Commons Sitting of 8 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Committee—R.P.
Resolutions [July 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Post Office (Superannuation and Gratuities) * [245].
Second Reading—Police Expenses* [187]; Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* [230]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) (No. 2) * [239]; Local Government Board's Poor Law Provisional Orders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.) * [240]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.) * [241].
Committee—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) [189]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation* [220].
Withdrawn—Burghs and Populous Places (Scotland) Gas Supply (No. 2) (re-comm.)* [211].

CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF SAMUEL DAWSON.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the committal of a labourer named Samuel Dawson to the county gaol of Bedford for the period of two months in consequence of his not paying the sum of one pound sixteen shillings, a sum which was accumulated from an order to pay at the rate of one shilling per week for the maintenance of the parents of the said Samuel Dawson; whether he is aware that it was stated that the said Samuel Dawson is himself suffering from chronic rheumatism, and can barely make or get wages sufficient to keep himself and a wife who is an invalid, and that an effort was made to raise the money by distress, but that goods were not found sufficient for that purpose; and, whether, if such allegations be correct, he will take the proper steps to set the man at liberty?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had caused inquiries to be made into the matter, and understood that Dawson earned about 15 s. a-week when in work, and had to contribute towards the maintenance of his parents. As, however, there was some doubt how far the Home Office could deal with the question, the matter had been referred to the President of the Local Government Board, and it was still under consideration.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—FIELD DALLING SCHOOL BOARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DIXONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If his intention has been called to the election of a School Board for the united district of Field Dalling; and, if it is a fact, that the returning officer neglected to publish the notices on the door of the Methodist chapel, as required by 36 and 37 Vic. c. 86, s. 20; that the notice omitted to state the name or the residence of the persons from whom the nomination papers could be obtained; that an insufficient number of nomination papers was sent to the overseers of Field Dalling; that nomination papers could not be obtained in Saxlingham till the 8th June, though

  1135
  the notice of the election was published in the district on the 4th June; that no person was appointed in the district to receive the nomination papers; that the list of candidates was published on Saturday June 12th, and that notices of withdrawal had to be delivered at Fakenham, a distance of 10 miles, by Monday June 14th, notwithstanding that there was no Sunday post in the district; whether the Education Department would sanction the customary fees payable to the returning officer where he conducts the election in an irregular manner; and, whether the Education Department will give further instructions to the returning officers to perform their duties in a legal manner?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, a letter has been received complaining of alleged irregularities in the election of a school board for Field Dalling. The same reply was sent as is sent in all similar cases, in accordance with the office rule laid down when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Vice President, and which he announced in this House. The simplest answer I can give is to read the short reply which was sent—
  "My Lords do not consider they have the machinery to inquire into local disputes as to the validity of an election. If you consider that you have ground to complain of the election for Field Dalling and Saxlingham, you can raise the question of the right of the persons elected to act as members by filing an information in the nature of a quo warranto. As their Lordships are not prepared to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, they do not think it would he proper to offer any opinion on the question you ask."
  The House is well aware of the extreme delicacy of election inquiries, and of the nice points upon which they turn, and will, therefore, I think, consider this decision a wise one on the part of an administrative department. The legal proceedings here suggested have been taken recently in the case of Hedworth, Monk-ton, and Jarrow, before the Queen's Bench, and in that case the decision as to the remuneration of the Returning Officer was suspended, as it would be in similar ones. "We are, of course, anxious that Returning Officers should perform their duties in a legal manner, but, having had remarkably few complaints on this head, we have no reason at present to believe that any further instructions are needed.

MERCANTILE MARINE—RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the Rules regulating the Rule of the Road at Sea are expected to make their Report; and if, prior to the conclusion of the investigations of the Committee, he will cause to be added thereto a few experienced steam and sailing collier shipmasters, who have daily experience of the working of the Rule?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Departmental Committee on the Rule of the Road at Sea are at the conclusion of their work. Their Draft Report is already in my hands. There are, however, men among them eminently answering to the description of the proposed addition to their number as men of first-rate practical experience, and I do not think the addition of collier shipmasters would have added to their authority.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, considering that the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill is the most important Bill proposed specially for Scotland by the Government this Session, and that the Lord Advocate, on the part of the Government, promised so far back as the 28th of April to press through that Bill, and on that pledge No. 1 Bill of the same title was then withdrawn, he will arrange to give the above Government Bill first place on an early day?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, in answering the Question which the hon. Gentleman put to me some days ago I agreed with him as to the importance of the measure, and I also shared his anxiety that the measure should pass. But the expression of sympathy on my part was described by the hon. Gentleman as discourteous. I can, however, give him no other answer than I did the other day. I think it desirable, and very desirable, that this Government measure should pass; but there are still more important Government measures which take prece-

  1137
  dence of it, and when they are passed I will take care that this Bill is proceeded with.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, there was no Government pledge as to the other more important measures.

IRELAND—THE IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT.—FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that the Act authorising the issue of loans to the Irish Fisheries from the Reproductive Loan Fund is practically inoperative in the fishing districts on the coast of Mayo, and that loans which were certified for by the fishery inspectors in the district of Molranny more than two months ago have not yet been issued?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, it is not true that the Act authorizing the issue of loans to Irish fishermen from the Reproductive Loan Fund is practically inoperative in the fishing districts on the coast of Mayo. The first recommendations for loans to be granted in the district alluded to by the hon. Member were forwarded to the Board of Works early last month. Forms have been issued by the Board of Works with regard to all loans recommended for County Mayo, requesting compliance with certain provisions which they deem necessary for the legal and satisfactory execution of the promissory notes for these loans, but in very few cases have replies yet been received to these forms. I may add generally that this Act has imposed upon the Board of Works and Inspectors of Fisheries novel duties, which, while the Act is being first brought into operation, make a considerable addition to their work; and however much it may be regretted that delay should occur in the issue of these loans, I think it will be admitted that the Departments concerned would fail in their duty if, in order to save time, they had neglected to make the most careful inquiry into the bonâ fides of the applications for loans, and to insure as far as possible the repayment of the money advanced.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPHS IN COUNTY MAYO.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Postmaster General, If any steps have
1138
been taken to establish telegraphic communication between the principal towns in the barony of Erris, county of Mayo, in accordance with suggestions recently made to him, and which he promised should be carefully considered?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that the question had received very careful consideration; but as the cost of the extension would greatly exceed the estimated revenue, he could hardly hold out a hope that new offices would be established.

INDIA—OUR RELATIONS WITH BURMAH—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFF: I may, Sir, perhaps be permitted, in explanation of the Question which I am about to put, to state that I put it in consequence of the rumours which have prevailed very much during the last two or three days—rumours which I trust will turn out to be exaggerated—as to our having suffered a diplomatic check, or something like a diplomatic check, in Burmah, that being a country in which we cannot afford to receive a diplomatic check. I beg, therefore, to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is able to make any statement with reference to the recent negotiations with Burmah and the present state of our relations with that country?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Perhaps, Sir, I may remind the House that not very long ago I stated that certain disagreements had arisen between the Government of India and the King of Burmah, and that Sir Douglas Forsyth had been sent to Mandalay with the view, if possible, of accomplishing an amicable settlement of those differences, and I think that we have every reason to believe that as regards the earlier matters in dispute between the Indian Government and the King of Burmah a satisfactory settlement will be achieved. But the recent attack in Chinese Burmah upon the English Exploring Party, the murder of Mr. Margary, coupled with the very cordial reception accorded by the King of Burmah to the Chinese General Li-see-Tahi, whom we have reason to believe was not only implicated in, but was the author of, the attack, rendered it necessary that the Indian Government should insist that the King of Burmah should place no obstacles in

1139
our way in obtaining redress for that outrage. The King of Burmah has taken this opportunity of refusing the permission which has been given to previous expeditions—namely, to allow the passage of British soldiers through his territory. I hope and believe that the King of Burmah will yield to our just demands, and that no collision will take place; but the negotiations, as my hon. Friend is aware, are still in progress. Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to the two hon. Gentlemen who propose to put Questions to me on the matter—the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I was about to postpone my Question.] The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asks when the Papers relating to the dispute with Burmah will be published; and, whether they will contain any information concerning the demand made by the Government of India for permission to send British troops through Burmese territory, and the reasons given by the King for his refusal to comply with that request? While the negotiations are pending it would be detrimental to the public service to make public Papers relating to those negotiations, and as Papers are on their way from India, and have not yet arrived at the India Office, I cannot state what those Papers contain. But of this I can assure the hon. Gentleman—that there is no wish on the part of the Government to withhold from the House any information; and that so soon as the Papers relating to these negotiations can, without detriment to the public interest, be made known they shall be laid before Parliament.

LAND REVENUE ACTS—PURCHASE OF GROUND RENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. MELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has made inquiry into the purchase by Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, of two messuages in Fenchurch Street from Messrs. Peek and Winch, and, whether, provided he has done so, he can inform the House of the reasons assigned by the Commissioners for making this purchase, seeing that, as soon as it was completed, by the payment of £39,820, the property was immediately leased to the vendors for a term of 85 years, at a rental of
1140
£1,600 a-year; and, whether he can state what covenants are contained in such lease as to the repair and maintenance of the said messuages, and if he has given his sanction to this purchase as a proper and a judicious investment of public money?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the Government had purchased two freehold ground rents with the reversions in 85 years. The houses had recently been re-built, and now let at a rental of £4,360. The freehold ground rents secured upon this 85 years' reversion were offered for £1,600. They were in the possession of the vendors, and they stipulated to pay that amount for 25 years. There were the usual covenants in the lease as to repairs, &c. The purchase was sanctioned by the late Government, and the result was that Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests received an immediate return of 4 per cent for their money, instead of 3¼ per cent.

THE PAPACY—" O'KEEFFE v. CULLEN."

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYN(for Mr. WADDY) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the language used by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland in giving judgment in the case of O'Keeffe v. Cullen heard on the 13th and 15th of February 1875, in the Queen's Bench in Ireland:—
  "He (Cardinal Cullen) had obtained obedience to a Papal rescript from a pliant body of Commissioners, and all Chaplains in Ireland though appointed by the State and paid by moneys provided by the same, hold those places at his (the Pope's) pleasure, irrespective of all local and diocesan authority. I say, therefore, the Sovereign power is lodged not in the Queen or in those whom She may appoint, but in the Pope;"
  and what action, if any, it is the intention of the Government to adopt, with a view to protect the administration of justice, the rights of individuals in public employment, and the conduct of public affairs in Government Departments from obstruction and interference by the Pope or any foreign Power?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I observe that the trial in which these words were used by the Lord Chief Justice occurred nearly half-a-year ago, and I am informed that the proceedings in that case are not yet terminated, notice of appeal having been given. Under these circumstances

  1141
  it is desirable not to ask Questions in this House founded upon the ease, or to enter into details, since opportunities of fuller information may hereafter be afforded. With regard to the general inquiry, I can only say that if sufficient evidence is given to me that the Pope or any foreign Power is interfering with
  "the administration of justice in this country; the rights of individuals in public employment, and the conduct of public affairs in Government Departments,"
  I shall consider it deserves the gravest consideration.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would also consider the effect upon the Commissioners of Education, a public body in Ireland, of which some of the Judges were members, of these imputations by the Lord Chief Justice?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question involves a matter of argument, and cannot therefore be put.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—NORMAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whereas in the Minute of the 21st December 1846 teachers of "normal" and "elementary" schools are put upon the same footing with regard to pensions, no mention is made of teachers in normal schools in the Minute of the 26th of June 1875; and, whether the Privy Council will take the case of teachers in training colleges into their favourable consideration?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, it was not our intention to treat, as regarded pensions, the certificated teachers of normal schools differently from those of the elementary schools. If, therefore, it should appear that there is good ground for supposing that their claims could not be considered under the Pension Minute recently issued, we will take care to set the matter right.

THE JESUITS.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Motion for a Committee for Inquiry as to the laws relating to Jesuits, the discussion of which was interrupted by a count-out on the 6th instant, Whether
1142
he will be good enough to state specifically what further information he requires as to the operations of this Order beyond the fact that Cardinal Manning has declared that they are the leaders of the great Catholic Mission in this country, and that the object of that Mission is to "bend or break the Imperial power of England into submission to the Papacy?"
MR. O'CONNOR POWERrose to Order. He wished to know the authority of the hon. Member for the statements contained in his Question.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, they were reported in The Tablet newspaper, 20th July, 1872.
MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Gentleman inquires whether I want any further information on the subject of the Jesuits than that conveyed in some remarks of his own which he was prevented from continuing owing to the House being unfortunately counted out. I beg to tell the hon. Gentleman that if I want further information upon this subject I know where to get it.
Afterwards—
MR. WHALLEYsaid: Considering the importance of the subject involved in the Question, I hope I may be allowed to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not really given me any reply. ["Order, order!"] My Question was, whether the First Lord of the Treasury did require any further information? ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having already put his Question and received a full Answer, it cannot be put again.

NAVY—CHIEF NAVAL INSTRUCTOR—THE "BRITANNIA" CADET SHIP.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the appointment of Chief Naval Instructor on board Her Majesty's ship "Britannia" has been filled up by the appointment of a young clergyman, the Rev. J. Aldous, who took the degree of nineteenth wrangler at Cambridge in 1872, and has since filled the post of mathematical sixth master at Shrewsbury School; whether it can be the case that no one was eligible to fill this post out of the thirty-six chaplains and naval

  1143
  instructors and thirty naval instructors now on the Navy List; whether it is true that exceptional pay and rank has been given to Mr. Aldous; and, whether he will have any objection to state what terms have been made with Mr. Aldous?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, he had filled up the vacancy in this appointment upon his own responsibility, and because he thought it conducive to the public interests. He must decline to go into the question of the comparative merits of Mr. Aldous and of the other gentlemen alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member. To do so would be highly invidious. Mr. Aldous had the same rank and pay as his predecessors, and had been placed by the Treasury under the fourth section of the Superannuation Act.

THE INDIAN BUDGET.—QUESTION.
SIR THOMAS BAZLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it be his intention to introduce, within the present month, or when, the Indian Budget?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, it was not in his power to fix a day for the Indian Budget. The Government were very anxious it should be introduced at an earlier day than usual this year, and with that object it had been published at an earlier day in Calcutta. Owing to the slow progress of Public Business, the Government had not yet been able to realize their intention; but in the course of a few days he hoped to be able to give a more satisfactory answer to the Question.

NAVY—DOCKYARD LABOURERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. J. REEDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that established labourers in Her Majesty's dockyards, who have been engaged for long periods as skilled labourers, and have received the corresponding increased rate of pay, when pensioned nevertheless have their pensions based only on the lower rate of pay of ordinary unskilled labourers; whether in October last a Petition on this subject from Pembroke dockyard was submitted to the Admiralty in accordance with their Lordships' regulations, but received no reply; and, whether he will take
  1144
  the case of this humble class of workmen into consideration, and make some arrangement by which their pensions may be regulated, as the pensions of more highly paid persons usually are, viz., according to the rate of pay they have been receiving for a fixed period previous to superannuation?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, it was true that certain labourers engaged for some time as skilled labourers, and receiving extra pay as such, had received pensions on the lower rate of pay; but the rule was one laid down by the Treasury that pensions must be calculated upon the basis of the established rate of pay. These men, therefore, had not been treated in an exceptional way. A Petition on the subject had been received from Pembroke; but as some alterations in the establishment were going on, no final answer had been given.

