Commons Sitting of 7 June 1880

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Isaac Nelson, for Mayo County; Alan Henry Bellingham, esquire, for Louth County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—London Water Supply, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Wild Birds Protection Act Amendment* [211].
Committee—Report—Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment* [181].

QUESTIONS.

  THE FRENCH MARRIAGE LAW.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the peculiarity of the Law of France as to marriage, and to its disastrous consequences in relation to marriages contracted in England between Frenchmen and Englishwomen; and, whether any Correspondence has taken place between the English Foreign Office and the French Government in relation to this subject; and, if so, whether he would object to place the same in the hands of Members?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, My attention has been called to peculiarities in the French marriage law, which in certain cases have been productive of considerable hardship; but no
  1330
  representations have been made to the Foreign Office on the subject, nor has any Correspondence passed between the Governments of the two countries.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS)—THE COST OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that telegrams can be sent in other European capitals at much cheaper rates than in London; and, whether he will consider the possibility of cheapening the cost of telegraphic messages within the Metropolis, if not for the country at large?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that it was the case that in some Continental capitals, such as Berlin, Paris, and Vienna, telegrams could be sent within a certain circle of those capitals at a lower rate than they could be sent in London; or, rather, not telegraphic messages, but pneumatic messages, for he believed that they were sent by means of pneumatic tubes, and not by telegraph wires. In many Continental countries also, France and Belgium for instance, telegraphic messages of a certain length could be sent at a cheaper rate than in England. In these cases, however, the word-rate was adopted, so that some lengthy telegrams cost more than in England. It was obvious that the reduction of the price charged for telegrams was a matter involving financial considerations of great importance; but on entering Office he had immediately asked for information on the subject, and the information having been furnished him the subject was now engaging his most careful attention.

  AFRICA—WEST COAST—BOMBARDMENT OF BATANGA
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers relating to the bombardment and destruction of the town of Batanga?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there will be no objection to lay on the Table the Papers referred to by my hon. Friend; but there may be some little delay in presenting them, as Her Majesty's Government wish, if possible,

  1331
  to include in the Correspondence some further information which they have instructed the Senior Naval Officer on the station to supply.

  SIR BARTLE FRERE—TENURE OF OFFICE.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the honourable Member for Carlisle, Whether he intends to bring forward any Motion regarding Sir B. Frere, pursuant to his Notice; if he would state what will be the terms of the Motion; and, if he can name the day on which he proposes to bring the subject before the House?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, since I gave my Notice of Motion I have seen that my hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Sir David Wedder-burn) has put upon the Paper a Notice to oppose the Vote of £2,000 for the salary of Sir Bartle Frere when it comes on in the Estimates. On that occasion, Sir, I believe it will be competent to raise the whole question of Sir Bartle Frere's tenure of Office. I, therefore, do not propose to raise the question in the form I originally intended. I assume, of course, that Her Majesty's Government will take steps to bring it on at an early hour, when the question can be fully discussed.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask the hon. Baronet whether he himself proposes to raise the question of the recall of Sir Bartle Frere when the Vote for his salary comes before the House?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I thought I had stated in my reply that I understood, on that Estimate being brought forward, the whole question of the policy of Sir Bartle Frere and of the expediency of retaining him in Office might be discussed.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the hon. Member himself intend to propose the Motion in Committee?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I thought I had stated that the Notice on the Paper stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Haddington Burghs.

  METROPOLIS—PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has any objection to procure and distribute to Mem-
  1332
  bers copies of the Report of the London School Board on the City Parochial Charities, so that Members may receive the same along with the Report of the City Parishes Commission; and, whether he will also procure, for the use of such Members as may require it, the same Report together with the Appendix?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Report in question not having been prepared by Officers of the Government, and not being addressed to any Department of the State, I am no more authorized to procure and distribute copies of it to Members than of any other publication. But some copies having been supplied to the Education Department, I will have them placed in the Library of the House for purposes of reference.

  POST OFFICE—POST CARDS TO AUSTRALIA.
  MAJOR VATTGHAN LEEasked the Postmaster General, If he will take into his consideration the expediency of allowing the use of Post Cards between this Country and Her Majesty's Colonies in Australia, via Brindisi, at the same rate as newspapers are now carried by that route?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he had already considered the expediency of introducing post-cards between this country and Australia, and that he would be very glad if they could be issued. Hitherto, however, the Australian Colonies had declined to join the Postal Union, fearing that there might be a loss of revenue. If they joined that Union post-cards could be sent for 2½d. or 3d., viâ Brindisi. The subject would again be brought under their notice; but he hoped they would be able to see their way to join the Union, and that the conveniences arising from the use of post-cards might be the result.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—LOANS TO FISHERMEN.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will consider the advisability of granting a sum of money annually to the Board of Works, to supplement the amount already at their disposal, for loans to fishermen; and, whether such loans have not hitherto been for the most part punctually repaid?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Treasury will, of course, be ready at any time to consider any proposal that may be made by hon. Members interested in the Irish Fisheries for the development of those Fisheries; but I must own that I do think there are very grave objections to lending money in small sums, on the security of promissory notes, out of the Consolidated Fund. In five years up to December, 1879, 1,420 loans to fishermen were advanced, amounting to £25,212, the re-payments in the same time amounting to £15,424. The loans in arrear at the close of the period named were 254 in number, and the arrears amounted to £631, or about 4 per cent, on the sums which which had become due. The failures to pay have shown a tendency considerably to increase. In the last Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries presented to Parliament, an opinion is expressed that, as far as an estimate could at that time be formed, the losses by default of payment would be more than provided for by the rate of interest—2½per cent—charged, and that the original fund would be preserved intact. It would, therefore, appear that at that time the Inspectors of Fisheries did not think it safe to reckon upon these transactions making any return in the shape of interest.

  INDIA (FINANCES, &c.)
  MR. PUGHasked the Secretary of State for India, What steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, in view of the uncertainty of the figures of the last Indian Budget, to ascertain correctly the actual state of the finances of India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he was not aware that there was any uncertainty with respect to the figures of the last Indian Budget save in so far as related to the expenses of the Afghan War. The Indian Government had promised to make inquiry with the view of sending home a more accurate estimate on the subject, and when the information arrived he should be in a better position to state what further measures, if any, it might be desirable to take for the purpose of ascertaining the actual state of the finances of India.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—VOTE I.—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, under the instructions of the Treasury to the War Office, at page 17 of the Public Accounts Committee's Report of 1880, any and what publicity will be given to the use of funds voted for the Artillery in Vote 1 of the Army Estimates, so that Members of Parliament may have an opportunity of challenging the misapplication of such funds in case of any portions being used for paying the General Staff of the Army, and so misappropriating the moneys from the service of the Artillery, for which Parliament granted these funds?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I have to reply, as I have replied before, that the Treasury has issued no new instructions on the subject of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. It has only stated, with some minuteness, the existing law and practice. The House of Commons grants, in one total, the amount demanded for the pay, allowances, and other charges of Her Majesty's Forces, upon the understanding that the money so granted will be applied generally in the manner stated in detail in the Estimates. If, within the Vote, an excess should arise upon one sub-head, it can, but only with Treasury assent, be made good from a surplus upon another sub-head within the same Vote. But an excess upon an item within a sub-head may be made good out of a surplus upon another item within the same sub-head by the Secretary of State without Treasury authority. It might, therefore, be competent for the Secretary of State to apply a saving arising, say, upon the item Artillery, of the sub-head C of Vote 1, to meet a deficiency upon the item Cavalry, within the same sub-head. But it must be recollected that the pay and allowances of each arm are regulated by Warrant, and can only be altered with the sanction of the Treasury. Therefore, a surplus on item Artillery cannot be applied to increase the pay or allowances of the Cavalry without Treasury sanction; and the real discretion of the Secretary of State is, therefore, limited to variations in number, in which, again, he is fettered by the general limit of the numbers voted. Further, the Controller

  1335
  and Auditor General would, no doubt, call attention in his Report to any notable variation from the application of the money in the manner indicated in the Estimates, which would be brought to his attention by the detailed account on page 76 of the Army Appropriation Account. This detailed statement fully answers my hon. and gallant Friend's Question with respect to the variations in the expenditure, of the sum of £4,484,534, reported to the Controller and Auditor General as expended upon regimental pay under sub-head C in 1878–9.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the scarcity in parts of Ireland, and to afford greater facilities for works of public utility in that country, he will take the necessary steps to enable the Irish Board of Works to give longer time for repayment of loans, and to more nearly assimilate its power to that of the Public Works Loan Commissioners?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I have been requested by the First Lord of the Treasury to answer this Question. I fear that if the powers of the Board of Works in Ireland were to be assimilated, as suggested by the hon. Member, to those of the Public Loan Commissioners, the object which he desires would not be attained. Under the existing Statutes advances are made in all cases upon as favourable terms in Ireland as in England, and the Board of Works (Ireland) have authority to make advances in Ireland for certain purposes for which no such authority is possessed by the Public Loan Commissioners as regards the remainder of the United Kingdom.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—PAY AND PENSIONS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty will raise the pay and pensions of the privates and non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines, so as to place them on an equality with the Army?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, there was no present intention of
  1336
  raising the pay of the Royal Marines, and that he believed the pension in the Marines was the same as that in the Army.

  LAND MEETINGS (IRELAND)—SHORTHAND WRITERS.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the payment to the Government shorthand writing agents who attend land meetings in Ireland comes out of the Secret Service Fund; if not, on what part of the Estimates does the said payment become a charge?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the Government shorthand writing agents are ordinary members of the Constabulary Force; therefore, they are not paid out of the Secret Service Fund. Some small extra expenses for travelling, &c, are defrayed out of the Constabulary Vote. In a few cases professional shorthand writers were engaged by the Government. Their expenses were paid out of the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877—SCOTCH PRISONS BOARD.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state the circumstances under which the late Government found it necessary, before quitting office, to add a chairman at £1,000 a-year, to the Scotch Prison Board, an office which up to that time, though the Act had been passed in 1877, had not been made; and, under what Vote the salary of the officer in question is to be provided, as it does not appear on the Estimates?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that by the Prisons Act (Scotland), 1877, there was power, out of the monies provided by Parliament, to appoint two paid Prison Commissioners, whose salaries were to be fixed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary to the Treasury. At present, there was only one paid Prison Commissioner appointed. There were formerly two ex-officio Commissioners, and one unpaid Commissioner, Dr. Burton, formerly stipendiary magistrate and Secretary of Prisons. The latter gentleman, being retired on a pension, served on the Prisons Commission without

  1337
  salary. In the course of the present year, however, Dr. Burton intimated his intention not to act any longer as he intended in future to live in London. An additional paid Commissioner in his place was appointed on the 22nd April last. The appointment having been made, the salary would be placed in the Supplementary Estimates, on which the hon. Member would have the power of discussing the question and the reasons for the appointment.

  EDUCATION ACT, 1876—SECTION 41—DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL BOARDS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Vice President of the Council, To what extent advantage has been taken of the forty-first section of the Education Act of 1876 for the dissolution of School Boards in England; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have it in contemplation to repeal that section, and, instead, to make School Boards compulsory all over England as they are in Scotland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there have been four school boards dissolved under the 41st section of the Education Act, 1876—namely, Great Addington, Northampton shire; Waldron, Essex; Franklin, Warwickshire; and the borough of Stockport. In reply to the second Question, we are considering what measures it may be necessary to submit to Parliament in order to secure the better school attendance of the whole population; but I am not at present in a position to state what the character of those measures will be. Whether we shall be able or not to introduce them during the present Session must depend upon the progress of Public Business.

  POST OFFICE—ZANZIBAR MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, What course he intends to pursue with reference to the Zanzibar Mail Contract, which expires in February 1881, and, whether, when it is renewed, he will take care that the various competing companies get full opportunity to send in their estimates?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that if the Zanzibar Contract were renewed, steps would be taken to give the public ample opportunity of tendering.

  FISHERY PIERS (IRELAND).
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the fishery piers and harbours proposed to be in part constructed out of a special grant for that purpose have been decided on; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the localities which have been selected?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I cannot yet inform the hon. Gentleman as to the piers selected. A Committee has been appointed, consisting of the Vice President of the Local Government Board in Ireland; Mr. Brady, Inspector of Irish Fisheries; Mr. Le Fanu, one of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and a naval officer of experience, to consider the claims of the different localities from which applications have been received. I shall be happy to give the hon. Member the information he requires whenever I receive it.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when he is likely to get that Report?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot exactly say, but I believe in a very short time.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—BULGARIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the honourable Member for Eye, Whether, since the Prime Minister has promised to take measures to obtain a full and true account of the state of things in Bulgaria, he proposes to proceed with a Motion calling attention to the condition of the surviving Mahommedan population which still stands in his name?
  MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: Sir, with the indulgence of the House, I will very briefly state why I considered it my duty to proceed with the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. I cannot consider the reply of the Prime Minister as satisfactory. When—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I beg to point out to the hon. Member, that it will be irregular to anticipate the discussion of his Motion by any statement of reasons.
  MR. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: Sir, I had no intention to proceed with the discussion, but merely endeavoured to reply to that portion of the Question which assumes that the Prime Minister has promised to take measures to obtain full information, &c, I thought I was in

  1339
  Order in endeavouring to reply; but, if not, I have simply to state to the hon. Member that I do not intend to proceed with my Motion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: In consequence of that Answer, I beg to give Notice that, on the day when the hon. Member proceeds with his Motion, I shall call attention to the excessively one-sided character of the Blue Book on Eastern Roumelia recently presented, and produce the evidence of myself and others that, notwithstanding the enormous difficulties of the case, the general condition of the Mahommedan population in the Roumelian Provinces is in the main, as far as can be ascertained, as tolerable as could be expected.

