Lords Sitting of 23 July 1912

EARLDOM OF OXFORD.
Petition of Sir John James Hugh Henry Stuart Murray, Duke of Atholl, K.T., for leave to lodge his printed case; read, and ordered as prayed.

BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM.
Report made from the Committee for Privileges:
Barony of Burgh.
1. That the Barony of Burgh is an ancient Barony in Fee:
2. That it is proved that Sir Thomas Burgh sat as a Peer in Parliament next after Lord Windsor in the year 1529 and that the said Sir Thomas Burgh was from that date entitled to the Barony by Writ descendible to the heirs general of his body:
3. That upon the death in or about the year 1600 of Robert Burgh the fourth Lord Burgh the Barony of Burgh fell into abeyance among his four sisters and co-heirs, namely—

(i) Elizabeth who married George Brooke;

(ii) Frances who married Francis Coppinger;

(iii) Anne who married Sir Drue Drury; and

(iv) Katherine who married Thomas Knyvett:

4. That the co-heirs of the first Thomas Burgh aforesaid and the said Robert Burgh are the following persons—

(i) The Petitioner Alexander Henry Leith;

(ii) John Francis Byde Russel who has presented no petition and makes no claim;

(iii) The Petitioner Reginald Gervase Alexander;

(iv) The Petitioner Cuthbert Matthias Kenworthy;

(v) The heir or heirs (if any) of the said Frances Coppinger who died in or before the year 1619;

612

(vi) Emma Harriet Baroness Berners who has presented no petition and makes no claim;

(vii) The heir or heirs (if any) of Lucy Knyvett who married Thomas Holt and John Field and died in the year 1740:

5. That the Barony of Burgh is in abeyance and at His Majesty's disposal.
Barony of Cobham.
1. That the Barony of Cobham is an ancient Barony in Fee:
2. That Henry de Cobham who was summoned to Parliament by a Writ dated the 8th January 6 Edward II (1313) was entitled to a Barony by Writ descendible to the heirs general of his body:
3. That Henry Brooke 10th Lord Cobham and his brother and heir George Brooke were attainted of high treason in or about the year 1603:
4. That but for the said attainders Sir William Brooke Knight the son and heir of the said George Brooke would have been the sole heir to the Barony of Cobham:
5. That if the said Barony of Cobham had descended to the said Sir William Brooke it would upon his death in or before the year 1643 have fallen into abeyance among his four daughters and co-heirs, viz.—

(i) Pembroke who married Matthew Thomlinson;

(ii) Hill who married Sir William Boothby Bart;

(iii) Margaret who married Sir John Denham Knight;

(iv) Frances who married Sir Thomas Whitmore and Matthew Harvey.

6. That the issue of all the said daughters except Hill has long since failed:
7. That the co-heirs of the said Henry de Cobham first Lord Cobham aforesaid and the said Hill are the following persons, who but for the said attainders would be co-heirs of the said Barony of Cobham—

(i) The Petitioner Alexander Henry Leith;

613

(ii) John Francis Byde Russel who has presented no petition and makes no claim;

(iii) The Petitioner Reginald Gervase Alexander;

(iv) The Petitioner Cuthbert Matthias Kenworthy.

8. That the said Barony of Cobham would if the effect of the said attainders be removed be in abeyance and at His Majesty's disposal.
Read, and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and the Resolution and Judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BARONY OF STRABOLGL
Report made from the Committee for Privileges:
That the Committee are of opinion that the further consideration of the claim to the Barony of Strabolgi should be adjourned sine die for the further production of evidence if the parties are so advised.
Read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
(Carlisle Order.)
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Order was withdrawn.

KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, Chairman of the Select Committee, reported that the Committee continued sitting this day in the absence of the Lord Inchcape, all parties having consented thereto; leave given to the Select Committee to proceed further with the consideration of the Bill in the absence of the Lord Inchcape.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(Tipperary Gas Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, with Amendments.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SEA FISHERIES (CONWAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
TBANIWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SEA FISHERIES (LYNN) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMA- TION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Thursday next.
PRESTON CIRORLEY AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS PALL.
Read 3a, and passed.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The KING'S consent and the consent of the Prince of Wales signified: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
BISHOP'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Cambridge Order.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
(Caerphilly Order.)
PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Lovel and Holland (E. Egmont) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Inchcape; read, and agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  (Salford Order.)
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Crawshaw be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess of Bath, and that the Lord Southwark be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a (The Viscount Allendale); agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a (The Lord Strachie); agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXE FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The KING's consent and the consent of the Prince of Wales signified: Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIR- MATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ARBROATH CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS, (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

UNIFORM TIME (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I have not had time to consider the Amendments which the Government have put down, and in the circumstances I ask the leave of the House to postpone the Committee stage.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Government, of course, offer no opposition to the postponement, but I might say that the Amendments standing in my name have been put down merely in the spirit of assisting the noble Earl to attain the object he has in view.
Committee of the Whole House put off till To-morrow.

IRISH CREAMERIES AND DAIRY PRODUCE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Conunittee.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Restriction on the Use of the Term "Creamery" in relation to Irish Butter.
1—(1) From and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen the term "creamery" if applied to Irish butter shall be taken to be a trade description signifying that the butter has been manufactured in a creamery registered under this Act awl has not subsequently been blended or re-worked, and if applied to any Irish butter which—

(a) has not been manufactured in a creamery registered under this Act; or

(b) having been so manufactured, has subsequently been blended or re-worked;

shall be taken to be a false trade description of that butter within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887; and the provisions of that Act with respect to false trade descriptions, including penal provisions, shall have effect accordingly. Provided that in Great Britain the term "creamery" if applied to Irish butter shall not by reason of the foregoing provision be taken to be a false trade description, unless there is also applied to the butter a description stating or indicating directly or indirectly that the butter was made or manufactured in Ireland.
(2) For the purposes of this section the term "creamery" shall be deemed to be applied if applied within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and the expression "Irish Butter" shall be deemed to include in Ireland any butter sold or offered, exposed or consigned for sale otherwise than as British, colonial or foreign butter.
LORD PLUNKET: I move to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (1). Some of your Lordships will recall that on the Second Reading of this Bill, speaking on behalf of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, which is representative of over half the creameries in Ireland, I stated that we approved the Bill as a whole but that we would have serious Amendments to move when it reached the Committee stage, and that we thought the Bill should not leave your Lordships' House without those Amendments being agreed to. Since then an important concession has been made by the Irish Department. The Agricultural Organisation Society has con-

619
stantly urged the formation by the Irish Department of Agriculture of an advisory committee on dairying, adequately representative of the butter industry in Ireland, to which all matters affecting this industry should be referred for consideration and recommendation. The Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture has now agreed to give effect to that proposal and to constitute such a committee in time to deal with this Bill before it reaches the Committee stage in another place. I shall not enlarge upon the enormous general advantage to the industry of such a committee, but will only say that we are prepared, in consequence of this promise, to join with the Government in asking your Lordships to accept this Bill with the Amendments to be proposed to-day, with the one exception of the proviso at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 1, which, at the urgent request of every creamery we have heard from, we ask your Lordships to delete.
This proviso was not in the original draft of the Bill. It is not a proposal of the Irish Department of Agriculture, but was inserted, we understand, at the request of the Board of Trade and the English Board of Agriculture. The clause as it stood and as we desire it to remain contains the essence of the Bill—that in future the term "creamery" when used in connection with Irish butter would be an absolute guarantee that such butter had been prepared under very stringent and exacting Government conditions. But this proviso so weakens this clear and simple definition that much of the value of the Bill, under which creameries are called upon to make very great sacrifices, disappears, for it would practically encourage a form of fraud on English consumers easy to carry out but very difficult to expose and punish. For it actually proposes that in Great Britain the term "creamery" applied to Irish butter need not necessarily signify the butter is really creamery butter unless described directly or indirectly as having been made in Ireland. You therefore confer upon the Irish butter industry a benefit with one hand and take it away with the other. You give a clear definition of what creamery butter really should mean (to the enormous advantage of the producer and consumer), and then you confuse and weaken that definition; and in this connection it must be remembered that the detection and successful prosecution of frauds upon the public in the sale of butter
620
is hard enough to carry out already. We understand that the reason advanced by the Board of Trade and the English Board of Agriculture for inserting this proviso is that they fear that without it there might be established a sort of trade mark for Ireland in the term "creamery." It is quite true that the custom of the trade in the United Kingdom, as evidenced by their principal organ, the Grocer, is to regard the term "creamery" as practically a special designation for Irish creamery butter. Everyone knows that butter from Denmark, Sweden, etc., is made in creameries, but it is unusual for it to be so described. But we do not and could not object to their using the definition, nor do we think the clause without the proviso could be twisted to prevent them. What we say is that this clause with the proviso is obscure and unnecessary, and that it is calculated to expose Irish creameries to the danger of competition in the British market with firms who will purchase other than creamery butter and sell it as So-and-so's Creamery Butter, gaining the higher price which this new Parliamentary definition of creamery will give them and escaping scot free in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.
If the Board of Trade still remain uneasy, they should suggest some alternative proviso which the advisory committee on dairying, to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, could consider. There are a number of minor points in this Bill which might have been discussed in your Lordships' House to-day, but we feel that with the assistance we have already been given by the Government and with this advisory committee to which I have referred, the Bill when it reaches this House again will be practically perfect. But if this particular proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 1 remains in we cannot possibly accept the Bill, and we trust that the Government will withdraw the proviso.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 19 to 23, leave out ("Provided that in Great Britain the term 'Creamery' if applied to Irish butter shall not by reason of the foregoing provision be taken to be a false trade description unless there is also applied to the butter a description stating or indicating that the butter was made or manufactured in Ireland").—(Lord Plunket.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The proviso which is the subject of this discussion was not inserted in the first instance at the desire of the Irish Department of Agriculture, but it has been regarded as

