Speech indicates revision by the Member An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, 25th February, 1904. NEW PEER. William Henry Armstrong Fitzpatrick Watson-Armstrong, Esquire, having been created Baron Armstrong of Bamburgh and Cragside, in the county of Northumberland, was (in the usual manner) introduced. The Lord Tennyson took the Oath. PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the follow ing Bills have been complied with Newcastle and Gateshead Water [H.L.]; North Wales Electric Power [H.L.]; Ticehurst and District Water and Gas [H.L.] And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:-Clyde Navigation (Works); Clyde Navigation (Shieldhall Docks). The same ordered to lie on the Table. were Report Standing Orders Committee. from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Rotherham Corporation Bill (Petition for Bill) ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill, on condition that the consent of the Local Authority to the construction of Tramway No. 4 be proved before the Committee on the Bill, and the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 5 and 6 to be struck out of the Bill. That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (Petition for Bill), the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 6, 8, 8A, 8B, and 8c be struck out of the Bill. That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London United Tramways Bill (Petition for Bill) ought VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 3, 4, 5, and 5A be struck out of the Bill. That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and Bill allowed to proceed. Read, and agreed to. York Town and Blackwater Gas Bill [H.L.. The Lord Balfour informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on Friday last discharged, and Bill committed. Dumbarton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. To be read 3 to-morrow. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Withnell Gas Bill [H.L.]; Matfock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Barnard Castle Gas Bill H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Isle of Thanet Light Railways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form a Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.—— D. Bedford (chair- E. Verulam, man), V. Colville of Culross; E. Carnwath, E. Harrowby, agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 8th of March next at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills. I. Annual Series; No. 3122. Trade of NEWCASTLE CHAPTER (AMENDMENT) Alexandria for the 1902. year II. Miscellaneous Series; No. 602. HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL 1. Reports on manuscripts in various collections: Vol. III. The manuscripts of T. B. Clarke-Thornhill, Sir T. BarrettLennard, Bart., Pelham R. Papillon, W. Cleverley Alexander. 2. Calendar of the manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at Kilkenny Castle: New Series. Vol. III. ARMY (ESTIMATES). Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates for 1904 1905. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie upon the Table. BILL [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next. THE WAR AND THE BRITISH NAVY. EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is one of great moment to this country, and the points contained in it are now creating considerable interest everywhere. I wish to know whether the noble Earl can give any information as to the following statements which have been made in the Press and elsewhere as to the action of this country in matters affecting the Russo-Japanese war, and which is interpreted as evidence that this country has broken the letter or the spirit of the law of neutrality—(1) in allowing the Argentine cruisers bought by Japan to leave Genoa under the Red Ensign; (2) in supplying naval officers to command these vessels; (3) in escorting these cruisers in the Mediterranean by His Majesty's ships; (4) in not allowing certain Russian destoyers to dock at Malta; and (5) in allowing the Japanese to lie upon the to use Wei-hai-Wei as a base for an attack COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE. Report from, That the Committee have V. Cross. cardine.) L. Burghclere. Read, and ordered *THE FIRST LORD OF THE AD- colourable accident may have given rise MIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE) to it. I do not believe myself, and My Lords, I recognise the gravity of the I have no knowledge, that they were questions put to me by my noble friend. even sighted by any of His Majesty's I am absolutely at a loss to conjecture ships. from what source these stories can have emanated. There is, I fear, some influence at work which is endeavouring to misrepresent the attitude of this country and to show that the Navy is not observing that strict neutrality which is incumbent upon it. I will take each of the points in turn mentioned by the noble Earl. It has been stated that the two cruisers bought by the Japanese Government from the Argentine Government, and which were built at Genoa, were allowed to leave that port under the British flag. My Lords, there is not a word of truth in that statement. An application was made to the Consul that the ships should be allowed to fly the British flag. The request was immediately refused, and they never flew that flag for one second. Again, it has been stated that the Admiralty supplied two naval officers as captains of these cruisers. Again there is not a word of truth in that statement. Two gentlemen who had been officers in the Navy were selected by the Japanese