NAVY—NAVAL COLLEGE AT DARTMOUTH.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the Report of the Medical Director General of the Navy which has been laid upon the Table since the discussion on the subject, it is intended to proceed with the purchase of land and the erection of a Naval College at Dartmouth, without giving the House a further opportunity of considering the expediency of the proposed scheme?
MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that the views of the Medical Director General with regard to the climate of Dartmouth were freely given in evidence before the Committe, and they were quoted by the hon. Gentleman the other night in the debate. His Report added nothing whatever to his evidence. He (Mr. Hunt) intended to propose the necessary Vote for building the Naval College, and if the Committee of Supply granted the money the work would be proceeded with.

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

VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES TO INDIA.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move that you do leave the Chair, I will take this opportunity of making the statement which I promised on a former evening respecting the contemplated visit to India of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The House is aware that His Royal Highness has for some time contemplated a visit to our Indian Empire. His Royal Highness, as the House knows, is a great traveller; there are very few countries which he has not visited; but I need not dwell on the great importance of travel to a person filling the high and responsible post which His Royal Highness does. I would not say, as a great writer has said, that "travel is the best education; "but I think I may venture to say that travel is the best education for Princes. His Royal Highness, particularly, has always felt an interest in the dominions of the Queen, and it was therefore fitting that he should make that memorable visit to Canada, which both to the Canadians and to himself was equally satisfactory. His Royal Highness now contemplates travels of a more extensive character. The House must be aware that the rules and regulations which were adopted, and which recently prevailed in the visit to our own Colonies, would not be adapted to a visit to India—an ancient land of many nations. In the Colonies His Royal Highness, generally speaking, met a population who were of his own race—I might say of his own religion, his own customs, his own manners. In India he will have to visit a variety of nations, of different races, of different religions, of different customs, and of different manners; and it will be obvious to the House that the simplicity of arrangement which might suit a visit to our own fellow-subjects in the Colonies would not equally apply to the condition of India and its population. There is one remarkable characteristic of Oriental manners, well known to Gentlemen in this House, which did not prevail in the previous travels of His Royal Highness to any great extent—that is, the exchange of presents between visitors and their hosts. This is
  1146
  a custom so deeply rooted in Oriental, and, I may say, particularly in Indian life, that although it was obvious to the old Government of India by the Company that it was one which might lead to great corruption, although the Government of the Queen which succeeded have been animated by the same conviction, and although they prevented those they employed from materially benefiting by this custom, because the latter relinquish the presents and State gifts which they receive, still they found it impossible formally to terminate it, and it has attained an important development among the Indian population. Well, the Council of India upon this point received an intimation, or more than an intimation, from the Viceroy that mere presents of ceremonial, which have of late years been discouraged, need not, in the opinion of his Excellency, be adopted in the present case. But I may remind the House that, although an arrangement of that kind might be effected, still His Royal Highness is about to visit immense populations—populations of upwards of 200,000,000 souls, and that he will be the guest, or make the acquaintance, of many Chiefs and Rulers; that there are among these great populations, I believe, at least 90 reigning Sovereigns at this time; and no doubt His Royal Highness must be placed in a position to exercise those spontaneous feelings, characteristic of his nature, of generosity and splendour, which his own character and the character of the country likewise requires to be gratified. I mention these circumstances in passing. The House is aware that by the arrangement now prevailing in India, if a present is received by any one employed by the Government of the "Viceroy, that present is yielded up to the Government; that it is dealt with by a particular Department of the State; that it is sold, and the proceeds of the sale placed to the account of the Government. I think the House will agree with Her Majesty's Ministers that there would be something most undignified, something most distasteful, if on a visit like this by the Heir to the Crown of Great Britain any details of this kind should be entered into. I hope, also, that the House will agree with another conclusion of Her Majesty's Ministers—namely, that really it would be advisable, if we can arrange it—and I think it can be ar-

  1147
  ranged—that this question of presents should not be the subject of any discussion whatever. I think we can make arrangements that we should not even come to a specific vote upon a subject of that character, for it is impossible not to see that all the grace and dignity of gifts are lost if those who receive them are aware of that too mechanical and common-place manner in which things are arranged which should spring from the spontaneous feeling and impulse of the donor. Having made these few observations, I will now tell the House what are the arrangements which we propose to make, and in which the House, of course, will be deeply interested. The duration of the visit of His Royal Highness will be probably six months, and, as far as I can form an opinion, he will leave Europe about the middle of October. About the 17th of October, I think, the Serapis and the Osborne will be at Brindisi. The Serapis is fitted up for the accommodation of His Royal Highness and suite; the Osborne attends the Serapis, first of all in case an accident should occur, which I trust will not be the ease; and, secondly, because when they enter the great rivers of India, the Serapis will not have that draught of water which would allow her to advance. Besides this, the detached squadron has been ordered, under Admiral Lambert, to rendezvous at Bombay, both in order to strengthen the Indian station and to give that pomp and circumstance which becomes the Heir of one who, I hope, is still the "Sovereign of the Seas." Whether the detached squadron will meet the Prince at Bombay or Aden is not yet settled, and I think it is a point which must be left to the decision of His Royal Highness. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will place upon the Table an Estimate of the expenses of the visit, as far as the Navy is concerned. That Estimate for carrying the Prince and his suite to India and bringing them home in due time will be about £52,000, about four-fifths of which must fall upon the present financial year, and the other fifth upon the one that follows. "When His Royal Highness touches the Indian soil he becomes the guest of the Viceroy. The Viceroy has strongly expressed the opinion and the wish that this should be the case. He is deeply interested in the visit of the Prince, which he has approved from the
  1148
  first, and has expressed, in language which I have read, that it would be of great benefit to this country and to India. But although the Prince is to become the guest of the Viceroy in India, the expense to the Indian Government will not be too considerable, for it will be confined to the rites of hospitality. I do not know that it is necessary for me to give the House an estimate of that cost to the Indian Budget. I am not in any way responsible for that, though I may say I have seen an estimate, and it is not one of very considerable amount. A sum of not more than £30,000 has been casually mentioned. It is my duty to inform the House of the position in which His Royal Highness visits India. He does not go there as the Representative of Her Majesty, but as the Heir Apparent of Her Crown. It is, therefore, obvious that some difficulties which, under other circumstances, might be contemplated as arising from the position of the Viceroy and His Royal Highness cannot prevail in the present instance, because no one has been so earnestly anxious for this visit as the Viceroy himself, and no one has been more careful and fruitful in devising expedients which may secure for His Royal Highness that position which would satisfy the country and himself. For reasons of this kind it has been arranged that His Royal Highness shall hold an investiture of the Order of the Star of India, which will probably be the most important ceremony in which the Princes and Chiefs of India will participate. There are many other things by which I feel convinced that, without taking a step which would be full of political inconvenience, by interfering in anyway with the legal and constitutional character of the Viceroy, His Royal Highness will be placed throughout his travels in a position which will impress the mind of India with his real dignity and influence. I have shown to the House what will be the expenditure incurred in carrying the Prince to India and in preparing and securing his return to this country. I have intimated to the House the possible expenditure which will be defrayed by the Indian Treasury during the time His Royal Highness is in India, and which, as I have observed, will be limited to the rites of hospitality; it is necessary for me now to tell the House the sum we think it necessary to propose

  1149
  that the House should vote for what I may call the personal expenses of His Royal Highness. I do not wish in any way to advert again to the subject of presents. We consider that His Royal Highness should be able in a manner worthy of his character and position to gratify all those impulses for which, under the circumstances of this case, when he becomes the guest of those Indian Chiefs, and often not only the sharer of their hospitality, but of their pastimes, he should be properly provided, and the amount we propose to move in Committee on the first fitting opportunity is the sum of £60,000. We believe that is a sum which will allow His Royal Highness to accomplish all that he can reasonably desire, and will maintain his position with becoming splendour. We propose, also, that that sum should be subject to an audit, and that the auditor should be Sir William Anderson—a name well known to the House. He will be in constant communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the accounts will be strictly confidential. The money will be expended on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and we appeal with confidence to the House to agree to the arrangement we have made. I do not know that there is anything I need add further than to express a hope that Providence will keep guard over this precious charge, and that His Royal Highness may, after his visit to India, return to his native land with that enlarged experience which becomes the Heir of Empires.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I rise for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House any information as to the date when it may be probable the discussion on these Estimates will be taken; for although I am quite sure no discussion of the proposal will occur in the sense of hostile or captious criticism, yet, as there are many Members in this House who have very considerable experience of Indian affairs, some of them might desire to offer suggestions which might be gratefully received by the Government. I have said I do not propose to discuss the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made; I will only say that I believe the House and the country received with very great satisfaction the announcement which was made some time ago that it was the intention of His
  1150
  Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to avail himself of the greatly increased facilities which now exist for visiting Her Majesty's dominions and the allied Sovereigns of India, and that the satisfaction with which that announcement was at first received has not, on further consideration of the project, been in any way diminished. As to the mode in which the visit should be conducted, I think the country had only two subjects of anxiety, and the House reflected in that the opinion of the country. I think the country and the House were anxious, in the first place, that the arrangements for His Royal Highness's visit should be made on a sufficiently liberal scale; and, secondly, that the Indian finances should not be called upon to bear any part of the expenses excepting what would unavoidably fall upon them. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has been satisfactory, at all events on the latter point. Of course, the Government must have greater facilities than any Member of the House can have for forming an opinion as to the sum which it is probable will be required to pay the expenses of His Royal Highness's visit. The sum named by the right hon. Gentleman does not certainly appear to be a large one; it is one which the public expectations have considerably increased; but the House, I think, will feel that the responsibility of proposing what is necessary for making all proper arrangements on this subject must rest on the Government; and the Government must, I am sure, be aware that any reasonable Estimate they might think it necessary to lay on the Table will be cheerfully accepted by the House. I have only one other observation which it is at all necessary I should make; I think the House will have received with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that His Royal Highness is not to visit India in any way as the representative of Her Majesty. The visit, I believe, will do good both in this country and in India. I think it will be far better that His Royal Highness should visit India in a semi-official character rather than in an official character; but, at the same time, the arrangements made for his travels throughout India should be made with sufficient and becoming liberality. The House will probably appreciate the spirit in which the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman

  1151
  have been made on the subject of presents. It is, I conceive, impossible, in the circumstances of this visit, and considering the customs which prevail in India, that His Royal Highness should not do as other travellers do—receive and make presents; but anything like a detailed statement of the expenses of that part of the arrangements would detract from the dignity and propriety of the occasion. I believe it may not be impossible for the Indian Government to impress on the minds of the dignitaries His Royal Highness will visit that the presents which His Royal Highness would desire to receive should not be of any intrinsically costly character, but should rather be interesting specimens of the products and manufactures of the country. If that could be accomplished there would be no necessity, I conceive, that the presents which His Royal Highness will present in return should be of any extravagant character, provided only that they should be adequately good specimens of English products and manufacture. That I think the House would desire; but I do not think that His Royal Highness, or the House, or the country, would desire to see that in a matter of this kind he should attempt to emulate the ideas some people may have of Oriental magnificence. I trust, if there is to be a discussion on this Vote, it may be taken in Committee, when the Estimate has been presented. I am sure the Government will receive any suggestion which may be made in a friendly spirit; and I think I may venture to say that on this side of the House no criticism or suggestion will be made, but in the most friendly spirit, and with a view of giving every support to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. FAWCETT: I believe that the statement of the Prime Minister will be received with satisfaction though out the country. I should not have presumed to rise on the present occasion were it not to make a suggestion which, if it were adopted, will, I believe, cause the statement of the Prime Minister to be received with far greater satisfaction by the country. I believe that the reason why what has been said by the Prime Minister would give satisfaction to the country is this—that there is a wide-spread feeling throughout the nation that, if the Prince of Wales went to
  1152
  India, his visit should be fittingly provided for; but there is a still stronger and much deeper feeling—namely, that England, and not India, should bear the expenses of the visit. I am sure that the people generally will feel greatly relieved when they find that so small a portion of the expenses is to be borne by India; but if the Prime Minister had carried out this policy somewhat further, and appealed to the generosity of this House, and to the generosity of the English nation, and had said—" We will not only bear the greater part of the expense of the visit to India of the Heir Apparent of the Crown, but the people of India shall not be subjected to one farthing of expense," I venture to say that the £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 additional expense would have been cheerfully paid by the English people. I cannot help thinking it is greatly to be regretted that £30,000 will come out of the Indian revenue in order to enable the Viceroy to dispense hospitality during the visit of His Royal Highness. If this item appears in the Indian Financial Statement, it will seem to be an invidious thing that the people of India should be subjected to any expense in order to enable the Viceroy to dispense hospitality on account of this visit. I would, therefore, make the suggestion—which I feel sure will meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House—that when this subject is again discussed the Prime Minister should come down to the House and say—"We will not call upon India to pay this £30,000 or £50,000, but in order that everything may be done in the most gracious and handsome manner, England shall bear the whole of the expense of this visit of His Royal Highness to India, because we are anxious that the visit should be as fruitful of blessings to the Indian people as possible."
  MR. HANKEYsaid, that as he had on the Paper a Notice that he would call attention to this matter on going into Committee of Supply, he might be allowed to say that he believed the statement made by the Prime Minister would be received with great satisfaction throughout the country. He could not say he disagreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). The statement of the Prime Minister would have been received rather more graciously throughout the country