621
important by the Board of Trade and by the Board of Agriculture in England and we look upon it as an integral part of the Bill; and if your Lordships see fit to follow the noble Lord's suggestion and delete the proviso now, the Government will feel bound to reinsert it in another place. I think the fairness of the proviso and its necessity will strike any impartial observer. The fact is that without it a. British merchant selling creamery butter in this country which happened to come from Ireland—it might conic from Ireland without his knowledge—would be liable to the penalties which the Bill establishes. What we say is that if he sells it as "Irish creamery butter" and it is not manufactured in a registered creamery, then it should come within the penalties of the Statute. I think it is desirable in the interests of salesmen that this proviso should remain in the Bill. What we have to consider from an Irish point of view is whether it does, in effect, destroy the value and utility of the Bill, as the noble Lord seemed to think. I cannot conceive its doing so unless you suppose that a certain creamery in Ireland, wishing to escape the provisions as to inspection, maintenance of plant, and so forth, were to determine to sacrifice the whole of their Irish trade in butter and merely make butter for the English market. It is quite true that if the person running that creamery did not apply and did not get registered he could sell creamery butter in the English market as creamery butter, but in order to do that he would have to sacrifice the whole of his Irish business, because in Ireland at any rate you cannot sell any butter as creamery butter unless it is made at a registered creamery. I do not see that the effect of the Bill is at all weakened by this proviso. The noble Lord seemed to think that it would encourage a form of fraud. I would remind him that one of the advantages of this Bill is that it does give a statutory definition to creamery butter, and that it was the want of such a definition which prevented prosecutions in the past. There will be no difficulty under this Bill in obtaining convictions where other butter is palmed off on the public as Irish creamery butter. We have made concessions in regard to this Bill on almost every point except this one. The Bill is practically an agreed Bill with the exception of this single remaining point. As I have stated, the moment you look at this proviso you must see its fairness; and
622
seeing that it really cannot injure the Bill and cannot detract from its utility and its stringency I hope the noble Lord will not persist in his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I do not think the noble Lord who has just sat down has succeeded in getting rid of the difficulty that is in the minds of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society with regard to this proviso. It is perfectly obvious that under this proviso any British trading firm could buy butter in Ireland and sell it as Mr. So-and-so's creamery butter.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Not if there is any indication that it comes from Ireland. If the name of a well-known butter manufacturer in Ireland were used, that would be an indirect statement that it was Irish creamery butter.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: It is obvious that the butter could be sold as creamery butter and the public would be led to think it was Irish creamery butter whereas it had not been made in a registered creamery in Ireland. Therefore the advantage given by the Bill is taken away by this proviso. The noble Lord said the British tradesman might be under this disadvantage, that he might be selling what lie thought was English butter but it might turn out to be Irish butter and he would then come under the penalties of the Bill; but I think the noble Lord, inasmuch as this advisory committee is to be appointed to which a matter of this sort could easily be referred, might agree to this proviso being deleted at the present stage until the advisory committee have had an opportunity of discussing it. Perhaps we should then be able to find a way out of this impasse which would protect British salesmen in the matter.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I do not understand that this is to be an advisory committee on the Bill. It is an advisory committee on the Irish dairy industry as a whole. I repeat that I do not believe that this proviso does any real injury to the Irish butter trade. If you look at the Grocer—which is The Times of the trade—you will find that Irish creamery butter is always described as "Irish creamery butter." I have never seen it described as creamery butter only. All that needs to be done is to describe it as Irish creamery butter, and then it is clear that anybody who sells as Irish creamery butter butter not made in a registered Irish creamery does come under the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The House is placed in some difficulty with regard to this Amendmen, for I do not think that until we came here this evening most of us realised the great importance which is attached to it. I have great sympathy with the view of the case so effectually put before the House by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. This is a very drastic and stringent Bill, and imposes on Irish creameries a considerable number of severe restrictions. In return for that they get a kind of trade mark which gives their goods no small advantage in the market. They point out—I think with some force—that if this proviso remains in the Bill the door will be opened for fraud, and that they will be deprived of the protection afforded to them by what I called a moment ago the trade mark which this Bill provides them with. As I understand the proviso, it will be open to a dealer to sell as creamery butter butter which was made in Ireland, though not, perhaps, at a creamery, unless there is something on the package to suggest distinctly that the butter is Irish creamery butter. That does seem to me to open the door for a considerable amount of abuse. But I should be very sorry to suggest to your Lordships that you should take to-night a decided view for or against this Amendment. What I should like to suggest, particularly as the Bill appears to be, except for this one point of difference, an agreed Bill, is that this one point might be held over for another stage, and that we might in the meantime endeavour to ascertain a little more clearly than we can at present the precise position of the matter.
LORD PLUNKET: This is a very complex matter and one which it is rather difficult to decide. We have not the least objection to the Board of Trade safeguarding what they consider to be the interests of English traders, but as this proviso stands there really is no protection against some firm with an Irish name buying up what is not creamery butter in Ireland and calling it "Murphy's creamery butter."
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: That is not so. He would come within the Merchandise Marks Act. No butter but creamery butter can be sold in England as creamery butter.
LORD PLUNKET: That point is difficult to prove. I am quite prepared to accept the noble Marquess's suggestion that
624
this matter should be postponed to a later stage of the Bill, so that it may be further considered.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): I quite agree that it would be rather an extreme course to do anything to endanger the Bill as a whole on this comparatively small point, and, speaking generally, the postponement of its consideration till another stage would seem to be a natural and obvious course. I am not quite certain, however, what would be meant at this particular time of the year by postponing the consideration of this point to another stage. Do noble Lords opposite think that it would be possible to settle this point before we adjourn at the end of this month, or does the postponement mean that it would have to be postponed until we meet again in the course of the autumn?
LORD PLUNKET: I should be able to ascertain within a few days whether it would be possible to come to an agreement on the point.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: If that is so I hope the noble Lord will take the steps he has indicated in order to find out whether it is possible to meet the objections which my noble friend has taken on behalf of a considerable body of English public opinion. If I might say a word on the merits, it seems to me rather as though the Irish creamery industry were asking for a little too much, in the sense that they are practically asking that the term "creamery butter" should mean Irish creamery butter. I should have thought that, from the point of view of the deception of the public, there would be greater risk if butter was described as Irish butter, possibly with an Irish name attached to it, in which case the public might be led to assume that it was creamery butter when it was not. But, as my noble friend has pointed out, to describe as creamery butter that which was not made in a creamery either in Ireland or elsewhere would, I understand, be an offence against the law. Therefore I should have hoped that Irish creameries were sufficiently protected by the insertion of this proviso.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Conditions of Registration.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Department shall not register any premises as a creamery or cream-separating station under this Act unless they are satisfied that the premises are capable of registration as such and that the following conditions with respect to the premises, plant, and machinery (in this Act referred to as "conditions of registration") are complied with, that is to say:—

(a) The premises and plant must be kept in a state of cleanliness and repair suitable to the requirements of the business:

(b) The premises must not be situated in such a position or used in such a manner as to expose the butter, cream, or milk dealt with therein to contamination or ellluvia from any drain, cesspool, manure heap, cow-house, pigstye, or other similar source:

(c) The premises must be provided with an adequate supply of pure water:

(d) The premises must be equipped with efficient plant and machinery of the description specified in the schedule to this Act, or (at the option of the person carrying on the business) with such other plant or machinery as the Department may approve.

(2) Where an application to register any premises as a creamery or cream-separating station is made on or before the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Department that a creamery or cream separating business, as the case may be, was carried on upon the premises on the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and ten, then compliance with the foregoing conditions of registration shall, for the purposes of the application, be dispensed with, and if the premises are registered in pursuance of the application, the conditions of registration shall not apply with respect to the premises, plant or machinery until the first day of January nineteen hundred and sixteen.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My first Amendment is its paragraph (a) of subsection (1), and it is designed to meet the point raised by the Agricultural Organisation Society. It is to add the words "machinery and utensils" to premises and plant which have to be kept in a proper state of cleanliness.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 8, omit ("and") and after ("plant") insert ("machinery and utensils").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The other Amendments standing in my name to Clause 4 are designed to meet points raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition on the Second Reading. The noble Marquess will remember that he suggested that as far as equipment was concerned greater latitude should be given than that provided in the Bill. I therefore
626
propose to substitute "nineteen hundred and eleven" for "nineteen hundred and ten" in the middle of subsection (2). That gives further time for existing creameries as regards the premises.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eleven").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think the Amendment is an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The noble Marquess made a further point in the debate on the Second Reading. He said it was not necessary to give so much latitude with regard to general cleanliness as with regard to the equipment of the business. This Amendment, which is in the next line in the subsection to the Amendment to which your Lordships have just agreed, carries out that suggestion.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out ("conditions of registration") and insert ("condition as to the equipment of the premises").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 3, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("the conditions of registration") and insert ("that condition")
Clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out ("plant or machinery").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Regulations applicable to Registered Creameries.
5.—(1) The following regulations shall be observed in carrying on a creamery business in a creamery registered under this Act:—

(a) Butter shall not be manufactured in the creamery except front cream which has been separated in the creamery from milk by means of centrifugal force applied by mechanical power, or has been supplied from a registered cream-separating station, or some other registered creamery:

(b)Every package or wrapper containing or enclosing butter sold or offered or consigned for sale in or from the creamery shall be marked in the prescribed manner with the mark or number assigned to the creamery by the Department; and

(i) if the butter was manufactured in the creamery, or in some other registered creamery, with the words "Irish Creamery Butter," and

627

(ii) if the butter was not so manufactured, with words indicating distinctly that the butter is not creamery butter or, in the case of British, colonial, or foreign butter, that the butter is not of Irish manufacture.

(2) If in the case of any registered creamery there is a contravention of any of the foregoing regulations, the person by whom the business is carried on shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to add a further subsection providing that, if the Department think fit, the butter itself as well as the wrapper should be stamped in the prescribed way. This is to prevent any possibility of fraud.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 13, after ("manufacture") insert:
"(c) Any butter sold or offered or consigned for sale in or from the creamery shall if the department so prescribe be marked in the prescribed manner with the make or number and the words with which the package or wrapper containing or enclosing the butter is required to be marked under this section."—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Application for Registration.
7. An application for registration under this Act shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed, and any person authorised in that behalf by the Department may enter upon any premises to which the application relates and make such inquiries and investigations as may be requisite for the purpose of enabling the Department to deal with the application.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Amendment here, which comes in after "may" in the middle of the clause, is to provide that the inspection shall take place "at all reasonable times."
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 4, line 31, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Removal from Register.
8.—(1) The Department may remove from any register kept by them under this Act any premises entered therein—

(a) if the premises have been erroneously or fraudulently entered in the register;

(b) if the premises, owing to a change in the character of the business, or otherwise, have ceased to be capable of registration;

(c) if at any time the conditions of registration applicable to the premises or the machinery or plant therein are not complied with; or

(d) if there is a contravention of any of the regulations of this Act applicable to the business carried on upon the premises.