  POST OFFICE (SAVINGS BANKS)—SMALL DEPOSITS.
  MR. J. HOLLONDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the Amendments proposed to be introduced into the rules of the Post Office Savings Banks by the Savings Banks Bill, he will consent to a further Amendment in these rules so as to enable the Post Office Savings Banks, without lowering the present minimum deposit of one shilling, to receive deposits above this minimum in amounts other than complete shillings?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am aware, of course, there would be some improvement in the rules of the Post Office Savings Banks, from a particular point of view, if we could adopt the mode of proceeding suggested by my hon. Friend; but, upon inquiry at the Post Office, I am informed that it would lead to a considerable increase of labour and expense. That being the case, I am very doubtful whether such an increase of labour and expense would be justified. Consequently, as at present advised, I am hardly disposed to recommend the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member.

  LIVERY COMPANIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON—A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have decided upon the character and powers of the body to which the investigation into the Livery Companies of the City shall be com-
  1340
  mitted; and, if so, when he will make a proposition upon the question to the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, it is the intention of the Government to issue a Royal Commission in the ordinary form and with the usual powers. For that purpose it would not be necessary to make any application to the House. I do not know if I am mistaken in assuming that my hon. Friend points to a Parliamentary Commission armed with extraordinary and compulsory powers. That would be a most unusual proceeding, and could only be required or justified on the assumption that the Companies would be unwilling to respond to the invitation of the Crown and refuse to furnish information which is sought for the public advantage. I am altogether indisposed to take for granted that these bodies would act in a manner which would not be worthy of the position they occupy and the trusts with which they are charged. I think it would be unjust and impolitic to approach the question in a hostile spirit or a menacing attitude. It will be time enough, if the hopes and expectations of the Government are disappointed, to consider the expediency of any other course.

  POOR LAW—REMOVAL OF IRISH POOR.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the hardship caused by the power possessed by English and Scotch authorities to remove poor persons to Ireland; and, whether he is aware that such power is exercised in the case of persons, who born of Irish parents, though never having resided in Ireland, seek relief owing to infirmity caused by years or otherwise; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take steps to remedy this grievance?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I am aware that complaints have frequently been made as to the hardship caused by the power possessed by the English and Scotch authorities to remove poor persons to Ireland. In fact, these complaints were the subject of inquiry by the Select Committee of the House on Poor Removal in 1879; but no instances have been brought before me of the exercise of this power, as far as regards paupers born of

  1341
  Irish parents in England or Scotland. Such persons would have a birth-settlement in England, and, unless in the case of children with their parents, would not be removable to Ireland.

  AFGHANISTAN—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is able to give the House any further information as to the measures which have been taken by the Government to bring the War in Afghanistan to a conclusion; whether it is intended permanently to maintain a British force in the occupation of Kandahar, or in the districts on the frontier annexed or assigned under the Treaty of Gandamak; and, whether any instructions have been given to the Viceroy upon these points; and, if so, whether they can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has requested the Indian Government to prepare a Statement showing the cost which will probably be incurred annually after the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, for garrisoning the Frontier and occupying the territory ceded by the Treaty of Gandamak, including transport, relief, &c, as compared with similar Charges in respect of the former Frontier; whether he will communicate such Statement to the House; and whether, in considering the arrangements to be made in regard to Afghanistan, the additional expense, if any, which will be imposed on the Indian Revenue by the acquired territory, will be taken into account?
  MR. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will undertake that, before any orders are given for withdrawing the troops from Candahar, an opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the policy of that step?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) in anything like detail would take up too much of the time of the House; but I am extremely anxious to communicate to the House all that, in my opinion, can be properly communicated at the present moment; and in order to save time, and at the same time not to omit anything which can be properly stated, I have
  1342
  thought it well to draw up a memorandum, which, with the permission of the House, I will read. It is as follows:—"Instructions as full as the case admitted of have been sent to Lord Ripon. I wish that it were possible to lay this despatch upon the Table. I am fully sensible of the forbearance of the House in not pressing for complete information upon the state of affairs in Afghanistan and the measures which the Government propose to take, and I am most anxious to give the House all possible information at the earliest date. But the instructions necessarily relate in great part to negotiations of a very difficult and delicate character, which have now been, or will shortly be, intrusted to Lord Ripon. Information as to what is said here reaches Afghanistan with extraordinary rapidity, and the jealous and suspicious character of the Afghan Chiefs renders it very necessary that no premature or incomplete disclosure of the intentions and proposals of the Government should be made which might tend to embarrass Lord Ripon in the exercise of the discretion which must necessarily be left to him. But I may state that the objects of the Government are mainly two. The first is to bring the actual military operations to a close. The House will have seen with a regret which is fully shared by Her Majesty's Government that, from time to time, expeditions are still undertaken from headquarters, with the object of reducing to submission or of punishing tribes who have assumed a hostile attitude, or have attacked or threatened our communications. So long as our troops remain in the country their supplies and communications must be secured, and whatever measures may be necessary for this purpose must be taken. But it will be Lord Ripon's first object to restrict the area and scope of these operations as much as possible, and to avoid any further collisions with tribes beyond the limits of the positions which we occupy. The next object will be to leave behind us, when the main body of the troops retires, as we hope it may in the autumn, something like a prospect of a settled Government. It is to this object that the negotiations to which I have referred and the instructions to Lord Ripon principally relate, and matters have not yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to give to the House any detailed in forma-

  1343
  tion. With regard to this future settlement, the House is aware that the late Government and Lord Lytton considered that the separation of Candahar from Afghanistan, and the establishment of an independent Government there, under British protection, was a settled and desirable policy. I have said, on a previous occasion, that engagements which have been entered into, and to which the honour of the country is pledged, must be respected; and I am not at present prepared to say that any other arrangement is now possible, even if it were found to be desirable. But the Government certainly does not view with favour or look upon as advantageous any arrangement which would make the permanent occupation of Candahar by a large British Force a necessity. Lord Ripon will examine the question from this point of view. He will form his own judgment as to what is honourably binding on us and politically expedient; but he will not approach the question with any preconceived opinion in favour of a policy which would require a permanent extension of our military liabilities. The same observations apply to the positions on the Frontier occupied under the Treaty of Gandamak. The Government are not satisfied that they add anything to the strength of the Frontier; they appear to involve a very considerable addition to the Frontier Force, which we should regret. Lord Ripon will obtain the best military advice at his disposal on the military question, and on this advice he will act independently. He will consider the question of their retention or abandonment on its merits, political and military, and will not be influenced by the mere fact of their having been acquired and occupied under the Treaty of Gandamak, which must be considered to have ceased to exist." In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), I think it will be apparent, from what I have said, that no hasty or precipitate action is contemplated in regard to Candahar. I trust it may be possible for the House, before the end of the Session, to discuss this question more fully and completely, and that the hon. Member will then have an opportunity of bringing before the House his views on that subject. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), I may state
  1344
  that no such calculation as he asks for has been required from the Government of India, nor do I think it possible to obtain that information in any form that would be useful or satisfactory. The cost of garrisoning the Frontier must, of course, depend on the circumstances under which we retire, and the state of things we leave behind us. The hon. Gentleman will see, from what I have stated, that the question of what is called the "Scientific Frontier" will not escape the attention of the Government; but I do not think any useful purpose would be served by calling for such a Return as he desires, in the present state of affairs.

  LAW OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table a translation of the Acts now in force in France and Germany relating to the insurance of persons employed in mines, on Rail-ways, and at other employments; and, also, Return showing the legal liability of employers in said countries in case of injury to their workmen?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the moment the Question of the hon. and gallant Member appeared on the Paper, Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris and Berlin were instructed to have prepared and sent home as soon as possible a statement of the law in force in France and Germany on the points to which the hon. and gallant Member refers; and when these statements are received they shall be laid upon the Table of the House. I think it will be more convenient to adopt this course, as a translation of the laws in extenso would probably take some considerable time to prepare.

  THE PUBLIC DEBT—QUARTERLY DIVIDENDS IN CONSOLS.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will take measures, at an early date, to arrange for the payment of dividends on consols and other public debt payable at the Bank of England by quarterly in lieu of half-yearly payments?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid, Sir, that there is one fundamental objection to the adoption of the suggestion of the hon.

  1345
  Member. If quarterly payments are to be substituted for half-yearly payments, the first quarterly payment would, of course, have to be paid in advance. It is computed at the Bank of England that an advance of at least £2,000,000 would be required, and this would become a charge against the Revenue of the year, and would never be replaced. In these circumstances, hon. Gentlemen will be able to judge for themselves whether it is likely that at any period the House of Commons or Her Majesty's Ministers having at their command £2,000,000 of disposable surplus will be inclined to apply it in that particular manner.

  PERU—MR. GALLOWAY, PERUVIAN CONSUL AT LIVERPOOL.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Mr. E. Galloway has been appointed Peruvian Consul by President Pierola, subject to the exequatur of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether he is aware of Mr. Galloway's connection with the equipment of the steamer "Talisman" for her piratical descent upon Peru; and, if not, whether he will take steps to acquaint himself with Mr. Galloway's connection with that transaction before the exequatur is granted?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir, it is true that Mr. Galloway has been appointed Peruvian Consul at Liverpool; but Her Majesty's Government being informed that he was concerned in the equipment and despatch of the Talisman in 1876 to aid the insurgents in their attack on the Government of Peru, an exequatur has not been granted to him, and the matter is under the consideration of the Government.

  NAVY—AGE PENSIONS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, On what grounds Naval pensioners who are in receipt of 2s. 6d. per diem as having been chief petty officers, or, generally, as men of good character and long service, are selected by the Admiralty as the persons who, on attaining the age of 65, are debarred from receiving the Greenwich Hospital age pension; and, also, on what principle these pensions are granted to officers?
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If it is not the case that the number of Greenwich pensions allotted to officers of the Engineer branch hears an unduly small proportion to the number allotted to other classes of officers in the Civil branch of the Navy?
  MR. T. BRASSEY: Sir, no particular class of seamen are debarred from receiving the Greenwich Hospital age pension; but the Admiralty' have decided that pensioners in the receipt of 2s. 6d. a-day and upwards are not eligible for the award of these pensions. Officers never have been eligible for age pensions. If the age pension be given to men who are already in receipt of 2s. 6d. a-day, the effect must be to reduce the number of age pensions available for other men, and to exclude a considerable number with very small pensions who have been invalided out of the Service. I have looked upon the subject to which the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) refers. It does appear that the proportion of Greenwich Hospital pensions allotted to Engineer officers is scarcely adequate; but the appropriation of these pensions must be considered comprehensively, and I can only undertake that the subject shall be carefully and impartially considered.

  TURKEY—MR. MICHELL, H.M. CONSUL AT PHILIPPOPOLIS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Mr. T. Michell, Her Majesty's Consul at Philippopolis, has been called home and a successor appointed; if so, why Mr. Michell has been recalled home?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Mr. Michell himself was understood to be of opinion that his presence at Philippopolis for a time was unnecessary, and anxious on the ground of his ill health to be away; and he has been given leave to come home. No successor has been appointed; but one of the third Secretaries of the Embassy at Constantinople has been placed in charge of the Consulate General for a time.

  RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES (IRELAND)—THE REV. ISAAC NELSON, M.P.
  MR. CALLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact

  1347
  that the magistrates of the borough of Belfast invariably inflict a penalty of 40 s. and costs on any person brought before them on a charge of using insulting language towards the Pope or other ministers of religion, or towards King William III. of immortal memory; and, if so, whether his attention has been called to the language, reported in the "Northern Whig," and the "Ulster Examiner," to have been used by the Rev. Isaac Nelson on Sunday last within the said borough of Belfast, to the effect that "the greatest curse Europe has had for centuries was the man that called himself the successor of St. Peter;" and "these men"(the Roman Catholic clergy)"are trading on the ignorance of the ignorant, and lording it in the name of religion over the consciences of men;" and, whether, under the circumstances, he considers it advisable that the Irish Executive should direct a prosecution against the said Rev. Isaac Nelson for having publicly used language calculated to cause a breach of the peace within the said borough? I may mention that I hold in my hand a telegram from Belfast which states that the language quoted by me is absolutely correct.
  MR. E. POWER: I also wish to ash the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Freeman's Journal that the Rev. Isaac Nelson was presented with an address from the Roman Catholics of Belfast, and also with a purse containing many sovereigns?
  MR. BIGGAR: I also wish to ash, Whether it is not a fact that the rev. Gentleman has in The Freeman's Journal publicly repudiated the accuracy of the report in question?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Before the Attorney General for Ireland answers the Question, I would wish to inform him that my hon. Colleague the Member for Mayo, the Rev. Isaac Nelson, will shortly be in his place to answer any Questions put by the hon. Member for Louth or anybody else.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, having no very accurate knowledge myself of what was the invariable practice of the Belfast magistrates in the case put by the hon. Member, I had the Question sent over to the magistrates on Saturday, and with the permission of the House I
  1348
  will read the telegram which I have just received from them. It is as follows:—
  "In all cases where language of a party character is used in the public streets—whether cursing the Pope or King William, Papists or Protestants—the almost invariable rule is to inflict a penalty of 40s., as such language is calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and sometimes persons so charged are sent to prison without the option of a fine. The words quoted in Question 31 are so reported in The Northern Whig of May 31."
  With respect to the words alleged to have been used, I beg to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Waterford, that I have seen in the papers a letter from the Rev. Mr. Nelson, denying the accuracy of the report. As to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), I must say I do not consider it advisable to direct a prosecution against Mr. Nelson for having "publicly" used language calculated to cause a breach of the peace, inasmuch as the language imputed to him, if used, however objectionable it may have been, does not appear to have been used publicly, but in the course of a sermon delivered to his own Presbyterian congregation, and, I presume, in his own church. A prosecution for that would, of course, be ridiculous.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND)—RE-LIEF WORKS AT LOUGHREA.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If there are any baronial or other relief works in progress in the neighbourhood of Loughrea; and, if any considerable amount of out-door relief has been put in operation in that Poor Law Union?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, no baronial sessions were convened in the barony of Loughrea, the Guardians, at a meeting held in February, having decided that the circumstances of the barony did not require them; but I understand that a sum of about £5,100 has been issued to landed proprietors in the Loughrea Union under the Board of Works Notices of 22nd November last and 12th January. The last Returns of the Local Government Board show that 111 persons are receiving out-door relief in the Loughrea Poor Law Union. On the 29th ultimo, the Guardians of the Loughrea Union passed a resolution to the effect that out-door relief to able-

  1349
  bodied persons in food and fuel, under Section 3 of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, was not necessary; and that, having made inquiries of the relieving officer and the dispensary medical officer of the district, they had ascertained that destitution such as had been represented did not exist in the locality, and that sufficient employment for unskilled labourers could be had from landed proprietors in the neighbourhood of Loughrea if the parties wished to avail themselves of the opportunity. I wish to add that the Local Government Board are at present inquiring whether the Guardians are justified in that statement.