  1153
  if he had been able to say that the visit of His Royal Highness should not cost a penny to the revenue of India.
  MR. MACDONALD: I feel great reluctance in stating that I differ entirely from the hon. Member (Mr. Fawcett) in the remark that the country will be willing to meet this expense, and even more. I would have remained silent, but for the fact that I desire to refer to the feeling that I have heard frequently expressed in the country with regard to Votes of this kind. I wish, however, to assure the House that I do not rise to do so with any feeling of hostility towards Her Majesty's Government. No one can be more loyal than I am, and no one can be more desirous of seeing this country well governed. Nay, more; it is because I fear that the course which the Government are now proposing to continue may lead to disloyalty, that I protest against this money being spent. Votes of this description tend more to bring the Crown of England into disrepute than anything else I know of. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say no; but I am aware, and they also are aware, of the effect which these Votes have upon the working classes. Votes of this character tend more to create disloyalty than all the Republicanism, internationalism, or any other "ism" put together. With that feeling I take this opportunity of raising my protest against this Vote being granted, and I believe that protest will find a ready echo throughout the country. If Her Majesty's Government will only give the country time to think the matter over, I firmly believe that, from the great working class centres, there will come within a very short time this expression of feeling, which will leave no doubt whatever, that the Vote the House is asked to grant is not one desired by the country, and is not, in their opinion, likely to be beneficial to the people of India.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,having been lately a member of the Council of India, thought it right to say that, looking at the matter from an Indian point of view, the proposal made by the Government seemed to him to be satisfactory and a rational solution of the question. He did not think it would have been positively unjust if the whole expense had been settled on the Indian Treasury. We did not receive direct tribute from India;
  1154
  we did a great deal for India, and we did not charge India with any part of the expense of Royalty. He should not have considered it an actually unjust proposition to throw the whole expense on India; but it would have been eminently ungraceful to do so. He believed this country was prepared to bear that share of the expense which it was proper it should bear, and the feeling of the country was expressed by the reception the House had given to the proposal of the Government. On the other hand, he believed that India was prepared to bear her share also. He was not prepared to go as far as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and to demand that the whole expense should be borne by this country, for he believed the apportionment proposed by the Government was fair and reasonable. We must look at the matter as if the Prince were about to visit a foreign Government which would incur some outlay in according to him a hospitable reception.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISON: I have heard with pain and regret the remark of the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) that this grant will not find an echo in the country. So far from that being the case, I believe that the project which has been sketched by the Prime Minister will meet with the unqualified approval of all the great centres of industry in this country. I do not know by what title the hon. Member takes upon himself to speak for those centres of industry; but, for my own part, I feel confident that the feeling will be exactly opposite to that indicated by him.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMunderstood that the cost of the visit was estimated at about £30,000. If it was to be of any benefit in India the Prince should travel with the same amount of magnificence that the Viceroy did on his tours. Before the Indian Government went to Simla it was the custom of the Viceroy to make a tour in the cold season and to travel for three or four months. The last Viceroy who did so was Lord Elgin; in the time of Lord Canning there was special reasons for exercising economy. On no occasion did the expense of such a tour fall below £50,000, and it often exceeded that sum. That fact might throw some light on this question, and it might lead the Government to consider whether the sum of

  1155
  £30,000 would be sufficient to defray the cost of His Royal Highness's receptions in the course of his travels. He wished to express his hearty concurrence with the view of the hon. Member for Hackney, that not a farthing of the expense of this visit ought to fall on the Natives of India.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) might have been received with a little less dissatisfaction. If hon. Members would look a little more closely at the bearings of the question, they would see it was somewhat different from a proposal to give an annuity to a Member of the Royal Family; and objections which could be raised to a proposal of this kind would be entirely out of place in a discussion on a proposed annuity. Annuities were granted to Members of the Royal Family to enable them, as representatives of the country and of the State, to transact their official business with dignity and to keep up their social position. When anyone suggested that these annuities ought not to be granted, or ought to be cut down, there was something which touched the honour of a gentleman and which assailed the so-called dignity of respectable persons in objections of this kind. Considerations of this kind did not at all enter into the present proposal, which was made to the House on grounds of public policy. The honour and dignity of the Crown were by no means involved in this Vote. The honour and dignity of the Crown would be involved in the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the arrangements of the visit of His Royal Highness to India; but he would remind the House that that was a secondary question, and he should like to know before he voted upon it what results beneficial to the Crown and the people of England were likely to be derived from this visit? He was anxious to know what benefit could accrue to the Queen or the Royal Family from this visit to India. The only thing that threw light upon that point was the reference made by the Prime Minister to the manner in which the Prince of Wales would make his progress through India, and to the good that would be done by his investiture of some of the Native Princes with the Order of the Star of India. It did appear to him that if His Royal Highness had no
  1156
  higher object than that, he would be much better occupied at home. And he objected to putting the country to this expense for the same reason that he objected to the Royal residence in Ireland. He feared that the House was of opinion that the visit of the Prince of Wales to India would be a panacea for the grievances of India, just as some hon. Members thought a Royal residence in Ireland would remove the evils of the country. They had heard much of a Royal residence in Ireland. ["Question!"] He did not find fault with hon. Members who declined to hear any illustration of his arguments. ["Question!"] Perhaps when there were so many matters pressing on the time of the House, he was wrong in pursuing this topic; but he must say that the right hon. Gentleman had failed in showing that any good whatever was likely to arise from the proposed visit; and he, for one, could not give his sanction to the proposed expenditure until he saw that some practical good was likely to arise from it.
  COLONEL BERESFORD: I would not have risen to say a few words if the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had not asserted that he spoke in the name of the working classes. I tell him that on this matter he does not represent the opinions of the working classes, and I believe that if you polled the working classes in this country nine-tenths of them would repudiate the doctrines which he has laid down.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: There is nothing in the world easier than to make the assertion that the hon. Members on this side of the House who sit here by the votes of the working classes do not represent their opinions. I will venture to give one illustration which will throw some light on this subject. When on another occasion I opposed a certain Royal annuity that was proposed, I said that I spoke in the name of 10,000 of the working men of Leicester; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) fairly enough challenged my opinion, and said he thought that I was mistaken in supposing that I did represent the opinion of the working classes. It was not very long after that I had an opportunity of standing in the Market Place of Leicester, and put to an assembly of more than 10,000 working men the question that I

  1157
  had raised in this House. I asked—" Did I represent your opinion on that question or not?" and they, without a dissentient voice, sanctioned and endorsed my conduct. I am prepared to support the opinion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), that anything like the unanimity which has been claimed for public opinion on this question does not exist. I have received many communications hoping that I and the other Radical. Members would oppose this grant; and I believe that if a public meeting were called at any of the large centres of population the answer given to the proposition of the Government would be very different from that which will be given by this House.
  MR. BIGGAR,who rose amid cries of "Oh, oh!" said: I only intend to say a very few words. But I intend to be heard. I simply mean to say that I think it is a very unreasonable way of making presents to make them out of other people's pockets. If His Royal Highness is to make presents to the Native Rulers of India, he should give them out of his own private purse, and not out of the pockets of the working people of this country.
  MR. BURT: I do not, Sir, profess to speak on behalf of the working classes of this country, but on my own behalf; and, as one who has had considerable experience of the working classes of this country, I beg to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) and other Members of this House in uttering an earnest protest against this Vote.
  LORD ELCHO: I have no pretensions to speak on behalf of the working classes, but we are told—and no doubt truly—that no classes in this country are more loyal or more anxious to maintain the dignity of the Empire. We hear from the Prime Minister that the Viceroy of India is most anxious that this visit should take place in the interests of the Government of India, and believes that it will draw closer the ties which bind India to England. Well, I think if it were put to the working men of Stafford, Leicester, or other places that such was the feeling of the Viceroy of India that such was the object of this visit, and that it was encouraged by the Government; and if it were put to them whether it should be done in a way worthy of England and of the Prince who goes
  1158
  to India, and that as little as possible should be spent by the Indian Government, I am perfectly satisfied that the loyalty and public spirit, and that pride in the Empire which I believe animates the working classes, would lead them to endorse such a Vote.
  MR. WHALLEY: I wish to say one word on this subject. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) said, with some confidence the other night that on a certain question I did not represent the views of the working classes. I challenged him distinctly to meet the working classes and to submit my opinion with his, but he did not accept that challenge. I now pledge myself to the opinion that upon this question the hon. Member for Stafford, the hon. Member for Leicester, and other hon. Members do entirely belie the sentiments of the working classes. It is not difficult to obtain at a public meeting a clamorous reply to a categorical question; but I assert that the working classes are always ready to maintain the true interests and honour of this country.
  MR. DISRAELI: We propose to take the Votes for the visit of the Prince of Wales to India on Thursday next.

THE QUEEN'S REMEMBRANCER.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid: Perhaps the House will allow me touch on a subject of a somewhat personal nature, with reference to an answer which I gave the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), in regard to the office of Queen's Remembrancer The House is aware that the Judicature Commission recommended that the office of Queen's Remembrancer should be abolished, and afterwards there was a Treasury Minute on the same subject, which bound the Government to take some steps in the matter. This took place under the late Administration. It so happens that the office of Queen's Remembrancer exists by statute, and that there are several important duties attached to that office. No steps were taken in consequence of the recommendation of the Commission or of the Treasury Minute, and when I came into office I received a memorial from the Lord Chief Justice and other Judges, calling my attention to the fact that the office of Queen's Remembrancer had not been filled up;

  1159
  that it involved some important public duties, and that the administration of justice was arrested in consequence. I accordingly filled up the office, and, as certain duties were vested in this office, I had no option in the matter. In filling up the appointment, however, I made it a condition that, pending the decision of Parliament, the office should be regarded as temporary, and that in the event of its abolition the person appointed should have no claim for compensation. The office is given as a matter of routine to the Master of the Court of Exchequer. The salary attached to it is £500 a-year, and he has accepted it subject to the conditions I have mentioned.

EAST AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HANBURYrose to call attention to the measures adopted for repressing the East African Slave Trade; and to move—
  "That no treatment of the question of the East African Slave Trade is satisfactory which does not include the presence of a squadron in the Red Sea."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that in the suppression of the slave trade on the Eastern Coast of Africa we had this difficulty—which did not apply to the suppression of the slave trade on the Western Coast of Africa—namely, that we had to deal with men who were not of our race, our colour, or our creed. In spite of the difficulties connected with the suppression of the slave trade on the Western Coast, we undertook the suppression of it; but with regard to the slave trade on the Eastern Coast, what had we done? Unfortunately, all we had done for 25 years for the suppression of that trade was to trust to treaties made with other nations whose interests and sentiments were in favour of that trade. Those treaties were mere waste paper, mere screens behind which the trade was carried on as vigorously as before. But it might be said that our main object in inducing the nations in question to enter into these treaties was to obtain the right of employing a squadron, if we chose, to suppress the slave trade on the East Coast. What had been the case as regarded our employment of a squadron on the Eastern Coast? On the Western Coast we had spent £20,000,000, and had employed
  1160
  15 vessels in the suppression of the slave trade. For 25 years all we had done on the Eastern Coast to suppress the slave trade was simply to employ a squadron of sometimes four, at other times of three, and at other times of two vessels; and sometimes we had no vessel at all to blockade a coast 4,000 miles in extent. Moreover, instructions which were contradictory had been given to the captains of the vessels we employed on the Eastern Coast, and therefore they did not know what they might seize and what they might not. Two Committees which sat in 1871 found, as a matter of fact, that the slave trade had actually increased, that its horrors also had increased, and that legitimate commerce had been very much diminished. One reason assigned for the increase of the slave trade was that we had suppressed piracy in the region in question; But, unfortunately, having suppressed piracy, we allowed the slave trade to take its place; and through our not having an efficient squadron to watch the Eastern Coast the value of a slave deteriorated in Africa, and a greater number of them were purchased and exported from Africa. The consequence was that poorer dhows were sent for these wretched creatures than formerly for fear they might be captured, and when an English vessel appeared in sight the slaves were either thrown over-board in order that the dhow might be saved, or else they were run into land and hundreds were drowned in attempting to get through the surf. Bishop Steere, who certainly could not be regarded as a prejudiced authority, stated that in the search for slaves legitimate commerce was very much harassed. The two Committees which investigated this subject in 1871 looked about for a remedy. They thought it essential to have a new treaty, giving us the right of seizing slave vessels in waters further South which were now excluded, and they likewise laid stress on the necessity of increasing the squadron to about 13 vessels. For a year nothing at all was done, and then suddenly Sir Bartle Frere left London for Zanzibar in hot haste, carrying with him a treaty taken from a pigeon-hole in the Foreign Office. It was a treaty for obtaining fresh concessions from the Sovereign of Zanzibar. In his opinion, we ought to have done more ourselves, instead of trusting to

  1161
  treaties concluded with men whose interests were all the other way. One result of the treaty undoubtedly was that the slave trade on the sea had ceased within the last few years between Zanzibar and the Persian Gulf; but, unfortunately, in the same period the slave trade between Madagascar and Mozambique had largely increased. With regard to the Madagascar trade a great portion of it was carried on under the Trench flag, and that country had refused us the right of search, and he thought that we had the right to ask for some concession on that point. One result of the present system had been altogether to abolish the passage of slaves by sea; but that had to be counteracted in two ways. Slaves were still going North by sea, for large numbers were smuggled by night in small canoes to Zanzibar, and it was impossible for our cruisers to stop them. The difficulty of taking them up to the North was easily surmounted, because, according to the interpretation put on the treaty by our Grown lawyers, the captain of a cruiser had to prove that the slaves whom he seized were being taken for sale. "We still had no right to seize domestic slaves. This, however, was a minor point in comparison with the question of the enormous increase of the traffic by land that followed immediately on the conclusion of the treaty. What happened now was this—the slaves were marched up to the Somali country and were bought by the Somalis, who preferred buying these Southern slaves, and sold the Gallas and other slaves, who were too near home, to the Arabs of the Persian Gulf. As the result of the treaty this disastrous state of things had come about—a land route had been opened involving much greater miseries than the sea route; greater numbers of slaves were transported; and unless we stopped the trade in the Bed Sea we had much better send our cruisers away altogether. Unless we went into the Red Sea it would be impossible to stop the transport of these slaves to the Red Sea and across it. He would now refer to the old slave trade. Before the Committee of 1871 General Rigby stated that there was a considerable traffic in slavery between Turkey and the Red Sea; and Sir Bartle Frere said that the numbers had been understated, and that a large and increasing slave trade was carried
  1162
  on through the Red Sea ports. That evidence was given before the new traffic was established by way of the Red Sea. It could hardly be said that our cruisers should be excluded from the Red Sea, and he could not understand why we had allowed the slave trade to be carried on under our own eyes, when we had been endeavouring to force our views on the petty Powers outside the Red Sea. There could be no doubt that the supply of slaves had been increasing year by year, and that the demand for them in Egypt and Turkey had considerably increased. We had lent Sir Samuel Baker and Colonel Gordon to win for the Khédive fresh territory, confessedly of no practical value except for ivory and slaves. This new territory would, in fact, be the great emporia from which the slaves of Egypt and Turkey would be recruited, and through increased commercial prosperity the wealthier classes in both those countries now employed more slaves than ever they did. Now, he thought we might fairly go to Egypt and Turkey and say—" You have conceded the principle and have expressed your anxiety to supress the slave trade. Why refuse the right of search in these waters where your flags cover so large a traffic in slaves? "Owing to our alliance with Turkey during the Crimean War she had been brought within the pale of the European community, and was bound to give us the same right that was given to us by other Powers, and work with us in suppressing the slave traffic; and he could not help thinking that, if the matter were properly put to France, she would give us a power of search which was not likely to be abused, and which was only wanted in the interests of humanity. It might be said that the traffic was a local traffic only, from one portion of the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey to another, but that could hardly hold water, because the trade from Zanzibar to Muscat was also a home traffic between two Sovereigns of the same nationality, and we had actually forbidden Zanzibar to carry slaves within its own territory. To deal one measure to the weak and another to the strong—one measure to the Sultan of Zanzibar and another to the potentates of Turkey and Egypt—was not likely to increase our prestige in the East and was unworthy of us as a great Indian Power. Having once undertaken this