(2) The Department may, if they think fit, restore to the register any premises removed therefrom under this section on such terms and conditions as they think proper.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The Amendment standing in my name to this clause is to meet objections raised by the Agricultural Organisation Society. The new subsection which I propose to add provides that when the Department has determined to remove any premises from the register notice of such intention should be given and that the notice should extend long enough to allow the appeal which can be made to the County Court to have expired.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 4, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this section")
Clause 8, page 5, line 6, after ("premises") insert:
"(2) When the Department determine to remove any premises from the register they shall give notice of their determination in the prescribed manner to the person whose name appears on the register as the person carrying on the business upon the premises, and shall not give effect to the determination before the expiration of the time fixed in pursuance of this Act for the making of an application to the County Court in respect of such determination, or if an application is made to the County Court within that period, while the application is pending."—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Proceedings on refusal of the Department to Register Premises and on Removal front the Register.
9.—(1) Any person aggrieved by a refusal of the Department to register premises under this Act or by the removal of any premises from the register may, within the time fixed by rules of Court under this section, apply to the County Court having jurisdiction in the place where the premises or any of them are situated.
(2) On an application under this section, the Court shall have power to direct that the premises

629
or any of them shall be registered or restored to the register, as the case may be, and to make such order or orders as the justice of the case requires.
(3) Subject to rules of Court, an appeal shall lie from any order of the County Court under this section as in the case of an ordinary civil bill, and the provisions of the County Court (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to l889, relative to appeals, shall apply accordingly.
(4) Rules of Court may regulate the practice and procedure in the County Court and on appeals under this section including costs.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The first Amendment is in subsection (1) and is consequential on the foregoing Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 5, line 11, leave out ("removal of") and insert ("determination of the Department to remove").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next Amendment, in subsection (2), is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 5, line 18, leave out ("restored to the register") and insert ("that the determination of the Department to remove the premises from the register shall he reversed").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I wish here to insert a new clause to prevent margarine premises from selling creamery butter at all. It is thought that if this were allowed it would be exceedingly difficult to detect fraud, and therefore it is proposed that they should be prohibited from selling creamery butter.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:
"Prohibition of Use of the Term 'Creamery' in connection with Butter Sold or Consigned in or from Butter Factories.
".If any butter is sold or offered or consigned for sale as creamery butter in or from any premises in Ireland which are or are required to be registered under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, l875 to 1907, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Unclean Milk
11. Any person who in Ireland—

(a) knowingly supplies milk which is unclean or contained in a dirty vessel for use in a creamery, cream-separating station, or other place where milk supplied by two or more suppliers is used for the manufacture of butter, cream, or other dairy produce for sale: or

(b) knowingly accepts for use or uses in any such place as aforesaid any milk which is unclean or contained in a dirty vessel;

shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence one pound, for the second offence two pounds, and for the third or any subsequent offence five pounds.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I wish to insert a new subsection here which would make it a penalty for any one to refuse to give the name and address when required of any person guilty of supplying unclean milk.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 6, line 3, after ("pounds") insert:
"(2) Where milk which is unclean or contained in a dirty vessel is found by an officer of the Department at or in the course of delivery to any such place as aforesaid, any person who knowing the name and address of the person by whom the milk is supplied refuses to give that name and address when required by the officer shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence ten shillings and for the second or any subsequent offence one pound."—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Unclean Butter.
12.—(1) Any manufacturer of or dealer in butter who sells or offers for sale in Ireland for use in a butter factory or a margarine factory, butter which is unclean, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the butter was sold otherwise than as an article of food for human consumption.
(2) If any unclean butter is found in a butter factory or margarine factory in Ireland, the occupier of the factory shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the butter was not intended to be blended, re-worked, or treated in the factory.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding for the first offence one pound, for the second offence two pounds, and for the third or any subsequent offence five pounds.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move, after "sold" towards the end of subsection (1), to insert "or offered for sale as the case may be." This is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 6, line 8, after ("sold") insert ("or offered for sale as the case may be").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Interpretation.
18. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "creamery business" means the business of manufacturing butter from cream which has been separated from milk by means of centrifugal force applied by mechanical power;
The expression "cream-separating business" means the business of separating cream from milk by the method aforesaid:
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Department;
The expression "dairy produce" includes any article of human food made wholly or mainly from milk, its products, or bye-products.
Loin ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The three Amendments standing in my name to this clause are merely drafting Amendments to ensure that the machinery should be driven by mechanically applied power.
Amendments moved—
Clause 18, page 8, line 29, after ("force") insert ("mechanically")
Clause 18, page 8, line 30, leave out ("by mechanical power")
Clause 18, page 8, line 33, after ("aforesaid") insert ("The expression 'mechanically applied' means applied by machinery driven by any motive power other than human or animal power").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 128.)

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Underground Premises.
1.—(1) On and after the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, or such later date, not being later than the first clay of January one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, as the Secretary of State may by Order appoint, no underground room in a factory, workshop, or workplace shall be used for the purpose of any of the
632
processes or occupations specified in the Schedule to this Act unless duly certified by the district council to he suitable for the process or occupation named in the certificate, and unless the regulations made under this Act or the conditions contained in the certificate are complied with.
(2) For the purposes of this Act an underground room shall mean any room any part of which is so situate that half or more than half the whole height thereof measured from the floor to the ceiling is below the surface of the footway of the adjoining street, or of the ground adjoining or nearest to the room.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships very long over these Amendments, because they were the subject of discussion when the Bill was last before the House in Committee; but I have not yet succeeded wholly in convincing His Majesty's Government and my noble friend opposite of the importance of striking out the proviso in Clause 2. That is the clause which provides that an underground room is not to be permitted unless it is suitable, and the question now to be discussed is what constitutes suitability. As the Bill is drawn, suitability is defined to be, in the first place, whether it complies with certain regulations made by the Home Office. That is a very proper provision. This is a restrictive Statute intended to say that henceforth certain premises which have been used for certain purposes are no longer to be so used, and that certain other premises which are hereafter to be constructed must be constructed so as to conform with the regulations as to suitability. It is therefore evident that such a provision should be the subject of regulations by the Home Office. But the Government inserted in a previous stage a proviso to Clause 2 to the effect that, supposing the Home Office have not had time to make the regulations or supposing they resolve that they will not make regulations, then all the precautions which follow on the making of the regulations are thrown to the winds anti the owners of these premises are to be subject to the discretion of no more important an authority than a district council with an appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. If regulations are made under the Bill by the Home Office, then Sections 80, 81 and 84 of the Factory Act apply, and the regulations have to be regularly published, opportunity has to be given for objection, and objections have to be carefully considered, and if the objections are persisted in and are not frivolous they have to be inquired into at a public

633
inquiry. And, lastly, when made the regulations have to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House objects the regulations fall to the ground. But if the Home Office does not make the regulations here provided for and the local authority is allowed to do it instead, there are no precautions. There is no provision insisting that objections should be considered; there is no public inquiry; there is no laying of the regulations on the Table of Parliament. Simply because an inferior authority makes the regulations there are to be no precautions. You cannot expect the public to accept a provision that is, on the face of it, so unreasonable. Though I am here to ask your Lordships to make an alteration in the law in the direction of a more drastic provision, yet I am not prepared to go so far as that. The first four Amendments standing in my name deal with this point. At the moment, however, I move the first Amendment to delete the words "or the conditions contained in the certificate" at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out ("or the conditions contained in the certificate").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): I undertook on the previous occasion when this Bill was before the House to go fully into the question whether it was desirable to make any alteration on the lines suggested by the noble Marquess. I should like to remind the House, first of all, of the position as the Bill now stands. The local authority in certifying underground workplaces must be guided by the Home Office regulations if there are any such regulations. If the Home Office are to make regulations dealing with the various trades and processes in the Schedule, having regard also to the fact that it is intended that the Schedule should be added to very largely in the future, the result would be that these regulations would be very complicated indeed; they would require a great deal of research and consideration before they came into effect, and would consequently take considerable time to draw up. It is therefore provided in the Bill as it stands that, in default of any such regulations being made by the Home Office, then at their own discretion the local authority
634
is to exercise the powers which the noble Marquess seems to be so very much afraid of, though, as he pointed out, a Court of Summary Jurisdiction will have power to revise the district council regulations or forbid their being carried out. As regards orders made by district councils an inquiry is not so important, because they only deal with a small area and with matters within the knowledge of the members of the district council themselves and also in the knowledge of the constituents, who can, if necessary, correct any unfairness at the next district council election. As the Bill now stands, it is practically the same as when introduced by Lord Willoughby de Broke. The Home Office Amendments were merely of a drafting character and were necessary to put the Bill into shape. What the noble Marquess now proposes is that the local authority should only certify workplaces if regulations have been Made by the Home Office. The result of that would be that the Home Office would have to make regulations for all the trades included in the Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Bill would not operate until the regulations had been made. That is the effect of my Amendments.
LORD STRACHIE: Then the existing state of things would remain until the Home Office were able to make regulations. Clause 8 specifies that regulations are to be made as to the structure of underground rooms, the provision and use, as regards such rooms, of means of securing the maintenance of reasonable temperature, proper lighting and ventilation, freedom from damp, dust, effluvia and exhalations, and the carrying off of dust and fumes, and otherwise for securing the health of persons employed in underground rooms in the processes and occupations to which the Bill applies. The feeling of the Home Secretary is that he cannot agree to the responsibility being placed on the Home Office of making these regulations. While it might be very easy for a local authority acquainted with the local conditions to make regulations, I think the House will see that it would be very difficult indeed for a central authority like the Home Office to make them, as great research would be necessary to prevent injustice being done. We have a precedent for the course we suggest. At the present moment under the Factory and