  THE BALLOT ACT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can conveniently state whether the Government propose to continue the Ballot Bill till next year by a Continuation Bill, or if they intend to submit a new measure on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the intention of Her Majesty's Government when they advised the use of the expressions contained in the Speech from the Throne was undoubtedly to dispose of the Ballot Act by making it permanent. We still look forward to the fulfilment of that engagement.

  ARMY—THE VICTORIA CROSS.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will give instructions that in future the names of all soldiers, irrespective of rank, who had gained the "Victoria Cross," shall be recorded in the quarterly Army List?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; instructions will be given to the effect suggested by my hon. Friend.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Sir HENRY JACKSON,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, full Notice would be given of the day on which the Employers' Liability Bill would be proceeded with.
  MR. DODSONstated that the Bill would be taken on Wednesday.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it would be convenient to know when the Savings Banks Bill was likely to be
  1350
  brought on, and also what would be the Business on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Savings Banks Bill will not be taken after half-past 11. I will state to-morrow what Business will be taken on Thursday. With regard to another matter, I have to redeem a pledge which was given on Friday last to Irish Members that we would, if possible, make some announcement to the House as to our proposed arrangements for having a discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) with regard to the law of ejectments and compensation in Ireland. We feel that the discussion which then took place has brought this subject very prominently before the public eye; and, this being so, it becomes desirable that the matter should be disposed of by the House. It cannot be desirable that the Bill should remain long suspended. There is also another Bill in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to making provision for the fulfilment of the obligations entered into by the late Government for certain advances in Ireland, which will require to be proceeded with rapidly. I stated on a former occasion the difficulty we were in with regard to the pressure of Business, and we think we may venture to postpone for the present, that is to say, for a short time, the consideration of the Irish Borough Electoral Franchise Bill. The time has now arrived, I think, when we may ask the House, especially in the present calls upon us of Irish Business, to give us the additional assistance which it usually does—sometimes at an earlier period of the year—by resorting to Morning Sittings. We, therefore, propose to ask for Morning Sittings on Friday next, and on subsequent Fridays, and on Tuesday the 22nd, and on subsequent Tuesdays. On Tuesday, the 22nd, I propose to proceed with the discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for Mayo, and I will also undertake to say that before that time we will announce the course which the Government intend to take on the subject. We are anxious to ascertain exactly the operation and effect of the present provisions of the Land Act, and we must have time for that purpose, and before the day mentioned we will state to the hon. Member for Mayo the course we intend to take with regard to his Bill. I have said this in

  1351
  the hope that we shall have made progress before that times comes with the Bill relating to the advances in Ireland for the relief of distress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope to be allowed to take the second reading of this Bill to-night.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: It has not been distributed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Well, the Bill was sent on Friday night, and it is not the fault of the officers of this House if it is not yet distributed. It is a matter of real urgency, and I trust no opposition will be raised to the second reading on the understanding that any question on it may be raised next Friday morning on going into Committee.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle a simple Question, and he hoped he would get a simple answer. Did the hon. Member intend to bring on any Motion with regard to Sir Bartle Frere?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I have no answer to give except what I gave in the early part of the evening. Might I appeal to the Prime Minister? I have a Motion coming on next Friday week—when there will be a Morning Sitting—which is of great interest. It is a matter of more interest than anything brought before the House this Session, not in the House, but out-of-doors; and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accommodate me.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government is under an understood obligation to keep a House for the hon. Baronet.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is another Bill which is of even more interest than the Bill of the hon. Baronet to many hon. Members, if I may judge from the number of hostile Notices to it, which have been given by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is the Hares and Rabbits Bill. It will be of great convenience if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to say that it will not be taken on Thursday.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am unable to say absolutely, and I must draw upon the patience of the hon. Member.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the hon. Member for Portsmouth whether he intended to persevere with the Motion of which he had given Notice—namely, to call attention to the Treaty engagements of this country with the Ottoman Empire?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, in reply, said, that since he gave Notice of this Motion two Members of this House had been sent to Constantinople with reference to the execution of the Treaty of Berlin. Having a grateful recollection of the forbearance which the House exercised towards him when in the exercise of similar duties, and in view of the fact that inconvenience might arise from a discussion in the course of which observations might be made embarrassing to these Gentlemen, he would not proceed with the Motion.
  MR. PARNELL: In reply to the appeal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that we should not oppose the second reading of the Irish Belief Bill to-night, I regret to say that, although we should very much desire—and the more especially in view of the kind promise that the Prime Minister has just made to offer facilities to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) for discussion of his Bill on the Land Question—although we should desire to offer the Government facilities for getting forward their relief measure, yet, in view of the fact that the Bill in question has not yet been issued to Members, and that it has only just within the last hour or two been placed in the Bill Office, and seeing that it contains several provisions of a novel character as compared with the Act of last Session, we would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the second reading of it to-night until the Irish Members have had an opportunity of discussing its provisions and deciding what course to take up as a body in reference to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: After what has been said, I will certainly postpone the Bill until to-morrow, and will take care to have it circulated; but I must again repeat that it is a matter that will not admit of delay, and must be pressed forward as soon as possible.
  MR. A. GREY: After the startling announcement made on Friday night by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he did not object to the principle of the Bill of the hon. Member for Mayo, I consider it my duty to give Notice that I will oppose the second reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must repeat distinctly that what I said on Friday night was that I neither objected to

  1353
  the principle of the Bill, nor could I say that I approved of its principle; but I stated that the Government must have time to consider the matter, and that, therefore, the debate should be adjourned.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, That, whenever the House shall meet at Two o'clock, the Sitting of the House shall be held subject to the Resolutions of the House of 30th April 1869.
ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVY—RE-SALES OF STORES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    DR. CAMERON,in rising to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending certain purchases and re-sales at enormous loss of porter, hay, and other stores, described at page 126 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Naval Appropriation Accounts, and the system under which, but for an accidental circumstance, the transactions would have escaped notice, and to consider what measures should be adopted to prevent such a waste of public money in the future,"
    said, the matter was of very great importance; but it was one which lay in a nutshell. At the page indicated in the Naval Appropriation Accounts, there would be found particulars of a transaction involving gross mismanagement and very gross extravagance. During the recent Elections hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were very fond of talking of economy; it seemed to him that the time had come when, instead of dealing with economy in the abstract, they should deal with it in the concrete. It appeared from the story told in the Report of the Controller and Auditor General that two large purchases of porter and one of hay were made in 1878 with a view to the despatch of an Expeditionary Force to the East. When the Prime Minister was discussing the Six Millions Vote for
    1354
    War purposes, he stated it would be utterly impossible to spend the money, even in time of war, so rapidly as was alleged by the Ministers then in Office. If they looked to the story told in the Report, they would see how it was accomplished. In 1878 the Admiralty purchased from Messrs. Walker and Co., the brewers, porter in barrels to the amount of £6,225. Before the articles were delivered it was discovered that they would not be wanted, and the order was cancelled on the payment of £2,750. So that for this order never executed the company received a bonus of upwards of 42 per cent. At the same time another large purchase of porter was made from another firm of brewers, Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton. The amount in this case was £8,250, and £250 more was charged for rent. The purchase was made in February, and the delivery did not take place until the middle of June, which showed that there could be no great haste or hurry about the transaction. Even then the delivery was taken in such a form that the porter never left the brewers' premises. When it was discovered that this porter would not be wanted, the Admiralty sent to Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, and Buxton, and got them to take it back, which they did at £4,725, leaving a loss of £3,782, or over 45 per cent on the original cost. A third instance, showing the recklessness of the way in which business was transacted by the Government, was still more striking. With a view to the same expedition, the Admiralty purchased a large quantity of hay for the Transport Service. Having swept the home market, they sent over to Rotterdam, or some other place in Holland, and there purchased 1,200 tons of compressed hay at £5 15s. per ton, the cost being over £6,894, and then they incurred a charge for wharfage dues to the Millwall Dock Company of £1,900, making altogether £8,796, exclusive of the cost of sending a Commissary over to inspect it before it was shipped, and exclusive of the cost of surveying. Well, the bay was disposed of afterwards for £1,596, and they thus lost £7,200—a loss a great deal more that the original value of the article. On those three transactions the loss incurred by the Admiralty amounted to £13,700, or nearly two-thirds of the entire value. That loss was owing to a

    1355
    squabble between two Departments of the Government—the Admiralty and the War Office. When it was perceived the porter would not be wanted, an offer was made to transfer it to another Department, which fell through. But the case of the hay was much worse. The hay was damaged coming from Holland; but the greater part of it was sound. It was shipped on the survey of an Army Commissary officer, and when it became obvious it would not be required efforts were made again to hand it over to the Army; but it appeared that the Board of Survey which sat upon it refused to take it. This Commissary officer proposed that the horses should be referred to practically in the case in order that they might pronounce upon the quality; and, so far as the spoiled hay was concerned, he proposed that that should be used as bedding instead of straw. Both these propositions were overruled, and the hay was ultimately bought at 10 s. for the hay spoiled and 35 s. for the sound hay. He had had the curiosity to trace that hay a little further. It came to Glasgow; it was purchased by the Tramway Company to a large extent. He had written to the Secretary of the Company, asking for his opinion on that hay; and he had his reply that the hay in question was bought by the Company at the price of 60 s. per ton, and it was of the very best quality, and they were fortunate enough to secure 300 tons of it. His Motion was for a Committee of Inquiry. They would be told that they knew all about it; but it appeared to him that they did not. They did not know who this Commissary officer was who manifested such an exceptional amount of common sense in his suggestions, and who were his Colleagues, who had overruled him. He had found this—that when discussing these matters of transfer from one Department to another and their difficulty, Members shook their heads and muttered something about commissions. He did not know that the absence of commissions in such matters was a stumbling block; but it was well that that should be cleared up. Without, however, imputing anything about commissions, he must say that an amount of imbecility so far as the Public Service was concerned, as prejudicial as corruption, seemed to prevail. He could not see why so great a loss was incurred in the case of the
    1356
    porter never delivered. The barrels and the hay would both have kept. These were not solitary instances; they were only specimens of what often occurred. Had it been otherwise, he should not have moved. The Auditor General drew attention to very large quantities of raisins bought in March, 1878. 136,000 lb s. were purchased at from 29 s. to 33 s. per cwt. In October, 100,000 lb s. of these were sold at 14 s. 6d. per cwt., and in January and February, 1879, other purchases were made at 28 s. and 21 s. per cwt. The Auditor General said it was not a little remarkable that in one bill the Admiralty were charged for the purchases made in January and February, 1879, and were credited with the proceeds of sales in October, 1878. There were similar transactions in arrowroot. The explanation about the raisins was that those bought were new and those sold were not; but he did not know that seamen were such epicures in regard to raisins that they could not do except with new fruit. What was there to prevent the Admiralty in the case of the porter to make a bargain with the brewers to supply such quantities as were required on condition of receiving a certain moderate sum if the contract was not proceeded with? In his speech about Cyprus, his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) had referred to the case of coal boxes having been sent out to the Island which would have served almost for an Arctic expedition. Mrs. Stevenson, in her book, mentioned warming-pans also being sent out with the Expeditionary Force to the Island. In the recent article in The Times he noticed that a French writer was struck with the manner in which the quay at Larnaca was built in all manner of fashions. He found it was the work of the first English Governor, who authorized some dozens of contractors to erect specimens of what they proposed for a quay, these specimens to be afterwards demolished, and their place taken by the one selected. This cost £300,000, and by the time that the money was spent there was no money left to go on with the quay. He found another result of this extravagance mentioned in the money article of The Times, November 17. A letter was published relating to the contracts of the Indian Council. It was announced that the Indian Council paid

    1357
    34 s. and 35 s. per ton of freight for conveying rails to India, while the Great Indian Peninsular Company was paying only 25 In other cases there were discrepancies of 4s. or 5s. between the Government and private Companies. But into these matters he did not propose to enter, as they were simply matters more or less of rumour; but here they had before them certain specific instances of gross mismanagement. In bringing forward the question, he was not bringing it forward as a hostile Motion against the late First Lord of the Admiralty. At the time these transactions took place, that right hon. Gentleman had his attention directed to far more important matters. But they would never get these Departments managed economically or efficiently until they dealt with them as with private business, and went down to the men responsible for the details. Who was to blame in regard to the contract? Who would not allow the spoiled hay to be used as bedding? and who was it pronounced the hay not fit for Army use? These things must be inquired into, and there was no use having Departmental inquiries. They could not expect that a man with Cyprus warming-pans on his conscience, or coal boxes or Indian freights, would deal harshly with the gentlemen who made a little mistake about hay or porter. One would simply excuse the other, and an amount of red tape would be introduced, which would prevent any good being done. By far the most satisfactory means of dealing with this question was to refer it to a Committee of the House. He therefore begged leave to submit the Resolution standing in his name.
    MR. RYLANDS,in seconding the Motion, said, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had, he considered, done good public service in asking the attention of the House to the transactions referred to. He was indisposed to make a personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty; but the House had a right to claim an explanation of how these transactions took place, which were altogether of an unbusiness like character, and which would never have been carried out if the parties carrying them out had been personally involved in the profit or loss. When it was found that the porter was not
    1358
    needed, what ought to have been done? It was an article of undoubted quality, commanding a given price in the market, and they could, if they liked, have sold it at a very moderate loss; but instead of going into the open market to re-sell the porter, the Government, after having agreed to pay Messrs. Truman, Han-bury and Co. £ 8,250 for it, re-sold it to them for £4,725. He should never have believed the statements about the porter and the hay unless they had been vouched for by the Auditor General; because he never knew a case in which there seemed to be so small an excuse as there was in regard to these two transactions. The hay was bought, without judgment and in a hurry, from a long-headed Scotchman, named Mackintosh, to whom £5 15 s. per ton was paid; and when it was sold back to him, although a portion of it was only slightly damaged, all that was paid per ton was £l 15s., and shortly afterwards Mr. Mackintosh sold the hay again for £3 per ton, and the people who paid that amount considered they had got a very good bargain. This showed that the Government, instead of re-selling to a private individual, ought to have taken it into the open market where they would have realized a proper price. It had been by a mere accident that these things had been found out, and he believed if the truth was really known very large sums of the public money had been wasted during the past few years in regard to the re-sale of miscellaneous stores. And all this arose from that unbusinesslike manner in which some of the public Departments were conducted. A man might be almost an idiot, yet once in the Public Service he got on by mere seniority to the top of the tree, and, although he might make idiotic mistakes, he was never discharged from that service unless what he had done led, or was likely to lead, to public scandal. What was wanted was that the servants of the public should be treated as were the servants of those engaged in the ordinary business transactions of the country. If a man was specially able and zealous let him have a chance of promotion and better provision; but if a man was to be guilty of such idiotic transactions as those to which attention had been called on the present occasion, all that he could say was that he ought to be turned out