  1163
  work we could not afford to let it drop. "We had not only got to repress the traffic with our cruisers—a work which could go on only for a limited time, but we had to supplant it by something else which could be nothing else but legitimate commerce, which would have the effect of raising the price of labour in Africa and making it too expensive to export labour to Turkey and elsewhere. In a speech which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) made to his constituents at King's Lynn he said that this was a traffic with which we could not palter in any way but must stamp it out. In the full confidence that his hon. Friend would now be able to use the same words, he begged to move his Resolution.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY,as a Member of the Select Committee of 1871, seconded the Motion. That Committee found that what we had done on the East Coast of Africa was utterly inadequate, and only added to the evil rather than diminished it; and that it was impossible to deal with this question effectually without further treaty provisions and a considerable increase of the naval squadron. That was the practical effect of their recommendations. He felt bound to express his satisfaction with the manner in which the question was taken up at the earliest possible moment by the late Government, and the way in which their measures had been carried on by the present Ministry. Some tangible results had been obtained from the efforts which had been made. The slave market at Zanzibar—the horrors of which had been so graphically described by Sir Bartle Frere—had been shut up, and the traffic by sea to the North of Zanzibar had been almost entirely put an end to. A debt of gratitude from this country was due to the officers and men of the naval squadron who had so well fulfilled such difficult and dangerous duties. Because there was still a traffic between the coast of Africa and Madagascar, and there were large caravans going North, some thought the treaty was useless, but he did not agree with them. It was the opinion of those who knew best that those large caravans were but the remanets, that they were the slaves in store, and the Committee had no evidence that this traffic would be maintained. The question arose whether it
  1164
  was politic to interfere with the land traffic. We might interfere in two ways. We might go to the Sultan and demand a revision of the treaty to enable us still further to interfere, or we might say—"These men are carried further North for the purpose of being exported, the treaty is not properly carried out, and we have a right to enter and stop this thing ourselves." He knew this was a point which was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that they had not hesitated to carry out the treaty entered into by Sir Bartle Frere. The Seyyid, our guest, was very loyal in the matter; and if we remembered that we were dealing with a weak man whom we should have to help, and that we must not ask too much from him, we might effect a great deal of what we desired. It was the old traditions of the Foreign Office under Lord Palmerston that we were carrying out. His hon. Friend hit a great blot with respect to the power of search being denied us by the French, Turks, and other nations. If we went on as we had commenced it would prove commercially a great success, for it was impossible by all accounts to exaggerate the resources of the country with which we were dealing. He predicted that a large amount of work would be required at the Foreign Office in connection with this work of putting down the slave trade, and he therefore urged that the special Slave Trade Department should be restored.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no treatment of the question of the East African Slave Trade is satisfactory which does not include the presence of a squadron in the Red Sea,"—(Mr. Hanbury,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid, that the question of slavery required the most continual and constant watchfulness, and he therefore cordially agreed with the hon. Baronet that the Slave Trade Department of the Foreign Office should be restored. That Department was at present merged in the Consular Department, and he trusted it was about to be revived. The Queen's Speech at the end of last Session contained the following paragraph:—
  "The Treaty recently concluded with the Sultan of Zanzibar, having for its object the

  1165
  suppression of the East African Slave Trade, has been faithfully observed, and has already done much to put an end to that traffic as carried on by sea. The exertions of my Naval and Consular servants, in that part of the world, will not be relaxed until complete success has been obtained."
  That was a promise which he hoped and believed the Foreign Office intended to fulfil. But experience showed that there were several loopholes by which the repression of the slave trade was prevented from being accomplished. The first was the extraordinary interpretation put by the Crown Law Officers upon the Treaty of 1873—an interpretation which went against the law of Zanzibar, in that it defined our right to capture slavers to exist when we could prove that there were slaves on board. It was also important that special attention should be given to the inland traffic; and for this purpose we should extend our moral, financial, and physical assistance temporarily to the Sultan of Zanzibar. We should help him to consolidate his power over the inland districts of his Empire, and in return for that assistance he should prevent any such inland traffic as we understood was now going on. He also thought great advantage would be derived from the establishment of a British possession North of Zanzibar, to which free negroes could go; it might be very small; we could purchase it from the Sultan, and it would be a post of observation, so that no caravan could go North without the cognizance of the British authorities. He could not help thinking that our Consular Agencies in the Bed Sea might be increased with advantage, and the presence of a gunboat would also serve materially to check the traffic on the east side of that sea. Care should also be taken that the new territories which our adventurous countrymen were bringing under the immediate rule of Egypt should not be turned into slave markets. If the Foreign Office showed the same spirit and disposition in this matter as the Colonial Office, there could be no doubt that the best results would attend their efforts.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that he entirely concurred in that part of the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) in which he said that having undertaken the suppression of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa, we could not afford to let it drop. Neither was there a single
  1166
  word which he (Mr. Bourke) had said in the speech quoted by his hon. Friend or elsewhere which he was not prepared to hold to. But his hon. Friend had mixed up two things which were entirely distinct—namely, the traffic on the East Coast and the slave trade carried on in the Bed Sea. Somali Land was far south of the Bed Sea. It was, no doubt, a fact that the slaves were absorbed in Somali Land; but the slave trade in the Bed Sea had no more to do with the traffic on the East Coast than it had with that on the West Coast. In a recent interview with Dr. Kirk, he was informed that no slaves for the East Coast were taken beyond Lamoo, which was one degree below the Equator, for the best of all reasons—namely, that it did not pay, as in making the transit, even up to that point, 80 per cent of the slaves died. His hon. Friend did not, he thought, do justice to what had been done by the late and the present Government with regard to suppressing this inhuman traffic. The hon. Member showed that the difficulties to be met were very great; but he did not show the amount of success that had resulted from their operations. He (Mr. Bourke) might start at once by telling the House that the traffic on the East Coast had been practically stopped by sea. Was not that an enormous gain compared with the condition of things proved before the Committee of 1871? When we recollected the antiquity of the traffic and the miserable barbarities which attended it along the coast, and in the Persian Gulf, the statement that absolutely no dhows ever left the coast now was sufficient to show, in a rough way, that a great deal had been done towards suppressing the African slave trade. With regard to the land route, he wished all who had the suppression of the slave trade at heart to understand that that route was as formidable as ever, perhaps more so, up to a certain latitude; and the question was, what was to be done. It did not appear to the Government it was at all certain that the slave trade by land would continue, and that the increase of the trade by that route during the last two years was not due to the coasting trade being stopped; and there were those who thought that when the supply from the interior was diminished by reason of the traffic by sea being stopped, the land traffic would to a great extent

  1167
  stop also. We also knew that slaves who were formerly taken to Persia and other countries were being absorbed along the coast, partly in Somali Land, and partly in other territory. Now that the sea trade was stopped the demand for slaves must be limited, and if the trade from the interior towards the coast was now diverted along the land route, it was believed that when the slaves were absorbed—who had left the interior before the blockade had been thoroughly established—the demand for them would cease, and that in that way the trade itself would stop. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly aware of the trade that went on between Madagascar and Mozambique, and they had directed the attention of the Portuguese Government seriously to the subject, and they had received considerable encouragement from that Government on the subject. They had ordered the Governors and commanders of steamers to act in concert with ours in putting it down; and it was only a short time since that the captain of the Thetis had been in communication with the Governor on the coast of Mozambique, and by his co-operation was able to search several harbours and make several very important captures, and there was every reason to believe that when the Portuguese Government really co-operated with us there would be an end of the slave trade along that part of the Coast. Two of the most important captures of the last two years were made between Mozambique and Madagascar, and the number of slaves thus rescued would seriously reduce the number of Africans who had orginally been carried into slavery. It was an important question how to deal with liberated slaves. Some persons were of opinion that it was desirable to form a settlement for them on the East Coast, where they could be placed under the guidance of missionaries, who should undertake their education. No doubt if it were established it would assist materially in putting a stop to the land traffic, for the caravans would not go near it; but by establishing such settlements we should be incurring very great risk if differences should arise, and after they were established there was the probability that they would become absorbed in the general population of the country, and, if not, that they would go to something
  1168
  worse—be re-captured and taken into the interior. It was also considered highly inexpedient that the African, after he had been reduced to slavery and liberated by British cruizers, should be ever allowed to return to his native country from the absolute horror with which they regarded such a prospect. The House would hesitate a long while before it consented to establish a regular British settlement on the East Coast, and certainly the Government were not prepared to do it now, whatever efforts might be made spontaneously by the missionary societies. There was at present a very efficient squadron on the East Coast of Africa, and that the ship London, which the late Government prepared, and which was sent out by the present Government, was doing good service. The Committee of 1871 recommended the appointment of Consular Agents; but it must be remembered that the East Coast of Africa was an extremely unhealthy climate, and contained a lawless population, and before we established Consular Agents on the Coast we must take care that the Sultan of Zanzibar was in a position to afford them protection; because nothing would be more unwise than to establish Consular Agents in a place where they would run the risk of being murdered by the Arabs or be likely to die of fever. A Consular Agent had been sent to Mozambique, and he had sent home some satisfactory despatches. Her Majesty's Government, however, had taken powers for our Consular Agent at Zanzibar to send persons where it was desirable to obtain information for our cruisers, believing it to be a better mode for accomplishing our object than sending an Agent to a particular spot. He could assure the House that the Government were earnestly considering the subject. An increase had been made in the Estimates this year in connection with the subject, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken great pains to send out ships to the Coast that would perform their services satisfactorily to the country. Her Majesty's Government had no reason to think that the number of ships that were employed in this service was inadequate. We had now five ships on the coast, and one of them being a surveying ship did not prevent her from repressing the slave trade. He, therefore, hoped that upon further con-

  1169
  sideration his hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth would see that at present Her Majesty's Government had no reason to think it was advisable to increase the squadron. From time to time, if there were reason to increase the squadron or the Consular Establishment, Her Majesty's Government would be very happy to take steps for the carrying out of the great object which his hon. Friend had in view. As to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. E. Ashley)—namely, the Slave Trade Department of the Foreign Office, no doubt that Department had done a very great work, and we could not forget that the suppression of the slave trade on the Western Coast of Africa was in a great measure due to the exertions of that Department. But now that a change had been made in the Foreign Office and the Slave Department was merged in the Consular, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason at present to change that arrangement. Of course, if it were found that that Department had too much work to do the staff might be increased; but he thought it was undesirable to make any change at present. With reference to the observation of his hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and of the hon. Member for Poole as to the Khedive's territories having been increased for the purpose of enabling him to carry on the slave trade, he (Mr. Bourke) looked upon that as a great libel upon the Government of the Khédive, He believed that, so far from the Khédive having the smallest intention of encouraging the slave trade in his new territories, his great motive in annexing them was the suppression of the slave trade. All we could hope for, and all we could do in endeavouring to suppress the slave trade on the Red Sea, would depend upon the measures which he believed the Khédive was perfectly able and willing to carry out. There could not be a doubt that there was a great slave trade in the region referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. What Her Majesty's Government had done with regard to that trade was this—they had appointed a Consul at Jeddah, and they had received a great number of communications from him; but he was in a totally different position from the Consul on the Eastern Coast of Africa; he had not
  1170
  power to interfere with the slave trade like the Consul on the Eastern Coast. The Sultan of Zanzibar, by the treaty he had entered into with us, had undertaken to do his best to put an end to the slave trade, and therefore our Consul called upon his officers to help him; but we had no such treaty with the Khédive, nor was there any intention on the part of the Government to ask for such from him. The attempt to obtain a right of search for slaves on board vessels carrying the French flag was not desirable, because it might lead to difficulties and complications we did not want to be involved in. He could not assent to the Motion, because it would pledge Her Majesty's Government to deal with the slave trade of the Red Sea in the same way as on the East Coast of Africa. That was not the course which they were prepared to adopt; but he could assure the House that negotiations were in progress with the Khédive and the Turkish Government. Those negotiations were not yet completed; and until they were completed he did not think it desirable that the Papers asked for should be presented. He trusted that the statements he had made would be satisfactory, and he could assure the House that the subject would continue to receive the most earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that having taken great interest in this question, he wished to express the pleasure with which he had listened to the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was clear that the efforts made by the late Government to put an end to these terrible calamities and crimes were carried on with the same earnestness by their successors. The speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke) showed that he had deeply studied the subject, and that he felt a personal interest in the success of the endeavours now being made to put down the slave trade. The Government would obtain every assistance in these efforts from both sides of the House; and if the hon. Gentleman could feel when he quitted Office that he had struck a real blow at this traffic nothing would give the hon. Gentleman greater pleasure or obtain for him more honour in the country. He was glad to find that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had taken off a little of the gloom which the some-

  1171
  what exaggerated representations of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Han-bury) had been calculated to produce. The efforts made to put down the East African slave trade often ended in disappointment, and such was the determination of the men engaged in it that when they were driven out in one direction they sometimes re-appeared in another. He feared, too, that the first effect of our repressive measures was sometimes to increase the sufferings of these wretched slaves. It was difficult to put down the land traffic, and the slaves who were ready for export were in some way or other generally got off. The Government could, however, obtain constant information as to the extent to which it was going on, and he was glad to know that they would do what they could to stop it. It was cheering to know that the Sultan of Zanzibar had thrown in his lot with us. He was the most civilized of the potentates on that Coast, and there was no reason to doubt that he really wished to put down the traffic. This was a great gain, and a most hopeful event in the history of the slave trade. The traffic could not be entirely stopped by our cruisers, and our only hope of stopping the trade was, by the influence of the Chiefs, to act upon the land traffic. He by no means despaired of getting notions of civilization by means of missionaries and otherwise into the minds of the Native potentates. It might be that a certain amount of this traffic was carried on across the Bed Sea; but it could not be expected that the Khédive would permit our cruisers to enter the Bed Sea in order to put down the traffic. At the same time the Khédive entertained very different views from some of his predecessors on this subject, and he did not believe the assertions sometimes made that he wished to enlarge his territories in order to carry on this trade. He rejoiced to learn that a British Consul had been established at Mozambique, and he was glad to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Bourke) speak so confidently of the assistance lately given by the French. There was, he believed, a very strong feeling in this country in regard to the suppression of this slave traffic; and we had pledged our character and honour as a nation to carry on the work, and no civilized nation had ever undertaken such a task. There could be no doubt about the difficulties that we had to contend
  1172
  with; but we were convinced of the evil, and with English tenacity of purpose, we were determined not to be baffled in our efforts to put it down.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he believed that the Khédive was most anxious to put down the slave trade in Egypt, but in the lower part of the Nile a considerable amount of the trade was going on. Much depended on the activity of the Consul General at Cairo, and the appointment of European Vice Consuls at various towns on the Nile would do more than anything else to repress the slave traffic on the Nile. Arab Consuls had no real interest in the extinction of slavery. Her Majesty's Government might effectively and at a moderate cost increase our Consular Establishments by appointing Europeans in the large towns up to the first or second cataract. That would do more to assist the Khédive than anything else. Another circumstance ought to be borne in mind. There was at the present moment a statesman in Egypt who for a long period had been out of office. He referred, of course, to Nubar Pasha. In consequence of his influence with the Khédive the Government of this country now had a more favourable opportunity of putting down the slave trade than had presented itself for many years. In regard to the annexation of portions of Upper Egypt, he knew for a fact that the great difficulty felt by the Khédive was the question as to what was to be done with the slaves in the annexed districts. No doubt the Khédive was extending his dominions; but it was absolutely necessary for him to do so if his country were ever to become great, or even if it were to pay the interest on its debt. Mr. Fowler, the engineer, and his staff were now extending the railway beyond the second cataract, and one of the subjects on which the Khédive entered into the most animated conversations with Mr. Fowler was the treatment of the slaves whom he was determined to liberate in the countries annexed. He believed it was the Khédive's intention to form them into a corps by which the railway could be carried on. How could we hope to put down the slave trade except by bringing the uncivilized parts of Africa into the Kingdom of the Khédive? It was quite impossible to change the opinion of the present generation of Mahomedans on the subject of slavery.