635
Workshop Act, 1901, the existing provisions as regards underground bakehouses are left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. If that is so in such an important matter as underground bakehouses, which not only affect the health of the workers in those bakehouses but the public who purchase the bread, why should it not be equally right for a local authority to deal with the matters covered in this Bill? They are the best judges in the matter of underground premises; and, on the whole, the Secretary of State thinks it will be best if the Bill follows the bakehouse section of the Factory and Workshop Act and leaves the matter in the hands of the local authorities. In any case the Secretary of State cannot give an assurance that the Home Office will make the regulations suggested in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand the noble Lord to suggest that in the view of the Department the best thing would be that the whole matter should remain in the hands of the local authorities. [Lord STRACHIE nodded assent.] If that is so, then are we not entitled to ask what is the object of the clause requiring the making of these regulations.
LORD STRACHIE: There may, of course, be cases where it might be desirable for the Home Office to make regulations. That is the advantage of having elasticity in the Bill. Clause 8 as it now stands and as it was introduced states that the Secretary of State "may" by Order make regulations. The Department desire to be left free to make regulations where necessary, though not necessarily in all cases. In most cases it will probably be to the advantage of every one that the matter should be left to the local authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Certification.
2. An underground room shall not be certified by the district council as suitable unless the council are satisfied that such underground room complies with the regulations made under this Act: Provided that if no regulations applicable to the case have been so made a certificate shall not be granted unless the district council are satisfied that the room is suitable in respect of the matters as to which regulations might have been made, and the
636
certificate shall specify the means required, as a condition of certification, to be provided for securing the health of the persons employed in the room, and shall be made conditional on such means being maintained and properly used.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to omit the proviso from this clause. Your Lordships having carried the previous Amendment, this Amendment and the next two standing in my name to Clauses 4 and 5 are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 24, to page 2, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to the end of the clause.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Withdrawal of Certificate.
4. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may on complaint, in the case of a factory by an inspector, and in any other case by the district council, and on being satisfied that as regards any underground room in respect of which a certificate has been granted the regulations under this Act, or the conditions contained in the certificate, are not complied with, withdraw the certificate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit the words "or the conditions contained in the certificate."
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 2, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("or the conditions contained in the certificate").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Right of Appeal.
5. In the event of a refusal of a certificate by the district council, the occupier of the factory, workshop, or workplace in which there is an underground room may within twenty-one days of such refusal by complaint apply to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if it appears to the satisfaction of the Court that the underground room complies with the regulations under this Act, or if there are no regulations applicable to the case, is suitable in respect of the matters as to which regulations might have been made, the Court shall thereupon grant such a certificate as the district council ought to have granted, which shall have the like effect as if granted by the district council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit the words "or if there are no regulations applicable to the case, is suitable in respect of the matters as to which regulations might have been made."
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 2, line 28, leave out from ("Act") to ("the") in line 30.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Enforcement of Act Workshops and Workplaces.
7. As respects premises other than factories the provisions of this Act shall be enforced by the district council of the district in which the premises are situate, and for the purposes of this section any officer of the district council authorised in that behalf shall, for the purposes of this Act, have and may exercise in respect of such premises all the powers of entry, inspection, taking legal proceedings, and otherwise of an inspector, under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am in hopes that the noble Lord will agree to the next two Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 7, page 3, line 5, after ("factories") insert ("it shall be the duty of the district council of the district in which the premises are situate to enforce")
Clause 7, page 3, line 6, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 7.—(The Marquees of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: I accept the Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move to insert a new clause after Clause 7. This is in its nature a default clause, but it also arises out of a remark which the noble Lord opposite made on the last stage. He said that in respect of some of these trades and occupations the Home Office had no power at present of interference or of sending inspectors. It seemed good, therefore, to give them specific power under the Bill. The drafting of this clause is taken out of the Factory Acts and it applies the provisions of the Factory Acts to these underground workplaces. Under these words there would be, if the district council did not enforce the regulations made by the Home Office, complete power on the part of the Home Office to send in an inspector and put the law in force. As the Bill depends upon regulations the authority which makes the regulations should have the right to see
638
that they are carried out. We have no desire to make habitual interference by the Home Office necessary. We throw the duty on the district council in the first instance to see that the regulations are carried out, but if credible persons represent to the Home Office that the regulations are not being carried out, then my Amendment gives power to the Home Office to interfere. That is the sum total of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause, viz.:
"Power of Secretary of State to Act in Default of District Council.
"8.—(1) If on complaint in writing by any person who appears to the Secretary of State to be interested, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions of this Act have not been carried out by any district council, the Secretary of State may, after communicating with the district council alleged to be in default, and after giving the council an opportunity of remedying their default, by Order authorise an Inspector to take during such period as may be mentioned in the Order such steps as appear necessary or proper for enforcing those provisions.
"(2) An Inspector authorised in pursuance of this section shall for the purpose of his duties there-under have the same powers with regard to underground rooms to which this Act applies as he has with respect to factories, and be may for that purpose exercise all or any of the powers of the district council under this Act and may take the like proceedings for enforcing the provisions of this Act or for punishing or remedying any default as might be taken by the district council, and he shall be entitled to recover from the district council all such expenses in and about any proceedings as he may incur, and as are not recovered from any other person."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: I think the noble Marquess misunderstood me. I did not say that the Home Office had no power generally. I said they had no power as regards typewriting rooms and restaurant kitchens. It is hardly necessary to put in this new clause because the matter is covered by Section 4 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as regards those trades where the Home Office has power to send in inspectors.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord admits that the clause would be required for typewriting rooms and restaurant kitchens.
LORD STRACHIE: I am advised by the Home Office that the drafting is bad.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better put the clause in now, and if the noble Lord wishes to make any suggestions afterwards the matter can be reconsidered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
8.—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order make regulations as to structure of underground rooms to which this Act applies, and the provision and use as regards such rooms of means for securing the maintenance of reasonable temperature, proper lighting and ventilation, freedom from damp, dust, effluvia and exhalations, and the carrying off of dust and fumes, and otherwise for securing the health of persons employed in underground rooms in the processes and occupations to which this Act applies; and different regulations may be made as respects different processes and different occupations, or as respects rooms which are used for the purposes of any such processes or occupations at the time when the Order comes into effect, and rooms winch are not so used.
(2) The Secretary of State may by Order extend the provisions of this Act to processes and occupations other than those specified in the Schedule to this Act, and thereupon this Act shall, subject to the provisions of the Order, apply as if that. Schedule included the processes and occupations specified in the Order.
(3) Sections eighty, eighty-one, and eighty-four of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 (relating to the procedure for making regulations as to dangerous trades) shall apply to the making of Orders under this section.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Amendment to Clause 8 is permissive. The word is "may," not "shall." Therefore it is not so drastic a provision as the one which I suggested on the last occasion.
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 3, line 21, after ("applies") insert ("and the regulations may prohibit the use of underground rooms to which this Act applies in so far as any such room is as a whole or as regards any part thereof solely dependent upon artificial light for the purposes of any of the processes or occupations to which this Act applies").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Marquess has given up the idea of total prohibition, which I thought very dangerous indeed; but it seems to me that the Amendment is really unnecessary because now that it is merely permissive it seems that all that the noble Marquess desires can be done under Clause 8.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule:

The making, cleaning, washing, altering, ornamenting, finishing and repairing, of wearing apparel;

Wig making and the processes of preparing hair for human wear or adornment;

Lace or embroidery making;

Upholstery and carpet making;

Watch and clock making and repairing;

Jewellery work;

Laundry work;

Type writing;

Preparation of food for consumption in restaurants and other establishments for the sale of refreshments;

and other occupations incidental to any of the foregoing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My final Amendment is to add the words "and other clerical work" after "typewriting" in the Schedule. It is not defensible that at this time of day a large number of persons should carry on their work under these very adverse conditions. Men and women have habitually to carry on clerical work in rooms underground which are ill-lighted, ill-ventilated, full of dust, and in an insanitary condition, and that is most pernicious not only to their health but to the race of which they become the fathers and mothers. I admit that in extreme cases the Public Health Act will apply, and that they can be stopped now; but I submit to the Government that they take a great responsibility if they resist the plea which I put forward that these unfortunate cases should be placed within the purview of the Bill. Let them make regulations of an elastic character if they will, but to say that this vast class of clerks many of whom are women, who labour in underground rooms should not receive protection is to take up a serious position.
Amendment moved—
Schedule, page 4, line 18, after ("Typewriting") insert ("and other clerical work").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD STRACHIE: Since the last occasion I have gone very carefully into this question, and I cannot convince myself that this Amendment is absolutely necessary. The feeling of the Home Office is

641
that it might lead to a good many complications. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that all work, whether it be typewriting, or clerical work, or whatever it be, should be carried on under the best possible conditions, but I cannot agree with him that because a place happens to be underground and possesses no natural light that it is therefore a place in which people may not work without injury to their health.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am only seeking to enable the Home Office to make proper regulations.
LORD STRACHIE: If there is a demand fox this the Home Office has power to include clerical work and work of other kinds in the Schedule. The Home Office should have longer time to consider the matter, and should also have discretionary power to decide whether the proposed inclusion of other clerical work is really necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord says that the Home Office want a little more time. That implies that they might, perhaps, come to a different conclusion. I am willing to trust them as far as I possibly can, and if I could get the least indication that there would be some sort of inquiry into this matter I would not press the Amendment. If we had some kind of inquiry into the case of clerks it would be quite possible for the Home Office afterwards to include clerical work in the Schedule if the result of the inquiry went to show that it was required.
LORD STRACHIE: While I can give no absolute promise, I will certainly undertake that the views of the noble Marquess on this matter shall be brought before the Home Secretary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In those circumstances I will not press the Amendment now, but will reserve to myself the right to move for the appointment of a Select Committee if I should consider that course necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)

THE NAVAL POSITION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE*THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to call attention to the declarations of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the naval position in the Mediterranean; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, we had a discussion in this House about a fortnight ago on the position in the Mediterranean, and that discussion was preliminary to the further discussion which it was understood would take place when the First Lord of the Admiralty had made his statement in the House of Commons. Yesterday that statement was made, and I think none of your Lordships who has read that statement but will agree with me that it was a very remarkable statement. I think I might summarise it thus. Mr. Churchill came to grips in his speech with the naval policy of certain foreign countries; but he did not come to grips with the naval policy of this country. He indicated in general and eloquent terms the kind of policy which he thought was essential for the safety of our Empire, but he did not—and that was the most significant part of his speech—he did not tell us in what manner His Majesty's Government propose to give effect to those principles.
I make no apology for quoting to your Lordships some of the statements made in the House of Commons last night, particularly those in which the position of navies in Europe to-day was summarised, because I do not think a statement of equal gravity has been made in either House of Parliament in recent years. Mr. Churchill said in respect of Germany—I quote from The Times report—
"A Third Battle Squadron of eight battleships will be created and maintained in full commission as a part of the Active Battle Fleet, Whereas, according to the unamended law, the Active Battle Fleet consisted of 17 battleships, four battle or large armoured cruisers, and 12 small cruisers, in the near future that Active Fleet will consist of 25 battleships, eight battle or large armoured cruisers, and 18 small cruisers, and whereas at present, owing to the system of recruitment which prevails in Germany, the German Fleet is less fully mobile during the winter than during the summer months, it will, through the operation of this law, not only be increased in strength, but rendered much mere readily available. Ninety-nine torpedo-boat destroyers, or torpedo-boats as they are called in Germany, instead of lid, will be maintained in full commission out of the total of 144. Three-quarters of a million has already been taken under the general Estimate for the year for the building of submarines. The Navy Law adds a quarter of a million to this, and that is a provision which, so