    1359
    of the Public Service. If inefficient and and inexperienced men were removed from the Public Service there would be a proper flow of promotion amongst those who were efficient. At all events, this particular matter was one which called for further inquiry, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to agreeing to the appointment of the Committee which his hon. Friend asked for. Recently, he had received information from Lancashire of Government stores being sold at incredibly low prices, and had he remembered that this debate was about to take place he would have brought down the particulars in reference to those matters. He begged to second the Motion now before the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending certain purchases and re-sales at enormous loss of porter, hay, and other stores, described at page 126 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Naval Appropriation Accounts, and the system under which, but for an accidental circumstance, the transactions would have escaped notice, and to consider what measures should be adopted to prevent such a waste of public money in the future,"—(Dr. Cameron.)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. ANDERSONthought the circumstances which had been brought forward were such as required special investigation. Whether that was undertaken by a Committee specially appointed, or by a remit to the Public Accounts Committee, was not, he thought, a matter of much importance. He understood the subject had come before the Public Accounts Committee, and that some of the matters referred to had already been privately discussed. He did not himself have any special knowledge in regard to the porter contracts, although he thought the statements that had been made were worthy of attention. As regarded the hay, he believed he was the first to bring the matter before the House some time ago; and he should like to say that matters were even worse in one particular than had been stated by his hon. Colleague, and in this way—that when the Navy entered
    1360
    into the contract they were not buying it for their own use. They were buying it really for the use of the Army. It was to victual the transports going to Gallipoli and intended for the use of Cavalry horses. He understood that there was a stipulation that the hay should be taken by the Army in the event of its not being wanted for the Navy, and he wanted some inquiry made in regard to the conduct of the Army officers in this particular. He wanted to know who it was that surveyed the hay on behalf of the Army, and who it was that refused to carry out the terms on which it had been bought? It was quite certain that the hay was not unsound. Some parts of it had got a little damaged while at Millwall; but, in the main, it was perfectly good, and there was thus no reason why it should not have been taken over by the Army. He believed that what really was wanted was that the officer who refused to take over the hay should be cashiered. He did not think anything short of that would tend to remove evils of this kind. Whenever anyone spoke of the transfer of stores from one Department to another they were always told it could not be done—that there were difficulties in the way. Well; but what were the difficulties? People did not hesitate to say that the difficulties were that no commissions passed in transfers between one Department and another, that officers buying outside could manage to get commissions, whereas officers buying from another Department could not. He did not say it was true—he hoped it was not; but it was a very unfortunate thing for the Public Service when such things could be stated at all; and it was very much to be desired that there should be a searching inquiry in a case like this, where there was a manifest neglect of the public interest, and throwing away of the public money in the most flagrant manner. In order to see what reason there was for these allegations, he hoped the Government would grant the inquiry; but he was very much afraid, in inquiries of that sort dependent on permanent officials, whatever Government was in power a new Government would not be very much better than an old. The other day he had put down a Motion on the subject of the sale of Naval Stores, and he never thought for a moment it would be refused. The Secretary to the Ad-

    1361
    miralty immediately began to make difficulties, and said he did not believe it would be of any use, and would like to know what it was wanted for, and all kinds of difficulties of that kind, without absolutely refusing, which he had no doubt came not from himself, but from the permanent officials of the Department. He should like to see that the Members of the Liberal Government were above being made slaves of in this fashion by the permanent officials. If his Motion for Returns was refused—and it had not been refused yet—he intended to press for thorn. As regarded the present Motion, if his hon. Colleague went to a division he should support him.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he quite agreed that the facts which had been disclosed in the Appropriation Accounts were such as justified the inquiries which had been made by the hon. Members for Glasgow. The officer who was employed, and whose duty it was to make the purchases referred to, was a gentleman whose name had always been mentioned in the House with great respect—Mr. Rowsell, who was selected, entirely because of his ability, by the present Secretary of Sate for War, when the latter right hon. Gentleman was at the Admiralty, and who had also done good service under Mr. Goschen, the late Mr. Ward Hunt, and under himself (Mr. W. H. Smith). He believed that the Public Service never had a more competent and earnest official than Mr. Rowsell. It was a fact that the Admiralty made it a condition with the Secretary of State for War that if the purchase of hay which had been alluded to was not required it should be taken over by the War Department. It was necessary that the purchase should be made in advance, for it was not always possible to obtain a large quantity of hay for an expedition at a week's, at a fortnight's, or even at three weeks' notice. The hay was purchased with the approval of the then Secretary to the Admiralty, and with the assistance of an Army officer, and it was shipped, and came over to this country. Some of it sustained damage in transit; but a great deal of it was in perfectly good condition. It was next surveyed when it became necessary that it should be taken over, when the particular officer referred to himself sat on the Board of Survey; but the Board over-ruled him, and de-
    1362
    clined to take the hay for Army service, on the ground that it would be exceedingly injurious to the horses. That was a simple statement of fact. He did all he could to induce the Army authorities to take the hay, but they refused, and there was no alternative but to part with it on the best terms possible; and he thought the contractor who purchased it gave a fair price. With regard to the porter, that which was required for hot climates was porter which was not saleable in England. The late Board of Admiralty did all they could in endeavouring to persuade the Indian Government, which did require porter of the character alluded to, to take it; but the information was that the specification had been altered, and that they declined to take it. Under these circumstances the Admiralty officers did the best they could. If it had been sold here a still greater loss would have resulted, for there was, practically, no market in England for the particular description of porter in question. The subject was one, he might add, on which he did not think a Committee could supply any further information, although he, of course, should not object to such an inquiry if he thought it would be of any real advantage to the Public Service. He might add that almost one of his first acts, when he went to the Admiralty, was to make the accounts open to the inspection of the Controller and Auditor General. He was satisfied that at the present time we had a very zealous and conscientious body of public servants; and although errors were sometimes unavoidable, he believed they occurred as rarely in the Public Service as in any private undertaking. Nothing was more calculated to discourage those officers than the imputations which were sometimes made against them in the House. It was a mistake to suppose either that they were idiotic or that they were promoted by seniority independently of ability; and during his tenure of Office at the Admiralty he was not aware that he appointed a single man to a post of responsibility on the ground of seniority alone.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREadmitted the serious loss to the public in connection with this transaction; but it appeared to him that all the facts were now ascertained, and he doubted whether any further inquiry would elicit additional information. Having

    1363
    a knowledge of the gentleman to whom reference had been made, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) felt it very difficult to agree that he had made himself a party to the mistake; and he could not hut think that the purchases were reasonable purchases. He was of opinion that the loss had arisen from want of co-operation between the two Departments, and he understood that in future an arrangement had been made for the purchase by the War Office of the stores to be used on board the transports. The War Office were, he thought, unwise, under the circumstances, in rejecting the hay, which, if not of first class quality, was, at all events, good enough for ordinary purposes, and was the same as that supplied to the German troops during the Franco-German War. He was not aware of the mode in which old stores were now disposed of; but he would make inquiries, and if he was not satisfied he would not object to a Committee on the subject next Session. He was glad the present question had been raised, inasmuch as officials of Departments would see that the public eye was upon them, and that no such want of co-operation as that to which he had alluded would be tolerated.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, because the question of the hay was simply a disagreement between the two Departments of the Army and Navy, as to how the service of the Army Transport should be conducted. The relations between them in respect to the purchase of supplies required revision. The Naval Department, by trying to carry on the transport by sea of the troops, was necessarily responsible for their supplies whilst on board. For this duty the Admiralty was not trusted. That was one of many instances of the bad arrangements of the War Office, providing the Navy with guns and projectiles, and the Admiralty attempting to carry on the transport by sea of the Army.
    MR. RAMSAYremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) had not carried to the Admiralty the same zeal for the promotion of the public interest as he had shown while at the Treasury, otherwise he would have endeavoured, by means of an appeal to the Treasury, to make the
    1364
    War Office fulfil their agreement in the matter under discussion.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he would withdraw the Motion in consideration of a certain concession made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—namely, the promise to appoint a Committee on old stores next year.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  FLOGGING IN THE ARMY AND NAVY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GORSTrose to call the attention of the House to the position of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the question of abolishing the punishment of flogging in the Army and Navy. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that in giving Notice of this subject he thought he was doing a service to the Government by giving them the opportunity of stating what it was they would actually do when they legislated next year on this subject. The observations which he would make would be divided into two distinct and contrasted parts: first, the utterances of the Members of the Government before they came into Office; and, secondly, their statements after they came into Office. It was more than three years since there was a division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in reference to flogging in the Navy. That division took place on the 10th of April, 1877. The Motion was then of a very distinct and specific character, and stated that "the time has arrived when the punishment of flogging in the Navy should be altogether abolished." On referring to the Division List to ascertain who were the Members of the present Government who thought that the time had arrived for the abolition of flogging he found a division of opinion. There voted in favour of the Motion, Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Childers, Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Mundella, while among the Members of the present Government who were not Members of the Cabinet there also voted in favour of the Motion Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Campbell-Ban-nerman, Mr. J. Holms, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Herschell. That was a strange list. He had also looked to see who were the Members of the present Government who supported the late Government in their opinion that the

    1365
    time had not arrived for the abolition of flogging, and he found that Mr. Goschen, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Lord Hartington, and Sir William Harcourt did not pronounce that the time had come for the abolition of the punishment. Two years later, in 1879, the question of flogging in the Marines came up in the discussion of the Army Discipline Bill. There was a great deal of speech-making on the subject, and ultimately the Marquess of Hartington moved a Resolution—
    "That no Bill for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army will be satisfactory to this House which provides for the retention of corporal punishment for Military offences."
    That was a far more cautiously-drawn Resolution than the Resolution of the hon. Member for Leicester; but, such as it was, it was supported in debate by the greater number of the Members who now constituted the Government, and he thought it was supported by all of them in the division. But this was best seen in a speech made by Mr. Chamberlain, who took a very prominent part, below the Gangway, on the occasion of a visit to Glasgow last October, in which he reviewed the work of the Session.
    MR. OTWAYrose to Order, and asked if the hon. and learned Member was in Order in referring to Members of the House by name?
    MR. GORST: I am referring to a Mr. Chamberlain, who was a Member of the last Parliament, and who, after the termination of the Session of 1879, went down to Glasgow and delivered a speech
    MR. OTWAY: The hon. and learned Member has also referred to other Members by name.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. and learned Member is reciting some document in reference to the proceedings of the late Parliament, in which case he is quite in Order.
    MR. GORST,resuming, assured the hon. Member opposite that he would be very careful, when he came to speak of the Members of the present Parliament, to observe the Rules of the House. He was at present speaking of a Mr. Chamberlain who had gone down to Glasgow and delivered himself of his views of what had taken place on the occasion of that division. Mr. Chamberlain said—
    1366
    "We were opposing the brutal and degrading punishment, a relic of the past, which by special legislation has been reserved for the most abandoned ruffians in our gaols, and which, at the same time, is declared to be absolutely necessary to preserve the character and discipline of the British Army."
    And then he went on to boast that one of the greatest achievements of that debate had been to elicit from the Leader of the Liberal Party—he (Mr. Gorst) believed that was the occasion when Mr. Chamberlain spoke of Lord Hartington as the late Leader of the Liberal Party—a declaration that sealed the fate of flogging; a declaration that in future the Liberal Party would no longer give it their support. Nor was that all. At the General Election the utmost possible political capital was made of the opposition of the Liberal Party to flogging and its alleged support by the Tory Party. The present Home Secretary, in addressing his then constituents at Oxford, compared the punishment of flogging to that of hanging, and remarked—
    "Not many years ago the Criminal Code of this country was the most severe and brutal in the world. The Judges said that if men were not hanged property would not be safe, and we were told last year that if men were not flogged the Army would not be safe. I venture to say that people were as much mistaken in that opinion as the Judges when they said that if you did not hang men property would not be safe."
    He (Mr. Gorst) could quote similar examples from many speeches made by Members of the present Government; but he would take the case of the election at Birmingham as a specimen of all. At Birmingham, where two Members of the present Cabinet were the successful Liberal candidates, a disgraceful placard was posted—50 or 100 copies in a row—in the streets. It contained a disgusting picture of a naked soldier being flogged by a political opponent of the right hon. Gentleman. The letter-press gave a minute and disgusting description of the mode in which the punishment was inflicted, and then in large letters came the following:—
    "The British Army is the only Army in the world in which this brutal and degrading punishment is inflicted. Last year Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain struggled night after night in the House of Commons in order to secure its abolition. They succeeded in reducing the number of offences for which it could be inflicted from 100 to 10, although they were met by the most strenuous opposition from the Tory Party, who prevented its total abolition. Working men of

