Commons Sitting of 7 May 1874

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Mayo, c. Thomas Tighe, esquire, and George Eakins Browne, esquire, void Election; for Dudley, v. Henry Brinsley Sheridan, esquire, void Election.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Kemp Sanderson, esquire, for Wakefield.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Jury System (Ireland), Mr. Synan discharged, Sir Colman O'Loghlen added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ASHANTEE EXPEDITION—NAVY ESTIMATES—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * [95].
Second Reading—Gas Orders Confirmation * [94].
Select Committee—Metropolitan Buildings and Management * [3], nominated; Municipal Privileges (Ireland) [33], Mr. Power added.
Third Reading—(£13,000,000) Consolidated Fund *, and passed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—COUNTY OF MAYO.
MR. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Monahan, one of the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, a Certificate of the Court. And the same was read, to the effect that—
In the matter of the Petition of Sir George Clendinning O'Donel, Petitioner; and George Eakins Browne, esq., Thomas Tighe, esq., and Joseph Pratt, esq. Respondents, the Court determined "that the Returning Officer was wrong in rejecting Petitioner's demand for a poll to which he was entitled, and in declaring George Eakins Browne and Thomas Tighe, esquires, as duly elected Members for the County of Mayo.
"Accordingly the Court doth determine and hereby certify to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that the said Election for the County of Mayo was null and void."

ARMY—CAVALRY HORSES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether power may be given to commanding officers of cavalry regiments to order, on their own responsibility, the immediate sale of dangerously vicious troop horses; or, should that not be considered advisable, to give directions to inspecting officers to cast every horse reported to them as dangerously vicious?
  MR. STANLEY, in reply, said, it was held to be unnecessary to give to commanding officers power on their own responsibility to order the immediate sale of dangerously vicious horses. Under the Queens Regulations commanding officers could apply to the War Office on the subject through the proper channel, and, on the approval of the Secretary of State, such horses could be sold. It was not thought expedient to alter the existing system.

POOR LAW—CASE OF THE WOMAN DAY.—QUESTIONS.
DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the circumstances detailed at an inquest hold by the coroner of Hants upon the body of a labourer's wife named Day, in the parish of Lasham, in the Alton Union; whether he will insist upon the immediate appointment of a Medical Officer of Health for that Union; and, whether

1835
he will cause a full inquiry to take place as to the carrying out of sanitary inspection there as directed by the Public Health Act of 1872?
MR. DIXONasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the depositions and verdict respecting the death of Mary Day, of Lasham, Hampshire; and whether it is true, as is alleged, that her death was "accelerated by her exposure and wretched condition, which were the consequence of the want of proper and efficient sanitary supervision and inspection;" and if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, my attention has been called to the peculiar circumstances attending the death of the wife of a labourer in the Alton Union, and before Notice of this Question had been given, inquiry had been made of the Alton Guardians upon the subject, and the inspector of the district had also been directed to investigate the circumstances. The deceased and her husband were remarkable people, of settlement unknown, who are said to have lived for many years in different parts of the country in some such habitation as that in which the woman died, the man always in good work and known to have earned regular wages on different farms in the district. The result of the inquiries fails to fix any special blame upon the sanitary authority or its officers. It is true that there has been no appointment of Medical Officer of Health in this particular district, because the Guardians have not been able to come to terms with the person they wished to appoint, but they will be required to proceed immediately to do so. As to the Inspector of Nuisances, it would have been undoubtedly his duty to report the case as one of a dwelling unfit for human habitation had he been aware of its existence; but the situation of the place being more than a mile away from the village and far from any public road, it is easy to understand that, in the absence of special information, he was not aware of it. He appears, moreover, to be doing his work very well, and an examination of his books proves that cases of over-crowded dwellings have been reported by him and dealt with on his report by the Guardians, and that in one particular case a hut like the one in which the death now in
1836
question occurred has been cleared out in consequence, and its inhabitants removed. The reply of the Guardians bears testimony to the generally excellent character and conduct of the relieving officer of the district; but on this occasion he undoubtedly was in error when he refused to give an order for the parish doctor at a time when it was not in his power, from pressure of other business, to visit the case and ascertain the facts immediately. This statement of their opinion will be communicated by the Local Government Board to the Guardians and relieving officer accordingly.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the Law of Election Petitions or of corrupt practices otherwise than by a continuance of the present Acts?
  MR. DISRAELI: No, Sir, we propose merely to continue the present Acts.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL— LEGISLATION—QESTION.
MR. COGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to amend the Licensing Act so as to restore to Borough Magistrates in Ireland the power to adjudicate in cases of drunkenness, and to apply the fines inflicted for these offences to local purposes, as hitherto they were empowered under the Towns Improvement Act of 1854?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that it had not been his intention to make any such proposal in the Clauses which it would be his duty to place upon the Paper for insertion in the Bill recently laid before the House by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The question was one of some difficulty. Those lines had hitherto been employed for the very useful purpose of increasing the salaries of the Clerks of Petty Sessions, many of whom were very poorly paid. He would, however, consider the matter, and he hoped to be able to submit to the House some proposals which would be satisfactory.

HIGHWAYS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHasked the President of the Local Government Board. Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session for the better maintenance of Highways in England and Wales?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply said, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for that purpose this Session; but he hoped it might be in his power to make some proposal on the subject next year.

THE CIVIL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. HANKEY, with reference to a Letter of the 3rd December 1873, from Mr. Lyon Playfair to the Lords of the Treasury, and printed in the Appropriation Accounts of Civil Service and Revenue Accounts for the year ending 31st March 1873, on page 409, asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Mr. Lyon Playfair, that if their
"Lordships should decide that the Order in Council" (referring to Civil Service Examinations) "cannot be departed from. I should advise that, instead of introducing an inconvenient and costly plan which will have the effect of converting a large body of temporary servants into a permanent body, that an exemption to the general rule should he made by amendment of the Order in Council;"
and, if so, whether he is prepared to obtain an alteration in the present Orders in Council?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the whole subject of the organization of the public service was under consideration by a Commission, of which the right hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was Chairman, and therefore he did not feel at liberty to express any opinion on this Question of the hon. Member.

CUSTOMS—OUT-DOOR OFFICERS' MEMORIAL.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he has fully considered Memorials to the Treasury from Outdoor Officers of Customs at the various outports, praying to be placed on the same footing as the clerks, regarding back pay from 1870; and also if he has
1838
considered Memorials from Outdoor Officers at the outports asking to be placed on the same footing as the same officials at Liverpool as regards salary?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have not fully considered the Memorials, because we have referred them to the Board of Customs, which has not yet reported. The Memorials are in their hands; and after we have received them and the Report of the Board of Customs, they shall be taken into full consideration. It has always been the custom to pay officers at Liverpool somewhat higher, but not very much, in consequence of the large amount of business which is transacted there. I have not the figures here before me—but they come to this—that while half of all the Customs' business is done in London, about half the remainder, or two-ninths of the whole, is done at Liverpool. It will not be possible, therefore, to put all the out-door officers at the outports in the same position as those at Liverpool, but any advance which may be made in the case of Liverpool officers will extend in proportion to those of the other outports.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS—DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has considered the expediency of resuming diplomatic relations with Mexico (suspended since the death of the Emperor Maximilian); and, whether he is prepared to inform the House what decision has been come to?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the question has been and is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government are willing and desirous that those relations should be resumed, and they will be prepared to receive favourably any overtures that may be made with that object by the Government of Mexico. No such overture has been made up to the present date.

MERCANTILE MARINE—PASSENGER SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps have been taken to re-

1839
quire passenger ships to carry a number of boats, rafts, or other appliances for saving life, sufficient for the persons carried on board each ship?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the question of compelling large passenger ships with numerous passengers to carry boats sufficient for all the persons on board has been frequently considered by the Emigration Commissioners and by the Board of Trade. But it is impossible; because there is not room for such boats, and because by encumbering the decks they would render the safe working of the ship impracticable. Further, even the boats now required are seldom found to be practically available in those cases of wreck in which they are most required. No rafts or other appliances for saving life have yet been discovered which would be practically available; and attempted contrivances might lead to more lives being lost by needlessly leaving a ship, than to any increase of lives being saved in real emergencies.

METROPOLIS—SEWERS AT THE WEST END.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If anything is being done to mitigate the offensive smells proceeding from the drains at the West End?
COLONEL HOGG: In reply, Sir, to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I can assure him that the nuisance of which he complains does not proceed in any way from the sewers under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who are charged with the care of the main sewers only, and have nothing whatever to do with the local ones, or with the care of the roadways of the metropolis. I believe that inquiries are being made by the local authorities concerned into the causes of the nuisance to which he refers, and that steps are being taken to remove, if possible, the grounds of complaint.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate during this Session on the whole Law of Weights and Measures; and, whether it is prepared to
1840
remove all obstacles to the use of Metric Weights and Measures?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I hope, Sir, that the Judge Advocate, who was one of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject, will be able to introduce a Bill for the verification of the standards this Session, but not dealing with the use of the metric system.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE THREE RULES.—QUESTION.
MR. MONTAGU SCOTT (for Sir HENRY WOLFF), asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken to carry out the stipulation contained in the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Washington, "to bring to the knowledge of other Maritime Powers and to invite them to accede" to the three Rules contained in the said Article; whether the Government of Her Majesty and the Government of the United States are agreed as to the interpretation of this engagement; and as to the terms of the invitation to be so addressed; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will communicate to the House any Correspondence that has taken place on the subject?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, some Correspondence has passed between Her Majesty's late Government and the Government of the United States on the subject of the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Washington, There will be no objection to lay it on the Table of the House. Since the present Administration came into office no overture has been received from the Government of the United States on the matter, and no steps have been taken to invite the other Maritime Powers to accede to the Three Rules.

SCIENCE AND ART—DR. SCHLIEMANN'S ANTIQUITIES FROM THE TROAD.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intends to propose a Vote for the purpose of acquiring for the British Museum, any part of the interesting collection of antiquities formed by Dr. Schliemann during his recent excavations in the Troad?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have considered the subject to which my hon.

  1841
  Friend's Question refers, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose any Vote to Parliament on the subject.

ASHANTEE WAR—THE GARRISON AT PRAHSU.—QUESTION.
MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether four officers have been left at Prahsu in command of a garrison of 100 men without medical assistance; and, if so, how long and for what purpose this force is to remain?
MR. STANLEY, in reply, said, he had ascertained from Sir Garnet Wolseley that it was his intention, had he remained on the West Coast of Africa, to withdraw as soon as possible all the White troops from the interior, leaving 100 Houssas, under command of native officers, at Prahsu, and also 50 natives at Mansu. Sir Garnet Wolseley, on retiring as he did in a hurry from the country, left a message informing Colonel Maxwell, who succeeded him, what his intention had been in this respect, and a letter had been received from Colonel Maxwell, stating that steps had been taken to carry out the arrangement. With native troops, commanded by native officers, the presence of a European medical officer was unnecessary at Prahsu.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House Copies of the letter or letters to the Magistrates of the Country respecting the operation of the Licensing Act?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that there had been some Correspondence with the police superintendents, with whom the Home Office had on a former occasion corresponded on the subject. The answers received in reply to the letter written were of a confidential character; but he should have no objection to show them to the hon. Member if he would call at the Home Office, though he did not think it advisable to lay them on the Table.
  MR. MELLYexpressed a hope that the same courtesy would be extended to him by permitting him to see this Correspondence.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN IBBETSONsaid, he would have no objection if the hon. Member would call at the Home Office. The only reason why he did not lay the Correspondence on the Table was that it was exceedingly voluminous and partly confidential.

BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)—CAPTAIN TYLER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the statement which has appeared in "The Times" is correct, that Captain Tyler, one of the Inspectors of Railways under the Board of Trade, is going to America for the purpose of examining into and reporting to certain City firms upon the condition and financial prospects of the Erie Railway; and, whether he is undertaking this employment with the sanction of the President of the Board of Trade?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, Captain Tyler is going on leave for two months, after two years' duty without taking any. I believe he intends spending his time on leave in the manner supposed in the Question; but it is entirely a private arrangement of his own, without any official character.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, in consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, he should put some Questions on going into Committee of Supply, in order to enable the House to express its opinion on the subject.

MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.—QUESTONS.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to the Address relating to the Laws, Ordinances, &c. in force in Foreign Countries with respect to Monastic and Conventual Institutions, of which Notice has been given, on the understanding that the Documents requested by the Address are such as have been published in the Countries to which they relate, and would be furnished in several cases by extracts from the general Codes of Law in force in those Countries, provided such extracts comprise all that in such Codes applies to the subjects of the Notice?
MR. BOURKE: We will endeavour, Sir, to obtain the information mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend through our Diplomatic Representatives abroad, and place the Documents in the Library of the House; but, as it is probable that the information will be voluminous, we must ask to be allowed to suspend our judgment for the present with regard to its being printed or presented to the House. Under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will probably think it unnecessary to move the Address of which he has given Notice.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked the right hon. and learned Member for Clare County whether he intended to oppose the Motion?
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, who had a Notice of an Amendment on the Paper, that the Address should not be agreed to, said, he certainly should move it.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in that case, he should postpone his Motion until the 2nd of June.

