bill for the reorganisation of the Army, would be more properly described as a Bill for the disorganisation of the Army. This guillotine Bill, which is passing through the House of Commons at a very rapid rate, empowers the Secretary of State for War to dynamite absolutely and blow into the thinnest air the foundation upon which our military system rests and has rested from all time, and to substitute for it a foundation resting on "hope" and "speculation"—to which Mr. Haldane has recently added a brick on which is stamped the word "optimism."
About five weeks ago I put a few Questions to my noble friend Lord Portsmouth with a view of gauging what the value would be of this new mongrel force. My noble friend responded, as I expected, with that courtesy which he shows to everyone; but, as regards the information which he gave me, I was in that state of beatitude that is supposed to attach to those who expect nothing. I expected nothing from my noble friend, and therefore I was in no way disappointed. But getting no information, I felt that it was necessary to give the further notice which stands in my name on the Paper to-day. Now, although my noble friend gave me no information, he met some of the Questions by a reference to the County Associations. I hope your Lordships will remark that. These County Associations, which are not yet formed, are apparently to be kopjes

1033
or shelter trenches to the Government, because when asked Questions as to what will ho the effect of this or that, the Answer is, "We cannot tell; that will depend on what the County Associations do." On other points my noble, friend referred me to the clauses of the Bill, but on the very important Question as to readiness he displayed a diplomatic silence and gave me no answer at all.
I do not propose to repeat the eight Questions which I put to my noble friend, but to summarise them, and I think he will admit that the summary which I shall submit is a truthful representation of those Questions. I will put them under four heads—First, the question of age; secondly, the question of training; thirdly, the fitness after training of the troops to do what is expected of them; and, lastly, the question of readiness. With regard to the question of age, my noble friend referred me, as I have said, to the County Associations; they were to be responsible for the age. I wanted to know how many of the 300,000 men would be left if you deducted all the lads under twenty, and my noble friend said I had taken a very high figure. I absolutely dispute that. This is no new question. It was discussed by the yard, by the mile if you choose, in 1871, on Mr. Cardwell's Bill, and again in 1875. In the latter year I moved a Resolution in the House of Commons, but the forms of the House did not allow of its being put to the vote, to this effect—
"That no youth under twenty years of age should be reckoned an effective soldier and borne as such on the Army Estimates; and this House is further of opinion that the number of youths under twenty years of age enlisting and serving in each arm of the Service should be annually and separately stated in the Estimates."
In 1871, the House of Commons unanimously resolved that no youth under twenty should be allowed to serve over seas.
What did we hear from my noble friend the other day? He stated that with the help, not of their military advisers, but of their medical advisers, the Army Council were thinking of altering the age for Foreign Service When I moved my Resolution in the House of Commons in 1875, I produced evidence from the medical officers at Netley that in their opinion youths under twenty years of age
1034
were fit for home duties only; and Sir William Ferguson, the distinguished surgeon of the day, when asked what was the right age, said he did not think there was much wrong in twenty-one. In this connection it must be remembered that there is no foreign nation which has a soldier under twenty years of age.
Now I want to get at the number of men who would be left if all under twenty were excluded. In 1875 the question was very narrowly gone into, with this result—that in a body of 50,000 men those under twenty numbered 12,000; what are called casualties would account for a further 7,000, which brings the total to 19,000; so that, of a force of 50,000 men, 19,000 were below twenty years of age or could not be counted. The Territorial Army is to consist of 300,000 men. Therefore if you multiply the figures I have given by six you arrive at this conclusion, that of the men in the Territorial Army 114,000 cannot be counted. Therefore you will have 186,000 men instead of 300,000. And what are. these 186,000 men to do? They are to garrison all the ports of the United Kingdom that required to be garrisoned plus volunteer for service over sea, and defend our homes and country from foreign invaders. In his letter to Sir John Burgoyne the Duke of Wellington put the garrison at each of these places at 10,000, with the exception of Milford Haven, which would require 5,000. Including Cork, this takes away 65,000 men, leaving 121,000. The Duke of Wellington in the same letter stated that half of your force would have to go to Ireland. That would reduce the number to 60,500, and that would be the whole Territorial Force available for field-service in Great Britain.
Then, as to training, under Clauses 14 and 16 of the Government Bill, which, I believe, have not been altered in the House of Commons, the. Territorial soldier may be drilled for one, two, three, or four weeks in the course of a month, as is thought desirable; but—and here comes the great blot on the Bill—a territorial soldier is not to be made really effective until the force is mobilised in case of an emergency arising. But the enemy will then be in this country. Does my noble friend

1035
delude himself into the belief that notice will be given, and that it will be treacherous on the part of any foreign country to come without giving due notice? I have in my hand an extract from a book that has recently been published, entitled "The Writing on the Wall," and in this book there is a quotation from Sir Frederick Maurice, who says that he only knows one case—in 1870—where overt war had been preceded by a declaration of war. Therefore, my noble friend's belief that due notice would be given falls to the ground.