  1173
  They thought our interference as unjust and almost irreligious, and if we diminished the Khédive's prestige among his own people by insisting upon the right of search in his vessels, we should be doing more harm than good. The intention of the Khédive, of his family, and of his Chief Minister was as rapidly as possible to suppress the slave trade and to wean the Mahomedan portion of the population from their love of that form of servitude.
  MR. WHALLEYconcurred in the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken. All persons who had a practical knowledge of the subject agreed that we ought to support the Sultan of Zanzibar in carrying legitimate commerce into the interior of his territory. All our efforts, whether by sea or land, would be almost useless except so far as we could give encouragement to men of enterprize to develop the resources of the interior of Africa in mines, agriculture, and so forth.
  Question," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

STATE OF THE NAVY—IRON-CLAD SHIPS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. T. BRASSEY: The Motion I have placed on the Paper embraces both armoured and unarmoured ships. While the principles I seek to enforce apply equally to either class, for the sake of brevity my observations shall be confined to iron-clad ships. I may at once explain that, in recommending that an effort should be made to combine the most essential qualities of a man-of-war with reduced dimensions, I do not desire to criticize, in an unfavourable sense, the shipbuilding policy of the past. The ships designed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) and his successors are admitted by the most competent authorities abroad to be superior to any yet built in their own naval yards. We have been going with the times, and keeping well a-head of, other nations. On the other hand, it will be admitted that much disappointment has been felt that the number of fighting ships we have been able to turn out has been year by year diminishing. During
1174
the last 10 years we have launched on the average two iron-clads annually. The former average was insufficient; and there had been a marked falling-off in the last three years. In 1870, six ships were launched, including three of the Audacious type, and the Hercules and Sultan, which still remain the most powerful masted iron-clads we possess. In 1871, we launched seven ships; but four of these were of the Cyclops class, comparatively small, and intended only for coast defence. In 1872 we launched three ships; the Devastation, Thunderer, and Rupert. The two succeeding years are blank, as regards the history of our iron-clad shipbuilding; and when the Alexandra was recently launched at Chatham, an interval of nearly three years had elapsed since an armoured ship had been added to the Navy. The cause of this stagnation is not so much the insufficiency of the Estimates as the extravagant cost of the individual ships. Previous to the iron-clad epoch, a ship of war could be built for £1,000 a-gun. The cost has now increased to £125,000 a-gun; and these figures, large as they are, may be considerably augmented before the Inflexible and the Dreadnought are completed. Such an outlay is the less satisfactory at a time when questions are being raised as to the policy of building these enormous ships under the altered conditions of naval warfare. I do not insist on smaller ships with a view to reduction of expenditure. Previous to the Franco-Prussian War, it might have been possible to bring down the Naval Estimates to a sum not exceeding £10,000,000. The increased armaments of the Continental Powers have altered the situation. The particular amount required must be determined by the responsible Ministers of the Crown; and they need never shrink from asking for what is necessary to maintain an efficient Navy. The Naval Estimates have been often criticized, but the criticisms have been directed, not so much to the aggregate amount, as to the injudicious application of the money voted to the Naval Service. The most rigid economists in the House of Commons have no desire to starve the Navy, though they are anxious, and rightly so, that our effective strength shall be proportionate to the outlay incurred. Now, in order to attain this object, it is essential to avoid all sudden

1175
fluctuations, whether of increase or reduction in the naval expenditure. It is equally essential that we should take care not to fall behind the age in the designs we adopt for our vessels of war. When we review the past history of the Navy, we find many instances where we have been too slow in admitting the necessity for a change in the system of naval construction. "We have clung to the accepted types, because a reversal of policy would have been tantamount to an admission that the fleet which we had created at great pains and cost had become obsolete, or at best, of little value. It is my object to present a similar error in our own times; and I venture to think the present occasion is not altogether inopportune. The Estimates before us include two armourclads, on each of which it is proposed that only two workmen shall be employed. A force so insignificant can have made no appreciable progress in the herculean task in contemplation, and modification in the designs at the present stage would not involve a serious loss. It is undoubtedly most difficult to form a distinct conception of the future requirements for the matériel of the Navy. But the problem must be faced. The other maritime Powers are not dependent, like ourselves, for their very existence on the command of the seas. They can afford to await the result of our costly experiments. We are in a different position. The question we have to decide is not whether we shall or shall not for a time suspend our shipbuilding operations, but rather what type or types it is most advantageous to adopt, having regard to the actual and prospective conditions of naval warfare. We must therefore make up our minds on a number of questions, which it is more easy to suggest than to answer. Are we right in building ships of monster size, solely for the purpose of carrying armour, ponderous in weight, but no longer impenetrable? In the middle ages armour for personal defence was gradually increased in weight, until it became an insupportable incumbrance. The use of armour for the protection of ships seems likely to lead to a similar result. It is practically impossible to construct vessels to carry armour sufficiently heavy to resist the guns already introduced, still loss to resist those in process of
1176
manufacture. This is proved by the table published by the War Office, showing the penetrating power of the guns in use in 1873. The Committee on Naval Designs, in their Report made in 1871, pointed out that we were approaching a period when the guns would assert a final and decided superiority over armour. Admirals Elliott and Ryder, in their separate Report, expressed an opinion that the continued use of side armour was of doubtful expediency. They objected to the use of any vertical side armour of less than 20 inches in thickness as a protection to the vitals of a ship. They believed that, if war broke out, and our Fleet were protected by this armour, the other maritime nations would resort to the use of guns, against which the armour we now employ would afford no protection. At the present moment the Elswick Company are making 12 100-ton guns for the Italians; and the French have a 38-ton breech-loading gun, which, next to our own, is the most powerful gun in any Navy. M. Dislere, the author of a most suggestive essay, recently published, La Marine Cuirassée, condemns as inadequate any armour of less than 16 inches in thickness; and it has been laid down, no doubt correctly, by the right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), that a ship defended by 16-inch armour must have a displacement of 16,000 tons. In the opinion of M. Dislere, armour which is not impenetrable is worse than useless; for if there be reason to hope that large shells may penetrate the thin sides of unarmoured ships without bursting, it is certain that they will burst against the weakest armour. While, however, the value of armour as a protection against guns is daily becoming more and more doubtful, it seems probable that engagements will hereafter be fought, not with the gun, but with the ram and the torpedo. In support of this statement I might multiply quotations from Commander Noel's able essay, The Gun, the Ram, and the Torpedo, from Captains Colomb and Pellew, from Admirals Touchard and Jurien de la Gravière, from M. Dislere, and many other sources. In dissenting from the Report of the Committee on Naval Designs, Admirals Elliott and Ryder express their firm conviction that the most destructive means of attack will be found in the ram and the torpedo, that the most efficient

1177
ram will prove the most efficient fighting ship, and that the leading features of unsinkableness and handiness which constitute the best ram, will also facilitate the avoidance of the enemy's torpedoes. Looking to the growing importance of ram and torpedo warfare, it appeared to them most desirable to avoid building ships of such large dimensions as the modified Fury, with a displacement exceeding 10,000 tons. In the United States, special attention has been devoted to torpedoes. Admiral Porter, in an official Report, has predicted that in the next great naval fight, the torpedo will decide the result. At Berlin it has been determined to build no more large iron-clads at present. General von Storch, the head of the German Admiralty, stated in the Reichsrath last December that the improvement in torpedoes rendered it undesirable to build the flotilla of monitors included in his former programme of vessels to be built for coast defence. In France it is believed that the torpedo is destined to produce in naval tactics a revolution not less complete than those which have been already brought about by steam, rifled guns, armour plating, and the ram. The torpedo will now, M. Dislere anticipates, be fired from the broadside of ships in action. It may, in short, be regarded as a submarine gun. During the Franco-Prussian War, the French Fleet in the Baltic was reduced to complete inaction by the dread of torpedoes. Turning from foreign opinions, what do we learn from the most eminent men in our own country? Sir Spencer Robinson told the Committee on Designs that he believed a total change in naval warfare was impending; that what we wanted most were neither Devastations nor Sultans, but a class of immensely-powerful torpedo ships. Torpedoes were destined to a great position in naval warfare. Here it may be asked whether the attention of the Constructor's Department has been sufficiently directed to torpedo vessels. We have completed one small vessel, the Vesuvius; but a first experiment must inevitably suggest many improvements, which could be advantageously introduced in subsequent designs. Mr. Barnaby has frankly admitted that it is a question how far we dare go in putting large sums of money into single ships, remembering that every ship in existence can be penetrated
1178
by torpedoes, the large ships as easily as the small ships. Where such differences of opinion prevail, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to the most judicious practical application of the Shipbuilding Vote. There is, however, a general concurrence of opinion in favour of certain types. Rams are admitted to be necessary, and the smaller the dimensions, having due regard to other conditions, the more formidable such a vessel must be. The power of a ram depends on speed and facility in turning. Mobilitate viget, irresque acquirit eundo. The steam ram should be protected by armour in vital points, and it is impossible to give armour protection to a small vessel without some sacrifice of other qualities. In vessels specially designed to act as rams, it would be advisable to give up guns, and it would be unnecessary to insist on a large supply of fuel. The use of rams for harbour defence has been ably discussed by M. Dislere. The ram for coast defence must not, in his opinion, be diverted from its proper use. As Admiral Goldsborough has put it—" The vessel must be the projectile, the steam power the gunpowder." The combined effect of the weight of the vessel and her speed cannot but be irresistible, and the ram, reduced to its one weapon, the spur, relieved from the weight of the artillery and the armour-plating to protect it, rendered in consequence small, handy, and swift, cannot but be a formidable adversary to a bombarding and blockading squadron, composed probably of ships greatly inferior in manœuvring qualities. I trust that the Admiralty may feel justified in ordering at least one ram to be built, free from the incumbrance of artillery. Three or four such vessels could be constructed for the cost of one Rupert. Turning to sea-going types, the Committee on Naval Designs were unwilling to give up armour protection, even though the armour might be penetrable by the heaviest guns. They say—
"After making every allowance for the disadvantages that attend the use of an enormous dead weight of very costly armour, we cannot lose sight of the indisputable fact that, in an action between an armour-clad and an unarmoured ship, (assuming that they carry guns of equal power), the former has, and must have, an immense advantage in being able to penetrate the sides of her adversary, at a distance at which she is herself impenetrable, and

1179
further, in being able to use with effect those most destructive projectiles, common shells, which fall harmless from her own armoured sides."
While it may be admitted that this argument, so conclusive in favour of the retention of armour for first-class vessels of war, all these advantages of the armoured over the unarmoured ship, on which the Committee chiefly insisted, are secured in the Audacious class. The armour of these ships, which is 8 inches thick at the most important points, will resist the projectiles of the 9-inch gun at 200 yards, and must therefore continue to be of service until foreign vessels of war receive a more powerful armament than they usually carry at the present time. As cruising iron-clads for general service, the Audacious class—in which, for the purposes of comparison with other classes, the Swiftsure should be included—presents the best result yet attained for an equal expenditure of money. The cost of each of these vessels may be put in round figures at £250,000; and it is stated by the Constructors of the Admiralty, in their special Report, that they have guns capable of penetrating all but the exceptional armour of foreign Powers, and that they carry armour impenetrable to all but the exceptional guns of such Powers. They carry their guns into action at a speed closely approaching to 14 knots, and they can cruise without the use of steam. Moreover—and this, perhaps, is the most important consideration of all—this result is attained in ships of a moderate size, and the first cost of the ships and of the men required to man them is thus kept down to the lowest point. All these advantages have been still more fully realized in the Shannon, now building at Pembroke. When, therefore, we take into consideration that three Shannons can be built for the cost of one Inflexible, or at least that five Shannons can be built for the cost of two Inflexibles, it would appear wise to divide our expenditure more equally between the two classes. Instead of having only one Shannon in progress, and two Inflexibles, it would be more advantageous to the Navy that we should now be constructing four Shannons and only one Inflexible. The policy of building any vessels of the Inflexible class is open to some doubt. None are being built in the United
1180
States, and only one—the Redoubtable—very slowly in Prance. In Russia the Peter the Great is gradually approaching completion, having been commenced some four or five years ago. Yet in the present undecided state of naval opinion, and while other Powers continue to build such vessels, being in this unwilling imitators of England in a policy which their own constructors disapprove, the public might feel some uneasiness if we were to abandon altogether the construction of first-class iron-clads. Sir Spencer Robinson's evidence before the Committee on Designs is an accurate reflection of the naval mind on this question. He wanted more Devastations, although he fully recognized their defects. He wanted more Sultans, for services in which the ships would be required to remain at sea for a lengthened period. At the same time, he admitted that we were on the eve of a complete change in naval warfare, and that, when the torpedo system had become more perfect, large iron-clads would be less necessary. If only the Admiralty will be firm in insisting on moderate tonnage, as a sine qua non, we may rest confident that it will be found possible to produce most formidable vessels at a greatly reduced cost. The triumphs of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) were won by combining greater fighting power with smaller dimensions than those adopted in the earlier iron-clads. The Hercules surpasses the Minotaur even more in the superior facility with which she can be manœuvred than in the weight of her armour and the power of her guns. The ingenuity of our naval architects would be turned to good account in designing the most powerful ships that could be built for a sum not exceeding £100,000. The true policy of naval construction has been well described by M. Gervaise, an eminent constructor of the French Navy. He says—
"Our aim should be, not simply to produce ships more powerful and of greater speed than any others of known form and dimensions. That object may generally be attained without difficulty, simply by building a larger ship than the type you wish to surpass. The really difficult problem is to produce a ship which shall combine the required power and speed with the smallest dimensions. In other words, the merit of naval architecture consists in producing the greatest possible amount of naval force for a given sum of money."