Government to command these cruisers. They were gentlemen over whom the Admiralty had no sort of control whatever, and they drew neither pay nor pension from the Government. They had, however, some time ago voluntarily placed themselves on what is known as the emergency list of ex-officers who are available for service in time of war. The moment the Admiralty learnt that these officers, over whom they had no control, but who were on this emergency list, had undertaken to command these cruisers, the Board decided to strike them off the emergency list; and this was done before any kind of complaint was made, before the facts had become public, and simply because the Board of Admiralty thought it the wiser course to do that which would leave no room for misrepresentation. The third statement that has been made is that these cruisers, after leaving Genoa, were escorted through the Mediterranean by His Majesty's ships. There is no foundation of any sort or kind for that statement. I do not know what We It has also been stated that we acted in a discourteous and unusual manner in respect to the docking of certain Russian destroyers at Malta. What are the facts of the case? Some considerable time ago, before affairs between Japan and Russia had arrived at a critical stage, application was made on behalf of the Russian Government to the Board of Admiralty that they would allow a certain number of Russian destroyersfive or six-to be docked at Malta. That request was granted, as usual, with pleasure. When those destroyers went to Malta affairs between Japan and Russia had become critical, and it behoved us to consider what would be the position according to international law if war broke out while these destroyers were still at Malta. As your Lordships will remember, the law in the matter is this-that a foreign ship-of-war must leave within twenty-four hours a neutral port or be detained at that port during the duration of the war. thought it was only fair to the officer commanding these Russian destroyers that he should be reminded of this fact, or otherwise, if war broke out, he might find himself in the position that he could not leave within the twenty-four hours, and that the ships would have to remain there during the whole of the war. We therefore thought it right to remind him of the state of international law. So that your Lordships will understand that the only inducement we had in giving him this reminder was that we should be quite clear of any future suggestion that we had not given a warning which we might have given. Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding, for which I cannot account. The Russian Consul understood that the destroyers were directed to leave Malta within twenty-four hours, not that they were warned that if war broke out they would have to leave. That has been explained to the Russian Government as a very regrettable misunderstanding, arising, as your Lordships can see, from our desire to be sure that the Russian officer understood the position. I might say, in this connection, that nothing more contrary to the ordinary practice of our Navy than to be inhospitable to the ships of other navies can be conceived. I do not think that foreigners entirely realise the extent to which we extend that hospitality, and extend it gladly. I have had the cases looked up; and I find that within the twelve months ended 31st January of this year, in no fewer than seventy-nine separate cases we have had the opportunity of offering hospitality to Russian ships of war in various ports of our own all over the world. I only mention that to show what, I think, is too little remembered sometimes upon the Continent -namely, the spirit in which we approach this question. Lastly, it has been stated, and I fear very widely believed, that the attack made upon the Russian fleet at Port Arthur was made by the Japanese fleet from Wei-hai-Wei as a base. My Lords, that is a most wicked falsehood. I can use no language less strong; and the responsibility is indeed great with the source from which such a story emanated. The fact is that not a single Japanese ship has been at Wei-hai-Wei since August last; and at the very moment when this story was being most diligently circulated with the idea of inflaming Russian opinion against this country at that very moment, I am glad to say, H.M.S. "Talbot" at Chemulpo was engaged in giving up the whole of its accommodation and hospitality to the sailors of the Russian ships which suffered in the recent engagement, for which the Russian Government has thanked us, and in respect to which the late Russian Consul in Korea has testified to the warmth and sympathy with which the Russian sailors were received by the English, French, and Italian cruisers. I need hardly say that the "Talbot" would have most gladly done the same for the Japanese in a similar case, because the attitude of the British Navy towards both the Russian and Japanese navies is one of admiration and respect, and the whole object in view is to fulfil the spirit as well as the letter of the obligations of strict neutrality. THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am quite sure that the statement of the noble Earl will be received with satisfaction. There is only one point as to which there is some reason for hesitation and regret, and that is the communication made to the Russian Consul at Malta. Will he tell us by whom it was made and whether it was in writing or verbally? com *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to refresh my memory exactly, and if I have to correct myself later I hope