643
far as we can judge from a study of the finance, would appear to be repeated in subsequent years. Seventy-two new submarines will be built within the currency of the law, and of these it is apparently proposed to maintain fifty-four with full permanent crews. Taking a general view of the effect of the law, nearly four-fifths of the entire German Navy will be maintained in full permanent commission—that is to say, instantly and constantly ready for war. Such a proportion is remarkable, and, so far as I am aware, finds no example in the previous practice of any modern Naval Power."
Truly a startling and remarkable statement: The First Lord then went on to explain that there was provision in the German Bill for increasing the personnel by 5,700 men a year, and that the German Naval Estimates had risen in a very short period from £11,000,000 to £23,000,000. These again, were his words—
"We are shortly to be confronted with twenty-five German battleships in full commission in the Actual Battle Fleet, the whole of which will often be concentrated within a few hours of our shores."
Turning from northern waters to the Mediterranean, Mr. Churchill said—
"The naval position in the Mediterranean is about to undergo a series of very important changes. At present neither Austria nor Italy have any Dreadnought vessels actually commissioned. Within a few weeks and possibly sooner the first Italian Dreadnought will be ready, and thereafter both Powers at short intervals will be reinforced by powerful modern units until towards the end of 1915 Austria may be able to dispose of four and Italy of five, perhaps six, Dreadnought vessels."
And in respect to the Mediterranean Mr. Churchill said further—and I draw your Lordships' attention particularly to these words—
"I am bound to add, however, that the information which has reached the Admiralty seems to indicate that one of the Mediterranean Powers t have mentioned is contemplating another considerable naval programme. We do not need in these neuters to act on surmise or by anticipation. It will be sufficient for me to say that if this information should prove to he correct, it would constitute a new fact requiring prompt attention and not included in any of the forecasts I have given of future naval construction."
Let me summarise this. I am sure your Lordships would agree that all Parties must look the facts in the face, without menace to any foreign country but without endeavouring to minimise the gravity of the situation to our own fellow-countrymen. This means that almost immediately Germany will have in the North Sea a more powerful Fleet than was the whole British Navy twelve years ago when I had the honour of first going to the Board of Admiralty, and that that Fleet will be
644
practically in a position for immediate war—such as no other Fleet has yet been. Mr. Churchill laid great stress, and quite rightly, on that fact, because it is the key to the whole situation, and it makes the formality of a declaration of war a mere politeness, because with the Fleet in that condition a blow could be delivered simultaneously with the notice. Therefore I think Mr. Churchill did great service when he laid special stress on these peculiar conditions in the North Sea.
Then, my Lords, look at the position in the Mediterranean. In the Mediterranean there will be in the immediate future a fleet of battleships belonging to the allies of Germany more powerful than either the British Fleet in the Mediterranean or the British Fleet in the Channel and North Sea was at the epoch to which I have alluded—twelve years ago when I first went to the Admiralty. The First Lord was careful to warn us that he has reason to suppose that the progress of the power of the navies of these countries is not going to stop short there in the Mediterranean. He clearly warns us of a distinct further increase on the part of one of these Powers. The picture is alarming in the sense that it does and must entail on the people of this country an ever increasing sacrifice for the simple and mere purpose of maintaining the integrity of our shores and the peace of the world. Therefore I think I was justified when I said that the First Lord of the Admiralty came to full grips with the situation as it affects those foreign Powers. He concealed nothing from the country. He laid stress on the really salient points, and without drawing his picture in alarmist or sensational colours he drew it with strict and literal accuracy.
When I turn to the declaration of policy with which Mr. Churchill followed this explanation the character of his remarks changes. Again I must trouble your Lordships with some quotations. The first is of a general character, and I cannot too whole heartily subscribe to every word of it. Mr. Churchill said—
"We ought to learn from our German neighbours, whose policy marches unswervingly towards its goal across the lifetime of a whole generation. The two general principles that I would deduce from these observations, and which will guide my remarks this afternoon, are, first, that we must have an ample margin of strength instantly ready; and, secondly, that there must he a steady and systematic development of our naval forces untiringly pursued over a number of years."

645
And the Prime Minister endorsed the spirit of that utterance. For Mr. Asquith said—
"The House may feel assured that when we produce our Estimates next year, with the added knowledge and fresh light acquired in the interval, and with the prospective requirements of the situation, we shall not fall short of anything our advisers think necessary to fully and adequately safeguard British interests in the Mediterranean and elsewhere."
Those are two purely general though most commendable utterances. It is when we come to the embodiment of the principles contained in those utterances in a specific policy that disappointment and anxiety supervene. The only allusions to a definite statement of the measures considered necessary by His Majesty's Government are to be found in the quotations I am now going to give your Lordships. Mr. Churchill states that it will be necessary to add four battleships to the building programme in the next five years. He states that by a re-shuffling of the Fleet and the withdrawal of battleships from the Mediterranean he has raised the number of fully-commissioned battleships available in home waters from sixteen to twenty-four. He tells us that at the end of 1914—and I want to draw your Lordships' particular attention to these figures—we shall have a minimum of thirty-three and a maximum of forty-one fully manned and in full commission, against which the corresponding German figure is twenty-nine. Now thirty-three to twenty-nine does not sound a very satisfactory proportion. I certainly do not think it satisfactory, and the First Lord obviously did not expect the House of Commons to think it satisfactory either. But his re-adjustment of the Fleet will bring us at the end of 1914 to that position.
Now I turn to the proposals about the men. In asking for 5,000 men this year Mr. Churchill says—and I should very much like the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to give me some explanation of this extraordinary statement—that "we started with 2,000 men short." Why? How came it that the Board of Admiralty allowed the numbers voted by the House of Commons last year to fall 2,000 short? Especially as the First Lord repeated what everyone who has had the honour of being at the Board of Admiralty knows—that there is no difficulty in getting men and boys for the Navy. Either this statement in the report of the Fir, t Lord's speech is a misprint, which I hope it is, or an explanation
646
of what is to me perfectly unintelligible is required. The First Lord warns us that for several years to come a large annual addition of men will be necessary. Before I pass from the matter of personnel I should like to say that I noticed with great pleasure the First Lord's statement that he was going to inquire how far and in what way it was necessary or advisable to improve the pay of the lower-deck ratings. I am quite sure such an inquiry has not been undertaken one moment too soon, and although any inquiry of that, nature of course entails a serious obligation on the taxpayers of the country owing to the number of men involved, still, considering the rise in the general cost of living, the increase in rates of wages, and the great increase in the intelligence of the men of the Fleet and the highly skilled work they have to do and their splendid physique, I am quite sure the time has come for the inquiry promised by the First Lord.
Then Mr. Churchill went on to tell us what is the re-adjustment proposed in the Mediterranean. He said—
"We have therefore determined to withdraw the six older battleships from Malta and to replace them with four battle cruisers of the Invincible type. These vessels will go out in the winter, and in the interval there will be a powerful battle squadrons available which will lie able to cruise in the Mediterranean, tilling in the gap before these vessels can he fitted for service there. We intend further to strengthen the quality of the armoured cruiser squadron based on Malta."
And, finally—
"It will also be necessary for us to add to the submarine and destroyer flotillas at Malta and to establish a new torpedo station at Alexandria."
Mr. Balfour also made a remarkable speech in the debate in the other House yesterday from which I will only trouble your Lordships with two quotations which bear on the point of the First Lord's speech we are now considering—
MR. BALFOUR: I think I gathered from something that fell from him in his speech that the right hon. gentleman quite admits that he cannot look beyond the next two or two and a half years, and that there may be developments which will require a great change even in the Mediterranean arrangements.
MR. CHURCHILL: About three years from now.
MR. BALFOUR: And I gather also that the right hon. gentleman thinks he is safe in not making up his mind as to what new construction he will make until next year. Is not lie running it rather fine?
I hope the noble Marquess who leads this House will reassure us on that latter point.

647
I hope to show presently that in my opinion we are running it rather fine. Then Mr. Balfour added—
"The speech just delivered must cause grave thought and anxiety in the country.… The First Lord told us of our dangers, and yet I think he will admit he has told us very little of how he intends to meet those dangers."
It is on that aspect of the case that I should like to say a word or two in your Lordships' House.
In the first place, let us deal with the Mediterranean. I frankly confess that I belong to the school which attaches great importance to the Mediterranean. I have no intellectual agreement with those who think that the Mediterranean can be safely abandoned by us either in peace or in war, and I believe it to be a perfect heresy to suppose that our position in the Mediterranean could be in any sense whatever secured in war simply by adding to the garrison in Egypt and establishing a large flotilla of torpedo boat destroyers and submarines at Gibraltar. The only result of that policy would be that the more troops there were stationed in Egypt the more prisoners there would be for an enemy to take, and the fate of those troops would be the same as that of the French troops after the Battle of the Nile. I admit that in war the Suez Canal may be blocked. That is a contingency which has always been foreseen. I deny that it could be blocked for the whole of a war, and I deny that the whole importance of the Mediterranean is derived from the Suez Canal. Putting aside the naval question altogether, it seems to me to be politically necessary that this country should maintain the position in the Mediterranean in peace which she has held during the last 200 years. Therefore I am not prepared to scrutinise too closely what does appear to me to be a change of opinion on the part of His Majesty's Government. I certainly did understand some weeks ago that the policy then announced was a policy of virtual abandonment of the Mediterranean. The noble Marquess opposite will doubtless dispute that that would have been the effect of the policy. I will not argue that with him, because it must remain a matter of opinion; but I submit that the whole of the people of the Mediterranean would have taken my view of it and not his. Therefore I welcome with thankfulness the second thoughts which have led to a powerful cruiser squadron being based on Malta.
I accept that, however, only as a makeshift. Battle cruisers are better than cruisers, but they are not battleships. The only possible permanent basis for our naval strength and political prestige in the Mediterranean must be a squadron of battleships. Indeed, if I wanted to be critical I might point out that battle cruisers, valuable as they are, were never designed, so far as I know, to act in isolated detachments. They have their exact place in naval tactics but always as part of a Fleet containing battleships. Therefore I fasten on to the admissions in the First Lord's speech which point to the fact that this arrangement is only temporary. After all, the responsibility for the distribution of such ships as this country possesses at the moment must rest on the Board of Admiralty, and if the Board of Admiralty say that, with the ships we have and given the impossibility of abandoning the Mediterranean, the best advice they can offer is to send there for the next two years this composite squadron of armoured cruisers and cruiser battleships then I say the responsibility rests upon the Admiralty. But this admittedly temporary arrangement must not be allowed to obscure the fact that these ships are to be taken away from the Atlantic to be put into the Mediterranean. That proves conclusively the assertion which I ventured to make in this House a fortnight ago, that we are demonstrably a whole squadron of modern battleships short. If we had eight more modern battleships there would be no need to think of a temporary policy in the Mediterranean. Assuming for the moment that the country, on the advice of the Board of Admiralty, accepts this makeshift provision in the Mediterranean, how can we regard without alarm the margin which will exist a short time hence in the North Sea—a margin stated by Mr. Churchill to be four ships. Thirty-three to twenty-nine is a wholly insufficient proportion.
Apart from the difficulty in the Mediterranean, it is quite clear that we still have arrears of both ships and men to make up in the Atlantic and the North Sea. I wish to lay very great stress on the fact that ships are nothing if you have not really trained and competent seamen, stokers, and marines to put into them. If I knew that the Government were really going to stick to this programme of adding 5,000 men or thereabouts to the Navy for the