PARLIAMENT—ISSUE OF NEW WRITS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Speaker and of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to a new Rule making an alteration in the moving of Writs for the election of Members of the House. It was that in a case in which a Report had been made by a Judge who had sat on the trial of an Election Petition, certain Notice should be given before a Motion was made for the issue of a New Writ. Such Notice of Motion was put upon the Notice Paper as an ordinary Notice of Motion, and one consequence of this was if it were opposed it could not come on after half-past 12 o'clock; and owing to the difficulty of bringing on Motions before half-past 12 the issue of a Writ might be postponed for weeks, and even months, until the end of the Session. He wished to ask the Speaker, Whether an hon. Member could move a Writ in a case of this sort at the hour at which Writs were usually moved for; and, if not, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the Rule ought not to be altered? The question was one which was of infinite interest and importance to the House, as the issue of a Writ affected its constitution; and, if
  1844
  Motions of this sort were in the position which was supposed, the House would probably think that something ought to be done to bring these Motions before the House at a time when there was a full attendance, and when they could be more satisfactorily dealt with.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is aware that Motions for New Writs are treated as Motions of Privilege, and take precedence of Motions on Public Business; but lately the House passed a Resolution which the House will permit me to read to them. It is—
  That, where any Election has been declared void, under the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and the Judge has reported that any person has been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, no Motion for the issuing of a new Writ shall he made without two days' previous notice being given in the Votes."
  A Resolution in similar terms to that has been passed from time to time by this House. There are several instances of such Resolutions having been passed since 1848, and it is my duty to state to the House that, in obedience to, and in pursuance of, those Resolutions, the practice of the House has been always to treat Motions made subject to such Resolutions, not as Motions having privilege, but as ordinary Motions. There are several instances of Motions for New Writs being made under these circumstances, and they have always been treated as ordinary Motions, having no title to precedence as Privilege Motions. It has, therefore, been my duty to place the Motions which stand on the Paper to-night for New Writs as ordinary Motions. At the same time, I am bound to observe to the House that when those Resolutions to which I have adverted were passed, there was no Resolution standing on the Journals of the House which precluded our taking Opposed Business after half-past 12 o'clock. With that Resolution in force the House is placed under new circumstances with regard to the issuing of a Writ. If Opposed Business is not to be taken after half-past 12 o'clock it is plain that if Notice be given of an Amendment to the Motion for the issue of a Now Writ, and if that Motion should not come on until after half-past 12, it would be my duty in obedience to the Resolution of the House, to stop that Motion.
  MR. DISRAELI: Both sides of the House will, I think, agree that no undue

  1845
  obstacle should be offered to the issue of a New Writ. I may say I think the position of affairs with respect to the issue of New Writs is not satisfactory, and that the Sessional Order which we agreed to the other night may operate as a very undue obstacle to the issue of Writs. The matter shall be considered by Her Majesty's Government; but in the meantime, what we want is an immediate remedy. All I can say is, so far as the Government is concerned, they will give every facility in their power to these Motions for the issue of New Writs.
  MR. ANDERSON, as the mover of the Sessional Order referred to, wished to say that it applied only whore there had been bribery and corrupt practices. It would not, therefore, act as an improper obstacle to the issuing of New Writs in cases where there had been no bribery or corrupt practices. Where there had been, there ought to be an obstacle to the issue of New Writs, and where there had not, the declaration of the Prime Minister that the Government would offer no obstacle to the issue of New Writs would meet the case. The Rule was a satisfactory one, and it might be left as it stood until the beginning of next Session.
  MR. WHITBREADrecommended that in cases in which a Motion was to be exposed on the merits, it should be moved that the Orders of the Day should be postponed until after the Motion for the Writ was considered.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSpresumed it was open to any hon. Member to move that Motions with respect to the issue of Writs should have precedence of the Orders of the Day.
  In reply, to Sir CHARLES W. DILKE,
  LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he should move that evening for a New Writ to be issued for Dudley, as the Motion was unopposed. He should move for New Writs for Stroud to-morrow.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSgave Notice that he should move to-morrow that the Motion for New Writs for Stroud should have precedence of the Orders of the Day.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NAVY—UNARMOURED AND IRON-CLAD SHIPS.—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOHN HAY, in rising to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to incur expense to build Unarmoured Ships of a speed of less than ten knots, and that it is expedient that the money appropriated to their construction be applied to the necessary repairs of the Iron-clad Ships of the Navy,"
said, that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had shown by the Supplementary Estimates he had laid upon the Table that he was anxious to place our iron-clads upon a proper footing, both as to numbers and efficiency. What he wished to urge upon him and upon the House was that the £50,000, which was the sum proposed to be applied for the completion of the light unarmoured vessels now in progress, would be much better applied to the repairs of the iron-clads. The vessels to which he referred were constructed to steam at the rate of nine and a-half or 10 knots an hour at the measured mile; but everyone knew that the estimated speed might be taken at least at a knot an hour less, in actual practice, under ordinary circumstances. The use of these vessels was to harass, destroy, and capture an enemy's commerce. There were, however, very few merchant vessels of any nation which did not attain a greater speed. These vessels would occasionally have to escape from the large ships of the enemy, but these also attained a very much higher speed. It was alleged that vessels of this class and draught of water could not attain a greater speed, and that to make them swifter would be very costly; but it would be better to go back to the paddle-wheel vessels of former days, which did attain a speed of 11 and 12 knots an hour with a similar draught of water. Twelve vessels of the three smaller classes were in the present Estimates, and he trusted that the First Lord of the Admiralty would stop the building of those which were not too far advanced, and apply the money towards completing the iron-clad fleet, which was the basis of our naval superiority, and upon which we must rely for defensive warfare. Iron-clads could not be got ready in less than two or three years; but there would be no difficulty in improvising out of our Mercantile Marine any number of light vessels to harass an

1847
enemy's commerce if guns and ammunition were forthcoming. He did not say that the Admiralty ought not to possess vessels to perform these duties; but, as there was nowhere a desire to increase the Navy Estimates largely, and as the completion of the iron-clad fleet was at present our most pressing want, he trusted the First Lord would apply as much as possible of the £50,000 proposed to be voted for these 12 ships towards the completion of the armoured ships. He wished to express his entire concurrence in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed)—that we could not have an efficient Navy for £10,000,000 a-year. They could have no higher authority on that subject. Where we formerly spent £100 in the maintenance and repair of a ship it would now be necessary to spend £170, and the £2,000,000 a-year formerly applied to the maintenance and repairs of the fleet must in future be raised to £3,400,000. If this Estimate were correct, the House must expect to find the Navy Estimates increased from £10,000,000 a-year to £11,500,000. Seeing, however, that the House spent £14,000,000 on the Army, he did not believe that £11,500,000 would be grudged by the country to maintain the Navy, which was our first line of defence and our protection in every sea. He also thought that the £15,000 asked for lengthening the transport Orontes ought to be applied to the building of our iron-clads, because in an emergency we could always hire transports. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
ADMIRAL ELLIOT, in seconding the Amendment, expressed his entire concurrence in every word which had fallen from his right hon. Friend with respect to the uselessness of these slow-going vessels, which had no fighting qualifications as a set-off to their want of speed. In fact, he would go farther, and say that ships built to maintain an estimated speed of nine and a-half knots an hour would not in ordinary use attain a speed of more than eight knots. When hon. Members knew that a boat on the Thames the other day attained a speed of 20 miles an hour, the Admiralty ought to go to any expense to attain greater speed for a small description of cruisers, instead of going on building
1848
unarmoured vessels of the three smaller classes, which would he sure to be captured by the enemy and to catch nothing themselves. There were hardly any vessels on the ocean, under steam, with so small a speed as eight knots an hour. With whatever nation we might be at war, it was certain that they would equip their fastest vessels as privateers. If, on the commencement of a winter's day, when they could command only eight hours of daylight, one of these vessels sighted a ship at a distance of 12 miles, she must have a superior speed of nearly two miles an hour in order to overtake the ship she pursued before dark, when escape would easily be effected, and in summer even, when the days were longer, her speed must be considerably superior. If we desired to have vessels that would effectually protect our commerce in war time, they must be vessels of great speed, and in peace time one such vessel would perform the same duty, and, in many cases, perform it more effectually, than half-a-dozen or a dozen smaller vessels of inferior swiftness. Upon one point, however, he differed from the right hon. and gallant Baronet below him (Sir John Hay), for, so far from thinking that we ought to go on building fresh armour-clads, his belief was that the days of armour-clads were fast approaching an end. His opinion was one which he had held ever since 1861, and he had stated it publicly in a Report drawn up by himself and a brother officer, Admiral Ryder, in 1871. When he spoke of armour-clads, he meant vessels with vertical or side armour. If he were right in his conjecture, we should then have the pleasing prospect of being able to build our first line of defence at a far less expense than we were doing now. He did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not mean that armour plates would not be used, but that they would not be used on the sides of vessels as at present, the cost of which, as the House knew, was very great. This opinion had lately been supported by the present Chief Construe for of the Navy, who had said that in (ho last ship they had designed—the Inflexible—they had come to the utmost limit of thickness of armour plates which they conceived it possible for a war ship to carry as side armour. If that were so, and such guns as the Inflexible would carry could penetrate her own armour,

1849
this, he believed, was sufficient to show that the system of armoured ship-building was exploded.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to incur expense, to build Unarmoured Ships of a speed of less than ten knots, and that it is expedient that the money appropriated to their construction he applied to the necessary repairs of the Ironclad Ships of the Navy,"—(Sir John Hay.)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
MR. E. J. REEDobserved that, inasmuch as the Mover of the Amendment thought it desirable that we should increase our armoured shipbuilding, and its Seconder thought we should cease ail work in that direction, it might be desirable to give the Resolution some farther consideration. When he first saw the terms of the Motion he was under the impression that it was a very proper one, because he thought he saw in the large number of the small unarmoured vessels which were being built a tendency to some extravagance in that direction. But it was really only fair to say that the cause of these small unarmoured vessels being built was the demand of the naval members of the Board of Admiralty for them. During the whole period he had the honour of serving at the Admiralty, the Senior Sea Lords felt it was very desirable to have an increased number of small vessels, and it was only proper to add to that consideration the fact that they could not have very small vessels of great speed. There were different classes of small vessels, and the speed increased with the increase in their size. There were vessels of 270 tons which were very slow, going only a little over nine knots an hour on the measured mile, and probably about six or seven knots at sea. Above these there was another class, that of 450 tons, with a speed of 11 knots at the measured mile, and nine or 10 knots at sea. Then came vessels of 930 tons, with a speed at the measured mile of 13 knots, the practical speed of which would be about 11 or 12 knots; and next a class of vessels of 2,000 tons, which were to have a measured mile speed of 15 knots, and a
1850
probable practical speed of 13 or 14 knots. The first proposition he wished to lay down was that it was in the nature of the case that if they were to have small vessels of war they must have slow vessels. Such vessels as the steel one recently built for the Indian Government were very remarkable vessels; but they were built of extremely thin steel—so thin, indeed, that no man could step on board without an apprehension that his foot might slip through if he was not careful. Their machinery was of a very delicate description, their engines limning at the enormous speed of about 600 revolutions per minute; and if they were laden with cargo they lost their speed. These vessels had no sort of analogy whatever to the ships built for Her Majesty's service on foreign stations, which had to carry an armament with supplies of ammunition shot and shell; a crew with six months' provisions; sea stores; masts and rigging, and so forth. It was therefore undesirable that the House should think they could be at all applicable to the service of the Navy except as torpedo vessels. Although the small unarmoured vessels of the Navy which they were discussing were to carry guns, it must not be supposed that they were built with the primary object of making war with the war ships of other nations. Our naval service on foreign stations comprised many duties which had nothing whatever to do with war, and yet which must be performed by armed representatives of the country, such as going up rivers and into harbours, and to out-of-the-way places. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would bear him out in this—that these vessels were not built with the primary object of making war, but for the purpose of carrying on the necessary service of the country at distant stations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Admiral Elliot) in discussing this subject had led them on to the question of our armoured and unarmoured ships, and had enunciated an opinion to the effect not that armour would some day come to an end, but that the days of armour-clads were already numbered. He (Mr. Reed) did not at all believe the days of armour-clads were numbered, and for this reason—because he thought the House would consider the subject over very seriously