1181
These are principles which cannot be too strongly insisted upon, and which the British Admiralty have so often forgotten in the sacrifices they have made to the idol of popularity. In justice to our own constructors, we must add that they have often expressed the same opinions. In their Report on the Audacious class to the Committee on Designs, they say—
"In view of the dangers to which ships, how. ever heavily armoured and armed, and however large, are exposed from torpedoes, rams, and other submarine attacks, we consider the best ships are those of the smallest dimensions, which can engage the armour-clad frigates of other nations with a good prospect of success."
The advice thus tendered to the Admiralty should be appreciated by Parliament. The Constructors show an evident reluctance to expend the ample resources at their disposal in building sensational ships. These things are done to please the public; and public opinion on such a question rests on imperfect knowledge. The judgment of the Department itself is the judgment of men of special knowledge; whose claims to our confidence rests on close and constant study of this complicated question in all its bearings. In conclusion, I would suggest one other argument against building ships of exaggerated size. Will not a captain be burdened with an almost intolerable anxiety, when he knows that his ship is one of a very limited number, and that the loss of such a ship may be a most serious blow to the Navy? In the numerous fleets of the olden times, the fate of an individual ship was a less momentous question. But if you concentrate the whole powers of the Navy in a few ships, such as we have lately built, you throw upon the officers in command a weight of responsibility which may check that gallant and almost reckless ardour, with which the great battles of the past were fought and won.
MR. BENTINCKobserved, that if a Question of Privilege or one relating to a personal squabble were to be brought before the House the benches would be full, and not, as they now were, all but empty. He thought the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Hastings for the very able way in which he had brought forward this subject, which involved the question of the condition of our Navy, and that
1182
was the point which the House had to consider. When we looked at the present condition of affairs on the Continent we ought to remember that we were dealing with circumstances very different from those with which we had had to deal before. There never was a time in the history of Europe when the situation of affairs was more hostile to this country than it was at present. There was a state of things on the Continent of Europe unknown in the history of the world. The whole position was changed. Formerly a notion prevailed that the Channel was a barrier against aggression, but it was not now the barrier that it was 50 years ago. Again, many discussions had taken place with respect to our military resources, and the result of the debates was that the state of our Army was anything but what it ought to be, for not only had we not sufficient troops for the requirements of our Colonies, but we had not sufficient to defend our own shores in the event of an attempted invasion. A more important question could not be raised than that of the condition of our Navy. The Army had been so much reduced and frittered away that, practically speaking, the Navy was our only remaining line of defence against foreign invasion. Only last year the First Lord of the Admiralty had said that he did not like phantom ships. [Mr. HUNT: No, no!] Well, he was sorry if his right hon. Friend did not say so; but, at all events, it could not be denied that he had spoken in terms of strong disparagement with respect to the condition of the Navy. [Mr. HUNT: Hear, hear!] He fully expected that frank and candid admission. But what he felt was that the right hon. Gentleman, having commenced his career with that admission, ought at least to have made some attempt, colloquially speaking, to put things right. There was only one remedy for inefficiency—money; but, unfortunately, his right hon. Friend had not the political courage to ask the House to furnish him with the means required to amend the defects which he himself had published to the world. If the First Lord had done so, his conviction was that both the House and the country would have responded cordially to the appeal, and the First Lord would have been at once placed in a position to remedy the deficiencies of which he so

1183
justly complained. He (Mr. Bentinck) contended that the present condition of the Navy was not what it ought to be, either in point of the number or of the efficiency of our ships. Modes of aggression were now so numerous, the masses of troops which might be poured upon our shores were so enormous, that it was rash to assert that our Navy was at present sufficient even for purposes of home defence. When England used to claim the sovereignty of the Seas, it was on the ground that we were prepared to contest it against the world united. But was the British Navy ready to contend now even against two of the great naval Powers united? We had no ships which could be handled under canvas alone without assistance from their engines; and a vessel which could not keep the sea when her coals were out could not be called a sea-going or efficient vessel. True we had a fleet such as it was—no two alike, various monsters of all shapes and sizes, some going faster than the rest, while some would and some would not answer their helms, and nobody knew which was the best or the worst. But there was another point to be borne in mind, and that was our want of experience as to the result of a naval engagement between iron-clads. It had been asserted that within a couple of hours after the commencement of such a battle all that would be left would be a few hats floating about on the water. Well, if that were likely to be so it became a very serious matter indeed for us to consider the question of having a reserve of ships. In olden days we had a larger number of ships in reserve than were actually engaged; but if our Channel squadron went into action and four or five heavy ships were disabled, where was the British Navy? He would appeal to his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) whether the whole thing was not an experiment, and whether we were not trusting not only the honour, but the safety of the country to a number of untried ships. But there was another important point. In the event of a war, where were the ships with which we were to protect our commercial operations? Had hon. Gentlemen on both sides who were largely embarked in commercial affairs ever considered what would be the position of the commerce of this country in the event of the outbreak of a general war? Was his right hon. Friend the
1184
First Lord of the Admiralty prepared to say that he had such a fleet in reserve as could protect it? For he need not tell his right hon. Friend that we should want not only a vast number of ships for that purpose, but they should be ships of a particular class—not armour-clad, but vessels carrying, perhaps, one heavy gun, and of great speed, so that they could choose their own mode of fighting, and not only protect our commerce, but harass that of the enemy. Well, where were those ships, and where were the funds by which they were to be constructed? Was his right hon. Friend prepared to tell the House either that he had those ships or was preparing to build them? [Mr. HUNT: Hear, hear!] But they could not be built in days, or weeks, or months, and yet the necessity for them might come at any moment. He contended that it was downright insanity on the part of this country, having an enormous mass of wealth embarked in commercial operations, not to take steps while we had time and means to protect it. And yet here they were, about 60 Members of the House of Commons listening to his remarks, and the other 600 at their dinner—the House and the country appearing to be perfectly indifferent on the matter. Hon. Members would remember, too, that this country greatly, if not mainly, depended for supplies of food on other nations. Not two months ago there was what in the commercial world was called "a panic," in the social world "a scare." The Great Powers were seeing how they could raise 1,000,000 or 1,200,000 men and arm them most effectively. We might rely upon it that those panics or scares were not without a foundation; and what, he might ask, would be the position of this country in the event of a sudden outbreak of a European war? There was a fond idea that privateering was abolished by the Declaration of Paris. But we all know that declaration, whether ratified by treaty or no, was not worth the paper on which it was written. The very moment war broke out, those countries which would benefit by privateering would resort to it. We probably should be the last to do so, until we should be half ruined by our own folly, for we should have some scruples about the Declaration of Paris, but others would not be so scrupulous, What

1185
would be our position if other nations were to take to privateering, and not only destroy our commerce, but deprive us of supplies of food which were indispensable to our existence. Our first duty was then, without a moment's delay, to supply ourselves with a large number of ships of a character best adapted to protect our own commerce and destroy that of the enemy. The torpedo was about to become the great implement of maritime war. If his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) would make up his mind as to what he wanted for torpedoes and vessels to ensure the safety and honour of England, neither the House of Commons nor the country would begrudge the money that was necessary. His right hon. Friend could not better employ his energies than by devoting them to this entire question.
MR. E. J. REED,who had upon the Paper a Notice—
"To call attention to the principles which had been and are being adopted in the construction of Her Majesty's ships of war,"
said, he thought he should best consult the convenience of the House by making what observations he had to offer a continuance of the present discussion rather than the beginning of a new one. He was reminded by the course which the debate had taken of an incident that occurred at the last anniversary of the Royal Academy dinner, when the First Lord of the Admiralty complimented the artist who had painted the Devastation for having enveloped the greater part of the vessel in smoke, while he decorated the remainder with a great variety of colours. He feared that some of the artists who undertook to describe our iron-clads pursued very much the same course, enveloping the greater part of the subject in smoke and describing the remainder in such a way that he entirely failed to recognize it. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) had not diverged into any random criticism of Her Majesty's Navy, but rather drew attention to certain general principles which ought to be followed. He ventured to think that a most commendable course. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had spoken on two points of the greatest importance, and on both he had conveyed an unfair impression to the House. The hon. Member for West
1186
Norfolk said we had in our Navy no two ships alike. Now, there could be no greater mistake. We had several groups of ships quite alike, and other groups which differed very little from each other. The present Government, when last in office, laid down six ships which were in many respects alike—namely, the Swiftsure and Audacious class; before then the Warrior and Black Prince were alike; so were the Defence and Resistance, the Hector and Valiant, and many others. Then, the late Government laid down four ships of a like class. He might go on and show that where ships differed materially they did not so differ as to make them incapable of being together in an action. One of the distinguishing merits of our Navy, which was recognized throughout the world, was that we did introduce continual differences in our ships, because we made that very desirable thing, continual progress. The French pursued a totally different course. Last year they heard speeches describing the inefficient condition of the French Navy, and the cause of that inefficiency was that they laid down the proposition that they would make all their ships alike. The consequence was, they for a long time made no progress. In a general action nothing could be more embarrassing to an enemy than the uncertainty he must feel as to the capabilities of ships of different kinds, particularly if he knew that the diversity arose from improvements. The hon. Member for West Norfolk had altogether depreciated the sailing qualities of our iron-clad fleet; and that error, although much better founded than the other, was, nevertheless, of an equally grave character. He (Mr. Reed) did not wish to maintain that armoured ships were as efficient in sailing as unarmoured. They had not the same size of masts, or spars, or spread of canvas. In the Duke of Wellington, and similar ships of the unarmoured type, they had reached the largest size in which they could send men aloft to handle the sails, and as iron-clads were larger in bulk amidships and elsewhere, and had a far less spread of canvas, they wore, of course, inferior in sailing qualities. An attempt had been made to remedy that by increasing the number of masts; but after a trial that was abandoned by general consent. But equal sailing qualities were unneces-

1187
sary, as they had larger steam power and great advantages in other respects. They were, however, far better sailers than the hon. Member for "West Norfolk imagined. This was easy of proof from the official Reports, from which he should like to give an extract or two. Admiral Yelverton said of the Research that she sailed well at all times. She took the first place and was twice second. Of the Pallas he said on all occasions on trial at sea she proved herself far superior to the rest of the squadron. Her power of going to windward was very extraordinary. Of the Bellerophon, her captain said, speaking of her voyage to Maderia, the passage from Plymouth was made in eight days, almost entirely under sail, with a heavy sea running. She proved the best and easiest ship at sea he had ever served in. Of the Hercules, the late lamented Admiral Sherard Osborn said, as a sailing ship, she struck him as a most efficient cruiser. Of the Invincible, Admiral Yelverton said, in 1872, she behaved remarkably well under canvas. Captain Commerell reported favourably upon the Monarch as buoyant and a very fair cruiser. The Favourite came from Halifax to Spithead in 17 days, and went as much as nine knots an hour, with a force of wind from five to seven against her. He had many other extracts from Reports, but would not weary the House by quoting them. We were accustomed outside the House and sometimes in the House to very confident criticisms upon our ships from persons who had no experience of them; and adverse opinions from officers of experience were often very materially qualified. Prom a distinguished officer who had had more experience of our iron-clad ships than any other, Admiral Sir Hastings Yelverton, he had received a letter in which the writer said—
"If I begin by the little Enterprise, whose performances both under steam and canvas astonished us all so much in the Mediterranean in 1864, it is only to fix a starting point in the long experience I have had of your ships. When in command of the Channel Squadron in 1867 I had good reason to know and appreciate the fine sea-going qualities of your Bellerophon, both under steam and steam and sail, in a month's cruise off Capo Clear; and when in 1870 I commanded the same squadron I became acquainted with your Hercules, combining, as she does to the present hour, all the advantages of the finest frigate afloat, crowned with those indispensable fighting qualities so peculiar to the iron-clad of her class. When cruising in the Atlantic in
1188
1872, I had several of your ships under my command, and had great reason to be pleased with their handy performance in fleet evolutions, their stability under sail, but above all their great warlike qualities. I have tried your Invincible and Swiftsure against the wooden frigates Aurora and Endymion, much to the advantage of the first two in stability as gun platforms and great power as engines of war. These and other instances I could mention in support of the efficiency and superiority of your ships at sea, and, as I speak from experience and not hearsay, you are at liberty to quote me to any one you please. I make no mention of the Sultan, and others of your ships I have not seen at sea; but, if in their increased proportions they are equal to your numerous vessels I have had under trial, they will add to the credit you already deserve for having made our iron-clads the pride of the country and the envy of foreign nations."
He hoped that statement would carry more weight than irresponsible statements made by gentlemen without experience, and many of which were as true as that made the other day about the Devastation being a Black Hole of Calcutta, which was promptly corrected by the official declaration that her ventilation was superior to that of any vessel in the Mediterranean. He felt the greatest possible sympathy with the object of the hon. Member who moved this Motion, and who had done great service by the speech which he had delivered. There could be no doubt that in seeking to obtain our unapproachable power we had not hesitated to build ships of very large dimensions; but we should not lose sight of this—that the largest ships now building was not bigger than several others, like the Minotaur, the Agincourt, and the Northumberland, that we began to build 10 or 12 years ago. He had no wish to praise ships with the construction of which he had been connected; and he would remark that no one ship was the production of a single mind. The Board of Admiralty, the Controller of the Navy, and the Chief Constructor of the Navy, all contributed to the production of each ship, and much of the excellence of these vessels was due to the experience and advice of naval officers who were members of the Board, and also to the naval officer who was Controller of the Navy. He did not wish to vindicate himself, for he did not feel the necessity for that vindication; but whilst he sympathized with the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, he was obliged to differ very much as to some of the grounds upon

1189
which he had based his Motion. It had been said that it was impossible by armour to resist submarine attacks or the fire of heavy guns. With regard to the guns, that was precisely the proposition which he had heard ever since we ventured to build armour-plated vessels. We had always been told that it was impossible for armour to resist guns, and yet we had during all this time been in the possession of many ships that were impregnable to every gun afloat in the service of any other country. This was also the position in which we stood at this moment. We had at Malta, Portsmouth, and Pembroke ships absolutely impregnable to every gun afloat in the service of any other country. If it was said the power of the gun was increasing enormously and rapidly, he answered so was the armour-plating; and when the Inflexible was completed, if she was the kind of ship we had been led to believe, her armour-plating would be impervious to any gun afloat in any ships except our own. It had been said that no fewer than 10 100-ton guns were now being made for foreign Powers by one private firm; but even supposing this to be true, and the guns would penetrate—which he did not for a moment believe—the Inflexible, still, it did not matter to this country until those guns were afloat. When it was said that other nations were reluctantly following us, it was not seen that we had the advantage in being able to do what others were reluctant to do, and that this fact assured us our pre-eminence. It would be unfortunate if it were the other way, and if we had to follow and imitate other nations. We were stronger now because other nations had to begin to build their own ships, and could only build them slowly. Russia, for instance, had been building the Peter the Great for five or six years, and the vessel was not finished yet. We were stronger, again, because these larger vessels were more powerful than the vessels we began with. It was said that the torpedo was to supersede all these vessels, and that the proper thing to do was to set them aside, and to develop the torpedo, and he was surprised at the reference made to Admiral Porter, whose Report he happened to be reading at the time. Admiral Porter said that we should run into error if we supposed that ships of war would be driven from the ocean by the torpedo alone.
1190
The torpedo, he said, was but an adjunct, and there were certain times and circumstances, and only then, when it had the advantage over big guns. Admiral Porter had also reported on the Alarm and Intrepid, and he was perfectly aware that whatever power the torpedo might possess, every one of our iron-clad vessels had been furnished for some years past with the ram, and he had never heard that a torpedo would make a much bigger hole in the sides of a vessel than the ram. The ram, indeed, in Admiral Porter's opinion, ranked higher than the torpedo in naval warfare, and he relegated both the Alarm and the Intrepid to the purposes of coast defence. This, at all events, might be said of the torpedo, that, whatever its capabilities might be in the future, its powers were at present undeveloped. It was said it might be discharged from the broadside of a vessel under water; but one of the most successful improvements in naval warfare had been in the increase of range in our guns. No ex-ample of a successful use of the torpedo in naval warfare could be quoted, nor had it been proved to be a handy or manageable weapon. If it realized all that could be expected of it every vessel might be furnished with a torpedo, for he was at a loss to know what there was in a torpedo ship that could not be applied to the great bulk of existing ships of war. It had not been proved, moreover, that the torpedo was efficient against armour when it struck armour. The armour of our iron-clads went a good way down into the water, and it could go lower if necessary, and by a modification of the form of a vessel it was possible to present armour everywhere to the attacks of the torpedo. A circular iron-clad belonging to Russia had recently been cruising in the Black Sea, the armour-plating of which went down to the bottom of the ship. There was, therefore, no reason for calling upon the Government to abandon armour on account of the torpedo. It was strange how any person who had thought the matter over could lend himself for one moment to an argument so utterly worthless and without foundation, that because armour had been abandoned for the defence of the person of the soldier, that it was to be abandoned for the engines, boilers, and machinery of a ship. A moment's reflection must show