649
next five or six years, that would go far to reassure me; but I confess that the uncertainty and want of definite promises in the statement of the First Lord has failed to remove the anxiety which I feel. What really is the origin of all our difficulty? It is that the advice which the First Lord of the Admiralty gives us now has not been followed. These words used by Mr. Churchill ought to be written up in letters of gold in this House, in the House of Commons, and in every constituency throughout the country—
"We ought to learn from our German neighbours, whose policy marches unswervingly towards its goal across the lifetime of a whole generation. The two general principles that I would deduce from these observations, and which will guide my remarks this afternoon, are, first, that we must have an ample margin of strength instantly ready; and, secondly, that there must be a steady and systematic development of our naval forces untiringly pursued over a amber of years."
Why do we find ourselves in this position at all? It arises from the dropping of the Cawdor programme five years ago. I do not think there ever was a more unfortunate and deplorable blunder made by any Government in their responsibility for national defence than the dropping of the Cawdor programme five years ago. The whole political position of this country in Europe and the peace of the world would rest upon a surer and sounder foundation to-day had that policy never been interrupted. Definite promises have now been given by the First Lord and by the Prime Minister. I admit that those promises are distinct, and we shall not forget them. Let me again remind you what the Prime Minister said—
"The House may feel assured that when we produce our Estimates next year, with the added knowledge and fresh light acquired in the interval, and with the prospective requirements of the situation, we shall not fall short of anything our advisers think necessary to fully and adequately safeguard British interests in the Mediterranean and elsewhere."
Why, then, do we feel anxiety? Why are we not wholly reassured? It is because we remember what happened to the Cawdor programme, and because we are told in the Government Press day by day, and told by the familiars of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is division in the Cabinet in regard to this matter. If we knew that the Cabinet were united then we should know that the nation was united, and we should have no fear that this policy would not be carried out. But it is not unreasonable that we should be alarmed when
650
we read what is written by the friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the gentlemen who take their early cup of coffee, their midday meal, and their afternoon tea with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and cull from his lips when be puts on his pyjamas in the evening the last instructions for the morning issue. These gentlemen tell us every day that there is no union in the Cabinet, and that the party which is opposed to a steady, systematic, unswerving naval policy is in the ascendency. Therefore is it unnatural that we should feel anxious Mr. Asquith tells us that the Government will "not fall short of anything our advisers think necessary." A very great responsibility rests on all the members of the Board of Admiralty. I have never been able to understand, and I do not now understand, how the Board of Admiralty could have agreed to the dropping of the Cawdor programme. Of course, the position of Sea Lords is in our Constitution a very delicate one. They would make themselves ridiculous and the system impossible if they always insisted upon their own particular opinion in minor matters. The only possible spokesman for the Board of Admiralty is the First Lord. But they have a definite position, and the country does regard their counter signature as assuring it that in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty as a whole, and not merely of the First Lord and of His Majesty's Government, the naval provision year by year is sufficient for the safety of the country and of the Empire. For that reason I lay stress upon the Prime Minister's words—that the Government will not fall short of anything their advisers think necessary.
I cannot help agreeing with Mr. Balfour that the Government are running their policy fine. You have left yourselves little time owing to the dropping of the Cawdor programme. On you rests, I think, the most tremendous responsibility that can possibly rest upon a Government, and that is to see that run do not run the time too fine. If next year and in the years ensuing you act up to the spirit of the utterances of the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty you will be doing your duty; if you fail, you will incur the greatest responsibility that could fall upon any Government and with consequences which are absolutely incalculable. As Mr. Balfour pointed out—and the Prime Minister endorsed his words—the British Navy is not

651
only the only guarantee for the integrity of these shores and the existence of the Empire, but it is the foundation stone on which the peace of the world is built. There is no other so great a security for the peace of the world as the adequate strength of the British Navy. Mr. Balfour analysed, with his own peculiar subtlety and skill, the effect of alliances and ententes in Europe, and his conclusion was that on the whole they made war less probable. He summarised his view thus—
"The result will be that any single Power indulging in reckless and offensive acts of aggression will find itself isolated from its friends, but in conflict with au overwhelming enemy, in conflict, I mean, with the other organisations which, by hypothesis, are the subject of this gratuitous attack."
But does that quite exhaust the matter? I agree that no Power would like to be so obviously and hopelessly in the wrong as to make it difficult for its allies and friends to help it. But is there not another side of the case? May not allies and friends say to themselves, "We cannot afford to let this Fiver be crushed," no matter whether it was right or wrong in making war? Is not the balance, in fact, so fine that the disappearance of one Power from the equation would upset all calculations so that nations and Governments will be afraid ever to face that contingency? Therefore I fear that the headstrong wilfulness, and unjustifiable conduct of one Power might not necessarily work out its own remedy so exactly as Mr. Balfour hopes that it may. I have already said that we have to wait until next year for the final announcement of the whole details of the Government policy, but I do not think I should be doing my duty if I did not state now quite clearly that, in my opinion, in addition to the ships of which notice has been given by Mr. Churchill and in addition to the continuous increase of men and stores, we require and should have at the earliest possible moment a complete new squadron of battleships at least eight in number. That is what I reckon to be our chief deficiency at this moment, and I had hoped that the Government would have had recourse at the earliest moment to some such measure as Lord George Hamilton resorted to in 1889, providing for the addition to the Fleet of a definite battle unit in the shape of a squadron by means of borrowed money repayable in a short period. That is what I believe to be required at this moment. I say again that the men are even more important, than the ships, and I hope that no influences that
652
may be brought to bear on the Government will induce them to swerve from the steady systematic increase of the personnel of the Navy, which is essential to make any ships, old or new, of value.
Before sitting down I must allude to what Mr. Churchill and Mr. Asquith said about the Dominions. These were Mr. Churchill's words—
"Apart altogether from the material aid, the moral effect of the arrival upon blue water of these new nations of the British Empire cannot be measured. The unity of the British Empire carries with it the safety of its component parts, and the safety of the British Empire probably carries with it the peace of the world. If we are told that the beginnings of co-operation in defence must carry with them the beginnings of association in policy, then I say that both in measures of defence and in the direction of policy the co-operation of the Dominions with the United kingdom will be of inestimable benefit to the strength of the Empire and to the general cause of peace."
And the Prime Minister said—
"But, without committing ourselves in any degree to particular forms in the matter, we share with our great Dominions the feeling which has become more and more conscious and articulate as years have gone on throughout the Empire, that we have a common heritage and interest, and that in the enjoyment of that heritage, and in the discharge of the duties which those interests involve, we ought more and more to be conscious partners with one another."
I have no hesitation in saying that the utterance of those words by leaders of the Party opposite in the House of Commons is a landmark in the history of the world. They mark an evolution in the history of this country and of the whole Empire. We do not for a moment grudge that it has fallen to the lot of our political opponents to be in office when the time came to say those words, because they are sentiments which we on this side share and endorse to the full, and there is nothing at which we would more rejoice than that the whole question of Imperial unity should be removed from Party politics, as we hope the question of the Navy may be. In the womb of the evolution foreshadowed by these words lies, I believe, not only the possibility of the liberty and existence uninterfered with by the foreigner of this country and the other nations of the Empire, but also the only hope for the permanent peace of the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the naval position in the Mediterranean.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD INCHCAPE: Perhaps the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, before he replies, will allow me to say a few words on this subject which is closely allied with the Eastern trade of this country with which I may claim to have had some acquaintance for a good many years. Although it has been made perfectly clear from the statements in another place last night by the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty that there is no intention to abandon the Mediterranean, still although I am not pessimistic I cannot say that feel altogether satisfied. Unless we continue to hold undisputed supremacy in that part of the world our trade position will be seriously endangered, and our ability to hold Egypt, our Eastern possessions, our Far Eastern possessions, and our Southern possessions will undoubtedly be jeopardised, and our ability to protect our Eastern trade, our trade with the Black Sea, and our trade with the Mediterranean itself will be seriously endangered.
The First Lord of the Admiralty said last night in the House of Commons that to maintain a naval force in the Mediterranean superior to the combined Fleets of Austria and Italy would impose extravagant burdens on our people, and he demurred to the suggestion. He further said that the force he proposed to keep there would, in conjunction with the Navy of France, make our combined forces superior to all possible combinations. He foreshadowed, however, that within the next few years our squadron in the Mediterranean would require very considerable reinforcement. If I read his speech correctly, we are now relying, and must continue to rely for some time to come, on the help which we receive from the Navy of France. I confess I do not like it. Of the 4,969 vessels that passed through the Suez Canal last year, with a total tonnage of 18,000,000, no fewer than 3,089 were British, with a tonnage of 12,000,000. It is difficult to say how many British vessels enter and leave the Mediterranean every year by the Straits of Gibraltar, but on July 18 of this year—that is, five days ago—there were 404 British vessels, with a net tonnage of 841,000, in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, none of which would be secure if we lost command of the Mediterranean. Then the Suez Canal itself, half of which is owned by the British Government and brings into the Treasury £1,200,000 per annum, would, as the noble Earl has said, be liable to be blocked and held up.
654
Figures in Blue-books are useful, but they are unconvincing. Probably a conviction of this kind led the First Lord of the Admiralty to invite the members of both Houses of Parliament the other day to Spithead to visit no Fleet in being. Many noble Lords now in the House have been to the East. I would ask them to recall the satisfaction and the pardonable pride which they felt on approaching Port Said, on passing through the Suez Canal, on making Aden, Bombay Harbour, Colombo, Penang, Singapore, Hong Kong, even Shanghai and the Yangtse River, when, as the shipping in those places appeared above the horizon and the bunting could be distinguished, practically the only flag to be seen was the Red Ensign. No more penny-wise and pound-foolish policy could be conceived for this country than to abandon our undisputed control in the Middle Sea. No matter what expenditure is involved, no matter what sacrifices we have to endure in maintaining our individual supremacy, that expenditure and those sacrifices must be courageously faced. If our supremacy goes even temporarily, apart from the loss of our prestige which is bound to follow, and apart from the decadence of our shipping which must ensue, a great portion of the trade of these islands will be absolutely ruined and we shall sink to the category of a second-class Power. The expenditure should be regarded as another national insurance premium against unemployment and all classes should be made to contribute. While we desire to live on terms of peace and friendliness with all nations, we want no entanglements. We do not want isolation, but we desire to preserve our individual freedom; we believe that any understanding by which another nation would come under an obligation to us would be as bad for that nation as it would be for us.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the debate so far this evening has extended over a somewhat wider range than did that which was a preliminary to it the other day, and I confess that I had supposed that on this occasion the noble Earl opposite would have confined himself to an examination of the specific proposals in relation to the Mediterranean with which his Motion alone deals—that he would not have embarked upon a full examination of the entire naval situation as described by the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place yesterday, but would have deferred to some other day the wider consideration which is necessarily