1851
before they determined to send our officers and men to sea on the top of a steam boiler and powder magazine without any protection whatever. It was not an exaggeration to call an unarmoured ship a construction of that nature. The hulls were mere envelopes carrying those dangerous articles, and they ought to be protected. The Admiralty had done wisely in adopting armour and in increasing its thickness, and he did not think that even in the case of the Inflexible they had arrived at an end. Our armour-clad Navy was, to a great extent, proof against all the guns yet afloat in the other Navies of the world. This superiority was due entirely to the fact that we had continued to increase the thickness of the armour, and to add to the power of the guns. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) laid down the other night the doctrine that we ought to have a system of shipbuilding and stick to it. Well, the French had tried this. Their system consisted of two parts. In the first place, their iron-clad ships were built in wood; and, in the second place, a number of ships were to be built all alike. The consequence was that the French ships had not progressed to anything like the same extent as ours, and two or three ships in the British Navy were perfectly capable of beating all the ships built for the French Navy during the period when this principle was being carried out. What we should do was to build the very best vessels we could, and if we did that we need have no fear of the competition of other countries. He congratulated the Admiralty on one point. It had been stated that the wooden ships had gone rapidly to decay. He was glad to hear that there were to be no more wooden ships, believing that iron vessels could perform all the services that were required from such vessels, in conclusion, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) would not press his Amendment if the First Lord of the Admiralty would give the House an assurance that next year he would, in framing the Estimates, give due regard to his views.
SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEsaid, that, notwithstanding the opinion of such a scientific and excellent authority as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), he did not hesitate to say that he was one of those who thought
1852
that nothing but sheer necessity could justify the gigantic and costly iron-clads now being constructed, with regard to the thickness of the armour of which there appeared to be no limit. Of course if other nations possessed such ships, we must have them also; but if the armour went on increasing in thickness it would, like the armour of ancient times, become intolerable. He quite agreed that they could not build small vessels capable of high speed, and thought that in the Royal Navy every vessel, great or small which went abroad should be prepared for war as well as for peace. He quite concurred in the opinions of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay).
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that unprofessional men, ignorant of these questions, must necessarily be extremely puzzled by the diversity of opinion among the hon. Gentlemen who ought to instruct them. First of all the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward the Amendment (Sir John Hay) and who was one of the greatest authorities on naval matters in the House, had expressed his opinion that no unarmoured vessels under a certain speed should be built. He was happy to think, however, that the First Lord of the Admiralty had not yet become a convert to the right hon. and gallant Admiral's doctrine, that we should spend £11,500,000, instead of £10,000,000, which was about the amount of the present Estimates. The First Lord had given them Supplementary Estimates for a ruined Navy—Estimates to replace a "paper fleet," and yet they only included an addition of £55,000 for Dockyards, of which £47,000 were for workmen's wages; £5,000 for repairing a ship as a depot ship at Hong Kong, which could hardly establish our European influence, and £3,000 for repairing a tug at Chatham. But the right hon. and gallant Baronet wanted £1,500,000 to build great iron-clads and fast unarmoured vessels, and he was seconded by another great naval authority, the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Admiral Elliot) in reference to the speed of unarmoured vessels; but the hon. and gallant Member belonged to the school of pessimists, and thought there should be no more armour vessels.
ADMIRAL ELLIOTexplained that he referred only to the side armour.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that if the armour were placed at the top or the bottom of a ship, it Mould be just as expensive as if it were affixed to the sides.
ADMIRAL ELLIOTsaid, he had in his speech referred to a Report wherein his opinion was fully expressed as to where he should place the armour.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURToffered his condolence to the first Lord of the Admiralty on the contradictory character of advice given to him by the professional Members. The pessimists only agreed in one thing—that we had no Navy—and entirely disagreed as to the way in which we should obtain one. He (Sir William Harcourt) must assume, on his own part, entire ignorance of the subject. Before the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford would persuade the English people to spend £1,500,000 in building unarmoured ships to replace its paper fleet, which was to be repaired at an expense of £55,000, he must come to some agreement with the hon. and gallant Admirals near him, and with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who although not in the Royal Navy, was one of the greatest naval authorities in the country, as to what those vessels ought to be. When the House was called upon to embark in this great expenditure would it not be fair, candid, and honest to admit that the people supposed to be the greatest authorities on the subject did not know what it was on which we ought to spend the money. It was not fair to assume that those who were economists were opposed to our Navy being kept up at a proper strength. Economists knew that true economy required that the security of the English nation should be provided for, and that the way to insure that security was for us to have a Navy, not only supreme, but overwhelmingly supreme, in the world he would not be unwilling to vote any sum of money necessary for that purpose. But all parties must be guided in this matter by responsible professional opinion. It was not to be expected that the present First Lord of the Admiralty would come up from Northamptonshire and out of his own inner consciousness evolve a complete naval policy. Of course he had, like every other First Lord, to rely upon the professional advice he received from those he found at the Admiralty.
1854
But, unfortunately, the counsels at the Admiralty were as much divided as they were in the House of Commons, and whatever policy was adopted with regard to the Navy, one side or the other was certain to condemn. A document drawn up by Sir Spencer Robinson, one of the greatest naval authorities in the country, had just been published. He (Sir William Harcourt) said nothing of his discretion in publishing it; but Sir Spencer Robinson had given the country an insight into the manner in which the Admiralty was managed. He himself had always been of opinion that of all reforms needed in this country, administrative reform was the first—and his opinion had been much strengthened by Sir Spencer Robinson's Report which had just been published. That Paper gave a history of what had happened at the Admiralty under three Administrations and under four First Lords. Sir Spencer Robinson pointed out that in 1866 a certain naval programme was proposed by the Duke of Somerset, which the next Government under Lord Derby were not satisfied with, but brought in an amended programme which was laid before Parliament. The programme of 1867 was not earned out revised Estimates being brought forward in May of that year, proposing an entirely different scheme. He was aware that in the meantime there had been a new First Lord of the Admiralty; but that only showed that the policy of the Department changed not only with a new Government, but with every fresh person that became the head of it. Thus in 1867 there were three separate Estimates prepared, founded upon three different schemes, and yet that was the period which the House were asked to look upon as furnishing an example of a perfect Admiralty administration. The number of men in the Dockyards proposed for 1866–7 was 18,618; in 1867–8, 18,321; in 1868–9, 15,272; and in 1869–70, 14,142. So far, therefore, from its being the political necessities of the Government which pressed this policy on their professional advisers, it was their professional advisers which pressed it on the Government. It appeared, then, that just before the outbreak of the Franco-German War Sir, Spencer Robinson recommended a great reduction of the number of men in the Dockyards—from 18,618. the number em-

1855
ployed in the time of the Duke of Somerset; from 15,272, the number employed in the time of Mr. Corry; from 14,142, the number employed under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) down to 11,276. That number, Sir Spencer Robinson believed, would be sufficient to do the work of our Dockyards and maintain our Navy in a proper state for a first-rate maritime Power; and if a man like Sir Spencer Robinson gave such advice to the Admiralty, what was the Admiralty to do? Was the Admiralty to ask for more than they were thus advised would be necessary? Was the House of Commons to vote more, and the nation to pay more, than the official advisers of the Admiralty considered to be necessary for us as a first-rate maritime Power? Sir Spencer Robinson, reviewing the history of the Dockyards for several years, said—
"The sudden expansions and reductions which the last few years have witnessed all point to a want of system in regulating this part of Naval administration. These expansions and reductions have occasioned great distress, and have been fur from promoting economical results. On considering the, question in all its bearings, I am convinced that an expenditure of about 2½ millions is amply sufficient for the real wants of the country relative to ships and dockyards, both with reference to structure and to maintenance, and that it would be dangerous and disadvantageous to reduce our normal expenditure below that amount."
But the figure now was £3,381,339. He was quite aware there had been an increase of wages and an increase in the prices of coal, iron, and other things; but he was informed £500,000 would cover all that. He came now to something which did not vary—11,000 men employed in the Dockyards would do the same amount of work now as they did then; and yet 14,000 men were taken in the Estimates, or 4,000 more than the number recommended by Sir Spencer Robinson in 1870, as amply sufficient to maintain England as a first-rate maritime Power. He would be reminded that the Report from which he quoted was not the only Paper from Sir Spencer Robinson, and that another had been presented that morning on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay). But that Paper strongly confirmed Sir Spencer Robinson's former opinions. It had been said that it was the political necessities of the late Government which brought about the re-
1856
ductions; but that argument could hardly be sustained when it was remembered that the reductions were recommended by a man like Sir Spencer Robinson, who was not supposed to be a political officer, but was, as he said himself, one of the persons responsible for giving sound professional advice to the First Lord. With regard to the closing of Woolwich Dockyard, Sir Spencer Robinson said that no employers of labour ever acted with greater consideration for their workmen. He further stated that he believed the reforms of the Dockyards in 1869 had been very satisfactory, and he hoped no obstacles would prevent those beneficial changes from being carried out as opportunity offered. Sir Spencer Robinson recommended that the permanent Dockyard staff, which stood at 18,000 in 1866, should be reduced to 11,000 as the normal Establishment in 1870. For 1870–71, Sir Spencer Robinson recommended the employment of 450 more men in shipbuilding, and of 3,375 fewer men in maintenance and repairs. He said, we were in a position to do it, because a thorough understanding had been arrived at as to the wooden ships it was necessary to repair and maintain, and it was resolved not to spend a single sixpence on obsolete ships which could be avoided; great economy would result from that plan, the labour being applied more to the new typo of ships, and less to the repair of those obsolete ships which in former years had been a fathom less gulf of expenditure. The late First Lord, therefore, acted on the recommendation of the most competent adviser in reducing the permanent dockyard staff—advice which he could not disregard. What would the House have said, if the Admiralty had not acted on that advice? It would have turned round on him and said—"the Controller of the Navy advised you that we could do with a less number of men, and that advice has been disregarded." The question of the number of men in the Dockyards was re-considered on the outbreak of the war between France and Germany, and it was proposed to have 12,000. Then, there was some dispute between Sir Spencer Robinson and the Admiralty as to whether the number should be 12,000, or, as he recommended. 13,500. Was the aspect of affairs more formidable in 1874 than it was in 1870? The power of France was then unbroken, and

1857
the ships which had become obsolete I since were more than compensated for by those which had been launched. [Admiral ELLIOT: Are they sea-going ships?] Those he struck out of the list as decayed were not all sea-going ships, and he was comparing the total strength of the British Navy this year with what it was in 1870. He submitted it was stronger now than it was then; and if we were satisfied with 10,000 men in 1870, why should we not be content with that number now? He believed France had launched no ship since 1870, and for six or seven of our vessels that were decayed, there were probably nine or ten of the French Navy which had become useless. We need be under no apprehension as regarded the French Navy. He supposed no one contemplated a combination against us of the French and German Navies, and the only other possible combination was that of Germany and Russia. What we required, while we relied on such men as Sir Spencer Robinson, was that consistent plans should be sketched and consistent advice given to the Admiralty—not so much consistency of opinion in the First Lord as consistency of opinion on the part of those who advised the Admiralty. He despaired of ever having the Navy in such a state as to get an Admiral in that House to admit that we had one. It was as difficult to get an Admiral to acknowledge that we had a Navy as to get a General to admit that we had an efficient Army, or a farmer that he ever had a crop. But if the gallant Admirals would only satisfy the House that the Navy was inefficient, there was no amount of money they would not vote to make it efficient. If the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Admiral Elliot) would inform the House where the ships were to be found which would match and overcome those of which he had read, he would have no difficulty in getting the £1,500,000 which the right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) predicted we should have to pay next year. He held in his hand a list of ships such as the fleets of the whole world united could not equal, ship for ship. The Hercules, Sultan, Monarch, the Audacious, the Invincible, the Iron Duke, the Swiftsure, the Triumph, the Vanguard, the Bellerophon, the Albion, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, the Minotaur, the Warrior, the
1858
Achilles, the Black Prince, the Pallas, the Penelope, the Favorite, the Defence, the Resistance, the Valiant, and the Repulse—these were sea-going vessels—he asked the hon. and gallant Admiral, could the sea-going iron-clads in the whole world, ship to ship, compete with them? Whether the Devastation, Thunderer, Rupert, and Hector, were sea-going or coast defence vessels, where were the foreign vessels afloat to compare with them? And so of the Cyclops and the Glatton. Where were the three fleets in the world to match the English fleet? If it were said that other countries were building, had not we resources for building too? What country had such resources as we had in the new Extension Works at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth? What country had such private building yards as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) and half-a-dozen other builders? We could build ten vessels against one that any other nation in the world could build. England was the metropolis of iron and coal, and could build better and cheaper than any other Power in the world. He would ask whether we had not ships better than any one, or two, or three Navies in the world?
SIR JOHN HAYobserved, that there were three ships in the world more powerful than any which we possessed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not imagine that because a nation had one ship more powerful than all others, it therefore had the strongest Navy. After all, nothing could be more consolatory to the House of Commons or satisfactory to the country than the character of the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy, for they would satisfy the country that a "paper fleet of dummy ships" could be replaced by an efficient one at the moderate cost of £40,000.
CAPTAIN G. PRICEsaid, he did not profess to know exactly what occurred behind the scenes at the Admiralty; but he supposed they did not go to their advisers and ask what money should be spent, or what number of men should be employed. They would rather say to their advisers—"Here is the sum of money which the country is willing to give, and you must not go beyond it." In the Papers which had just been placed in the hands of Members, Sir Spencer Robinson wrote, in April, 1871, he did not profess to say that in his judgment

1859
sufficient provision had been made for the wants of a great naval Power like this, but only that the work to be done could not be done with fewer hands. He would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) into the comparison he had made of our, Navy with that of other Powers; but he believed that the sea service iron-clads of England amounted to three less than the combined force of France and Russia. Of coast defence vessels those countries had 50 per cent more than ourselves. We had 15, and he believed they had 24. Of gunboats, a very useful class of vessels, we had 25, while the combined Powers of France and Russia had 74. Of men we had 60,000, while they had 74,000. Of reserve we had but 11,000, whereas France alone had 130,000. His hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Elliot) was, he thought, justified in saying that the days of side-armoured ships were drawing to a close. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) said that our armour on the sides of vessels had attained such a thickness that no other guns but our own would penetrate them. If that were the case, an enemy would try to pierce our vessels either through the deck or the bottom. No one would say it was possible to have 20 inches of armour either on the deck or the bottom, and thus his hon. and gallant Friend was justified in his assertion. The hon. Member for Pembroke had represented him as having stated in a previous debate that the Devastation was not a match for a gunboat or a steam launch. He had, on the contrary, expressly classed her among the sea-going vessels. What he said was, that under certain conditions of accidents, such as torpedoes, she might only be a match for the vessels alluded to. Sir Spencer Robinson had doubted the wisdom of building vessels of the new Monarch and Fury type, which might by a torpedo be rendered hors de combat at one blow, and which were not likely to be available for service for three years. He did not agree with Sir Spencer Robinson in thinking that new Monarchs and Furies were, therefore, useless. He only said that we ought to have more of them, and that there should be others to replace them. Our great aim should be not only to have more powerful vessels, but more numerous by 10 or 20 per cent than the Navies of any two
1860
other countries likely to combine against us. In former days we had 30 or 40 line-of-battle ships in a fleet; now we might have from 10 to 12 first-class iron-clads, and an accident from torpedoes or otherwise to three or four of them would be a serious matter. No doubt it would be an advantage to have small vessels attaining a speed of even 10 knots an hour; but it would be highly advisable, considering the present state of the Navy in other respects, that the building of such vessels should be postponed, and that the money that might be voted for them should be applied to the construction of armoured ships.
LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he thought that the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had, unfortunately, led the House away from the Motion that was before it—namely, the speed that should be given to gunboats of a certain class. If the Correspondence which his hon. and learned Friend had commented upon at such length was to be brought before the House, he thought it should have been done after duo Notice, as it was manifestly inconvenient that it should be discussed when the last Paper in connection with that subject had only been delivered this morning; but his hon. and learned Friend had done more than cause inconvenience. He had not quoted those passages in the last Correspondence which did not so well suit his case; he referred particularly to the strongly expressed opinion of Sir Spencer Robinson, who, at page 14, said—
"Either the shipbuilding programme will not be fulfilled, or if that be adhered to faithfully, the maintaining programme will fall far short of the necessities of the service—the work contemplated will certainly not be performed."
[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT rose to explain that he had quoted from page 14.] He (Lord Henry Scott) said, that his hon. and learned Friend had done so in quoting some paragraphs higher up in that page, but not that which he had just mentioned. This only showed how inconvenient such an irregular discussion was. However, turning to the main question before the House, his hon. and learned Friend had tried to show that his hon. and gallant Friends on this side of the House were all of different minds on the subject of the best class of ships