1191
that the power of carrying personal armour was limited, but not so with a ship. We began with 4½inch armour, which was thought to be wonderful, but we had now got to 24-inch armour; and the Inflexible which would carry it, would be as fast, as handy, and as mobile as any vessel that had preceded her. There was nothing in the universe to surpass the mobility of these iron-clads, for the motion of a body weighing 10,000 tons could be reversed in a minute. There was no practical limit to the thickness of armour as occasions might arise; but the Admiralty had now included in their programme two vessels singularly fast, to be built of steel. They did not calculate upon deriving any great advantage from the saving of weight, but the time had arrived when that long standing dream of naval men—very fast vessels of small dimensions—seemed about to be realized, from the introduction of improved material. References had been made to the opinions of foreign gentlemen, but foreign Navies supplied many instances of inexperience. There were two vessels being built for the Italian Navy—one which he saw at Spezzia, and the other more advanced at Castellamare, which supplied an illustration of the great value of our going ahead. "When they were designed it was thought they would take a pre-eminent place in Europe, but almost before they were commenced the British Admiralty, animated by a progressive spirit, developed the Inflexible. And what had been the consequence? "Why when the British Government commenced to build the Inflexible the Italian Government felt that their new ships would be behind the time, and they immediately introduced such alterations in them as would enable them to carry heavier armour, with the result, as he was afraid, that their ships would not be so efficient as they were originally intended to be. He maintained that it was a great advantage to this country to be able to put foreign Powers in such a position. We spent from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a-year upon our Navy for the purpose of securing naval pre-eminence; and he maintained that our naval position was pre-eminent, although we had not so many ships afloat as he should like to see; and of those £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 none were spent to better purpose than the £1,000,000 which was
1192
expended on the construction of our ships. He knew that the hon. Member who had introduced this question was no advocate for cheese-paring, and had brought forward the subject in the interest of the Navy, which he believed would be rendered more efficient by the building of smaller vessels. All those who had held high office in the Admiralty knew that there was a great demand in that Department for an increased number of these smaller ships; and his opinion was that we ought to turn our attention to the construction of such vessels for some time to come. We knew that ships of the Audacious class carried our flag into distant seas where nothing floated that would compare with them. We knew that the smaller Powers, such as the Southern States of America, the Chinese, and the Japanese, were building iron-clads of a minor class, and that we must have vessels of a similar character which would bear our flag into their seas, and the proposition of the hon. Member would have had a valuable result if it stimulated our Government to construct them. The Government had been strongly urged to abandon armour on our ships altogether; but he trusted that the observations he had made would make the right hon. Gentlemen opposite reflect before they adopted that advice. It would be greatly to be deplored if England, with all her wealth and her light taxation—because it was difficult to find out in what the pressure of taxation that was said to be so heavy upon working men consisted—should take the alarming course of abandoning armour-plated ships. Should we do so we should be no better off than other people were. The smaller class of unarmoured vessels possessed of great speed might do much good service; but he hoped that we should not abandon the construction of the larger class because when a small vessel was in a heavy sea, almost all the speed that she developed in smooth water disappeared, whereas that of the larger class remained. He should deplore the fact that the bulk of English vessels should carry only such light guns as could be put on board the Cunard and other mercantile vessels. The Inconstant with her enormous speed and her overwhelming battery, although she was costly, was well adapted to represent the power of England all over the world. It would be a deplorable policy if for the sake of a pitiful economy

1193
we were to deprive ourselves of the superior class of ships; and he trusted that we should not adopt it, although he hoped the Government would see their way to follow the course that had been pointed out to them by the hon. Member.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that no one would deny the importance and value of the Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend. He trusted that the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) would not think that he was saying disrespectful to him when he expressed his regret that he had introduced into this debate, which had reference to the size and dimensions of our ships, the larger question on which the hon. Member so much delighted to enlarge—namely, the alleged deficiency of the British Navy. The hon. Gentleman had complained that so few hon. Members had been present when he had made his remarks—a circumstance which he attributed to the degeneration of the House of Commons and its want of interest in the Navy. The hon. Member, however, must recollect that he had given no intimation of the course he intended to adopt of making most reckless and sensational statements respecting the British Navy, otherwise the attendance would probably have been larger. He regretted that he must turn for the moment from the important question which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Hastings to deal with the assertions of the hon. Member for West Norfolk; but unfortunately the statements of the latter would be published in the newspapers, and would be read in foreign countries, and would, doubtless, if uncontradicted, carry great weight with them, and he was anxious, as far as he could, to meet and repel those assertions. The hon. Member said that he had not heard of any ships that were built, or that were being built, that were fitted to protect the commerce of the country. But the hon. Member never heard anything, and it appeared to him never understood anything, otherwise he would have remembered the statement the First Lord of the Admiralty had made respecting the number of such ships that we possessed. The hon. Member urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of building more ships, and yet, in the same breath, he declared that the ships that were built were useless, and would be blown into the air by
1194
torpedoes. The hon. Gentleman had never said what type of vessels he would wish to see built. He (Mr. Goschen) was quite sure that the House would be ready to vote such sums as the First Lord of the Admiralty, on his responsibility, considered to be necessary to secure the protection and promote the honour of this country. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) was no doubt right in saying that we ought to have ships as numerous and as effective as possible; but he was in error when he stated that large ships were built in deference to public opinion rather than with a view to efficiency. Generally speaking, the scientific officers of the Admiralty aimed at having the best ship possible, which was in many cases—perhaps in most cases—the largest, and they shrank from building ships which might be unable to cope with an enemy. The result was, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had said, that we were now in a position to cope with any ship or any combination of ships that could be brought against us. The hon. Member for West Norfolk doubted whether anybody would get up in that House and assert that our Navy could cope with that of any two foreign Powers; but the fact was that the Secretary to the Admiralty last year made a much stronger statement—namely, that our Navy could fight the combined Navies of, at least, three other Powers. [Mr. A. EGERTON: I said they would be ready to fight them, which is a very different thing.] Well, he believed we should be ready to fight many more than three, and, what was more, that we should be successful in the attempt, and he had no doubt that any suggestion to the contrary would be repudiated by every naval officer in the Service. He had listened with special pleasure to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), because not long since that hon. Gentleman had considerably perplexed the public by his reference to one or two large ships, especially the Peter the Great, belonging to foreign countries; but now we enjoyed the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that our superiority was every day becoming greater. Great strides had been made in the building of our large ships of recent years. While the late Government were in office an advance was made from 14 inches to 24 inches of armour, and from guns of

1195
38 to guns of 80 tons; and when hon. Members deplored the small number of existing iron-clads, it was to be borne in mind that had the late Government built ships at the rate they were urged to do, a large portion of our Navy would now have been obsolete. But, although he advocated the building of large ships, he was perfectly alive to the desirability of having small ones; for it would obviously be a great waste of power to send large ships on service for which small ones were equally suitable. The French possessed one class of ships which always struck him as deserving of consideration. He referred to the Alma class, of which they had 10—namely, small, useful, swift iron-clads, capable of dealing a heavy blow in distant parts. In view of what those vessels could do, he thought the Admiralty would be well-advised in urging their constructors to produce vessels of a similar type, and to multiply them consistently with the wants of the service. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Pembroke in his concluding remarks. We knew as yet so little of torpedoes that the Government of this country would incur a very great responsibility if, from any fear of that form of weapon, they abandoned the construction of ships of first-rate power. However, there was too much ability among the officials of the Admiralty for our position to be unsafe, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department would find no difficulty in solving the problem of naval construction.
MR. HUNTsaid, the discussion had been of a twofold character, consisting partly of advice and partly of remonstrance; but the singularity of it was that the advice had come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the remonstrance from Gentlemen on his own side of the House. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had quoted the description he gave of the Navy last year, and said nothing had been done to remedy it; but he dealt with the subject when he introduced the Navy Estimates, and he was unwilling to repeat himself now. However, he pointed out that the condition of things he deplored had resulted from undue reduction of Estimates that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) who immediately preceded him in office had taken considerable steps in applying. He
1196
pointed out how the dockyards had been reduced, and he made demands accordingly—demands which were cheerfully complied with by the House. The hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) asked what he had done to protect our commerce? His answer was that his very first act had been to propose to lay down two armoured cruising ships for the purpose of protecting our commerce, of an improved Shannon type, and they were now in the hands of the contractors. They were specially designed for this purpose, would have a speed of one knot more than the Shannon, considerable addition to the hold stowage, and more deflection in the after-part of the ship. How, then, could it be said he had done nothing? [Mr. BENTINCK: I said very little had been done.] He accepted the amendment; but the real question was, at what pace we were to build these ships? The hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck), when he was addressing the House, complained of the emptiness of the benches, and inferred from that circumstance an indifference with regard to this question. He differed from the hon. Member's view, for he thought it showed great confidence in the administration of the present Government, and that hon. Members were quite satisfied that the Admiralty were doing all that was necessary in the matter. This year he proposed to lay down and proceed with two fast armed despatch vessels. He alluded to them when introducing the Estimates, though the designs were not settled then. They would, he believed, be the fastest ships of war afloat, supposing they realized the expectations of their designers. Their speed would be between 17 and 18 knots; they would not carry more armour than was sufficient for the purpose of annoying an enemy's commerce at sea. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member was satisfied that the Admiralty were making increased efforts to put the Navy in the position in which it ought to be as regarded the protection of our commerce and annoyance to the enemy's. He would not at that late hour travel over the same ground as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who had discoursed so ably on so many points; he would rather say how far the Government proposed to go with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) in the recommendation he had

1197
made. The question of building ironclads of a less size had been mooted at the Admiralty, and the prevailing view accorded to a great extent with that of the hon. Member. It was proposed to lay down two ships of the Inflexible type, modelled to a certain extent upon that ship, but of considerably less dimensions; that they should be turret ships, and each have an armoured central citadel. Each would be subdivided into a large number of separate water-tight compartments; their speed would be 13 knots an hour; as compared with the Inflexible the displacement of tonnage would be something over 8,000 as against 11,163; and the cost was £400,000 as against £521,000 for the Inflexible. To that extent they were following the recommendation of the hon. Member. Of course, as had been remarked by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), whatever design of ship you build it must be more or less of a compromise; but it would be utterly impossible, except in ships of a certain magnitude, to have the essentials of thickness of armour, weight of armament, and speed. These conditions were satisfied in the ships which we proposed to build. Considering the various requirements of the present day, our ships must be of different types, different rates of speed, different dimensions, and carrying different armaments; and it would be impossible to go on building the same class of ship without variation. Those which were laid down last year were designed at the Admiralty to be fast, armoured, ocean cruisers. Of course they would be powerful ships of battle, like some which had preceded them; but they would be useful for aggressive purposes, and they would be more powerful than many foreign ships of battle. At the same time, their general cruising qualities would make them useful ships in all parts of the globe. The two ships of the Inflexible class which it was now proposed to build would be essentially ships of battle, and their cruising qualities would not be as great as those of the ships laid down last year. He believed they would be powerful, and their cost would not be anything like that of the Inflexible, so that for the same amount of money more would be built. As to the argument that the invention and development of torpedoes would do away with
1198
the necessity for building armour-clad ships, whatever might be the issue of that development, he agreed with the hon. Member for Pembroke that, the time had not yet come for us to give up our armour-clad ships. No doubt, torpedoes would play a large part in future wars—how great it was impossible for anyone to say; but we could not yet, on account either of guns or torpedoes, give up building armour-clad vessels. His information did not lead him to believe that any foreign Government had given up building armour-clad vessels. He hoped the information he had given would be satisfactory, and that they might be allowed to go into Committee of Supply.