    1367
    Birmingham! These men, whom Major Burnaby would see horribly tortured, are your brothers and your sons."
    Thus the suffrages of the working people of Birmingham were expressly asked for on the ground that it was the Tory Party, as opposed to the Liberal Party, who maintained flogging in the Army and Navy, and that the persons flogged were the brothers and sons of the Birmingham electors. This was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) invoked the passions of the class whom he formerly called in that House "the residuum"—men not to be reached by argument and reason, but to be appealed to through their passions. The Liberal candidates for the borough of Southwark thought it right to accuse Mr. Edward Clarke, who for a short time was a Member of the House, of having distinguished himself during that short time by voting for flogging. Mr. Clarke personally challenged the candidates for misrepresenting what he had done, and they withdrew their statement after it had had considerable effect on the constituents. One of the Liberal candidates, who, being a philosopher, might have been expected to be more reasonable and fair in this matter than almost any other man, was pleased to say, as far as his (Mr. Gorst's) memory served him, when he withdrew the statement, that if Mr. Clarke did not vote for flogging his Party did, as they voted for everything else that was brutal and unfair. Many Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House in the last Parliament were as sincerely opposed to the punishment of flogging as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite, and gave expression to their views by their speeches and by their votes; and one would have expected that when the Liberal Party that had so strenuously denounced the maintenance of this brutal and degrading punishment came into Office they would lose no time in announcing from the Treasury Bench that they intended its immediate abolition. The right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), in answer to a Question put to him a short time ago, stated that the Government had not changed their views on the subject; but that before they gave effect to those views they were bound to consider what punishment could be substituted for flogging. They heard
    1368
    nothing of the necessity for consideration in 1879, nor in 1877, when all these right hon. Gentlemen voted for the immediate abolition of flogging. The right hon. Gentleman said if the House would place confidence in the Government, he would undertake to bring in a Bill next Session, which he hoped would be acceptable to Parliament and the country. Now, that was what he complained of—that they were to wait till next year. He would be quite willing to wait till next year if he were told what the measure would be. This was a question upon which the Government were pledged up to the hilt. If they had come into Office pledged upon any subject more than another it was the abolition of flogging in the Navy. Now would they rise in their places and say what they would do? If they did, ho, for one, would be perfectly satisfied. He thought the House and the country were entitled to a most explicit and unconditional declaration from Her Majesty's Government, that having got into Office by inflaming the minds of the "residuum" against the punishment of flogging in the Army and Navy, next year flogging would be finally abolished.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not quite understand the object of the course taken by my hon. and learned Friend. I think he would have acted more wisely if he had followed the example of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), who put off his Bill in order that the present Administration of the Navy might have an opportunity of considering what they should do. I understand the hon. and learned Member for Chatham has consistently opposed the punishment of flogging. If so, I hope he will be satisfied with the statement I am about to make to the House. He has called the attention of the House to the fact that my name appeared in the division last Session against flogging. I hold still the opinion which I held before on that occasion. Now, the statement I have to make with reference to flogging in the Navy is this. Since the appeal I made a few days ago to the hon. Member for Leicester to postpone for a short time the Motion he had upon this subject, the Board of Admiralty have given their attention to the subject, and have come to the conclusion to prepare an Amendment of the Naval Discipline Act at the earliest period of next Session, which

    1369
    shall omit flogging from the authorized punishments of that Act. They have been brought to this conclusion by the consideration that it will be impossible to maintain corporal punishment in the Navy when it is abolished in the Army; and, further, that it has already almost ceased to exist in the Navy. Last year there were only four cases of corporal punishment in the whole Navy, and two of these took place upon land, and not on Her Majesty's vessels. This has been the result not so much of the existing regulations, which still permit it in a considerable number of cases under certain conditions, but from the policy which has been carried out by successive Boards of Admiralty for sometime past. It will, however, be necessary to review very carefully the punishments permitted by the Naval Discipline Act for the graver offences, and to strengthen, as far as possible, the hands of naval officers for the maintenance of discipline. This will require time and careful consideration; and Lord Northbrook proposes, therefore, to prepare by the beginning of next Session, a measure for the amendment of the Naval Discipline Act in the sense I have explained. Now I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham to say that he would be quite satisfied if the Government would announce their intention of bringing in a Bill next year. [Mr. GORST: I spoke of the Army as well as of the Navy.] I can only deal with the Navy. I have considerable pleasure in stating that the Board of Admiralty fully approve the course Lord North-brook intends to take. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Chatham and the House will be satisfied with this statement, and that he will not think it necessary to proceed further this Session, and that, like the hon. Member for Leicester, he will not think it necessary to proceed with this discussion.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwould like to know what punishment was to be substituted for flogging? Soldiers, in some foreign Armies, on a line of march, though not flogged, were punished by being tied to a cannon or to a tree in the cold of winter or in the heat of summer, and that punishment was known to be much more severe than moderate flogging in the Navy. He was by no means an advocate of flogging; but he could not regard the statement of the Secretary to
    1370
    the Admiralty as satisfactory, unless they were told what was to be substituted for the punishment of flooding.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORwarmly thanked the Government for the information they had given as to their intention with reference to flogging. It was quite true that the Government were bound to take the course they had announced; but Governments did not always do what they were bound to do. He could assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth that whatever punishment might be substituted for flogging would not be one more severe and brutal.
    MR. OTWAYsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had taken the opportunity of making known on the opposite side of the House sentiments which he never previously expressed on the Ministerial side. He was much surprised with the cheers of those who sat near the hon. and learned Member while he was speaking; but they did not raise a solitary cheer when they heard the statement distinctly made that the Government had kept to their pledges, and had determined on getting rid for ever of this disgraceful, degrading, and, on the whole, unnecessary punishment. He had for many years taken the deepest interest in this subject. He had never made it a Party question. He had asked Lord Beaconsfield to adopt the Resolution which he had moved in the last Parliament on this subject, and believed he would have done so but for the advice he received from some military authority. He, for one, after the statement which was made some little time ago by the Secretary of State for War, never had the slightest doubt of what the intention of the Government was on the subject. He was thoroughly satisfied with the decision to which they had come, which, he believed, would give the greatest satisfaction in the country.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, that as in the course of the late Election it had been charged as an offence against him that he was desirous of maintaining the punishment of flogging, he wished to say a word or two with reference to the position in which this question now stood. All the honour that attached to the abolition of this punishment was the fair due of those hon. Members who, like the last speaker (Mr. Otway) and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), had stood

    1371
    up for years demanding, through good report and ill report, that it should be put an end to, and that at a time when there were few hon. Members to support them. He could not say, however, that the present Government were entitled to share in that honour, because he remembered well what had taken place on this subject last Session. He had had the honour of sitting on a Committee presided over by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The question had been brought before the House, and there were then no signs on the part of several hon. Members of the present Government taking the part they since did in the matter. He well remembered that the then Opposition Leader of the House (Lord Hartington) had, when this question was under discussion, declared that "the object seemed to be to take care of the blackguards of the Army," and it was not until the junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had reproached the noble Lord with being the "late" Leader of the Liberal Party, that that noble Lord came down to the House, changed front entirely, and said that no measure would be satisfactory that did not abolish flogging in the Army. It must be remembered that neither the noble Lord, who had been Secretary of State for War for some time, nor any Member of the former Liberal Cabinets, had ever brought forward any measure dealing with the subject. In such circumstances, he repeated that he could not give either respect or credit to the Government for the course they had taken with regard to this question of flogging, however much he might respect those who had been consistent on it throughout. They had heard it was to be abolished in the Navy, but not in the Army. If they could find a substitute for this punishment, less degrading, less brutal, and still sufficient to maintain discipline in the face of the enemy, he would be more than satisfied to see flogging abolished. He would not like to say the number of men who had been flogged of necessity in the presence of the enemy in the war in South Africa. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would state whether it was his intention to abolish the punishment of flogging in the Army, which had been stated by the hon. Member for
    1372
    the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) to be raised from the dregs of the nation; and whether he had resolved upon substituting for it any punishment less degrading and less brutal which would maintain discipline when our troops were in the face of the enemy? He urged the right hon. Gentleman to consult Sir Garnet Wolseley on the subject, and to ascertain from him how many of our soldiers it had been found absolutely necessary to flog in the recent campaign in South Africa.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) and his noble Friend opposite (Lord Elcho) had so pointedly challenged him to take part in this debate that he could not decline the responsibility of doing so. As to himself personally his hands were perfectly clean in this matter. He had never voted in favour of flogging, and his personal opinion had always been strongly against it. Allusion had been made to the vote he gave in 1877 against flogging in the Navy. He had arrived at the conclusion, after his own experience on the Admiralty Board some years ago, that it would be safe to abolish flogging in the Navy. It was not a question which he had been able to deal with when First Lord, but from the opinion he then formed he had never gone. He was now asked precisely whether he would give the answer in respect to the Army which his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had just given in respect to the Navy. With regard to this, he was under the impression that nothing could be more precise than the answer he had given the other day to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen); and though he was jeered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, no one on that (the Liberal) side of the House misunderstood him, and he undertook to say that no one in the country misunderstood him either. He had had opportunities of reading the remarks which had appeared in the Press, and whether it was what was known as the Service Press or the daily Press of London and the country, it was apparent from their comments that his answer was clear enough. What he said was that the Members of the Government did not swerve in the least from the opinion they had expressed in 1879. That opinion was, in the words of his noble Friend's Reso-

    1373
    lution, that flogging should not be a part of the permanent punishments of the Army; but they never stated that on the following day, without any further inquiry or investigation, it would be possible by a stroke of the pen to abolish corporal punishment. His first act when he went to the War Office, and before any allusion had been made to the subject in the House, was to commence an investigation as to the punishments which might be substituted for flogging; and what he said in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle was, that between this and the next Session of Parliament they would examine into the question very carefully and obtain the most accurate information of the punishments in force in foreign armies, some of which were not in pari materia with ours, and others were more so, in order to see what punishment could be substituted. He had also stated that at the commencement of next Session the Government would prepare and introduce a measure consistent with their pledges, which he hoped would be satisfactory alike to those who had voted with them on the question, to the great majority of the present House, and to the country generally. He now repeated that statement, and that he concurred with all that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject of the abolition of flogging in the Navy.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. BENTINCK,in rising to call attention to the state of the British Navy, said, it was most painful and deplorable to witness the indifference which not only successive Governments, but successive Parliaments and the country at large, had exhibited with regard to this important subject, with which our very existence as a nation was so intimately connected. When any question of Privilege was discussed in that House 300 or 400 Members hurried in to hear it; but when the condition of the Navy was under consideration there was generally but a small attendance. Her ironclads formed the fighting portion of the British Navy; but when he compared them with the fleets of other European countries the disproportion was very remarkable. In what he might call the good old days
    1374
    they always had a reserve of line-of-battle ships ready to meet any emergency that might arise; but in the present day they had, practically, no reserve of ironclads. They had just ships enough to perform the duties of the Navy in time of peace, and no one would venture to assert that they had a sufficient Reserve for a time of war. Not only had they no reserve in point of numbers; but the ships they possessed were, with all their enormous powers, of the most fragile construction, and liable, in time of war, to casualties for which, in the way of a Reserve, no provision was made whatever, and which the old wooden line-of-battle ships would have survived. It was an absurd argument to talk of the number of ironclads which this country already had in commission, or could put into commission at short notice, as compared with other great Powers of Europe; for there was no affinity between the position of this country and that of any of those Powers. If any of them were by some accident to lose their whole Navy to-morrow, it would be a source rather of gain to them than of loss. They could do without, and would be better off without a Navy at all, not having to incur the expense of maintaining it. But the position of this country was the converse of that proposition. This country not only could not subsist without a Navy; but without a Navy in the most efficient condition it would soon be wiped out of the number of the great European Powers. Successive Governments had been misleading the country, by not having the courage to ask for the money that was necessary to place the Navy in an efficient condition for protecting our interests. There was a great want of proper ships on foreign stations, and he wished it to be clearly understood that the cumbrous and unmanageable machines we possessed now in the shape of ironclads were utterly unfit for distant foreign stations. That was the result of having too much of the civilian element at the Board of Admiralty. If we were to have science at the Board of Admiralty, it ought to be combined with a larger element of practical and nautical experience. He should be glad to hear from his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Mr. E. J. Reed) whether it was not possible to construct an ironclad which should be capable of being handled under canvas, so as to reserve

    1375
    her coal for cases of great emergency, and thus enabling her to keep the sea. He did not blame the members of the Boards of Admiralty; but he blamed the system under which civilians and others were called upon to perform duties of the details of which they must be without any knowledge. What he wished to see was a Board so constituted that knowledge and responsibility should go together. From the fact that they had so much of the official element at the Admiralty he was not surprised at the state of mind they had been in for some years past on the subject of ironclads, or at the fact that they were not in a position to state the sort of iron-clad they were going to build. As to the Inflexible, of which they had heard so much, if all that science had been able to do was to produce a square box with two ends so vulnerable as to render the merits of the box itself of the most doubtful character, it had not yet done much to improve the condition of our Navy. There was another point to which he would refer, and which he had brought under the attention of the House over and over again. It was this—that we had no fast ships of the description which was required for the purpose of either harassing an enemy in time of war, or of protecting our own commerce and keeping a way open for the supply of food to this country. Last year his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) stated that we had three or four such ships; but he (Mr. Bentinck) contended that they wanted 30 or 40. In the event of war breaking out we ought to have them in commission in every part of the world. A great maritime Power should be possessed of a fleet which would be able to destroy the commerce of an enemy, and—still more important—of ships which would secure the importation of food to this country, dependent, as it was from various causes on foreign supplies. Things had been brought to such a pass that we might be said to now live from hand to mouth. He had it on reliable authority that there was not now in the country above three or four weeks' consumption of wheat. Cargoes were, no doubt, being received from abroad every day, and the market was kept supplied; but what would be our condition for even a week if we lost the command of the sea? The country would be simply
    1376
    in a state of starvation, like a beleaguered and starved-out citadel. Yet that fact appeared to be a matter of indifference to all Governments and to successive Houses of Commons, and even the country itself did not appear to be sufficiently alive to the urgency of the case. He trusted the present Board of Admiralty would look the fact in the face, and provide against the disaster which must occur should an outbreak of war find us in our present condition.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that not having been in this country when his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty laid his Navy Estimates on the Table, he was anxious, on the present occasion, to say a few words on the general subject. He was not going to attack any Board of Admiralty, and certainly not the present, which he would admit was fully competent to look after the interests of the Navy. For a wonder, of the civilian Members two had been already in the Admiralty, and had had some experience, which was most remarkable. The present First Lord he had followed as Secretary, and he found nothing left behind which showed any sinister designs against the welfare of the Service. Then there was Admiral Cooper Key, who had the confidence of the Navy. There was Lord John Hay, who had already given proof of administrative zeal as one of the best officers of the Service; and though the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had not been at the Admiralty before, he had been recognized, from his speeches and writings, as an authority on naval subjects. He hoped the hon. Member would do that which Gentlemen sometimes omitted to do when they got into Office, and would carry out the pledges and views he had laid before the country. In a recent letter to The Times he laid down the soundest doctrine—namely, that economy and efficiency were alike incompatible with great fluctuations in the amount of dockyard labour. That sound doctrine had been disregarded during the last few years, for reasons which never ought to have existed. All Boards alike were in the habit of making large promises which they knew they could not perform with the Staff placed at their disposal. This was no new theory of his; and during the four or five years that he was intrusted, by Lord