1861
to be constructed; but, in reality, their views were not so divergent as bad been represented. They would, probably, find all their views, to a certain degree, developed in the new vessel—the Inflexible—where, in some manner, the reserve of buoyancy required was attempted to be secured in the manner recommended by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Chatham (Admiral Elliot), and the iron plating for the protection of the guns, favoured by the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), preserved. Anyone who had read attentively the Report of the Committee on Designs of Ships of War, could observe that it was their opinion, in the words of that Report, that the time had come when the "gun would assort its final and definitive superiority over the armour-plating." Whereas, it was certain that "no ship of war of manageable size could carry plating of a greater thickness than 24 inches." This opinion was now realized, for the Devastation herself was not proof against the guns she herself earned. It was a fact that guns of a larger calibre than those carried by the Devastation were being made by ourselves and other nations. These guns could only be carried amidships on a platform or turret; and, such being the case, he regretted that the late First Lord of the Admiralty had not carried out the one unanimous recommendation of the Committee of Designs, to ascertain, by means of experiments, on a sufficient scale, in which way a reserve of buoyancy could be obtained by other means than armour-plating. Especially, as in answer to an inquiry last Session from himself, he had held out what was equivalent to a promise, that this should be done. The same might be said as to the Cyclops, where the recommendations of the Committee had not been carried into effect, and these vessels were now, as stated by the Committee, in a state which only enabled them to go with safety from port to port in "favourable weather." Turning to the Motion before the House, he had confidence in those who administered the Admiralty, that means could be devised to give a greater speed than was proposed to vessels of the small gunboat class, and he felt certain that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would give his attention to the points raised in this debate, and endeavour to remedy the de-
1862
fects that had been pointed out in the condition of the Navy.
MR. HUNTsaid, that after the speech of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt), it would be necessary for him to call the attention of the House to the exact issue before it. The Amendment under consideration was—
"That it is undesirable to incur expense to build Unarmoured Ships of less than ten knots, and that it is expedient that the money appropriated to their construction be applied to the necessary repairs of the Iron-clad Ships of the Navy."
He was not above receiving assistance from any hon. Member of the House; but though he had listened with great attention to the able and amusing speech of his hon. and learned Friend—all his speeches were able and amusing—he did not find that it contributed anything practical to the question at issue. His hon. and learned Friend had enlarged on the advice tendered to his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) by Sir Spencer Robinson, then Controller of the Navy. The other night he remarked that, before we could judge how far his right hon. Friend could throw on the Controller the responsibility of the reductions he made, we ought to be informed how far the Controller had been inspired by his right hon. Friend when he placed that Paper before him. He hoped, however, that this was a bygone controversy. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to throw some doubt on the discretion he (Mr. Hunt) exercised in allowing that Paper to be produced. Well, as far as his own wishes were concerned, he should have been glad if it had not been printed for the use of hon. Members. It must be remembered, however, that he had been making an attack on the policy of his predecessors in regard to the reductions they had effected. He had attempted to show that the economy they professed to have carried out had not resulted, or would not eventually result, in a real saving to the country, and when his right hon. Friend came to him and said he thought the Paper ought to be produced in his own justification, it was difficult for him not to assent to its production. But he must ask hon. Members to read that document in the light of other communications from Sir Spencer Robinson which were now in the pos-

1863
session of the House. His hon. and learned Friend, following the course taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) the other night, had challenged the House to say that the fleet of this country was not equal to fight any nation or all the nations in the world. When this subject was last before the House he stated that he must decline to enter in that House into a comparison of our Navy with those of foreign countries. He always lamented when such comparisons were drawn in the House, and he thought it was not desirable that a responsible Minister of the Crown should go into details respecting the relative power and perfection, or imperfection of foreign ships. He considered the question at the Admiralty with his confidential advisers; but he could not enter into it on the present occasion. When his hon. and learned Friend praised certain ships as being those with which he would meet the Navies of the world, he could hardly have studied the Papers laid before the House by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. A. F. Egerton), showing the state of some of the ships enumerated in the list which his hon. and learned Friend had read so proudly. In fact, his statement was subject to a good deal of abatement, as some of the vessels would not be ready for a year or more.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Only three of them are postponed till 1875—namely, the Minotaur, the Black Prince, and another.
MR. HUNTsaid, he thought that was no inconsiderable reduction in the number he had mentioned. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), whose knowledge and experience made him an authority who ought to be looked up to with respect, seemed to think he was wrong in having acquiesced to a certain extent in the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) in reference to having a scheme for the Navy. His idea, however, was not that for a certain number of years we should build a certain number of vessels of a particular class, but that we should endeavour to have a scheme which would give us a succession of ships, to take the place of those which were obliged to come in for repairs. His hon. and learned Friend, with that light sarcasm which the House knew so
1864
well, had cast some ridicule on the propositions made by the Supplementary Estimate which was necessary in order to make good the deficiencies he pointed out that night. According to his hon. and learned Friend, £47,000 was put down for wages of workmen, and with this sum, he remarked, Government was going to supply the place of dummy ships. No doubt, this was an amusing way of stating the matter; but perhaps he could put it in a different light. His opponents alleged that he had condemned all the ships in the Navy as dummies, and the whole fleet as a paper fleet. This was not a fair representation of his statement, as the expressions referred to must be taken in connection with a previous statement in detail of the condition of the iron-clad fleet. Having made that statement, he pointed out that there were a number of ships not worth repairing, and said he never would have a fleet on paper, and would not be content with "dummy" ships, and to that statement he still adhered. If our iron-clad Navy was put down at 55, he said that number existed only on paper, and if he added he would not have dummy ships he asserted now that some of those 55 were dummy ships. He also said that everything counted as forming part of the effective strength of our Navy must under his administration be an effective ship and not a dummy ship. When his observations were fully and fairly considered nothing would be found in them to justify the extreme indignation of those who contested his position. He did not say that the number of our iron-clad ships should be 55; but what he did say was that you should strike off all those which were not efficient, which were obsolete, and which were not in repair, and then you could say what the strength of your iron-clad fleet really was. It had been his intention not to go into the Supplementary Estimates until the Speaker had left the Chair; but after the observations which had been made on the other side it might be convenient if he were to glance at them now. It had been assumed by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) and also by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) the other night that the Supplementary Estimates he thought it necessary to bring forward would be the measure of the deficiencies of the late Government

1865
with regard to the Navy. That would be quite a wrong view of the case. It should be remembered that in the Navy nothing could be improvised. That was a very old maxim, and therefore if he were to ask for millions, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) said he was bound to do according to his view of the case, he should not know how to spend them in the course of the present year. He never said that we had no ships, and that our Navy had been left in a disastrous condition. What he had said was, that no proper provision had been made for a succession of ships, and it was to make such provision that he asked for an increased Tote. His view was that we ought to accelerate the ships we had now in hand, so as to get them ready early to take the place of those which would come in for repairs, and that we might have the means of replacing some of the dummies he mentioned the other night. He never thought a larger sum than that which he asked would be required this year. When his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer framed his Budget he was fully prepared for the expenditure that was now demanded. The matter had been carefully considered by his Colleagues as well as himself, for he had informed them of the state in which he found the Navy. The Estimates which he was submitting to the House were nearly of the amount which from the first he thought he should be obliged to ask them to vote in addition to the Estimates originally presented. He stated when he explained the Navy Estimates to the Committee that he was afraid it would be his duty to propose Supplementary Estimates, but that he felt greatly the responsibility of asking for anything more than his predecessor had deemed necessary, and he would examine the matter further. That was not the statement of a man who thought it would be necessary to spend extra millions on the Navy. His further examination resulted in the Supplementary Estimates which he had laid on the Table, the total amount of which was £150,000. His examination of the matter from the first when the financial scheme of the year was in contemplation pointed to £200,000, and further investigation, continued from that time until, as he might say, the last few hours, pointed to the same amount.
1866
"Why, then," some one might say, "ask for only £150,000 when £200,000 was required?" The explanation was very simple. In consequence of the fall in the prices of some articles in the Store Vote, and advantageous contracts which the Admiralty had been able to make, he apprehended there would be a saving of £50,000 or a trifle more, and that with the sum he now asked would give him £200,000 to expend on shipbuilding more than was proposed in the original Estimates. That might appear a very small addition to make when compared with the total of £10,000,000 in the original Estimates. But compared with the sum for shipbuilding in the Dockyard Vote 6, and that part of Vote 10 which was applicable to machinery in ships, the addition was about 11 per cent. He was surprised the economical mind of his hon. and learned Friend was not staggered at the proposal to add 11 per cent to the money originally proposed, instead of ridiculing him for the small amount he asked for. After that expression of opinion, he expected he should have in his hon. and learned Friend a warm supporter of the addition he was now proposing to make. What he intended to do with the money placed at his disposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to advance three of the iron-clads which were in the programme. The first was the Shannon. The programme proposed to advance the Shannon 1,145 tons, which added to 326 completed last year made 1,471. He proposed to have 250 additional men employed upon the vessel, and that would advance her by 628 tons, giving a total of 2,099, leaving only 271 to be completed the year after. The additional men, if continued until her completion, might be regarded as advancing the Shannon by about 12 months. He proposed to place 100 additional men on the work of the Superb, and that might be considered as advancing the ship, supposing we proceeded at the same rate, by three months. He intended to employ 200 more men on the Inflexible, the effect of which would be to advance the ship about six months beyond what was before contemplated. Then there were certain depot ships which were out of repair, one at Hong Kong, which had been condemned as unfit for human habitation, and for which, as far as he was aware, no provision had been made

1867
in the Estimates. There was also a depôt ship required at Jamaica. Whether it would be necessary to supply both in the present year he was not quite prepared to say. He feared it would. But, at all events, something must be done to supply the place of the ship at Hong Kong. It was further proposed to take on about 100 men for the purpose of constructing now boilers at Keyham. Boilers were wearing out much faster than we thought they would, and it would be absolutely necessary that we should be prepared beforehand to replace them when they were worn out. Different views had been taken as to whether these boilers should be purchased from the private trade or constructed in our own Dockyards. We had workshops which were standing idle. Having workshops calculated for the construction of boilers, could it be economical to have them made by contractors who must charge interest upon the capital invested in their own workshops and machinery? he was told that 25 per cent would be saved by constructing them in our own Dockyards, and he was told we should also gain in quality. He proposed to take 150 men for this work.
MR. GOSCHENasked how many men would be required for the depot ships at Hong Kong and Jamaica?
MR. HUNTwas not prepared to say, because it had not yet been determined what vessels were to take the place of the depot ships. There were 550 men to be employed on the ships now in progress, and about 225 for the boilers and depot ships. That was only a rough estimate, because, until the ships were thoroughly examined, it would be impossible to determine upon the exact number of men required. Then came the question with regard to the tug at Chatham, which might seem a very contemptible matter to the soaring mind of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); but when it was considered that a tug was the moving power to bring large ships in and out of harbour, it would be seen that if we had no such locomotive power the whole business of our Dockyards might be at a standstill. Although the sum was a small one, the question was not altogether a small one. He had received a representation from Malta to the effect that they had only one tug
1868
available, and that if anything happened to her the whole business of the port might be stranded. It was originally proposed to take a sum for a tug at either Malta or Chatham, but he found that one at each place was wanted. These and the repairs to the depôt ships constituted the demands he had spoken of as those he could not resist. He did not see how his predecessor had resisted them and wished he had not done so. For himself he could not be responsible for the consequences of a breakdown at Malta owing to the want of a tug. A sum of £55,000 was proposed for the wages of men in the Dockyards employed upon the objects he had named, but that did not represent the whole amount. It was quite clear that if we employed additional men they must require additional materials for their work; but by good fortune and by the good management of the officials he was glad to say he saw his way to save just the amount of money for materials for those men by savings on the Store Vote. The sum required for wages and materials was £105,000, or thereabouts—a little in excess of the sum which he proposed to expend upon work to be done by contract, which was £95,000. He believed it to be economical to lengthen the Orontes. He found that the normal requirements of the Transport Service were not satisfied by the number of troop-ships at our command, and the question arose whether we should utilize and improve what we had got, or go into the market and purchase or hire what we wanted. The history of the work done by the Himalaya in connection with the war on the Gold Coast, was exceedingly encouraging, and the gain to the country through owning that ship had been enormous. The cheapest plan was to have at our own command troop-ships for the transport of troops during ordinary years. We had not at present sufficient troop-ships. Four were required; but we had only two which were serviceable as the Orontes was out of the question, and a third for a few months, when it would require thorough repair. But if we were to have four serviceable troop-ships it was quite clear that we should require a fifth to take the place of one which might require repair. We had no such provision without hiring. It had been said that instead of altering the Orontes we should buy a vessel from the trade. Something