Then as to the question of fitness. Who can say this new Army will be fit to meet a foreign army consisting of older and more fully trained men? Military authorities declare that every infantry soldier requires eighteen months training and every cavalry soldier two years, but this Territorial Army is to be trained after the enemy has landed on our shores, or, at any rate, after a declaration of war, if there is a declaration.
Then, when will this Army be ready? When I put this Question the other day my noble friend's reply was, on the one hand, that that would be a matter for the County Associations, and, on the other hand, that he could not diplomatically disclose, say, when the force would be ready; but there is no secret of any kind in the matter. Every foreign military attaché in London knows all about it. My noble friend shakes his head. I am sorry he is so incredulous.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): If the information is so publicly known why does the noble Earl wish us to give it?
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I am very sorry I did not hear the noble Earl's interruption. I understand my noble friend to suggest that I am wrong when I say that this is known to everybody except the English people. It is certainly known to all the foreign military attaches. That cannot be denied. It appears to me that on all grounds you will not have in this Territorial Army a satisfactory exchange for that which you are blowing up. The Secretary of
1036
State for War served on the Explosives Committee, and I suppose he learnt blowing up there; at any rate, he is applying dynamite to our present military system. The whole scheme rests entirely on hope, speculation, and optimism. I could quote no end of letters I have received on the subject, but I will confine myself to three military authorities. The first is Lord Roberts, who says that while the Army is forming we shall be in a state of extreme danger. Lord Wolseley telegraphed some time ago that he looked upon the Bill as an insane Bill, and more recently he writes—
"At one time it was supposed that we were endowed with that uncommon attribute, common sense, but no man of any nation reading this proposed Army scheme would ever suppose that we could lay claim to that rarest of virtues. Mr. Haldane's proposals have nothing that can recommend them to any one who wishes England to provide itself with an Army suitable to our position at home, and our scattered Empire in many distant provinces. I hope I may not live long enough to see these Army reformers' proposals given any trial."
In that I myself most cordially concur. What was Lord Wolseley's view when he was examined before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission? Would he be satisfied with these half-trained men? No; he said he wanted 150,000 of our best troops for home defence. The other authority I will quote is also a very important one. The present military adviser of the Secretary of State is, I believe, General Lyttelton. General Lyttelton's successor in that very onerous and responsible post is to be Sir William Nicholson, who is admitted to be one of our ablest soldiers. Sir William Nicholson is quoted in the Nation as saying that Mr. Haldane's scheme of a Territorial Army is nothing but a dream and a vision. Unfortunately, Sir William will not take over the office until April next.
Now the question that occurs to me, seeing that the Bill is denounced by nearly all soldiers and all practical sensible men, is, what will your Lordships do with it when it comes up to this House? It will soon be here—by help of the guillotine. I venture to think that there is only one thing you can and ought to do with it —read it a second time, and then, in Committee, take the Militia out of the Bill. Do not, my Lords, forget what you did in 1904. Your Lordships in

1037
that year passed a Resolution, on my Motion, to the following effect—
"That, in the opinion of this House, any scheme of Army reorganisation that does away with the Militia Force is contrary to sound policy, destroying as it does the ancient constitutional foundation of our military system."
And by whom was that Resolution supported? By Lord Spencer and by the whole of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite. It was carried unanimously. Lord Burghclere shakes his head. Does he object?
LORD BURGHCLERE: I was sitting with my noble friends on the Front Opposition Bench then, and I did not agree.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But you did not object to the Motion being carried—it matters not where you sit. Therefore, I maintain that I am justified in saying that the Resolution was carried unanimously, and if your Lordships do not stand by that Resolution you will be stultifying yourselves and prove yourselves of no value as a Second Chamber and House of revision. By excluding the Militia from the Bill you will retain the old constitutional force and the power of imposing compulsory service for home defence, which is the foundation of our military system. After all, why do you not take what exists at this moment on the Table and which everyone of you knows to be right? There is, I am glad to see, one Member in another place who had the courage of his opinions and who spoke out like a man in favour of ballot for the Militia. I refer to Lord Morpeth. Why are there not more Lord Morpeths? I venture to think that in this matter one Party is afraid of the other, and the result is that the nation suffers; unquestionably that is so.
In my opinion we present a most pitiable and. contemptible spectacle to foreign nations, every one of whose citizens have to serve in the national army. We are the only nation in the world that allows its military system to lie on the Table. All other nations enforce their military systems. The Pigmies, I am sure, enforce theirs. Lord Wolseley says he hopes he may not live long enough to see these army reformers' proposals given any trial. I also trust it will not be done in my time.
1038
Years ago the Duke of Cambridge said to me—
"You are not talking so much about Army matters now. Why is that?"