    1377
    Beaconsfield with the duty of replying to the Naval Statement, he always urged on the First Lord to give them a programme he could carry out, and not to mislead the public by sketching a gigantic programme which it was impossible to fulfil. If any set of men could carry out a gigantic programme it would be the artificers and shipwrights of the Dockyards. It had been proved, over and over again, that they could do, if not more than, at least as much as any other men, and the quality of their work was far superior to any they could get anywhere else. It was now seven years ago since the right hon. Gentleman now at Constantinople (Mr. Goschen) came forward with a splendid programme of reduced Estimates and increased work; and, speaking across the Table to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Lord Henry Lennox) said—"If you can do the work proposed with the reduced Staff you are a conjuror." The following year the right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that he was not a conjuror. He trusted no Board would again come forward with grand promises which could not be carried out with an insufficient Staff. It was an incalculable evil that it should be done. It lulled the public mind into a false state of security when they read of the number of ships, of the heavy guns, of the vast tonnage they were to get. Then there came a war cloud—and in these days such clouds arose more quickly than ever before—then followed panic, and the hurried voting of millions, and expenditure without due thought. After that, they went on in the old hum-drum way of great programmes without the probability of carrying them out. Sometimes they were startled, as in the case of the Inflexible, by a Vote for a big ship, which was to be of wonderful construction, and unlike anything they possessed. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. E. J. Reed) had drawn attention to the great changes in the designs for the Inflexible. He (Lord Henry Lennox) had himself told the late Government that she was full of the most complex problems, which were not by any means satisfactorily worked out by the Constructors of the Department, and he ventured to say that she would be many years on the stocks before she could be added to the Fleet. The right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H.
    1378
    Smith) courteously contradicted him, said that he was quite wrong, that the work was going on very fast, and that the Inflexible would soon be added to the strength of the Navy. The Inflexible had been seven years in building, and he believed that 19 months of the time had been spent in making experiments, and that the work on the hull had been stopped while these experiments were made. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not approve of building ships too quickly; and if there were no such things as war and foreign countries he (Lord Henry Lennox) would be inclined to go with his right hon. Friend. But the longer a ship was in building the more costly it became to the country.
    MR. W. H. SMITHbegged pardon, but he had not said that. He said that we did wisely not to begin too large a shipbuilding programme, so as to preclude the utilization of the experience gained from time to time; but he never expressed any opinion adverse to the quick building of a particular ship when once the design had been accepted.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that he regretted if he had misrepresented his right hon. Friend; but, on the occasion he was referring to, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that one of the reasons why he did not wish many new ships to be constructed was that in 15 or 20 years they would become obsolete. If the present Board of Admiralty could show them anything that would keep its place for 15 or 20 years they would certainly work wonders. He wished to put in a word for the shipwrights in the Dockyards. He was told that they had made great progress in their ability as artificers, and that work which used to be done by the trade could now be done by the shipwrights in the yard. Although they had undertaken these new and difficult duties, they were still receiving the rate of pay they had as shipwrights; and if there was any class of men who deserved increase of pay it was the shipwrights of our Dockyards. The programme of the year included building and the repairing and re-fitting of the various fleets and squadrons as they came in. Nothing could be more shifting, more difficult to make estimates for, than the repairing and re-fitting of the fleets and squadrons as they came in. There was a class of vessels which had to be repaired by Dockyard men,

    1379
    and of which nothing was said in the Official Statement, though the class was a necessary and important one, and that was the Reserves. The vessels in the First Class Reserve were supposed to be all ready to go to sea at once, the Second Class with a little longer notice, and so on; but the regulations were changed so often that he had not been able to learn how the matter stood now. If the Board of Admiralty would address themselves to the case of the Reserves they would do a work of national good. They would find the men so employed upon the building programme of the year, and in repairing the fleets and squadrons that in most cases the Reserve ships were left to deteriorate. Take the case of one of the large frigates—the Inconstant—as to which he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to inquire into the condition of that vessel. For some five years she was in the Reserve; but she had had a short commission since October last, and was now in the Reserve again. If she were called to go to sea at once, as she might be, it would be found that every scrap of timber about her was rotten. He thought our iron-clad Navy at the present time was ridiculously disproportionate to those of other nations, for we must remember that we had Colonies to guard, which they had not. We ought to have a great deal stronger Fleet than the French had. Then, as to cruisers, his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster had admitted that we were deficient in cruisers, and he promised to lay down two or three. He (Lord Henry Lennox) did not know that, except in time of war, iron-clads were of any particular use, and probably in time of peace cruisers were more useful. His right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster told them he was averse to expending money in the repair of obsolete ships, and seemed to entertain the idea of transforming obsolete iron-clads such as the Black Prince, the Minotaur, and the Aqincourt into cruisers with increased carriage power. While he (Lord Henry Lennox) was glad to observe that, he was, on the other hand, sorry to see that a considerable sum of money was being expended at Devonport in altering the rig of the Northumberland, one of those obsolete ships which had, during the last six years, cost upwards of £120,000. He had abstained from entering on the abstruse problems of ship-
    1380
    building; but he hoped to hear to-night from the Secretary to the Admiralty that he was impressed with the necessity of pushing forward some of our first iron-clads, and that he also understood the necessity of doing what he could to have our cruisers renovated. He hoped also that the hon. Gentleman would be determined, whenever it came to his turn, to give them a programme that he would be able to carry out; and that when Lord North brook and himself had made up their minds to it they would go boldly to the head of the Treasury and demand the money that was required as a necessary insurance.
    MR. E. J. REEDlargely concurred in much that had fallen from the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and also from the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Henry Lennox). In the matter of iron-clad construction, our position, so far as France was concerned, had been peculiarly fortunate. We had at first to compete with a Power which was unaccountably pertinaciously devoted to the construction of wooden-built iron-clad ships. In other words, France was then engaged in building a Navy that would speedily decay; while we, on the other hand, were applying ourselves to the construction of iron-clads. But France was now not only building in iron, hut largely in steel. Ship for ship, France was now building durable ships like ourselves. In regard to Germany, also, we were in a position that should be fairly looked in the face. Germany, not secretly, but in a most open and avowed manner, had applied herself for several years past to the building of a considerable naval force. She designed her own vessels, and built them in her own establishments. She was now becoming a naval Power, and she had applied to her naval construction what she had introduced into her military operations—great foresight and great skill. There was, therefore, a very altered condition of things as regarded the French Navy, and also as regarded our relations with Germany. In his opinion, the hon. Member for West Norfolk, and the noble Lord who followed him, were right in the opinion they had expressed as to the failure of our efforts to add largely to the iron-built Navy. There seemed to be an indisposition in the House to look

    1381
    the simplest elementary facts in the face. He regretted that the attendance on that important occasion was so sparse—not a score of men out of 650 Members to discuss the most important matters. They paid every year an enormous amount of money for Non-Effective Services. Why, the Estimates for the year showed that, for Non-Effective Services, in the shape of Half-Pay, Re-serve Pay, Pensions, and Allowances, the country paid annually something like £2,000,000; while the total Vote, including the whole of the wages to Seamen, Marines, and so forth, only amounted to £2,750.000—in other words, £2,000,000 for Non-Effective, and £750,000 for Effective Services. How was that appropriated? He could not give the exact figures; but he might say that the Vote for the engines of the armoured vessels exceeded £100,000. Then the Vote for Stores for new purposes came to £500,000, and the wages of the men employed on the new ironclads amounted to £240,000; so that the total of these items was £840,000, as against the much larger sum of £1,940,000, for Non-Effective Services. In other words, before any wages could be paid, or ships built, £2,000,000 had to be provided for men who did nothing. He only wished, by comparing these two aggregates, to impress upon the House the serious character of the present state of things. All hon. Members would probably be of opinion that it would be very desirable, if possible, to reduce that enormous charge of nearly £2,000,000. He would do the right hon. Gentleman opposite the justice to say that his statement on the subject, comprising his resolution to keep down the number of Naval Cadets, and thus beginning at the root of the evil, had been highly satisfactory; and he hoped that the present Government would, in this matter, carry out the policy of their Predecessors. The late Government had also acted very wisely in undertaking a survey of our Mercantile Marine, with special reference to the possibility of adapting our merchant vessels, in time of emergency, to war purposes. Our position in the present day was very peculiar. Formerly there was nothing in the Mercantile Marine that could materially contribute to our naval strength in time of war; but now many of the fastest ships afloat were in our Merchant Ser-
    1382
    vice, and of these a fair proportion were capable of receiving a sufficient armament. In one respect, indeed, they were greatly defective—namely, in not being divided into watertight compartments; but under the advice of the late Government many of the great mail steamers have done much to remedy that shortcoming. It was to be borne in mind that the subdivision of a vessel into watertight compartments was the greatest possible security against the consequences of accidents. While the policy of the late Government had been satisfactory with regard to the Mercantile Marine, he was bound to say that the owners of vessels had done much to respond to the desire of the Government, and to render their vessels fit for the public service in case of emergency. Reference had been made in the course of the discussion to the Inflexible, and he should like to say a word or two on that subject, and which he thought it was useless to say until a change of Government had taken place. When the Inflexible was designed, it was at least true that, in that vessel, and her sister vessels, the Ajax and the Agamemnon, there had been the adoption of this great change, in naval construction—namely, that armour had, to a great extent, been done away with as an element of protection, and there was substituted for it, to a dangerous degree, the device of building thin iron chambers and stuffing them with cork. Now he wished to know, considering how often Committees had investigated the whole subject of armour, how it had happened that, whereas before armour was introduced for the protection of ships, all kinds of experiments were made as to the best kind of armour and the best mode of applying it, yet the system of iron chambers filled with cork was substituted for that method without any experiments at all being made with regard to it? He should be sorry if anyone going into Office in connection with such an important branch of our Services as that of the Navy should do so with any other than serious thoughts as to the power of Her Majesty's ships to stand upright in the water, after coming into contact with the enemy. The Navy, he did not doubt, was most honourably conducted; but he believed there was no other cause at the bottom of that absence of experiment than the fear that

    1383
    the new construction would prove, under experiment, not only worthless, but ridiculously so. If it had been attempted to be carried out under himself, he should never have had a moment's peace. Hitherto we had been accustomed to build ships that could not be destroyed without a reasonable amount of fighting; but the demerit of the Ajax and the Agamemnon—and of the Inflexible, too, unless she had been much modified—was that the enemy need never do more than demolish the thin cork structure. He wished to know whether the Government intended to institute any experiment; or whether they were to go on in the dark in regard to the value of a system of construction which was being so largely substituted for armour-plating? He regarded it as unsatisfactory that during the last seven years England should have added only two second-class iron-clads—the Nelson and the Northampton—to her Fleet. Seeing from that that the present rate of shipbuilding was extremely slow, it was most important that the ships built should be thoroughly well designed. To that point, and to the necessity of increasing the amount available for the Effective Services of the Navy, he hoped that the Government would turn their attention. As to the payment in the Dockyards, he thought that the question of better payment of skilled artificers was one which required consideration.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREappealed to the House to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, as he though the could deal with the questions raised in the course of the debate when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,041,152, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Wages, &c, to Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not propose to detain the Committee at
  1384
  any great length upon the question of the present Estimates, because it would be recollected that they had already been explained by the late First Lord in the short Session before Easter. The Estimates which were then before the Committee were practically identical with those submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, with one small exception. The Government had taken the Estimates of the late Board as they found them, and the Committee by voting the number of men before Easter had, in fact, determined the expenditure in many of the Votes before them at that moment. The Government had also found, on coming into Office, that the programme of work in the Dockyards had been carefully laid down, with a view to building ships for the relief of our squadrons, and that the stores for the Dockyards had already been contracted for. That was necessarily the case, because it was important that the supplies for the various works of the Navy should be contracted for at an early period of the financial year. The total of the Navy Estimates for the year amounted to £10,492,000. That amount was much less than the average for the last few years, and it was £93,000 less than the Estimates for the last year; £368,000 less than the Estimates for 1878–9, and no less than £500,000 less than the average expenditure for the last six years, irrespective of Votes of Credit, which amounted to £2,000,000. Comparing the Estimate for the present year with that of the year 1874–5, the last year for which the previous Liberal Administration were responsible, when the Estimates were prepared by Mr. Goschen and himself, and subsequently taken up by Mr. Ward Hunt, he found they amounted to £10,179,000, while the present Estimates were, as he had said, £10,492,000, showing a difference of £313,000. But in the interval there had been a continuous growth in the cost of the Non-Effective Services, due almost entirely to the increase of pensions for seamen, marines, and artificers, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff had called attention. That increase amounted to no less than £268,000. The difference, therefore, between the amount for the year 1874 and that for the present year was only £45,000. He was not prepared to say that the work of the present year could be carried out for any less sum than that