1869
might be said for that view of the question; but he believed the purchase and sale of ships by the Government was very much like what they experienced in regard to the sale of horses. If they wanted to sell a horse they got very little for it, while, if they wished to purchase one, they had to give an exceedingly extravagant price. He thought it would be more economical to have the Orontes lengthened and her engines modernized in order to make her fit for service than to sell her.
MR. GOSCHENasked the right hon. Gentleman to state what would be the cost of lengthening the Orontes?
MR. HUNTwould rather not say, as the work was at present a subject of tender.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Supplementary Estimates having been challenged, the right hon. Gentleman was justified in making a general statement in reply; but the discussion of the details was a matter for consideration in Committee of Supply.
MR. HUNTsaid he would reserve the explanation he was about to give for the Committee. He had stated what his views were with regard to the appropriation of the money he should ask the Committee to grant in order to put the Navy in a more satisfactory state than he thought it was at present. With respect to the comparatively small questions raised in regard to whether it was desirable to go on with certain gunboats which had less speed than 10 knots, he thought the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Peed) had stated very fairly what was the true answer. The answer was that these gunboats were intended for certain special services. On the West Coast of Africa, at the West Indies, and in other places these gunboats had been found to be serviceable, particularly on account of their light draught and their speed; and as to their armament, it was sufficient for the purpose they were intended to serve. They were not designed for general fighting purposes, and, this being so, the arguments of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) in regard to them did not apply. With regard to the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend, he almost accepted it, inasmuch as it was not intended to build any unarmoured vessels of less speed than 10 knots an hour. Three new gunboats were to be commenced by contract this
1870
year. They would be either of the Coquette or the Arab class, with some improvements, and the speed would exceed 10 knots, the draught being 9 feet. Two vessels of a larger class—like the Fantóme or the Magicienne—were being constructed, and would also have a speed exceeding 10 knots. To have greater speed they must have a larger boat, and then came the question whether the draught would be light enough for the service these vessels had to perform? When Notice of the present Motion was given, it had greater force than now, for, with only the original Estimates before him, it was natural for his right hon. and gallant Friend to think that enough had not been done to advance the more important class of fighting ships, and to wish that the money proposed to be spent on the small gunboats should be laid out on the former. Government had to a certain extent fallen in with this view. His right hon. and gallant Friend had quite frightened him by talking about another £1,500,000 being devoted to the ironclads, and in comparison with that view the proposition made by the Government must appear contemptibly small. He had, however, gone all the length he felt justified in going, and perhaps his right hon. and gallant Friend, admitting that there would be a very considerable addition made to the vessels of the class he favoured, would not be inclined to press his Motion.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was very glad this Motion had been made, because it was of the greatest importance that no more money than was absolutely necessary should be spent upon any class of ships not of the best calibre. The efforts of the country had for some time past been so concentrated on the building of ironclad ships that we had got into arrear with respect to unarmoured vessels, and he had felt it to be his duty to insert in his programme the construction of such ships as those described by his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Peed). Those ships did admirable duty in every part of the world—in the waters of China, on the East African Coast, at Indian stations in connection with the suppression of piracy, and they had done good service on the West Coast of Africa. The House would see that it would be a sheer waste of power to send out large ships for these duties.

1871
He wished, he might add, to repeat in the most emphatic manner the obligations under which he felt himself placed to his Naval advisers, who had most wisely and consistently supported him during the whole period of his tenure of office. As to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, he had that evening given the House a most ingenious explanation of what he meant when he spoke of certain ships in the Navy as dummies. If, however, he continued to describe ships under repair and not in the highest state of efficiency to be dummies or ships on paper, he believed he would not be able to realize the programme which he had sketched out. The late Board of Admiralty had pursued no exceptional course in placing on The Navy List ships which had not been absolutely struck off as inefficient, and he was sure some surprise would be felt at finding that the right hon. Gentleman meant so little, seeing that he had said so much. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that his statement on a previous occasion was plain and unvarnished; but the fact was it was obscure, for although he referred to a number of ships, be did not name the ships themselves, and had, in consequence, created a most erroneous impression. The proposal now submitted by the right hon. Gentleman to the House must, he would further observe, be taken as the measure of the shortcomings of the late Government; for, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, nothing could be improvised in the Navy, and it would therefore be his duty, if shortcomings existed, to remedy them as early as possible The probability was the right hon. Gentleman intended to remedy those shortcomings next year on a much larger scale; though, if he had chosen to make greater efforts this year, nothing could have been easier for him than to have adopted that course. If the right hon. Gentleman had chosen, he could have taken on at least 500 more men at Chatham. Instead of putting 100 more men on the Superb, he could easily have put on 200, and also 200 or 300 more on the Téméraire. He thought the 550 more men asked for by the right hon. Gentleman were unnecessary, but what he was contending for was, that if the state of the Navy had been such as to require them to hurry on those ships, it would have been
1872
possible to have made greater efforts in doing it. In all the Dockyards there was no difficulty in taking on men if the requisite wages were given. In the right hon. Gentleman's view it was sufficient, notwithstanding his description of the state of the Navy, to spend £50,000 more in advancing iron-clads in the Dockyards, and £50,000 in beginning two new iron-clads by contract. No additional money was asked for the repair of iron-clads, and a sum was taken which would be about enough for one-third of one first-class iron-clad. He was content, therefore, to leave the country to decide whether the proposals contained in those Estimates did or did not correspond with what was to have been inferred from the right hon. Gentleman's former speech. With regard to receiving ships, he did not approve of the policy of stationing those old ships at distant stations. It appeared to him that the money would be more usefully spent in sending out to Hong Kong a second class iron-clad, which, besides serving the purpose of a receiving ship, would add to the defences of the place. The late Board of Admiralty had been anxious always to avoid spending money on what he might call the administrative ships of the Navy, and to concentrate its efforts, as far as possible, on the actual fighting ships. With respect to the Orontes, the question with the late Government was between lengthening her and buying—not hiring—another ship. The Himalaya and several other vessels of her class which had been bought had turned out most satisfactory bargains. [Mr. HUNT: Did you take any money for buying a ship?] They had not thought it necessary to do so for that year. It was not advisable to hurry a purchase of that kind in the state of the market, unless a ship was urgently wanted, which was not the case in that instance. That was his answer to the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. Whether 1,000 tons, more or less, of iron-clads should be built or not in the year was entirely a matter for the House in Committee of Supply to consider, and when they got into Committee he hoped the House would pronounce an opinion upon it; but he was perfectly prepared to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's proposals fairly, without reference to any party considerations.
MR. BENTINCK, while willing to make every allowance for the difficult position of the present First Lord of the Admiralty, confessed that he should have been much more satisfied if that right hon. Gentleman had told them he was about to take more active steps than he now appeared to contemplate for remedying the unfortunate state in which his predecessors had left the Navy. He could only hope that next year the Government would deal with that question in a much more effectual manner. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the word "we;" but it appeared the other night that his naval advisers made representations which he submitted to the Cabinet, and on their rejection of which he was content to remain in office.
MR. GOSCHEN: I have contradicted in the strongest terms that such a step had ever been taken.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, there had been no contradiction of the statement that the naval advisers of the Admiralty distinctly represented that the condition of the Navy was not what it ought to be; that the right hon. Gentleman submitted this to the Cabinet; and that no action was taken.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, if he had not contradicted it before, he would contradict it now in the most decided manner.
MR. BENTINCKwished to know whether the statement was a complete fiction, and whether during the late Board's tenure of office no expression of opinion was given by the naval advisers that the condition of the Navy was unsatisfactory?
MR. GOSCHENreplied that this was a totally different statement. One statement was that the naval advisers simply made certain representations to the Admiralty; the other was that the Naval Lords made representations to himself, that he refused to act on his own responsibility, that he submitted them to the Cabinet, and that he remained in office without the representations having had any effect. The last statement, he had from the first flatly contradicted. His hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) also denied that any formal statement such as that alluded to had been made to him by his naval advisers as to the inefficiency of the Navy. His hon. Friend stated that there had been constant conversations in the intimacy of the relations between
1874
himself and his advisers, but nothing more. It was hardly fair that when a statement had been denied, hon. Members were to be subjected to interrogatories in order to discover something perfectly different which might have occurred.
MR. BENTINCKentirely acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any intention to deceive the House; but he (Mr. Bentinck) had been long enough in the House to know that official denials were often very misleading—and, without assuming for a moment that there had been any intention to deceive the House, he must repeat that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was not satisfactory. His belief, from what had been stated in debate, was that the naval advisers remonstrated with the late Board as to the condition of the Navy, and that those remonstrances were not acted upon—a great cause of mismanagement being the composition of the Board. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had ridiculed the idea of any possible combination of foreign Powers attacking this country, or of any possibility of finding ourselves in conflict with two large Powers. That, however, was a very unsafe assertion, as we could never tell what combinations might arise. Our foreign policy of late years had been to irritate and offend every country in Europe, whilst our home policy had been to denude ourselves of every means of offence and defence by which we could make ourselves respected. Europe was rife with causes of strife, yet we had only a Channel and, perhaps, a flying squadron, with no Naval Reserve to fall back on in case of casualty, and with an Army reduced almost to a minimum. This was a very unsafe position, when nobody could tell what iron-clads would do in action; and it was unwise to depend on private yards. He asked the House whether any amount of argument or sophistry could convince them that, considering the insular position of the country and its extended commerce, our naval defences were what they ought to be? The hon. and learned Member had complained of the constant changes of policy at the Board of Admiralty; but how was it possible, with the present composition of the Board, that there could be continuity of policy or system? The most important Department of the

1875
Government was presided over by men I who, although of distinguished ability, knew nothing of the business which they were called upon to undertake. I The advice of high professional authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knew well, had been from motives of economy or otherwise disregarded.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not allow that statement to pass uncontradicted. The advice to which the hon. Gentleman referred had not been disregarded. He had been advised to add 800 men to the strength of the Navy, and that addition figured in the Estimates which he had prepared.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for admitting that a representation had been made and acted upon. At last he had got at the truth, but it took a long time to extract it—["Oh, oh."]—not from any intention of the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House, but owing to the tendency of official habits.
MR. GOSCHEN: I must rise to Order. The hon. Member speaks of official habits making it almost impossible to extract the truth. I submit that it is scarcely right in him to make such a statement. The hon. Member himself seems never to recollect the charges he makes, and drifts on from one to another.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was about to qualify his statement, and I trust that he will withdraw it.
MR. BENTINCKassured the right hon. Gentleman that he had not intended to impute anything which was at all derogatory to him, but he had just obtained from him an admission that certain representations had been made and acted upon.
MR. GOSCHEN: The same admission had been made the other evening by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).
MR. BENTINCK: It was now quite clear that the impression he had formed was correct, and he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for having in the first place acted upon the representation made to him, and then for having had the candour to admit it. The House had heard an elaborate defence of the conduct of the late Board of Admiralty; but what was the opinion of high autho-
1876
upon that subject? Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson in September last published a letter in The Times, in which he said he believed that for the last two years the country had been deplorably administered in every Department of the State. He went on to say that "another year of such mal-administration would not only destroy the Liberal party, but be fraught with ruin to all the great interests of the country." Again he said, "There never was a case in which expenditure had so greatly increased, and efficiency had so much diminished," and he added, "As to the Navy, its management was simply deplorable." Those charges were publicly preferred in The Times by a high authority, and he left the right hon. Gentleman to deal with them as best he could. For his part he believed that until the House were prepared to introduce into the composition of the Board of Admiralty the first elements and rudiments of common sense by discontinuing the practice of putting at its head a man who, however able, knew nothing of the business he would have to deal with, all discussion in that House would be only so much time wasted. [Ironical Cheers.] The cheers that his last remark had elicited from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the opposite side, implied an indifference on their part on the present occasion to those principles of economy that they usually advocated with so much consistency. Unless the House of Commons took the subject in hand and altered the present system of Naval Administration, so long must the service be in peril and the resources of the country be year by year frittered away in useless expenditure—a consideration to which he especially invited the attention of those who sat below the gangway on the other side.
MR. GOURLEYentirely agreed with the first part of the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), as in these days of steam it was no use to have vessels of a low rate of speed. He disagreed, however, with the second part of the Motion, because many of our iron-clads were obsolete, and were really of no more use than the old wooden ships, and consequently, in his opinion, no expense ought to be incurred in repairing them, unless to fit them for being used as swift cruisers with swivel turret-guns of the longest