I replied that I was waiting for the disaster, and I added—
"After the disaster you will do these things, but at present you will not."
The outlook is very gloomy. But in the surrounding gloom there came a gleam of light and hope from the Front Opposition Bench when I ventured to bring this matter before your Lordships some five weeks ago. The noble Marquess Lord Salisbury then took a rational view on the subject of the Militia, which he did not wish to see done away with.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:Hear, hear.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The noble Marquess then said that the remarks he made were spoken in a patriotic sense, and he did not look upon this Bill in any other than a patriotic sense. Those remarks were responded to in the same spirit by the noble Earl who represents the War Office. Now words are all very well, but we want deeds, and I would suggest that the noble Marquess should make an advance to the Earl of Portsmouth with the view of treating the question on non-Party lines, and promising the support of his Party if the Government would bring in, in the most modified form possible, compulsion for home defence. One word in conclusion concerning myself. I am now a very old man. From 1871 onwards I have urged compulsory service for home defence. If the Volunteers would only do what I did, temporarily resign their commissions, the Government Bill would fall to the ground, and Ministers would be obliged to do their duty alike by the nation and themselves. My warnings on this subject come from the bottom of my heart. I know that my words are true, and I know that all who hear me must, in their inner consciences, acknowledge their truth. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to give utterance to them, even if they are the last words I am ever to speak in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I am sure one thing will be felt by every Member of your Lordships' House, and that is that it was necessary for the noble Earl to inform us that he is a very old man, for he addressed us with his usual youthful vigour and eloquence. I am, however, placed in a difficulty by the time and the occasion chosen by my noble friend for bringing forward this matter.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I postponed it at your request.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I did not ask my noble friend to postpone it till now.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: You asked, me to postpone it till after Whitsuntide
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think it would be more in order to debate this matter when the Bill to which the noble Earl referred comes before us. It is impossible for me to go into this matter in detail at present; but I hope to be associated with the Bill when it comes up to this House, and I will then endeavour to explain it in every detail, and I assure your Lordships that it is my intention to consider it in an absolutely non-Party sense.
My noble friend has not done what his notice of Motion suggested that it was his intention to do. I doubted on seeing his Motion whether I would have to trouble your Lordships with a speech because it indicated that my noble friend was prepared to answer the questions which he had not considered as satisfactorily answered on a previous occasion. His notice has suggested to my noble friend near him this quotation—
"As I walked by myself, I talked to myself
And myself replied unto me.
The questions myself then put to myself,
With their answers, I send them to thee.
Put them to thyself, and if unto thyself
The answers the same they be,
Think well with thyself and beware of thyself,
Or so much the worse for thee."
Much of the detail on which my noble friend commented is intentionally left out of the Bill because it was felt that it was better to leave it to be worked out in administration under the best advice of the Army Council. Much has been said
1040
about training, and I agree as to its importance, but it is undesirable, as has been shown by experience, to put into a Bill dealing with a Volunteer army—I will not consider compulsory service now, it is not within the region of practical politics—it is not desirable to put into such a Bill a hard-and-fast rule as to training; there must be an elastic system. Your Lordships will remember what happened in 1902 in regard to a proposal for compulsory camps. It would be unwise for Parliament to go into such details. I adhere to the view I expressed in regard to the proposed six months training when war was imminent, and it is a view that is shared by distinguished authorities. It is inconceivable that a civilised Power would attack another at a time when the relations between them were perfectly friendly; I do not think that we could provide against contingencies of that kind. I have been asked, "Do we expect that the Territorial Force will be fit to meet picked Continental troops?" and I reply, "No, we do not expect that; we rely on the Navy as the first line of defence, and we look to the Territorial Army to protect the, country against raids. When it is said that if we lose command of the sea the country might be inundated with Continental troops, all I can say is that, if we lose command of the sea, it is hardly necessary to consider the further question, for an ememy would have the means of bringing us to terms.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: The House has unanimously passed a Resolution declaring that, irrespective of the Navy, it is desirable that the country should at all times be in such a state of defence on land that no nation would ever dream of making in any form a hostile landing on our shores.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am expressing the, deliberate opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence—a skilled and expert opinion—that it is impossible to consider the question of defence apart from the Navy.
EARL BATHURST: In what way does the noble Earl consider the proposed Territorial Army will be superior to our

1041
means of defence by the Militia and Volunteers.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: A reply to that question would involve a Second Reading speech, and it had better be reserved for the discussion upon the Bill.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I forgot to mention what could be done under the existing law. I sent round a circular which every one of your Lordships received, and which I should like to have added as a footnote to what I have said. It was to this effect, that without an additional Id. cost, you could have an efficient force of 1,250,000 men, exclusive of Regulars. I wish to give notice that if and when the Bill comes before the House, and I being then alive, I will without comment move an instruction to the Committee that it is desirable to alter the Bill in accordance with the Resolution I have referred to, and that the Militia should be maintained.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.