  1385
  which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty before Easter. The Government had, therefore, adopted the Estimates as they stood, with one exception, which he would now explain. It would be recollected probably by hon. Members who were present when the Estimates were discussed before Easter that there had been a general expression of opinion from all parts of the Committee that it would have been better if some greater progress could be made with the ironclads already laid down in the Dockyards. Some hon. Members had gone so far as to say that no ironclads ought to be commenced before those in hand had been finished. He had been unable entirely to agree with that view; but he had stated his opinion that it would be well if we could hasten somewhat more rapidly the completion of vessels already in hand. On taking Office, therefore, his first task had been to lay that view before the present First Lord of the Admiralty and his Colleagues, and to endeavour to make arrangements for carrying it into effect. The case of the ironclads was this: There were seven ironclads in course of construction, and it was proposed in the Estimates laid before the Committee by the late First Lord to lay down three new ones, and to build of these various ironclads in the course of the year 7,200 tons. The Inflexible would be finished in the course of the year. She had been commenced in 1873, and would therefore have been nearly eight years in course of construction. The next two vessels in course of construction, the Ajax and Agamemnon, which might be described as smaller In-flexibles, had been commenced in 1873; and so far as he understood the programme, as prepared by the late Government, they could not be completed before the beginning of 1883. The Agamemnon was building at Chatham, and the Ajax at Pembroke; but in the course of the present year it was intended that the Ajax should be so far advanced as to be launched, and then sent round to Chatham for completion. The Conqueror and the Polythemus were also in course of construction at Chatham, and it was proposed in the programme to commence there another new iron-clad. It would appear that if any great advance were made in the construction of those vessels, the progress of the Ajax and the
  1386
  Agamemnon must be even more retarded He understood that the Agamemnon could not be completed before the 3rd of August, 1882, and that the Ajax could not be completed before the 1st of April, 1883. Now, if that were correct, the Agamemnon would have taken 7½ and the Ajax 8 years in course of completion. He thought it would be agreed that those were very long periods of time to be consumed in the construction of ironclads of that class. In introducing the Estimates the right hon. Gentleman had given an explanation of the cause of the delay which had occurred in building these two vessels. He told the Committee that it was necessary, in the course of their construction, to make experiments with regard to guns, and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed also with regard to steel plates. He need hardly point out that those experiments had now been concluded, and that all questions with respect to the construction of those vessels had been brought to an end, and that nothing remained but to complete them according to the designs which had already been thoroughly agreed upon. It therefore appeared to him that there was no longer any reason why there should be any delay in the completion of those vessels, which he thought should be completed as fast as possible, and tried at sea, in order that the Admiralty might have the benefit of the experience to be derived from them, and that they should be added without delay to the material force of the Navy. He therefore proposed to ask the Committee, with a view to hastening the completion of those two vessels, to vote the sum of £20,000 additional, to be expended in Dockyard labour for that purpose. The effect of that expenditure, if it were continued through next year, would be to enable them to complete the Ajax and the Agamemnon by the end of the next financial year. He believed the Agamemnon would be complete on the lst of December, 1881, and the Ajax by the 1st of March, 1882. The Committee would understand that this arrangement would accelerate the completion of these vessels by nearly a year. That acceleration would involve the non-commencement of new iron-clad which it had been proposed to build at Chatham during the present year. Next year, if his programme were carried out, it would be possible to lay

  1387
  down two new ironclads to take the place of the Ajax and the Agamemnon. That acceleration, as he had said, involved the expenditure of £20,000 in addition to the Dockyard Vote No. 6; but it would not involve an increase of expenditure during the present year for materials, because they had already been provided for. It would, therefore, not be necessary to ask the Committee for a larger sum for materials for these two vessels, and the increased expenditure which he proposed would be provided for by savings upon another Vote namely—that for ships, machinery, and building by contract. He found that the tenders given in for three cruisers which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed to build by contract had been at a so much lower rate than was expected, that the expenditure would be considerably less than was at first thought and the result would be that they could spare £20,000 from Vote 10, Section 2, to supplement Vote 6, without in any way neglecting the work contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In other words, they would have the ships which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to build out of that Vote, and would, at the same time, have the money for the acceleration of the Ajax and the Agamemnon. He ventured to submit those changes of programme to the Committee; and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be of opinion, upon the whole, that the course which he proposed was a wise one, even although it was an amendment of his original plan. With respect to the Colossus and the Majestic, they had not thought it advisable to make any change in the programme for hastening on those vessels; but if they found in the course of the year that any labour could be spared from other work it should be diverted for that purpose. The object which they had in view would be to complete the vessels already in hand as soon as they possibly could; but of course he need hardly point out to the Committee that there was a limit to the possibility of applying labour for that purpose. It was impossible, for example, to apply to a large iron-clad such as the Colossus more than a certain amount of labour, having regard to economy, and the very shortest time in which a vessel of that class could be completed would be four
  1388
  years from the date of its commencement. An hon. Member said three years and a-half. He would not dispute with him as to half a year; but it was impossible to complete vessels of that size except in a long extended period. They must be very fortunate indeed, in the case of vessels of a novel type, if there were no delay in the course of its construction, due to the necessity of making experiments with regard to guns, plates, turrets, and other matters, such as had in the experience of the right hon. Gentleman opposite retarded the progress of the Inflexible, the Ajax, and the Agamemnon. But even without those experiments, the time occupied in building large ironclads of that kind must in any case be a long one. The consideration of that circumstance brought to their mind the fact that they could not hope to improvise such vessels in time of war. It was impossible in time of war to build in our Dockyards large iron-clads which could take part in the war. It would seem, therefore, hardly worth while, when war was impending, to lay down iron-clads which would take at least three or four years to build. They might be fortunate enough at such a period to be able to buy iron-clads which had been constructed in private dockyards as was done in 1878, or it might be well to expend money in buying fast vessels from the Merchant Service, to be fitted out in order to assist the Navy as cruisers for the defence of our commerce; or to expend money in building gun-boats, torpedo vessels, or small craft of that kind which could be turned out very rapidly. But in time of war they could not wisely vote money to commence large iron-clads. The converse of that proposition was equally true, that just as they could anticipate a period of peace and had no fear of disturbances, so it would be wise to expend as much as possible of the resources available for the Navy on that work of the most permanent character which could not be improvised in the time of war. Therefore, at the present moment, when he hoped there was no fear of immediate disturbances, such as had alarmed the country during the last three or four years, he ventured to say it was all the more important that they should devote as large a portion of their resources in the Dockyards as they could to the com-

  1389
  pletion of iron-clads which would be available in time of war. For that reason, the policy of the present Board of Admiralty would be, as far as possible, to hasten on the building of the iron-clads which were already in hand, and also when they did in future lay down vessels of that type to advance their completion as quickly as they could. Looking to the state of the ironclads which were likely to come into the Dockyards for repairs in the course of the next two or three years, and looking also to the large amount of work which, he freely acknowledged, had been done by the late Board in the way of repairing iron-clads and other vessels, he hoped that there would not be so much pressure on the Dockyards for repairs daring the next two or three years as there had been in the past; and he trusted, therefore, that they would be able to devote a larger portion of labour to the completion of such vessels as were in hand. Turning to another subject, he ventured to point out to the Committee that since the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made his introductory statement upon the Estimates the Report of the Committee on boilers had been completed. In 1874, the late Mr. Ward Hunt, immediately on becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, had appointed a Committee to investigate the causes of the very rapid deterioration which had taken place in some of the boilers in the Navy, especially as compared with the boilers of merchant ships. That Committee had sat for nearly four years, collecting a very large amount of evidence, and had also conducted a series of most careful inquiries. But, two years ago, as it appeared it was not likely soon to report, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman opposite dissolved it and appointed another, composed entirely of Departmental officers of the Admiralty, presided over by the able Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Wright. That Committee had brought the inquiries and experiments to a conclusion, and had, he was glad to say, made its final Report, which would shortly be in the hands of hon. Members, and would, in his opinion, be of great use both to the Navy and the Merchant Service. It had thoroughly investigated the subject of the corrosion of boilers, and the causes of their rapid deterioration. The decay of boilers had
  1390
  been attributed formerly, among other causes, to galvanic action, and to the water in them being used over and over again, and the old practice had been to empty the boilers as often as possible and to change the water; and it had also been the practice when the boilers were not in use to leave them as long as possible dry. He thought it would be interesting to the Committee to know that the investigations had resulted in conclusive proof that none of those causes to which he had alluded had anything whatever to do with the rapid deterioration of boilers in the Navy, which it had been found was solely due to the entrance of air charged with moisture. That had been conclusively proved by the experiments which had been made, and the result would be that in future the practice would be exactly the reverse of what it was formerly—namely, that instead of emptying the boilers often the same water would be kept as long as possible, and the practice would be to keep them filled with water, with a view of protecting the interior surfaces of the boilers when they were not in use. He was glad to see that instructions, founded on the Report of the Committee, had been issued to the Service; and he ventured to hope that they would have the effect of preventing rapid deterioration of the boilers in the Navy in future. It was also satisfactory to know that the boilers of two Indian troopships, experimented upon under the superintendence of these two Committees for six years, showed no sensible deterioration, and that, therefore, it was quite possible to preserve boilers to a very much greater extent than had hitherto been supposed to be possible. It might have been supposed that this would have been discovered at at earlier date; and he could not but express great surprise that it had taken six years to discover what appeared to be so elementary a proposition. In the meantime, he was sorry to say that the rapid deterioration, which had been complained of in the past, had continued, and even during the few days he had been at the Admiralty there had been two cases of that kind in respect of vessels employed in the Eastern seas. In one case, that of the Diamond, which was built in 1874, and was only in commission three years and

  1391
  a-half and had been more than half her mileage under sail, came into the Dockyard, where it was found that her boilers were corroded to an extent that rendered them useless, and that new boilers would have to be supplied. In the case of another vessel which had only been four years in the Service, when she came into the Dockyard it turned out that her boilers were useless through corrosion, and new ones had to be put in at great expense. He had ventured to deal with these cases at some length, because this was not merely a question of economy, but of efficiency in the very highest degree. If they could only secure that the boilers of their larger iron-clads should last a longer period than in the past, it was quite clear that the efficiency of those vessels would be enormously increased. The expense and delay caused by sending one of these vessels into the Dockyard for the purpose of being ripped up that new boilers might be put in was so great that it was a matter of very considerable importance indeed to the Navy. Certainly it would be most unsatisfactory in time of war if any boilers were to give way and vessels were to be compelled to put into the Dockyards for the purpose of undergoing repairs at vast expense and taking a very considerable period of time. He believed it was correct to say that it took more than a year to put boilers into one of these larger iron-clads. Therefore, if by any means we could preserve those boilers for a long period, very much would be added to the efficiency of these larger vessels, and in a proportionate degree they would add to the strength of the Navy. In the course of the debate which had already occurred several subjects had been touched upon. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had produced his usual arguments upon the subject of the Navy. He had no complaint to make of what the hon. Member had said, for he had no doubt those arguments would equally apply to the late First Lord as to the present one. The hon. Member complained, in the first place, of the utter indifference of the Committee to naval subjects; and he attempted to support that opinion by alluding to the small attendance in the House at that particular period. He ventured to differ from the hon. Member in regard to that assertion. He himself
  1392
  did not believe that there was any indifference in the House of Commons on naval affairs; but what he did think was that the House generally was of opinion that these naval matters would not be dealt with in a partial spirit, and in consequence of that belief there was not that large attendance that there was upon some other subjects when they were discussed. He ventured also to think that what the hon. Member considered as the indifference of the House to naval questions was merely an absence caused by the feeling that hon. Members did not share generally with the hon. Member the alarms and fears which he had expressed. The hon. Member next complained of the want of sufficient reserve of iron-clads, and in reply to that he would say that at no time in his recollection had the reserve of iron-clads been greater than it now was. The hon. Member had declared that there were absolutely no reserves at all, and that there were no more vessels at present ready than were required for the purposes of the Navy. He would call attention to the fact that the Coastguard vessels were intended as reserves of the Navy, and that besides those vessels there were at present in the Dockyards a larger number of the iron-clads of the first reserve ready for sea than he had ever himself recollected at any previous period. They had also vessels nearly complete, such as the Inflexible, the Neptune, and the Orion, and new vessels like the Ajax and Agamemnon, which would be complete next year, and which of themselves, when finished, would form a very powerful fleet. The hon. Member next went on to complain of the want of fast cruisers, and on that point he was bound to say that he thought there was more reason for complaint. He himself thought there was a want of fast cruisers, and he observed that there had not been much addition to that class during the last three or four years. He was glad to observe, however, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late First Lord of the Admiralty, in the programme which he laid down in the beginning of the year, and which had been adopted by the Government, had provided for the building of three first-class cruisers by contract. Those vessels would be of a very first-class character, calculated to steam at least 16 knots an