1877
range. At present, they were not only very slow, but they had no capacity for carrying fuel, and to lay out a large sum upon them would be mere waste of money. It would be a wiser policy, in his opinion, to build ships of modern type, able to steam not less than 17 or 18 knots an hour, and to arm them with heavy artillery. Those vessels, too, he would have constructed in compartments, so that if any one compartment should be blown up by a torpedo, the rest of the vessel might still remain intact.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.—RESOLUTION.
MR. SAMUELSON, in rising to call the attention of the Blouse to the proposed appointment of a Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, and to move—
"That any inquiry into the causes of Accidents on Railways should include an investigation into the existence or otherwise of sufficient Railway accommodation in various districts for conveying the growing traffic of the Country with safety and economy, and into the means most advantageous to the public of supplying any deficiencies which may appear to exist,"
said, he had no wish to make the slightest charge against those who were engaged in the management of railways, and who performed their duties with an amount of intelligence and liberality equal to that which was exhibited in any other sphere of commercial enterprise. The replies which the various railway companies had sent to the Circular of the Board of Trade showed what efforts had been made by railway directors to secure greater safety, by the introduction of new signals and improved tire fastenings, and the substitution of steel for iron rails. Statistics had been brought forward to show that the number of passengers killed in proportion to the number carried on the various lines was less than formerly; but he would prove that the accidents were actually more frequent, and that they were generally attended with more serious consequences. During the half-year ending 31st December, 1873, accidents occurred on railways, attended with injuries to 934 persons, and with the deaths of 120. In
1878
1854 there were 9,542 miles of railway opened in the country, and in 1872 there were 15,814 miles opened, or an increase of 65 per cent. During the same period, the amount paid in compensation for injuries to passengers and damage to goods had increased 300 per cent. as against an increased mileage of only 65 per cent. The number of collisions had increased from 35 in 1853, to 256 in 1872, which was upwards of 700 per cent; and this notwithstanding all the efforts of the companies to improve the means of conveying the traffic with safety. To what was this owing? It had been said to the want of punctuality; but what was the cause of the unpunctuality? It arose chiefly from this—that especially where the goods and mineral traffic was very extensive, the lines were over-crowded. How to remedy this was the question the Commission would have to investigate. If they found that the accidents which were so frequent and so much lamented arose from over-crowding the lines with traffic, the remedy must be adequate to remove this over-crowding. If not, it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Trade. He referred to the evidence given before the Board of Trade inquiry relative to the accident near Bolton on the 15th of December, 1873, to show the overcrowded state of the line at the time the collision occurred. The accident occurred to the train due at 5.53 P.N. It was immediately preceded by a passenger train at 5.48; a goods train followed at 5.49, an express goods train at 5.53, another goods train at 5.58, and others at 6.1, 6.5, and 6.8. Instead of an interval of 10 minutes between each of these trains, according to the Company's regulations—that was, five minutes signals at "stop," and five minutes at "caution"—there was only an interval of three or four minutes. The signal man who gave evidence on that occasion stated that if he had been on duty when the accident occured, he could not have observed the rules, and must have done the best under the circumstances, just as the man did who was discharged. When he left his cabin for the purpose of giving his evidence, there were six trains shunting or waiting to shunt. On the Great Western line an accident happened on the 6th of February in the present year—when a

1879
goods train ran into a passenger train—and 35 passengers were more or less injured. In that instance it appeared the goods train was 8 hours and 50 minutes late. It appeared by a letter in The Times, written by Mr. Markham well acquainted with the state of traffic on that part of the Midland system, that at the Normanton station, during the autumn months, when the traffic was most considerable, the trains towards London on three days of the week were habitually from 40 to 60 minutes late in starting. It would be the duty of the Royal Commission to inquire whether the collisions arose from the overcrowded state of the different lines of railway; but he did not think that any inquiry conducted in Chambers in London would be effectual. If any real good was to be done, the Commissioners should make a survey of the country after the example of the Boundary Commissioners, and thus ensure a thorough investigation of the case. Up to the present time, there was between Lancaster and Carlisle only one single connecting link of railway upon which the whole of the through traffic converging at those two points from the network of English and Scotch railways, must be carried, and he had no doubt it would be found upon investigation that there were many similar instances where the traffic was, so to speak, strangled in a certain portion of the line. The question was, if this should be found to be the case, at whose expense was the additional accommodation to be provided? The Marquess of Salisbury had recently stated in "another place" that the real difficulty was that there was not time for the number of trains to keep apart, and the noble Marquess had further said that with due regard to the engagements entered into with the railway companies. Parliament could not ask them to undertake the gigantic enterprise of duplicating their tunnels or heavy bridges. He did not agree with that at all. If the companies wanted to retain the traffic Parliament had a right to ask the companies to do all that was required to convey it safely. In the five years from 1867 to 1872, the net receipts of the railways had considerably increased. In 1867 they were £19,631,000. In 1872 they had grown to £26,958,000, being an increase of 37 per cent; while the expenditure on capital account in the same period
1880
had only increased 13 per cent, so that the companies might have laid out £ 80, 000,000 more than they did, and yet have got 5 per cent return on the whole of their outlay, and, assuming a future annual net increase of £1,500,000, they might get 5 per cent on an average annual outlay of £30,000,000. They could, therefore, afford to make these works themselves; under certain circumstances, they might be allowed loans from the public Exchequer at a rate of interest somewhat below what they would earn on their works, but in such cases certain concessions as to rates might be stipulated for. Those rates, more especially for minerals, were in some instances much in excess of those in France, Belgium, and Germany. If they refused to execute the works, the Imperial Government or local authorities should do so. He believed the Board of Trade had dormant powers which would induce the companies to do what was necessary, and the recently appointed Commission had, by the fact of its existence, induced the companies to remove many grievances in addition to those actually adjudicated upon, showing that if pressure were applied in the right way, much good could be obtained. But the Commission to be appointed should not consist of amateurs, but be composed of men practically acquainted with the working of the railway system, and who would not have to depend on the evidence given by railway officials. Otherwise, he repeated, the matter had better be left with the Board of Trade who, he believed, were very far from having exhausted their legal powers. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "any inquiry into the causes of Accidents on Railways should include an investigation into the existence or otherwise of sufficient Railway accommodation in various districts for conveying the growing traffic of the Country with safety and economy, and into the means most advantageous to the public of supplying any deficiences which may appear to exist,"—(Mr. Samuelson,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BELL, as a director of one of the largest railway companies in the Kingdom, could assure the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) that no impediment would be thrown by the railway interest in the way of this inquiry. The traffic in some cases had outgrown the powers of the companies to compete with; but he doubted if the Amendment would attain the object desired. As to loans, companies with little traffic did not require additional sidings and accommodation, while companies which did require them could not expect loans of public money for that purpose.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) had brought the subject forward, and he believed the Commission could be constituted in a way satisfactory both to the companies and the public. It should not attempt to do what the companies had not done for themselves; but it would investigate the causes of accidents, and with the most perfect good-will towards the companies would attempt to find out facilities for their doing what the public had a right to demand of them. The hon. Member thought that—
"Any inquiry into the causes of accidents on railways should include an investigation into the existence or otherwise of sufficient Railway accommodation in various districts for conveying the growing traffic of the Country with safety and economy, and into the means most advantageous to the public of supplying any deficiencies which might appear to exist,"
and asked that the Warrant to the Royal Commission should include those matters. It would be for the Commissioners themselves to interpret the terms of their Warrant; but, in his opinion, those matters would not only come within the terms, but would be of primary importance in the inquiry the Commissioners were to conduct. He agreed that the greater number of accidents were due to the enormous increase of traffic, and consequent over-crowding of the lines, and that doubling the lines would be their best preventive; but whether the suggestions of the hon. Member for Banbury for a remedy were feasible or not, it was not for him to say. No doubt further accommodation in the way of sidings, extra lines, and stations was required. He trusted, however, that the Commissioners would have the suggestions of the hon. Member laid
1882
before them, and would give them due consideration. The hon. Member said that railways should be compelled to give increased accommodation where necessary. The fact was that many companies were doing a great deal to give such increased accommodation, but in some instances they had not the means of doing so. To meet the latter cases the hon. Member proposed a system of Exchequer loans to enable companies to construct the necessary works. While he refrained from expressing any opinion upon that point he must say he regarded it as incumbent upon the public to give all possible facilities to railway companies in that direction when the public put a demand upon them for works necessary for their convenience, and safety. The principal and novel suggestion of the hon. Member was that companies should be assisted out of local rates. This was rather an alarming proposition, and he did not see his way to its being carried out; but he admitted that there seemed to be a precedent in Ireland, where several railways had been made on the security of local rates. There was something similar in the United States. It was a question which might be brought before the Commission. The legislative powers over railway companies only related to facilities for traffic and impartiality of charges, and not to the safety of the public. He believed that the composition of the Commission would be satisfactory; but he hoped that they would not travel over matters that had been already fully inquired into, but confine their investigation to the subject of the causes and prevention of accidents, so far as the Lords' Committee on Lord De La Warr's Bill of last Session, and two previous enquiries of both Houses, and of Commissions had failed to complete it.
MR. ROBERTSONexpressed a hope that the Commission would comprise men of sufficient practical knowledge to enable them to arrive at a proper conclusion on a question of so much importance, and that the question would be treated with a view to really practical results. It was no light matter to touch works which had cost £600,000,000. He did not deny that unpunctuality contributed to accidents; but every experienced manager of a railway would tell them that from a variety of causes unpunctuality was the normal state of our

1883
railways. What had to be done, therefore, was to provide in the best way they could against any injurious results from that inevitable unpunctuality; and that might be done by improved brakes, the general introduction of the block system, improved modes of signalling, and other improvements. Many railway companies that were in a good financial position had, of their own accord, constructed additional lines to meet the requirements of their traffic. But what was to be done in the case of railway companies which paid no dividends?
MR. BENTINCKrose to address the House, but—
MR. GOLDSMIDrose to Order. He said he should be very glad to hear what the hon. Member had to say; but he understood that the hon. Member had already spoken on the Question that "the Speaker do leave the Chair." He wished to know whether it was competent for him to again address the House?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question now before the House was different from that on which the hon. Member for West Norfolk had previously spoken, and therefore he was at liberty to speak on the present question.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade would lead to great misconception in the country, or at least to a feeling of great regret as to the view of Her Majesty's Government upon the question of railway management. There was a strong conviction in the mind of the country that a large number of the accidents which had occurred within the last few years could have been prevented by the adoption of proper precautions, and that proper precautions would not be adopted except by the intervention of the Government of the day. He contended, therefore, that so long as the Government allowed the question to be dealt with by Committees and Commissions it neglected those duties which it was imperatively called upon to perform, and was responsible for these accidents.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE GALWAY ELECTION PETITION— MR. JUSTICE LAWSON.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, in rising to call attention to the fact that the Petition against the Return of Mr. O'Donnell, one of the Members for the borough of Galway, has been set down for hearing at Galway on the 18th of May, before Mr. Justice Lawson, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, who holds, during Her Majesty's pleasure, the office of one of the paid Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, and who is also, during Her Majesty's pleasure, one of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland; and to move—
  "That this House is of opinion that a Judge of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law, who may accept and hold an office at the pleasure of the Crown, should not, while holding such office, act as an Election Judge under the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,"
  said, the answer of the Prime Minister to the Question which he put to him on Monday last was so unsatisfactory, that, however unpleasant it was to him, he had no other course but to take the opinion of the House on this subject. The question whether a Judge who held an office of honour or profit at the will of the Crown should discharge the duties of an Election Judge was of very great importance in a constitutional point of view. It was a novel question, and was in no way settled by the Election Petitions Act. The plan which had been adopted in that Act—namely, of referring Election Petitions to the Judges of the land, and of enabling a single Judge, without power of appeal, to decide on matters of fact as well as of law—was unanimously rejected by the House when it was proposed in 1833. In that year the whole matter was referred to a Committee composed of men of the highest standing in the House, and presided over by the late Mr. Charles Buller, and their Report, among other things, deprecated a depriving of our Courts of the immunity which they then possessed from any suspicion of political partialities by constituting them Election Petition Judges. It had, no doubt, been a great advantage, under the Act, to have local investigations in place of bringing all the parties to London to be examined before

  1885
  Committees of the House; but, at the same time, the decisions of the Election Judges had in many cases been not altogether satisfactory. In Ireland, at all events, the feeling was universal that the Act had not worked well, and that some Amendment of its provisions was imperatively needed. There had been decisions of the most contradictory character given by the Judges presiding at the trial of different Election Petitions. They had witnessed the same Judge sitting in the borough of Galway deciding certain matters to be legal and constitutional which, sitting in the county of Galway, he had decided to be illegal and unconstitutional. The object of the Act had been to intrust the hearing of Election Petitions to Judges supposed to be perfectly independent of all political feeling, or of anything which might unduly influence them in their decision. Judges held I heir positions, not at the pleasure of the Crown, but during good behaviour; yet of late a practice had grown up which he was inclined to think was not at all constitutional of giving them, in addition, offices of emolument that were distinctly held at the pleasure of the Crown. This had been done in two cases in Ireland, and, if he was not mistaken, in one in England. Such a practice was at variance with the Act of Settlement, which clearly meant that Judges were to have fixed and ascertained salaries, and not to receive emoluments which the Crown might at any time stop. The position of Mr. Justice Lawson—of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect—was very peculiar. He was one of the Judges of the Irish Court of Common Pleas, and, in addition, was one of the Commissioners for Church Temporalities under the Irish Church Disestablishment Act which provided that the office of Commissioner should be held during Her Majesty's pleasure, and that the salary attached to it should not exceed £2,000 a-year. Moreover, he had lately been appointed by Her Majesty's Government one of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in answering his Question the other day, truly stated that that was not an office of profit. It was, however, an office of high honour to which every member of the Bar would aspire,
  1886
  and which gave the holder of it great power and authority. It would, no doubt, be said, because he objected to Mr. Justice Lawson hearing Election Petitions that he meant to impute to that learned Judge an inclination to act improperly because those two offices were held at the pleasure of the Crown. Nothing was further from his intention. He simply raised the Constitutional question, whether it was proper for a Judge who held such offices to decide, without appeal, questions of fact and law in connection with Election Petitions? Certainly it had been a disappointment to him that Mr. Justice Lawson, on the point being raised, did not himself arrange that Election Petitions would not come before him for trial. His retirement from the position of Election Judge would cause no difficulty, because there were only two or three Petitions to be tried, and they could easily be tried by the other Election Judges—Mr. Justice Barry and Mr. Baron Dowse. He wished to say a word or two about the Answer given the other night to his Question in regard to the office of a Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress upon the fact that Mr. Justice Lawson was receiving no salary as Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal; but as one of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland Mr. Justice Lawson was holding at the pleasure of the Crown an office worth £2,000 a-year. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not cease to be a Common Law Judge because he acted as Commissioner of the Great Seal; but he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) contended that as long as he held office at the pleasure of the Crown it was indecorous in him to sit as Election Judge, and that this interpretation was borne out by the words of the Act. If it was unconstitutional for a Peer who was a Judge to act as an Election Judge, it was equally unconstitutional for a Judge to act in that capacity who held office at the pleasure of the Crown. He made no imputation against Mr. Justice Lawson. He was peculiarly fortunate in having gained the approbation of every Government which had hold office in Ireland during the last 10 years. He was made Solicitor General by Lord Palmerston, and Attorney General by Lord Russell. The first act of the late Prime Minister