IMPRISONMENT OF POLITICAL OFFENDERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY,who had given Notice of the following Motion:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give directions to Her diplomatic servants on the Continent of Europe, and in America, to inquire and report, in the respective countries to which they are accredited, what is the practice relating to the imprisonment and trial of persons charged with political or other offences, and what are the rights of such accused persons to require an imdiate trial, or a trial within any specified period; and whether the laws admit of the close and prolonged imprisonment of a subject of those countries, and of his subsequent discharge, without being brought to trial,"
said, it was popularly supposed that the liberty of the subject was better taken care of in England than in any other country, and our statesmen had felt free to denounce foreign oppression, as Mr. Gladstone did in his pamphlet about the prisons of Naples. Recent events had shaken the faith of many as to the freedom of Englishmen. By the law of elections a single Judge could taint the character of individuals who might be guilty of technical though not of moral offences, and at the discretion of a single Judge they might be condemned to political ostracism. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must, in the course of last year, have become acquainted with the manner in which the doctrine of "contempt of Court" had been exercised by the Judges, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) hoped that the House of Commons would take care that the liberty and rights of the subject

1199
should be more effectually protected in future. He desired now to allude to the fact that an individual in Ireland had been thrust into prison, and there kept confined in a dungeon for three years and a-half at the will of one man, and turned out without having been brought to trial or told what the charge against him was, or why he was thus treated, why his prospects had been blighted, his home broken up, and his feelings outraged. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had brought this question under the consideration of the House of Commons a few days ago, and asked for an inquiry into the circumstances; but the House refused to allow an inquiry to be made into the matter. That was a thing which would be recorded and commented upon by some future historian, and would excite surprise not unmingled with other feelings. If the House of Commons allowed a man to be kept in prison in Ireland for three years and a-half, and then at the expiration of that time to be turned out without trial, what man could say his liberties were safe? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had brought the case before Parliament on a former occasion, and consequent upon that the man was thrust out of prison, but without inquiry into the cause of his long imprisonment, and why he had been kept there without being brought to trial. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had here a pamphlet, written by an eminent and distinguished man (Mr. Gladstone) in reference to the treatment of prisoners in Naples. That pamphlet caused a great sensation at the time. The prisoner alluded to by Mr. Gladstone had been then 18 months confined without being brought to trial, and the right hon. Gentleman the writer of the pamphlet stated he had visited and seen him; but did he visit the poor man who had been cast into prison in Ireland, and there kept for three and a-half years without being brought to trial? In the pamphlet the writer denounced the proceedings in relation to the Neapolitan prisoner as an outrage upon humanity and upon religious feeling, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) must denounce the proceedings against the poor man long imprisoned in Ireland, and then turned out without trial, as an outrage upon the best feeling of humanity and upon civil liberty and religious feeling. He must say that if
1200
the House of Commons did not awaken to such a damning fact as the incarceration of that poor man, without even the charge against him—if there were any—being communicated to him, the sense of liberty and justice in England was retrograding. Although by a slight manœuvre on the part of the Government he was unable consistently with the Forms of the House to bring his Motion to a division, he maintained that those things demanded an answer, and an immediate answer. If there was one spark remaining of that feeling which won all the liberties of this country, he called on the House to rouse itself to the magnitude of that question, and to determine whether or not that was the law which the people of England desired to have in operation in any part of Her Majesty's dominions.
MR. FORSYTH: I rise to Order. The Question before the House has no relation to the matter on which the hon. Member is now speaking. Sir, I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman is at liberty to stray from the Question before the House, and call its attention to a matter about Patrick Casey—a question on which the House has already decided.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question before the House was that he should now leave the Chair, and the Motion of the hon. Member could not be put. The hon. Member had not been out of Order in the observations which he had made; but he could not review the decision to which the House had come on the case referred to.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was not in any way reviewing the decision of the House in this case, but he was asking the House to aid him in obtaining information in reference to the case of the man who had been so ill-treated as he had described; and he would venture to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupted him that in this country, by constitutional principle, money could not be obtained until the grievances of the people were inquired into. The magnitude of the Motion which he brought before the House in relation to their liberties was most important and deserving of every consideration. And, on such a question, the time he had now occupied in calling the attention of the House to it was surely not unreasonable. He submitted that

1201
the Act of 1871, under which this man was thrust into prison like a dog, was most harsh and oppressive, and ought to be repealed. The man, he repeated, was thrust into prison like a dog. Yes, and was thrust out of prison like a dog, without accusation and without trial. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members cried "Oh;" but it was so. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was pleading now in the name of justice, and in the name of humanity, and he was also pleading in the name of freedom to have inquiry made into the case of this poor man. When hon. Members went abroad during the Recess he hoped they would not show any longer the self-satisfaction for which Englishmen had a reputation among other nations, that they would not hold up their hands and thank God that England was not as other countries were. With one exception, he believed, there was no country in Europe where such a thing could have happened as that to which he had drawn attention. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would grant the information which he moved for; and especially that they would ascertain what were the laws in foreign countries under which persons could be cast into prison without knowing for what, and kept there for a long time, and then turned out without trial. He would, in conclusion, say that he was determined to bring this question before the House and the public until he obtained the information which he deemed it his duty to ask for.
MR O'CONNOR POWERsaid, under the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland many persons could be imprisoned without any charge whatever.
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member had already spoken to the Question before the House—namely, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and therefore had no right to speak again.
MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Irish people objected to the treatment of the Irish political prisoners. He referred to the case of Daniel Reddin, who at the close of the Fenian troubles was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. In consequence of the hardships inflicted upon the man he was seized with paralysis, and the prison officials, acting upon the assumption that was malingering, applied strong electric batteries to him twice a-day, blistered him, and thrust sharp instruments into the muscles
1202
of his legs. [Laughter.] It was no laughing matter, as he (Mr. Parnell) was only stating facts. In addition to this, they, in the winter time, put him naked into a cell; and when he was physically unable to take exercise in the prison yard, caused him to be dragged to and fro, first by convicts and afterwards by warders. Finally, he fell from a height when endeavouring to shield a fellow-convict who had done for him work which he was unable to accomplish, and was then discharged from prison. He afterwards took steps to obtain redress in a Court of Law; but on the medical officers making affidavits to the effect that they had simply applied to the man the tests usual in cases where it was suspected that paralysis was assumed and not real the Judge of the Court stopped the proceedings, and the man altogether failed to obtain the redress he sought. This was a gross case, and he hoped that if Parliament did not take up the case English public opinion would be clearly expressed concerning it.
MR. MELDONreferred to the case of an Irish political prisoner named O'Brien, who for six months was kept in chains, and for what? Merely for doing that which he had a perfect right to do if he could—namely, to escape from prison. It was the duty of the prison authorities to prevent the possibility of his making his escape, but not by loading him with heavy chains. Notwithstanding the hardship of this man's case, the House had heard the Home Secretary express approval of the course adopted by the prison officials. He believed that many of his Friends about him could bring forward similar cases of hardship and injustice. It was only a day or two since they heard that Dr. Bernard, who had been found by a coroner's jury to have by unkindliness accelerated the death of a prisoner, was still an honoured Government official. These were matters which the House ought not to overlook.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that at his instance a searching investigation had been made into the case of the prisoner to whom the hon. Member who had just sat down had referred, and it was found that he had not been guilty of unkindness or want of skill or attention, but that there had been a certain amount of brusqueness in his dealings

1203
with his patients of which notice ought to be taken. Upon that subject he had been communicated with and cautioned. With reference to the question brought more immediately under the notice of the House, he had only to say that if the hon. Member (Mr. Meldon) would furnish him with the name of the prisoner and the place of his confinement, he would have an investigation made into the circumstances of the case.
MR. FORSYTHprotested against the waste of time which was occasioned by the bringing forward of individual cases of alleged hardship without Notice to the House.
MR. T. E. SMITHobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to forget the constitutional principle, that grievance, even individual grievance, preceded Supply. This was not a Party question, and no one would maintain that a man had a right to be taken up, kept in prison, and discharged without a trial. He was surprised that no Member of the Government connected with Ireland had given any explanation of the matters complained of.
MR. O'CLERYobserved, that a feeling prevailed in Ireland that political prisoners were unfairly treated and persecuted, and that it was the duty of the Government to institute a public inquiry into the treatment which they experienced. He held it was high time that this matter was thoroughly investigated. The mere word of the three Commissioners would not satisfy the country in the face of the recent inquest. Foreign countries would have a curious opinion of England after reading in the newspapers that when a case of real hardship was submitted to the House of Commons it was simply treated with laughter.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the language and conduct of the Home Secretary, who had promised to give these matters his full consideration, would be received with respect in Ireland. Far different, however, would be the feelings elicited by the laughter and ironical cheers of hon. Members opposite when Irish Members addressed the House. The question before the House was one touching the liberties and even the lives of Irishmen, and, to say the least, it ought to have received more consideration. A case of alleged cruelty had been brought before the House, and
1204
it had been treated in a manner which he would not comment upon. He was afraid that was not the way to promote peace and reconciliation with Ireland. He thought a case had at least been made out for inquiry.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, his silence thus far was not due to any want of feeling with regard to the statements which had been made, and he was sure that the matter of those statements had not caused laughter on that side of the House, although the manner of some hon. Gentlemen opposite was calculated to provoke a smile; and looking at the countenance of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick he thought that at one moment he had rather shared in that feeling. It was, in fact, painful to Her Majesty's Government to be obliged to maintain exceptional laws in Ireland. The desire of the hon. Member for Galway was that information should be obtained respecting the state of the law in foreign countries; but he failed to see what useful object could be attained by the collection and publication of such information. He might, perhaps, be excused if he did not refer to the particular case to which attention had been called, inasmuch as it had already been discussed half-a-dozen times this Session. The Government admitted that the state of the law in Ireland was exceptional, and that in this and other cases it had been found necessary to enforce it.
MR. BUTTsaid, that if his countenance betrayed a laugh his countenance was false, for there was nothing in the discussion to call for laughter. Hon. Members on the opposite side below the Gangway seemed to gloat over the sufferings of the Irish prisoners in a manner which if not inhuman was unfeeling. Their conduct was calculated to create more ill-feeling in Ireland than anything else he knew, and he regretted the Home Secretary should have said anything to justify the placing in chains a man who should endeavour to make his escape from prison, as such treatment was contrary to the spirit of the British law. He would call the attention of the Premier to the impolicy of continuing the imprisonment of some 13 or 14 military men. Would it not be wise and prudent to recommend Her Majesty to put an end to these irritating discussions to throw open the prison

1205
doors by a general amnesty to all who were now confined? The punishment had been long enough, and it would be a wise and judicious act on the part of the Government.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKregretted that the medical profession was not more largely represented in the House, and remarked that it was not clear that the treatment adopted in the case described by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was so objectionable as might, at first sight, appear. At any rate, more details were necessary before the House could judge of the matter.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,322,069, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses 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 1876."
MR. GOSCHENsuggested that as this Vote and Vote 11 (New Works, Building Machinery, and Repairs) contained much controversial matter, that at that hour a fair opportunity would not be afforded to Members who were anxious to express their opinions on the subject. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty would consent to postpone the consideration of these Votes.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that on a former occasion, when he was attempting to express his opinion to the House on the Navy Estimates, after having his statements either directly contradicted or treated in a manner which was on the shady side of courtesy, he was told that he had expressed those opinions because he was connected with yachting. If he had ventured to intrude upon the attention of the House simply on that account he should have been guilty of a gross act of presumption; but as for 40 years he had held a Board of Trade certificate which qualified him to take charge of a merchant ship to any part of the world, if he was not entitled to speak in the House on nautical questions
1206
he wished to know who was. The Committee would be surprised to hear that the reproof was administered to him by an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), who all his life up to a few years ago never heard of a ship, and who, as far as one could judge from his public career, had not increased his knowledge during the time he held office. It was somewhat absurd that a right hon. Gentlemen should with official assurance, coupled with official want of knowledge, rebuke old sailors for talking about questions which they understood; but if the right hon. Member for the City of London was prepared to get up in his place and state that he was of all men in the House most qualified to give an opinion upon nautical subjects, and that those who had been acquainted with such questions for upwards of half a century were bound to hold their tongues and listen to him, then he (Mr. Bentinck) would sit down abashed.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would regret it very much if he had passed the bounds of courtesy in the remarks to which allusion had been made. If he was warm it was not because the hon. Member attacked him, but because, consistently with what he had done on many previous occasions, the hon. Gentleman depreciated the English Navy to a degree which astounded all the officers who had knowledge of the service. Although the hon. Member was acquainted with the Merchant Navy and held a certificate of the Board of Trade, he could not on that account claim to set his opinion above that of the advisers of the Admiralty, who were naval officers and scientific men of the highest distinction. He had never attempted to set up his opinion; but what he had done when he was at the Admiralty was to take the best advice which he could get from those who were qualified to give it. It was because the hon. Member had on many occasions sought to convey to the Committee that he knew more than others of the construction of ships of war and of naval tactics that he (Mr. Goschen) ventured, to express himself, perhaps too warmly, that what must guide them was the opinion of the responsible advisers of the Admiralty; but he regretted if, in pointing out the position of the hon. Member, he had in

1207
any way exceeded the fair bounds of discussion.
MR. HUNTthought that the best way would be to proceed with the Votes in their regular order.
MR. CHILDERSappealed to the First Lord not to take Votes 6 and 10 at that late hour, as they involved the shipbuilding policy of the Government, and it was impossible, at that late hour, properly to discuss the question; and at that time at night it would be practically like sitting with closed doors.
MR. HUNTreminded the right hon Member that the discussion of Vote 10 was put off in April at his instance, and the shipbuilding policy of the Government had been under discussion all night. He had taken the opportunity to state what the policy of the Government was, and he should have thought that it could hardly be wished that the same question should be again discussed in Committee.
MR. GOSCHENobserved, that the discussion of Vote 10 had been put off because the hour was too late to give opportunity for a proper discussion.
MR. E. J. REEDhoped that a proper opportunity would be given for discussing the construction of those ships which were now being built.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, that they surely should have the opportunity to discuss the policy of the Government which had only just been developed; and he must say that he did not approve of the plan for building small Inflexibles, because it seemed like a return to the system of building ships of the Warrior class with armour only for a central battery. He begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Samuda.)
MR. HUNTthought that as there was time to discuss one Vote they might apply it to the discussion of another; but if the Committee were of a different opinion he would consent to Progress being reported.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

POLICE EXPENSES BILL— [BILL 187.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
POLICE EXPENSES BILL— [BILL 187.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that this Bill, the incubation of which had taken six weeks, was only printed last Sunday. What was his surprise to find that it was word for word the same as the Bill of last year. It repealed all previous Acts of Parliament providing for the payment of the police out of the Imperial Exchequer; but he could not understand on what principle these contributions were to be made for the future. It appeared to him that everything was to be left to the Treasury. He wished to ask two questions—Why this Bill consisted only of a single clause, and what provisions were to be substituted for those which were repealed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted that the hon. Member was not in his place the other day to hear the explanations he gave on the subject. Heretofore, the Treasury had been restricted from paying a larger proportion than one-fourth towards police expenses. In dealing with the subject, it was necessary to consider whether further legislation was not necessary as to the mode in which the police were paid, and the conditions on which the subsidy should be given. Last year the Government found that they were not in a position to deal with the subject, and a suspensory Bill was passed for one year. On the 27th of May, in the present year, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill which he had prepared in concert with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross). It would, however, have led to considerable discussion, and they came to the conclusion that, looking to the state of Public Business, there was no prospect of dealing with the matter satisfactorily this year. He would, therefore, ask the House to continue this suspensory legislation for one year longer, with the intention on the part of the Government of dealing with the subject next year. The Government had proposed—and the House had given its assent by the vote of the other day—

  1209
  that the Treasury should be authorized to contribute an additional fourth towards the pay and clothing of the police.
  MR. FAWCETT,after this explanation, would not oppose the second reading, on the undertaking that, next year, the Government would propose a definite scheme.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Government would endeavour to deal with the question next year.
  Motion agreed, to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 189.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Lunatics in central asylum, whose sentences have expired, may be removed to distant asylums).
  CAPTAIN NOLANmoved the omission of the clause, which, he contended, would unjustly tax occupiers in Ireland for the support of lunatics.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, lunatics were very much on the increase in Ireland. The Americans sent persons home to Ireland as soon as they became insane. England, also, contributed a large increment to lunatics in Ireland. Increased accommodation for lunatics in Ireland was necessary.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 59: Majority 59.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  MR. RONAYNEmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  POST OFFICE (SUPERANNUATION AND GRATUITIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to provide for the payment of Remuneration and the grant of Superannuation Allowances and Gratuities to certain persons employed
  1210
  under Her Majesty's Postmaster General, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.