the noble Earl will allow me to do so. I believe the facts are these. The Governor of Malta requested the Naval Commander-in-Chief to make a munication to the captain in command of the Russian destroyers. The captain in command could not be found, and the Russian Consul came to see the Naval Commander-in-Chief. The explanation was verbal, and the misunderstanding arose, I think, from the fact that the communication was verbal and not in writing. POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.). Order of the day for the Second Reading read. The * LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, both of the Bills which I have charge of to-night are old friends here, and Ĭ believe they are both unopposed. attitude of the President of the Local Government Board towards this Bill is actively friendly. Both Bills passed through your Lordships' House in 1901; in 1902 they were withdrawn because there was a Government Bill in the other House which it was thought would make them unnecessary; and in 1903 they passed through the House of Lords but failed to get through the other House. All that the Bill, the Second Reading of which I am now moving, does is to enable county councils, who are at present the sole authorities for dividing electoral divisions in their counties into polling districts for the purpose of county council elections, to alter the polling districts as occasion may require. At present it appears that, once the arrangement is made for a polling district, on the advice of Sir Robert Finlay and Sir Edward Clarke it is impossible to make any change. This has led to considerable difficulties from time to time. I do not know that I need cite the several advantages which would result from the passing of the Bill, but, speaking generally, circumstances, such as a change in the character of a locality, often make it desirable that alterations should be able to be made, and that districts should be co-terminous for both county council and Parliamentary elections. On Question, Bill read 2 (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]. CROWN AGENTS. THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH, who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether Crown Agents for the Colonies receive fixed salaries for their services in connection with the Colonies and Protectorates they represent; (2) what those salaries are; (3) whether the Crown Agents are permitted to levy a percentage on expenditure or on any operation undertaken by them as Crown Agents; (4) what is the amount of this percentage; (5) are annual returns made by the Crown Agents to the Colonial Office showing exactly what sums they have received by the levying of this percentage; (6) is it not the case that in addition to the aforesaid percentage, and Order of the day for the Second Read- to any salary that may be paid out of ing read. *LORD RIBBLESDALE My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remedy the present anomaly throughout England whereby the county councils are the authority for dividing Parliamentary boroughs into polling districts for Parliamentary elections where a borough is situated in more than one petty sessional division, but the Justices in petty sessions are the authority where the borough is situated wholly in their petty sessional division. This is an anomaly which has crept in under various Acts of Parliament. At present Parliamentary electoral divisions, council electoral divisions, and guardian wards in London are all practically co-terminous, but the authorities for dividing these divisions differ in each respect; and it is desirable that the council, which is the authority for dividing the council electoral divisions and also the Parliamentary electoral divisions in the main, should be made the sole authority for dealing with the whole. The Parliamentary and council voting lists are made out together, and it would avoid confusion if they were divided in the same way, and an elector would always vote at the same place at each election. This Bill also has, I believe, the support of the Government, and is quite unopposed. On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. the Imperial Exchequer, the Crown Agents receive additional salaries or allowances from all or any of the Colonies or Protectorates for which they act,' said: My Lords, before I put this Question to the Government I desire to preface it with a few remarks as to what has happened since I placed the Question on the Paper. I put the Question down a fortnight or more ago, and since then I have received a very large number of private communications from responsible persons who have had experience in this matter. Although it would not be proper for one to disclose private communication, there certainly does appear to be a very general and widespread complaint as to the manner in which the Crown Agents have performed some of their duties, or, rather, the manner in which the Office has performed them. I have been told, not by people who do not know, but by those who speak with authority, but who do not impute any charge of peculation, that there does obtain the very bad practice of giving Crown Agents commissions on the expenditure which has passed through their hands and through their Office. Very little appears in the public papers respecting the work or the duties of the Crown Agents, but as long ago as 1881 the matter did excite some interest and Sir Penrose Julyan wrote an official memorandum explaining the functions of the Crown Agents. In 1858 Lord Stanley had reconstructed the Crown Agents' Office, but Sir Penrose |