  1887
  was to make him Judge of the Common Pleas, and in the same year he was made Commissioner of Irish Church Temporalities. The first act of the present Government was to make him one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal. There was one gentleman who was designated by the universal feeling of Ireland as the Lord Chancellor; but the Government could not for the present spare him from this House, and they had on that account put the Great Seal in Ireland into Commission. The Government regarded Mr. Justice Lawson's consent to act as Commission as so important that they were said to have sent a special ambassador to him while on Circuit to ask him to accept the appointment. Before the Premier took this step, however, he should have recollected the Election Act of which he was the author, and if he had found upon inquiry that Mr. Justice Lawson was one of the Election Judges for the year, he ought not to have offered him the Commissioner ship of the Great Seal. A re-action had gone on lately in favour of the Conservative party in England. That re-action had not been so marked in Ireland, and in the North of Ireland some of the most cherished strongholds of the Conservative party had been won from them for the first time in the history of Ireland. He could understand, therefore, why the Prime Minister wished Mr. Justice Lawson to accept this appointment. He wished, no doubt, to show that there was a Conservative reaction in Ireland, and what could show it better than the fact that Mr. Justice Lawson had consented to take office under him. The principle that a Judge should be independent, and that he should have no interest in any case brought before him had often been upheld, and never with greater solemnity than in a case in which Lord Cottenham as Lord Chancellor gave a judgment affecting some canal or other company in which he was a shareholder. No one, for a moment, could imagine that Lord Cottenham could have been, in the slightest degree, affected in the discharge of his judicial duties by the fact of his being a shareholder in the company which had the litigation before him, and yet his judgment was prononuced by the House of Lords, on appeal, to be void. The same principle was equally applicable to an Election Judge, and he
  1888
  hoped the House would hesitate before they came to the conclusion that a Judge who held an office at the pleasure of the Crown was fit to decide Election Petitions. The tribunal to try an Election Petition should not only be above all fault, but it should be above all suspicion of fault. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that a Judge of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law, who may accept and hold an office at the pleasure of the Crown, should not, while holding such office, act as an Election Judge under The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,'"—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, the proposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, was that the Judge on whom the Act of Parliament had cast the duty of trying an Election Petition was, for reasons not contained in that Act, to be incapacitated from discharging that duty, and that, too, without there being any provision for another Judge to take his place. The intention of the Act was, as far as possible, to provide that the Judge should not be picked by design for a particular case, and, accordingly, under it the Judges were to be chosen for each year by a rota framed long anterior to the case, and to take the duty in turn according to their seniority. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman cited an Act of Parliament, he ought to cite the whole section. When he found that a Judge from illness could not go, he ought to have observed that the Judge to take his place must be chosen out of the same Court—namely, cither Mr. Justice Keogh, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman had arraigned in language which the House had heard, or Mr. Justice Morris, the brother of the hon. Member for the City of Galway. The Act expressly provided that the Judges for the time being on the rota should, according to seniority, respectively try the Election Petitions

  1889
  standing for trial under that Act unless they should otherwise agree among themselves, in which case the trial of each Petition should be taken in the manner provided by such agreement. That did not mean that when a particular case had arisen it was to be said—"You, Sir, are the particular person suited to go to that particular place." The agreement should be made long before the occasion arose, and not knowing at the time whether it was to be to Dublin, to Galway, or to Belfast, they should say—"We shall invert the order of seniority by making the junior go first," or so on. But there was no provision under which the Judge could exonerate himself from that duty. On the contrary, it was imposed on him, and he could not and ought not to withdraw from it; because if he did so it would give the appearance of the Judge being selected for the particular trial, and not chosen according to his accidental position on the rota. What was the position of Mr. Justice Lawson? He had been the Law Officer of a Liberal Government for years, and on the late Government coming into office he was made a Judge of the Irish Court of Common Pleas. When the Irish Church Act was passed, the late Prime Minister, seeking for a man who would command universal approbation—[Murmurs]—again selected Mr. Justice Lawson from among the Judges to act as one of the Church Commissioners. He would read to those who raised those murmurs the words of Lord Selborne, spoken in that House, with reference to that appointment. That noble and learned Lord said—
  "I have long known Mr. Justice Lawson, and I have never known an abler or more honourable man."—[3 Hansard, cxcvi. 422.]
  Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman had sneered at that learned Judge for having received offices from every Government. Mr. Justice Lawson was appointed a Church Commissioner, not on the mere recommendation of a Minister of the Crown, but by name along with the other Commissioners in the express words of the Act itself. When so appointed, he was not relieved from any duty connected with his position in the Court of Common Pleas. He was still obliged to go Circuit. He had tried criminal and political cases since then
  1890
  without one sound of disapproval ever coming from the Law Officers of the late Government in that House or any other quarter. Under the statute relating to elections all questions of difficulty that were reserved by the Judge must go to the Court of Common Pleas. It was the Court of Common Pleas that unseated Captain Nolan and seated Captain Trench for the county of Galway, and not a word was then heard of the ingenious constitutional question now raised. To allege now that this proceeding was unconstitutional when there was no provision in the Act incapacitating the Judge from holding any position of that kind, was simply bringing forward observations which were not intended for that House. ["No!"] He said "Yes." Mr. Justice Lawson must go to Galway, and the object of that Motion was to herald his arrival by infusing into the minds of the people disrespect for the Judge whom the Constitution obliged to try the ease. As regarded the other office which Mr. Justice Lawson held, the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were equally untenable. In England, in issuing commissions under the Great Seal, it was the custom to choose Common Law Judges, and none of those Judges were discharged from their criminal duties, nor from the jurisdiction between the Crown and the subject. Mr. Justice Buller, one of the greatest lawyers of England, had in times past filled the position, and Mr. Justice Bosanquet had done so more recently. He strongly suspected that it was the position which Mr. Justice Lawson held on the Irish Education Board which influenced those who brought forward the present Motion, and not any anxiety for the purity of the trial of elections. Mr. Baron Richards, a Baron of the Court of Exchequer, sat in the first Irish Encumbered Estates Court, holding office at pleasure, and he continued to to perform his duties as a Judge of the Court of Exchequer. There was, in fact, no instance in which any such offices had been held to incapacitate a Judge from these functions; and the Act having placed that duty on Mr. Justice Lawson, it was in the highest degree to be deprecated that Motions of that kind immediately preceding the trial of an Election Petition should be made and debated in that House. What

  1891
  was that but an endeavour, before the case was heard, to create in the minds of those who were to be brought before him a feeling of distrust of the Judge? And vet, in spite of the testimony of Lord Selborne, the right hon. and learned Baronet was not deterred from "hinting a fault and hesitating dislike" in the case of one of the ablest Judges in Ireland, and a Judge of incorruptible integrity. If a Common Law Judge was asked to take this office, it would be unbecoming in him to refuse. Mr. Justice Lawson was asked to take this office because of his great pre-eminence in the Court of Chancery when he practised at the Irish Bar. He was asked without regard to politics at all and all he had gained by it was extreme trouble and hard work. He greatly regretted that the right hon. and learned Member had brought forward this Motion. No good purpose could be served by it. The learned Judge had acted with the universal approbation of the Ear of Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] Against the opinion of those who murmured he would place the approbation of the Irish Bar, and he defied any man whose opinion was of value to contradict the assertion that the Irish Bar heartily approved the appointment of one of whom Lord Selborne had said that a more able and honourable man never adorned the Bench.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved that there was one conclusion which everyone who had listened to this debate must have arrived at, and that was that the Judges in Ireland could not be overworked if they were able to undertake so many extra duties as the learned Judge in question had undertaken. When one of the Judges of the Common Pleas was able at the same time to take a paid office from the Crown, administering property to the value of several millions sterling a-year, which the Prime Minister told them the other day would continue for 17 years, also to fill one-third part of the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and, in addition, to discharge the duties of one of the Commissioners of National Education, no rational man could fail to come to the conclusion that there must be something behind the scenes in regard to the appointment of the Judges in Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] In holding that language he believed he was backed up by nearly the whole of the Irish people. ["Divide!"] Some hon. Members were,
  1892
  no doubt, anxious to divide, in order to get rid of a very inconvenient question. It was a question of great importance as affecting the liberties of the people of Ireland; but hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared determined to shut out Constitutional questions, although they called themselves the Constitutional party. There was a time when the House would not have objected to the discussion of Constitutional questions, and when they would not have shirked an inquiry into the circumstances of the late Dissolution, as they did the other evening. If Mr. Bouverie, whose absence they all regretted, had been a Member of this Parliament, the question of the Dissolution, he felt sure, would have been discussed on Constitutional instead of on personal grounds. And it was distinctly as a Constitutional question that he now desired to treat the Motion before the House. Those who remembered the case of the Galway Election Petition, three years ago, would also remember that wherever the English language was read it was felt that the inquiry betrayed a decline in the purity and dignity of justice in the United Kingdom, and all who wished to see the ermine of the Judges unsullied must blush at the remembrance of the circumstances. Want of confidence in the administration of justice, he maintained, was one great cause of discontent in Ireland. There was about to be another inquiry at Galway, and it was not enough that this House should be satisfied—the people ought be satisfied also. He did not say Judge Lawson was capable of leaning to one side or the other; but when they had a Judge of Common Pleas, recently appointed to one third part of the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, undertaking the duty of trying an Election Petition, it would be difficult to convince the people of Ireland that the Government had not some particular motive in getting the Petition tried by that particular Judge. They were going to send to Galway a Judge who was known as a Protestant of the Protestants—who had always been known to be an upholder of the Orangemen—a Judge who held three different offices at the pleasure of the Crown, one of them carrying with it a salary which might be withdrawn at any moment. He trusted it was not too late to provide a Judge to preside who would more completely carry with him the

  1893
  confidence of the people. Would the Lord Chancellor of England, he asked, descend to the level of trying an Election Petition in this country? But that was, in effect, what was going to be done in the case of Galway—and when a Judge of the Common Pleas of Ireland was appointed virtually to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and that office was connected in the minds of the people with the conscience of the Crown, it was a serious matter to teach the people that the Crown itself was going to take part in these inquiries. He himself felt very seriously the inconvenience and oven danger of these discussions; but when the House passed the Corrupt Practices Election Act they were distinctly warned by some of the most experienced Members of the inevitable result. The right of voting was as sacred to the voter as the right of judging the election ought to be to the House of Commons; and now that the House had parted with the right which it took 200 years to win against the Crown, the voter might well complain that another step was taken in discrediting the freedom of elections, and that a Judge more intimately connected with the Crown was, perhaps, to deprive thorn of their Representative, because the Commons of England had grown too lazy or too indifferent to vindicate their own privileges. One of the wisest Members of the House almost foretold what would happen about those election inquiries, and he was sure they would permit him to read a few words from the speech of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), which strikingly bore on the case of the Galway Election. What, said that right hon. Gentleman, in 1868, was the House of Commons going to do?—
  "They were not only depriving the individual of a seat; but they ware putting it in the power of a Judge to stamp with infamy for seven years any man whom he might condemn, honestly, no doubt, but perhaps mistakenly."—[3 Hansard, cxci 320.]
  Well, at the Galway Election trial a Bishop was condemned, and being tried subsequently by a jury—not in his own diocese, but in the City of Dublin—was without hesitation acquitted, with the approbation of every impartial man in the Kingdom. The evidence which convinced the Judge completely broke down when it came to be properly sifted before
  1894
  a jury, and yet there was no power to reverse the fiat of the Judge, and that Bishop must continue for seven years under the ban so unjustly put upon him. Nay, more, another Roman Catholic Bishop, who was not permitted to have his case investigated by a jury, was actually now, as it were, going to be tried at the forthcoming inquiry in the case of the Galway City Election Petition—for this penal disqualification inflicted on him by a single Judge, without appeal, three years before. If that was the way the House of Commons administered the Constitution in Ireland, all he could say was it was one to which their forefathers never would have submitted.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, late as is the hour, and anxious as hon. Members are to close the debate, I rise to assure the House that there is underlying this Motion a very serious and very important question. That is, the question of the relations and attitude of the Irish Judiciary towards the Crown and towards the people. The right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) in bringing forward this Motion, expressly and emphatically disclaimed any idea of a personal attack on Mr. Justice Lawson. But personalities have been dragged, and needlessly dragged, into the debate by the speech just delivered from the Treasury Bench. ["No, no!"] The Attorney General for Ireland, speaking for and defending his own class, the political lawyers—a class against which, as we well know, there lies grave and weighty accusation on this very subject—the Irish Attorney General, I say, with more vehemence than logic, has made a violent, personal attack on the right hon. and learned Member for Clare, imputing to him unworthy motives and covert designs; absolutely denouncing the Motion before the House. I can tell the Irish Attorney General that if that is the way this Motion is to be encountered, we are ready to meet him. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we Irish Members are not going to sit tamely silent here when the occupants of the Treasury Bench can only reply by almost menace to one of our number who has done his duty and no more. But the real question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Clare is one far more important than the personal merits or de-