655
involved in dealing with the whole subject. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will pardon me if I am not able to deal fully with some of the questions which he has raised, because I did not anticipate that such questions as, for instance, the necessary margin of strength in the North Sea would have formed part of our discussion this evening.
I do not dispute for a moment, and nobody who read the First Lord's speech delivered in another place yesterday would dispute, that in one sense the position is one of no little gravity. That was evident from the tone of all the speeches which were delivered in the House of Commons yesterday. But while admitting that the position is one of gravity, it is important, I venture to think, to face it in as cool a manner as possible. I do not for a moment say that the noble Earl did anything else, but some of those in the country who discuss this question approach it in anything but a cool way. I am certain that we have to guard against the alarmist feelings of extreme partisans at either end of the scale—either those wh4 are apparently alarmed at any ship being built, or the opposite kind of alarmists who desire a programme of almost unlimited building. The conclusions of both of those extreme partisans have, in my opinion, to be most carefully guarded against. I took occasion yesterday to utter a warning against undue credulity in regard to newspaper paragraphs, and I may venture to assure the noble Earl, in spite of all the paragraphs he has read, that the gravity of the situation is not increased or its complications added to by any difference of opinion in His Majesty's Government on this matter. It is, of course, perfectly true that as trustees of public money we do not take any pleasure in spending it either on shipbuilding or upon anything else of the sort. We do not belong to that school which appears to regard it apparently as a positively satisfactory position to be obliged either to borrow large sums of money which posterity will have to pay, or to add to the burdens of the country if we pay our way as we go. I can say quite positively that His Majesty's Government do not regard such a prospect as that with anything like satisfaction, although I hope equally there is not a single member of His Majesty's Government who is not prepared to face what can be regarded as necessary expenditure.
As regards one point mentioned by the noble Earl outside the Mediterranean ques-
656
tion pure and simple, I will say one word. I allude to the quotation which he read from Mr. Churchill's speech in relation to the question of manning, in which, if I remember right, the word "shortage" was used. Mr. Churchill spoke of the Admiralty as having been 2,000 men short. I take it that the use of that expression arose in this way. The Manning Vote was, if I remember right, for 136,000 odd men, thus giving an increase of 3,000 men which had been arranged for last year. That figure was subject, and was bound to remain subject, to what might be the added manning strength of the German Navy under their new law, and when the German addition was made—as to whether it was going to be made it was, of course, impossible for our Admiralty to express a definite opinion, still less to act upon that opinion—when the German addition was made it was found necessary to increase our strength by a further 2,000, making 5,000 additional men in all. Mr. Churchill is proceeding, as I understand, to get those men. He was, therefore, in that sense 2,000 short, but he had only arranged for an addition of 3,000, and it was not until the German programme was announced that it was known that it had to be met by the additional 2,000 men. There was no question of shortage, as the noble Earl seemed to think, owing to any default on the part of the Admiralty. It was merely a colloquial way in which my right hon. friend put the fact that he had to wait to know whether the increase would have to be 3,000 or 5,000.
I come to the particular question of the Mediterranean. The House may remember that when it was discussed on the last occasion I mentioned the various schools of opinion and of policy on which action might be founded, and I ventured to point out that logically taken each of them could be shown to end in a reductio ad absurdum. That is to say, whether you were going to engage in a universal naval competition with the world, or whether you were going to pin yourselves down by formal alliances, or whether you were simply going to hope for the best and trust that in any critical moment something favourable would turn up—that whichever of those courses you choose to adopt you would lay yourselves open to very simple and easy criticism. The course which we have taken and the actual proposals which we are making for the Fleet in the Mediterranean are, I think, as little open to criticism of the kind I then

657
indicated as any which could be made. I need not describe those proposals at length. Noble Lords know quite well what battle cruisers are. They are enormously powerful vessels varying in size and ranging from 17,000 up to 30,000 tons in some of the newest, type. They carry, as a rule, eight of the biggest and most powerful guns, and they also have a most powerful secondary armament of quick-firing guns. Their speed is greater than that of any battleship; if I remember right, it can be stated as a minimum of twenty-five knots, and in some of the larger and later ships it reaches to a considerably higher figure than that. Four of those ships, as was pointed out by Mr. Churchill, are to form the backbone of our present Mediterranean squadron, and in addition to them there will be a squadron, a very powerful squadron, of armoured cruisers, not, of course, of the tremendous type of those that are now called battle cruisers, but some of the most powerful armoured cruisers afloat. In addition to this exceedingly powerful squadron there is to be a defensive force of torpedo boats at Alexandria, and also a flotilla of destroyers and submarines based on Malta. It may be taken, I suppose, as practically agreed by the noble Earl that so far as regards the immediate future that is a force competent to represent our interests in the Mediterranean, and it is not until we come to the year 1915 and the following years that the question arises as to the value which a force of that particular character will have to represent us there.
I may say at once that my noble friend who spoke last did not lay, in my judgment, at all too much stress upon the paramount importance of the Mediterranean as one of our great highways of commerce. The mass that pours through that neck of the bottle is, as we know, enormously large. I suppose I am accurate in saying that the great volume of the Antipodean trade generally comes either by one Cape or the other in the mass—either by Cape Horn or by the Cape of Good Hope; but as regards the Far Eastern and Indian trade, to say nothing of our trade with the Mediterranean countries themselves, the volume and value are enormously large, and it includes, it is important to remember, not merely trade in conveniences or luxuries, but a distinct and substantial part of our grain trade, on which, of course, we depend for our existence. It includes also a substantial portion of our cotton trade. Neither need I repeat
658
what I said on the last occasion on the importance of maintaining a position in the Mediterranean such as will make it clear both to those who are our friends and to those who may from time to time regard us with suspicion that we are not descending from our position in the world and not placing complete reliance upon the possible friendly offices of other Powers when the time of danger comes. In view of the growth of the navies of other Powers such as we shall presumably find in existence after 1915, there remains no doubt room for a difference of opinion as to what will be necessary to protect our trade and to maintain our position. The noble Earl has stated with great candour that he would at once add a squadron of eight ships of the Dreadnought, type by means of a loan, and I do not think it is an unfair conclusion to draw that he would regard that, not as an isolated act, but as representing the measure of the preponderance which we ought to maintain, and that consequent he would be prepared for more loans and more Dreadnoughts when in his opinion further occasion arose.
To leave for one moment the question of the Mediterranean, we are entitled, I think, to ask, although we shall certainly not get a reply, where and at what point is this demand for absolute preponderance to stop. It is quite conceivable that the time might come when eight Dreadnoughts in the Mediterranean—altogether apart from the North Sea Fleet, or our Fleet in Home waters, which is, perhaps, a better way to describe it, which it appears to be argued must be regarded as a quite separate line of defence—may give us no great preponderance over a potential combination against us there. Again, in the year 1915 there will be, if I remember right, seven Dreadnoughts belonging to various South American States. Are we to be told that it is necessary for us if we are not to abrogate our position in the world to maintain a maritime preponderance on the South American coast? It would not be difficult, if you desired to draw a picture, to put a case together in which those South American Dreadnoughts or some of them might inflict serious damage upon British possessions in some part of the world. If you are prepared, as some people seem to be prepared, to consider every country as our potential enemy and scarcely one as our probable friend, I confess it seems to me impossible to argue on that basis. That is why I welcome the illuminating observations made in another

659
place yesterday by Mr. Balfour, to which reference has been made by the noble Earl opposite, on what I will venture to call the human probabilities as distinct from the paper probabilities of the case—human probabilities which a number of people sternly refuse to take into consideration at all.
As I say, the general effect of some of the criticisms has been to regard all countries as probable foes and scarcely any as possible friends. Dealing with figures in that way you can produce the most blood-curdling combinations which can possibly be conceived. For instance, in the most lighthearted way a combination of Austria-Hungary and Italy against us in the Mediterranean is talked of as though it were not merely possible but ought to be regarded as a contingency against which full provision must be made. As it happens, there are no two countries in Europe for whom we have entertained in the past, and I venture to say still entertain, greater feelings of sympathy than for Austria-Hungary and Italy, and yet in order to make out a particular case it is necessary to assume, not only that they are united against us, but that at the same time we are either at war or also in danger of war with Germany, and that the remaining great Mediterranean Power, France, is either totally unconcerned or intentionally hostile. I repeat once more that dealing with the figures in that way it is possible to prove almost anything that is alarming. But Mr. Balfour in his speech yesterday, which I gather did not entirely satisfy the noble Earl opposite, pointed out that the worst conceivable combination against us was one which, working on the ordinary lines with which practical men contemplate the chances of life, ought not to be seriously taken into account.
But even if you allow to a greater extent than I should be disposed to allow that certain combinations are possible, it is surely reasonable to examine with care the probable individual strength of the various parties of whom each combination is composed. It is not unreasonable or too happy-go-lucky to point out that the programmes—particularly the programmes of Powers who have not had long shipbuilding traditions—are not likely to be precisely realised in point of time, and it is not unfair, therefore, in devising our preparations beforehand to take into view those considerations, though, of course, too
660
great stress ought not to be laid upon them. For that reason I am not prepared to admit the force of the criticism made by Mr. Balfour and repeated by the noble Earl, that in not immediately coming forward with a large new programme we are running things too fine. The noble Earl thinks that we have run it far too fine already, because during the last six or seven years he thinks we ought to have begun building on the Cawdor programme scale, although I suppose he would have desired to add to that scale during the last two or three years.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If you had stuck to the Cawdor programme, you would not have had to build so many ships afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is one of those things which I think the noble Earl will admit must remain a matter of opinion, because it involves the consideration not only of what we did but of what various other countries in Europe have or have not done or might have done. But there is an objection surely, and it is not only a financial objection, in being overstrong at a particular time. The financial difficulty is, of course, considerable—at least it is one which cannot be altogether put aside. You are spending money ex hypothesi before it is absolutely necessary to spend it. But, my Lords, there are other objections. If you hurry on your programme to the utmost extent you lose the benefit of the continued improvements possible in design and almost certain in construction and in armaments which are from time to time made in ships even nominally those of the same type. You have only to compare the original Dreadnought, which is now talked of almost with sympathy as quite an old-fashioned ship, with the very latest battleship, and you cannot fail to be impressed by the distinct advantage belonging to delay in completing. There is another consideration. If you come forward with a great splash of a programme you help to bring about the evil which you desire to avoid, because the people to whom you announce that you are building against them are positively spurred on to the acceleration and possibly to the enlargement of their programme, and to that extent, therefore, you tend to defeat your own object.
It is true that next year, in view of the maritime strength of the world three, four,