  1895
  merits of Mr. Justice Lawson. It is whether in Ireland the constitutional theory holds true in practice and in fact, that the Judges are placed above and beyond the favour of the Crown. Is that so in Ireland? ["Yes, yes!" and "no, no!"] Is it true that the Irish Judges have nothing to hope and nothing to fear by the favour or disfavour of the Crown? Why, the very contrary is the fact. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not wonder at these interruptions. But I am ready to make good my assertions. I say it is notorious in Ireland, as in this present instance, in the case of this same Justice Lawson, that Judges have been taught, and trained, and accustomed to watch the eye of the Minister even when dispensing justice from the Bench. Why, who will tell me that the Irish Judges are beyond the reach of Ministerial favour, when one of them can be singled out from the rest and be favoured by emoluments and honours not conferred upon others? Mr. Justice Lawson by selection and favour of the Minister—that is to say, of the Minister whom he served and pleased—enjoys a plurality of offices, and has secured to him £2,000 a-year beyond what the other Puisne Judges receive. We are told no salary attaches to this third or fourth office recently conferred on him—that of Commission of the Great Seal. But I rather think his having filled this position now may be claimed hereafter to count as a mark in his favour in the competitive examination some day, for the Chancellorship itself. Hon. Members may think it decorous to affect incredulity; but it is no secret that when last, some six years ago, the office of Lord Chancellor was vacant in Ireland, something far more lively than a "competitive examination" went on; Judge striving with Judge to see who could carry off the prize from the Minister's hand. It is no secret that at that time a power in this country, it would seem, barely second to this House itself, The Times newspaper, actually postulated Mr. Justice Keogh for the office on the ground of his successful trying of the Fenian prisoners. "[No, no!" and "oh, oh!"] I say yes, yes! I ought to know something about the public Press; I am, at all events, as familiar with the pages of The Times as the Irish Attorney General is with the pages of Blackstone; and I say I can put my finger on the passage—a startling commentary on the
  1896
  relations subsisting between the Irish Judges and the Crown—and there it stands on record in the pages of the leading journal of the Empire. Now, it is no light thing in any country to have Judges thus taught to make friends for themselves in the Cabinet. In Ireland, where circumstances are so peculiar—["cheers and laughter"]—in Ireland, I repeat, where circumstances are so peculiar—yes; where law on the Bench has for centuries been presented to the gaze of an outraged people in the guise of injustice and oppression—injustice and oppression which you yourselves have recently in part confessed and attempted to mitigate. In such a country I say, it is especially necessary that the Judges on the Bench should not only be free, but should be seen to be free of all favour from the Crown; and it is of evil import and evil effect that the Irish people should see such a man as Judge Lawson picked out from amongst better men on the Irish Bench and made the favourite recipient of offices and emoluments by the Crown. The Irish Attorney General has, with that adroitness and skill which distinguished the able advocate at the Bar, sought to divert this debate into a contention about Judge Lawson's character. We have nothing to do with that; but we know that Judge Lawson's career illustrates the evils of an evil system in Ireland. He has just dismissed from the magistracy a gentleman accused of having said that lawyer politicians on entering this House quickly forget and betray their principles. Judge Lawson had good right to be sensitive on that point. It is the affliction and the curse of Ireland that most of our Judges have to earn the Ermine by political party servitude. How did Judge Lawson cam his? By desertion and betrayal of his political principles. He entered Parliamentary life as a flaming defender of Mother Church, a determined foe of disestablishment. Surely the Irish Attorney General has not forgotten Mr. Lawson's memorable speech on the hustings of Trinity College, when he was reproached with being silent in his election address on the subject of disestablishing the Irish Church. "I have been silent," said he, "for the same reason the Roman Code was silent as to the crime of parricide—because it was too awful a crime to contemplate." Alas!

  1897
  it was the parricidal or rather matricidal hand of Mr. Justice Lawson that dealt the fatal blow at Mother Church; for he it was, I am told, whose hand drafted the disestablishing clauses of the Disestablishment Act. Indeed, it is notorious that it was for this—for the party servitude he thus gave in destroying his own Church and deserting his own principles—that he was made a Judge, and a special favourite of the Minister among the Irish Puisne Judges. This is the point of the case. There is now about to sit in judgment on the political existence of a Member of this House a man who holds offices of emolument and honour at the favour of the Crown, and who earned those offices and emoluments as the rewards for the desertion of his own political principles.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he must decline to enter into many of the subjects touched upon by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, as what they had now to consider was the Motion of the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). When his right hon. and learned Friend made his speech he (Sir Henry James) supposed he intended to submit to the House a broad Constitutional doctrine; and so long as the discussion was con-lined to such a view, he (Sir Henry James) was sure it would have attention and sympathy. An abstract proposition was nothing if it was put forward without sufficient cause or on insufficient grounds; and in bringing forward the Motion, or in supporting it, they should be careful to place themselves beyond the suspicion of making any covert attack upon the Judge whose name; was associated with it. He was sure his right hon. and learned Friend had no such object, and that, when he enumerated the many high positions which Judge Lawson filled, he did not mean to convey anything but that the learned Judge had honestly gained them. If an attack against him had been intended, the Motion would not have been framed as it had been, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have spoken in less ambiguous language; and, if the discussion had wandered a little away from the abstract proposition, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland—with perhaps the most natural desire to defend the position of the Judge from an attack
  1898
  which he (Sir Henry James) hoped was never intended—had caused an answer to be given possibly a little more warmly than was necessary for the discussion of the question. The principle sought to be enunciated would probably have passed without comment, but it was un fortunately founded upon the recitals contained in the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare, which probably would cause some of them to dissent from it. Mr. Justice Lawson, as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, had received from the late Government the appointment of Commissioner to administer the Church Temporalities Act. If that was unconstitutional it was too late now to condemn it. The appointment was made in an Act of Parliament sanctioned by both sides of the House. If anything unconstitutional had been done, it was done then, not now; and the censure for that act, if censure was due, must rest on the whole House. But English Judges often held similar positions, and Baron Bramwell was a member of the Judicature Commission, and he was also an Election Judge, and yet no Constitutional objection had been raised in his case. He (Sir Henry James) contended that if this Motion was simply intended to condemn the appointment of Mr. Justice Lawson as a Commissioner of the Great Seal of Ireland, the Motion should have been confined to the particular circumstances of the case. On every hand testimony was borne to the merits of Mr. Justice Lawson, and it was not right to discuss them in his absence. It seemed to him that if they discussed the peculiar circumstances of this case it would appear to convey that Mr. Justice Lawson was likely to be influenced by the Government to give a wrong decision on the Galway Petition; but he maintained that no Government would dare to attempt to influence a Judge, and that no Judge would allow himself to be influenced. In conclusion, he requested the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division, but to allow the expressions of opinion which had been given to serve the objects he had in view in bringing it forward.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that after the very able and temperate speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry

  1899
  James), he would not detain the House with many remarks, but as this had been called a Constitutional question he wished to say a word or two. The right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) and some hon. Gentlemen who followed him had travelled far a-field, because they had questioned the policy of the Act of 1868, which appointed Common Law Judges in England and Ireland Election judges; but he did not suppose the House would care to investigate such a matter upon a Motion of this kind. The policy of that Act was well considered at the time, and it was thought that those Judges would make a fitting tribunal for trying Election Petitions, and he was not aware that they had given any dissatisfaction. There might be some want of harmony in their decisions, but that was almost a necessary consequence when a new tribunal was formed; and certainly it could not be said the decisions of Election Committees had always been very harmonious. He desired to deal with the question raised by this Motion calmly, reasonably, and temperately. It was said that it was contrary to the Constitutional law of the country that a Judge who was appointed to try an Election Petition should hold any office at the pleasure of the Crown. The question was, What was Constitutional law? "Constitutional" was a vague and indefinite term, and as to the Constitutional law of this subject, every speaker interpreted it for himself. The question was, Was it contrary to law that an Election Judge should hold a place of profit or honour at the pleasure of the Crown? Was it contrary to the Act of 1868? The Act of Parliament did not say so; there was no law, written or unwritten, to which Members could point to show that it was illegal. The Common Law Judges were not appointed Election Judges by the Government that happened to be in existence at the time, but by rules laid down by the Act, and they were selected by themselves. It might be said that although it was Constitutional, yet it was not expedient to appoint them. If that were so, why should that argument be confined to Judges who had to try Election Petitions? and why should it not be said of any Judge who had to try a cause or a prisoner that it was contrary to expediency that he should hold an office at the plea-
  1900
  sure of the Crown. If that policy were carried out the result would be most lamentable, because the Crown would be deprived of the services of many of the persons who were most likely to render those services. After all, this was a sentimental and not a substantial grievance. That a Judge would forget his oath and responsibility, and do wrong, because he held an office at the pleasure of the Crown, was more than anyone could believe, and any suggestion of that kind was a grave reflection not only upon the Judge, but upon the Government. He held there was no law which should prevent Mr. Justice Lawson from trying the Petition, and there was no reason for altering the law as it at present stood.
  MR. D. E. PLUNKETsaid, he would not detain the House for many minutes. He did not wish to address them merely for the purpose of adding his own humble testimony to that of every lawyer who had spoken on either side of the House, except the right hon. and learned Baronet who had brought forward the Motion, as to its absolute want of foundation in point of law, but merely for the purpose of protesting against the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who advised that the Motion should be withdrawn. He did not consider it necessary to vindicate the character of Mr. Justice Lawson, which had been assailed because that learned Judge was ready fearlessly to fulfil the duty which the law imposed upon him—although his character had been reproached in a manner more dangerous, more injurious, and far more unworthy than an open attack. Yet it had been admitted by those who made these insinuations that he was a man whoso character was above suspicion. ["No, no!"] Let the hon. Gentleman opposite who cried "No, no," so loudly have the courage of his opinions and rise in his place and explain himself. Everyone, he repeated, who had spoken in the debate had admitted that Mr. Justice Lawson's character was above suspicion. Neither would he go over the ground he had once before trodden in this House in defending the character of Mr. Justice Keogh, against whom, in his absence that night, accusations the most malignant had been levelled. Those reckless imputations were formally

  1901
  brought for judgment before this House, and after a long and searching debate, they had been repudiated by overwhelming majorities. On that occasion, as on a former Galway Election Petition, an attempt was made to impeach the Judge and discredit the tribunal in the eyes of the people after judgment had been given, but to-night the object was to denounce the tribunal before the trial had begun. In his experience in the House of Commons he had never been present at the bringing forward of any Resolution which had given him so much pain, and of which even the partial success would be fraught with consequences so injurious to the country. He called upon the House not to sanction the withdrawal of the Motion, but to stamp it with the condemnation it so justly and fully deserved. He questioned the patriotism of those who, under the guise of vindicating the tribunal, desired the House to stay the hand of justice lest the purity of justice should be stained and the dignity of the law lessened in Ireland. He challenged the patriotism of those who, with those words upon their lips, sneered suspiciously or cast unfounded imputations upon an upright and fearless Judge. He had risen to demand of that House that they should not suffer the Motion to be withdrawn. It was impossible by anything that they could do altogether to counteract the evil consequences that would follow from the speeches that had that night been delivered against Her Majesty's Judges, when they were read, as they would be read, fully reported, in Ireland. But this, at any rate, they had the power to do—to show that when this question had been brought forward and fully debated in the free and open air of that Assembly, its truth had been tested and its injustice ascertained. He therefore called upon the House not to permit the Motion to be withdrawn, but to stamp it with their unmitigated, unquestionable and decisive condemnation.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that the fallacy which ran through the arguments of Members on the other side of the House was that they seemed to think the Puisne Judges in Ireland were in the same position as those in England. In England these Judges were non-political men, in Ireland they were political men, and interfered to a greater extent in the government of the country. As to
  1902
  the Galway Election Petition having been tried out in the House, it had since then been tried out in the constituency, which reversed the judgment of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  ASHANTEE EXPEDITION.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £100,000, Expedition into Ashantee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the Vote was additional to the £800,000 already voted, but he did not think the whole £100,000 would be required to meet the undefrayed expenditure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £175,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense for the Freight of Ships, for the Victualling and for the Conveyance of Troops, on account of the Army Department, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed an opinion that the Vote would be more economically administered by the Army than by the Navy.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member's financial views were adopted it would be necessary for the Navy and Army respectively to manufacture their own ordnance.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,235,326, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875."
  MR. GOURLEY MR. GOURLEY moved to report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to provide that in cases of a poll at an election for Poor Law Guardians in Ireland the votes shall he taken by ballot, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN-O'LOCHLEN, The O'CONOR DON, and Mr. CALLAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 95.]

  DUDLEY WRIT.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Dudley, in the room of Henry Brinsley Sheridan, esquire, whose election has been determined to be void.—(Lord Kensington.)

  METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS AND MANAGEMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on the Metropolitan Buildings and Management Bill nominated;—Colonel HOGG, Mr. SAMUDA, Mr. CAWLEY, Sir JAMES LATTRENCE, Mr. GRANTHAM, and Mr. LOCKE, and Five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.