661
or five years hence, it will be necessary to look the situation once more in the face. Whether it will be the plea of the Admiralty that it will be impossible for us to be fairly represented in the Mediterranean without our possessing there a large fleet of battleships—upon that I will not profess to give any opinion, because I have no idea. The particular functions, strategic and technical, which can be fulfilled by a powerful cruiser squadron are, of course, different from those which a Fleet of the line of battle fills, but it may be argued that as a permanent provision some such form, possibly extended, of holding the Mediterranean by cruisers might sufficiently uphold our dignity and preserve our interests there. Upon that I will not attempt to express any opinion, but I cannot, for the reasons I have given, admit We truth of the charge that my right hon. friend and the Admiralty and consequently also His Majesty's Government are running it too fine in this matter, because I cannot conceive a condition of affairs in which the margin of time is not sufficient for our purpose. The noble Earl will forgive me if do not at this moment enter into the question of the inadequacy of the margin in the North Sea. That is a matter which I can assure him has received the closest and most anxious consideration, but I do not think ally useful purpose would be served by my attempting now to discuss the various considerations involved and the various opinions entertained by the most experienced and practical men on the value of particular forms of armaments and particular methods either of offence or defence. I would ask the noble Earl and the House to believe that, even if we cannot follow the noble Earl in his shipbuilding programme or in seine of the views which he has expressed as to the necessities of the case, we are quite as fully alive as he can be to the necessity of maintaining impregnable the defence of this country, sharing the belief that such a defence is the surest guarantee for the peace of the world.
I will only say before I sit down that I share with the noble Earl and welcome the sentiments which he expressed with regard to the co-operation of the great Dominions of the Crown in this matter of the naval strength of the Empire. Their co-operation is welcomed in the heartiest way by men of all Parties and views without a shadow of distinction, and those of us who of late years have been directly concerned in these questions, as I was at the Colonial
662
Office and on the Committee of Defence, recognise that in the Dominions themselves there is only one desire—to take their proper part in maintaining the strength and the dignity of the Empire. As we know, they are not altogether agreed on the best methods by which that object may be achieved, but although there may be differences of opinion on particular points the same spirit of loyalty to the Empire and of a desire to play their part is shown throughout. I also agree with the noble Earl that such co-operation as the Dominions freely offer us must mean and ought to mean some further share, however it may be obtained, in the representation of their separate interests in the councils of the Empire. Noble Lords opposite are well aware of the peculiar difficulties, resting largely on the physical facts of distance, which surround that question, but I certainly shall never believe that those difficulties are altogether insuperable, and it is, I think, an appropriate task for the best minds of the Empire, either overseas or here, to put forward their best powers in the consideration of how that object can most fittingly be achieved.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess's remarks were couched throughout in a reassuring tone, and what fell from him made it perfectly clear that His Majesty's Government are as much seized as anybody on this side of the House with the gravity of the situation. I do not think, however, that the noble Marquess would claim that his speech was couched in tones of confidence; in fact, at times wondered whether the noble Marquess possessed the confidence which he found it necessary to assume. In his opening sentences the noble Marquess rather took exception to my noble friend Lord Selborne having travelled beyond his Notice by dealing with our whole naval position, but I think any one who read the First Lord's speech last night would feel that the justification for my noble friend's action lay there. The First Lord was at pains with very great precision to lay down the difficulties in which we stand with regard to our position in the North Sea, and he introduced the Mediterranean as a sort of background to that picture.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was far from complaining of the action of the noble Earl. What I said was that it had occurred to me that the noble Earl might wish to deal

663
with that branch of the subject on another day. The speech of the First Lord was directed to the defence of a Supplementary Estimate largely dealing with the North Sea.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My point was not so much that as to endeavour to persuade the noble Marquess to consider one or two aspects of the situation in the Mediterranean even under the temporary arrangements which have now been made there. The instance of South America which the noble Marquess gave when he said that it was impossible for us to be in a position of superiority in all places at the same time is inapplicable to the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is vital; the South American station is not. I would put another point. The noble Marquess expended a considerable amount of tactical rhetoric on the undesirability of our regarding every Power in the Mediterranean as a potential foe. We all feel the same. But, after all, it is necessary to face the facts. The noble Marquess knows the position of the Triple Alliance and that the desires of a particular Power at a particular moment may cause a coalition to be brought into action, of which the other members have a very remote interest in the quarrel. Again I would put this point to the noble Marquess. If the Government are sending four battle cruisers to the Mediterranean it is because they believe that in some circumstances they may be necessary, and if the Government bases the Fleet upon Malta it is because they think it the best strategic position. It is necessary for the land defences in the Mediterranean to be such that they will leave whatever ships are there free for the work which they may be required to perform. The First Lord last night spoke of these battle cruisers as being the ships of all others most suitable to preserve our trade route and to protect our trade in the Mediterranean in case of trouble. If they are to protect our trade, they must be free for that work. They cannot at the same time protect our trade and act as a defence to Malta.
When I was at the War Office I was under continual pressure to increase the garrisons in the Mediterranean. I visited Malta and Gibraltar in the year 1903 in order to see on the spot what both the Generals then commanding asked me to see with regard to their distribution of troops—not because
664
my opinion was of any special value, but because what one has seen for oneself enables one the better to appreciate the expert opinions given one. The strongest pressure was brought to bear on the War Office to add four battalions to the garrison at Malta. It was just at that time that the Defence Committee was brought into being by Mr. Balfour at the instance of Lord Selborne and myself for the consideration of this very class of questions, and for the first time, I believe, all the problems of military and naval defence were considered together as part of a whole under the influence of that Committee. The very clear position was taken up by the Defence Committee at that time that we could abstain from adding to the garrisons of Malta and Gibraltar—but on one condition, that a certain naval force was kept in the Mediterranean which enabled the Navy, when performing its own duties, still to leave at Malta a sufficient force to constitute a serious difficulty to an enemy attempting to make a landing. In the debate in the House of Commons last night Lord Charles Beresford, who held the command in the Mediterranean three years after the date to which I have been referring, made this most important statement—
"Another point he would like to put to the right hon. gentleman was, Did he intend to increase the garrisons at naval stations? When he (Lord Charles) was in the Mediterranean he and the then Commander-in-Chief at Malta expressed the hope that they would not be reduced, and all they got from the Admiralty was that they were going to be reduced for economy, but the naval support would be good enough. Now the naval support has been taken away."
Is not that really a serious state of affairs? You have decreased by five battalions the garrison which I was asked to increase by four battalions, and you have removed the naval support which justified the Defence Committee in 1904 in refusing the additional garrison. I would ask the Lord Chancellor to tell us distinctly whether any military authority advised the Government that without adequate naval support the troops now at Malta and Gibraltar can hold those places? I believe that these garrisons can only be maintained at their present strength on the assumption that a very large measure of naval support can he given to them. In case of war you are in this very serious position, that you have not got the troops to stop the most moderate landing, and if the Fleet there in its reduced condition is to do its duty it cannot possibly afford to Malta or to Gibraltar the necessary support. We were

665
told last night that £12,000,000 had been added annually to the cost of the Navy. The cost of maintaining these garrisons at strength would only have been about £100,000 annually. At all events, I urge most sincerely that those two questions should be considered together. A great and pressing need has arisen largely owing to the fact that the Government have abandoned the Cawdor programme and at the same time reduced the Alediterritnean garrisons by five battalions—two things taken together which have made for danger where safety is imperative. I hope that before this debate closes we may hear from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether there is some military authority for the present position. Certainly I hope that in the conditions, which have changed since the reductions were decided upon, the Government will not be above coming to Parliament if they cannot do it executively and restoring these garrisons to proper strength.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I desire to make a few observations on the speech which has just fallen from the noble Viscount. I agree with him that these are matters which deserve our best consideration, and on that happily both Parties in the State are at one. The noble Viscount has spoken of two matters—the abandonment of what is known as the Cawdor programme, and the reduction of the garrisons in the Mediterranean— as being at t lie root of the evil, or as being part of the cause of the trouble at the present moment, and it is about these two matters that I wish to say something. Since the Cawdor programme was laid clown the whole face of Europe has changed altogether so far as fleets are concerned. If we had maintained the Cawdor programme we should be very far behind to-day. We are much further on than we should have been with the Cawdor programme. It is not the Cawdor programme, or any change of policy on our part, but it is the enormous and new development of naval power on the part of foreign countries which has made the difference, and it is a very serious difference.
Then I come to the question of the reduction of the garrisons in the Mediterranean, and about that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. The question of those garrisons cannot be dissociated from the question of our sea power in the Mediterranean. I go further. In the
666
absence of sufficient sea power the garrisons are ludicrously inadequate. It is not a question of four battalions; it is more nearly a question of forty battalions if we were to aim at providing such a force as could hold each without adequate sea power. Sea power and the state of the garrisons are matters which are so completely interlaced in the Mediterranean that it would be strategical madness to consider one apart from the other. Reinforcements may have to be transported. With adequate sea power no attack can be sustained. You may have to keep off an attack for a limited period, but if you have sufficient sea power you can go to the relief of and rescue a garrison and make further attack impossible. It is upon that basis that the plans which have been worked out are founded.
To begin with, four battle cruisers are very different from the "Duncan" and. "Swiftsure" types which are there at present and are to-day inadequate. A much faster and more powerful type of ship is necessary, and for that purpose four battle cruisers and four other cruisers will be sufficient, and added to those there will be a very powerful flotilla of submarines and destroyers which will protect Malta, and another which will be off Alexandria. I am far from wishing to give your Lordships the impression that I look upon the vessels we are just putting into the Mediterranean and these flotillas as sufficient for the develop3nents which may and probably will take place in the future. My point is that they are a very much stronger armament than we possess in the Mediterranean at the present time, and they will see us through until the period arrives for which we shall have to watch. Two Great Powers in the Mediterranean belonging to the Triple Alliance are increasing their Fleets and have Dreadnought programmes which are in course of maturing. I am far from saying that the mere fact that those two Great Powers belong to the Triple Alliance means that we should look upon them as likely to enter into any form of aggressive attack. On the contrary, with one we are on terms almost of intimacy, and with the other we have friendly relations. I have no means of knowing that the Triple Alliance is founded on an aggressive basis, nor am I prepared to accept that without proof. As regards the other Power, the Fleet of which is and is likely to remain as large as

667
the Fleets of the two others combined, we are on the most friendly relations, although we have not entered into any alliance. In that state of things, what is it that we have to deal with? So far as the command of the sea in the ordinary case is concerned, we have a very powerful Fleet outside. There will be based on Gibraltar a Fleet which by degrees will be increased to eight modern Dreadnoughts. The whole resources of the Navy, so far as the necessary task of guarding the North Sea will permit, are available to reinforce. The Fleet is ubiquitous, and, therefore, though I am far from saying that the situation is not one which we must watch from year to year, and as it grows adapt ourselves to it, for the situation as it exists at the present moment we have taken steps which I think will protect those garrisons by adequate sea power and lay the foundation for what we may do in the future.
I am far from wishing to speak in a tone of easy-going optimism in this matter. On the contrary, I think the country is
668
face to face with one of the most trying naval situations that have existed for a very long time. The Government have made up their minds that the position of this country depends on sea power. We have told the only Power which is our rival—we have told them in the most friendly fashion—that that is our view, and whatever efforts they may put forth they must reckon on our making efforts still greater than any they may make. We have said that we do that, not with any intention of aggression, but because sea power is our life, and in sea power we intend to remain superior. That is the view of the Government; that is the principle to which we have pledged ourselves, and according to which we shall approach all questions of naval strategy which concern our life as a nation.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.