  1393
  hour, and with very great capacity for coals, carrying in their bunks something like 1,000 tons. These would, no doubt, be very useful vessels, and he should hope from time to time to be able to add to their number. It must also be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, during his administration, made arrangements in expectation of war, for taking up a very considerable number of fast merchant vessels, and in considering the want of vessels of this kind it must be remembered that at a time of emergency we could look to the commercial marine and obtain from it vessels of very great speed, which, without much difficulty, could be converted into cruisers for the protection of our commerce. At the same time, he was bound to admit that at the present moment there was a certain want of vessels of this type in the Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had already made steps towards supplying that want, and he hoped the Government would be able to move further in that direction. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester had adverted to the suggestion for converting the less valuable iron-clads of the Achilles, Black Prince, and Minotaur, into fast cruisers of this kind. That was a plan well worthy of consideration. These vessels had ceased to be of any great value as iron-clads, because the thickness of their plating was not such as to enable them to resist artillery of any power; but they were, on the other hand, vessels of a good form, and if fitted with compound engines would be of great speed and great coal carrying capacity. Thus, as powerful cruisers, they might be of much value for the protection of our commerce. He was unable to say, however, whether the present Board would undertake to convert one of these vessels; and he could only assure the Committee that the matter was considered by them to be well worthy of consideration, and should have his best attention. His hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Mr. E. J. Reed) made some remarks about the state of our iron-clad Fleet compared with that of France, and very properly observed that in comparing the two Fleets we should take into account that for many years past the French built only wooden vessels plated with iron, whereas in this country, from a very much earlier time,
  1394
  the whole resources of the English Dockyards were employed in simply building iron vessels. In that respect we had a very great advantage over the French; but the hon. Member also truly pointed out that the French had now been compelled to give up building wooden armour-plated vessels, and for three or four years past had been entirely devoting themselves to the construction of iron-clads. The hon. Member was, no doubt, quite correct in saying that that fact should make us more careful in our comparison; but, at the same time, we should recollect that the French vessels often compared with ours were the wooden type to which the hon. Member had alluded. For himself, he knew nothing more difficult than to make accurate comparisons between our own Navy and that of France. It was a problem almost impossible of solution, because they had to take into account the build of each particular vessel, the period at which it was constructed, and the fact that a greater number of the French vessels were wooden, which, all experience showed, could not stand the wear and tear to the same extent that the iron-clads could, and must, therefore, become deteriorated and rotten earlier than iron-clads. It was impossible to form a true comparison between our own Navy and that of France without taking all these points into consideration. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had called attention to the condition of the Inconstant, and had stated in the course of his remarks that the vessel was in some respects rotten. As, however, the hull was constructed entirely of iron it could not be in a bad state, and he was informed by the contractors that there was no grounds whatever for the observation, and that the Inconstant was a thoroughly sound vessel, quite fit to go to sea. With reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff as to the state of the Invincible, that was a matter of very considerable importance, which had been discussed at great length on various occasions in the House, and it was one which also had been dealt with very fully by a Committee which sat on the subject. He would, however, prefer to ask the House to wait until the Invincible was tried. She would be finished in the course of the present year, and

  1395
  would then go to sea, and he ventured to think that a better and truer opinion could be formed of her capabilities then than at the present time. He believed he had now dealt with all the topics touched upon in the previous debate. He knew he should have to claim the indulgence of the House in respect of many details of the Votes which would come before the Committee in the course of the ensuing discussion; for although he had some experience in naval matters, having held this Office on a previous occasion, and although he had taken an active part as a critic of naval matters during the last three years, yet there were many matters of detail connected with the Votes which required time to master. He remembered, however, that there was not now very much difference amongst them on the question of detail of Naval Votes, although, of course, there might be a difference of opinion on some of the broader questions of naval policy. He knew they all had but one desire to maintain the efficiency of the Naval Service.
  MR. W. H. SMITHcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on the spirit in which he had made his first speech in introducing the Estimates for the Navy. He had no objection to urge to the programme which the hon. Gentleman had just explained; but he was exceedingly glad to find that he was in a position to hasten forward the completion of the Ajax and the Agamemnon. Had he been in the hon. Gentleman's position, he should gladly have availed himself of the opportunity which a reduction in the price of cruisers afforded. He was very glad, also, to observe that the hon. Gentleman had not hesitated to increase the strength of the establishment at Chatham in order to push forward the work. Reference had been made in the earlier part of the evening to that subject, and some hon. Members had spoken as though he himself had been in favour of slow shipbuilding. He had never been in favour of that. If a design could be regarded as settled and perfected, as one from which they could not depart in any way, it was more easy, and it was far more desirable, that it should be pressed forward with all the energy and decision of which a Public Department was capable. He was glad to find, therefore, that considerable addition was to be made to the strength of
  1396
  Chatham Dockyard. He believed he was not misrepresenting the Government when he said that the hon. Gentleman had also accepted a canon much insisted upon by some of his hon. Friends in the House—that there should be as little variation as possible in the employment of labour in these Dockyards, and that the Government, when they had acquired the skilled labour of a very large number of men for various work, should keep a settled amount of work in view in order to obtain the most economical and profitable results. He, therefore, quite agreed in the view of the, hon. Gentleman that they should not reduce the strength of the Dockyards, but rather that they should maintain them at the point at which it was fixed by the late Administration. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Contract Votes, and observed that the late Administration had deliberately omitted to approve the design for the new Comus. That was quite so. He intended to leave to his successors to decide what the character of that ship should be. He did not in any way complain of the delay in approving that design, and he gladly accepted the three cruisers in place of two which had been originally proposed, because he believed the cruiser to be of far greater importance than the Comus. His hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk had insisted on the advantage of building armoured ships which could keep the sea. He noticed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, who was very skilled in these matters, had not satisfied the expectations which he had raised that he would present the Committee with the design for an armoured line-of-battle ships which should keep the sea under sail, without the use of steam power; and he was very much afraid, from the knowledge which he had obtained of first-class battle-ships, that the day was very far distant when a ship should be presented with those qualifications, even considering the skill of the hon. Member. He knew of no ship which could fulfil those conditions, and he was afraid that they must be content for the present to accept the motive power of steam for the most formidable class of battle-ships. The Secretary to the Admiralty had explained why the present Board had not laid down a new ship at Chatham in this year. The object con-

  1397
  templated in the programme of the late Board was to provide work both at Chatham and other Dockyards, so that there should be full employment, and economical employment, for the Staff. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to approve of the design for a ship either at Chatham or at Portsmouth, although it was most desirable that certain experiments should be carried out, which, he believed, were progressing under the orders of the present Board. He would urge, however, that they should be carried through as speedily as possible, as he was strongly of opinion that the Board should be in a position to approve the designs of at least two new iron-clads in the coming-year. These designs certainly should be in the possession of the Dockyards not later than January or February next, in order that they might be referred to the proper officers, and steps be taken to make a full use of the Staff. With regard to the labours of the Boiler Committee, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it did seem somewhat remarkable, after their long experience of steam boilers and their use at sea, that they should not have obtained the apparently elementary knowledge at which they had now arrived. As the hon. Gentleman knew, the condition of our ships in the year 1872, from the deterioration of their boilers, was a serious one, the condition resulting almost solely and entirely from the decay of the boilers; but the knowledge which they had now obtained was very valuable, and would be of very great use in the future. Nothing could be more true than that the necessity of renewing the boiler was the cause of a very large portion of the cost of repairing these steamships. If a ship was not in an efficient condition as far as her boilers were concerned, she was utterly unfit to go to sea, or to be used for warlike purposes. There could be no doubt, therefore, that any defect in the boiler arrangements, or, on the other hand, any improvement which could be made in dealing with the boilers, was a very important matter, for their great object was to keep ships in a thoroughly efficient condition. His object always had been, and he was quite sure the object of his successors would be, to secure that all ships retained on The Navy List, and regarded as fit for cruising, should
  1398
  be maintained in thorough efficiency. With regard to another subject, he hoped the Board would see their way to take the course which he had suggested of turning into cruisers certain lightly armoured ships which were not capable of keeping the sea with their present engines for a very considerable time. There were at present in the Dockyards a large quantity of fittings which would be ready to put on board the merchant ships, to which reference had been made, in case of emergency; and they would thus be able, by a very small expenditure of public money, to turn some 30 of the most efficient and fast merchant steamers into good cruisers, and capable of dealing with many of the smaller and less powerful war ships in foreign Navies. These fittings could be put on board the vessels in, at the most, three or four weeks' time, and we could thus obtain a very considerable and important addition to our Navy in case of need. He was very glad that the hon. Gentleman had referred to the cruisers which it was intended to build by contract, and that the present Board had come to such a decision on the subject, for he believed these vessels would turn out to be very valuable ships. They would be capable of steaming 4,000 knots at an average of 12 to 14 knots an hour, a speed which would be increased to a much higher rate if occasion should suddenly arise, such as meeting with the enemy in much stronger force. They would then be able to run away at great speed, a thing which was quite as essential, especially in regard to the smaller vessels, as the power of attack might be. He would not trouble the Committee at any great length by replying to the observations of other Members who had addressed them. His hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff had renewed his complaints with regard to the Inflexible; but he would merely follow the course taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite, of asking the Committee to wait until that vessel had been fully tried at sea. Without going fully into the topic, a Committee, for the appointment of which the hon. Gentleman was mainly responsible, looked fully into this matter. Under the directions of his right hon. Friend the late Mr. Ward Hunt, they thoroughly and fully investigated the whole subject; and he should be disposed, as they were men of great

  1399
  authority, to refer the Committee to the result of their decisions. He certainly was of opinion that the Inflexible would prove to be a very powerful addition to our offensive forces. It was perfectly true that certain experiments had not been made; and he was very much afraid, if they had made experiments in the way suggested, the delay would have been even greater than that of which there was already so much complaint. Of the 19 months lost in the building of the Inflexible nearly a whole year was caused by the delay of these experiments; and he did not believe that the opinion of the Committee, the judgment of the Constructors, and the scientific officers of the Admiralty, might be fairly set against the gloomy anticipations which the hon. Member for Cardiff had from time to time expressed with regard to this ship and her sister ships. Reference had been made to the large amount of the "Non-Effective" Vote, and certainly £2,000,000 did seem to be a large sum to take from the amount which the country was able to afford for its protection. While he was in Office he endeavoured, while beeping perfect faith with all the various branches of the Service, to bring about, as far as possible, a reduction in that Vote; and almost the last act of the Board of Admiralty under his superintendence was to take steps to induce men who, after 20 years' service, were leaving the Navy as petty officers to re-engage themselves on terms which would be very favourable to themselves, and yet would result in a large economy to the Public Service. He had no knowledge whether the invitation to these men had been successful or not; but he hoped it was, for it had been as much to the interest of the men themselves as of the country. Another step which had been taken was in the direction of the reduction of officers. A very considerable portion of this charge of which complaint was made was due to the fact that it had become necessary from time to time to induce officers to leave the Service, as they were in excess of the number for whom sufficient employment could be found. A man had a fair claim to promotion after serving a certain number of years; and it was not right to keep a man 10, 12, 15, or 20 years in the lower grades of the Service without promotion. That promotion could only be effected by in-
  1400
  ducing the senior officers to retire. Complaints were persistently made in the House as to the large sums spent upon these schemes of retirement. In his opinion, the great increase in these Votes was due in a very great degree to these schemes of retirement. He trusted that his successor would be strong enough, and that the present Government would be strong enough, to resist the pressure put upon them to allow gentlemen to enter the Service to whom no proper prospects of promotion could be held out. A reference had been made at some length to the relative strength of our Navy and those of other countries. He had always deprecated, and he always should deprecate, any attempt to compare in the House of Commons the relative state of this country with that of foreign countries; though, no doubt, it was the duty of the Minister in charge of a particular Service to consider what the proper strength of the country ought to be, and to provide accordingly in the Estimates. He admitted that it was desirable that some further progress and some further advance should be made in the matter of iron-clad ships, for he thought that they were not so strong as they ought to be under all the circumstances of the case. He agreed with the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that our Navy was stronger than it had been within living memory. It was true that they had more ships and more reserve than they had had at any previous period. But, although they had more iron-clads, still he was ready to admit that, looking at the circumstances at which they were placed, and looking at the possibilities of the next 10 or 15 years, it would be well that they should have even a stronger Fleet than they now possessed. He, however, did not wish it to be supposed that he desired to urge the Government to any extravagant course; but he believed that they had now reached a point in the development of iron-clad vessels at which they had only until that time been arriving. They had been conducting various experiments, and had well considered the whole subject. He did not regret that they had not hitherto laid down more ships or done more shipbuilding. If five, six, or seven years ago, or even within the last two or three years, they

  1401
  had committed themselves to a type of ship and had built many vessels, then with in five or six years probably those iron-clads would have become obsolete, and he thought that was a sufficient argument against their not having done so. But within the next six or nine, or, perhaps, 12 months, they would have acquired such information by experiment and by scientific inquiry as would enable the Board of Admiralty to look forward for some years, and to make all the provision in iron-clads that might be necessary. In the meantime he congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the statement which he had made to the House, and felt sure that on the present occasion they were not behindhand in their naval resources.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that he was glad to hear his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty state the change which was proposed to be made in the shipbuilding programme. His hon. Friend had, in the course of his observations, instituted a comparison between the French Navy and our own,. His hon. Friend was quite correct when he pointed out to the Committee that in future, in drawing comparisons between our own Navy and those of foreign countries, we should have to keep in view the proportion of vessels like our own, and not like some of the vessels formerly built in France. It was a striking circumstance, and one which must have attracted the attention of the Committee, that the present programme of shipbuilding in France was in excess of our own. It must also be remembered that the German Government was building a large Navy, upon a fixed and determined purpose, formed some years ago. He must trouble the Committee with a word or two with regard to the Inflexible. The Committee had reported very much as he had predicted it would. They said that the worst circumstances which he had predicted would occur provided he (Mr. Reed) was correct in supposing that the unarmoured portion of these iron-clads would be liable to great injury in action, but that they did not think he was correct in forming that opinion. But so important a question ought not to be left to the conflicting opinions of individuals—it was a question which ought to be settled by experiment. His contention was, that with regard to this class of vessels they had gone entirely
  1402
  in the dark. So far from thinking that the decision of the Committee was entirely in their favour, he considered that no more of that class of vessels ought to be built. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would allow him to appeal to the Committee on this subject, because he thought that they ought not to be fixed in their opinions after a single trial of the Inflexible at sea. Because the Inflexible had behaved well at sea in time of peace, it did not follow that it would be found as serviceable in time of war. He thought there was much to be apprehended from building vessels which were doubtful in their fighting capabilities. The public should not be led away with the idea that a vessel which could go to sea, and was reported as behaving itself well, was necessarily an excellent fighting ship. There was no reason in the world why, in a mere sea trial, the Inflexible should not have made an excellent performance. The whole question lay between her supposed fighting capabilities and her actual fighting capabilities, and he looked to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain to him what on earth the sea trial of a ship had to do with her destructibility under the fire of an enemy. He knew perfectly well that it was altogether impossible for any individual Member of the Committee to influence the action of the Government; he knew that, and had not the slightest expectation of inducing the Government to alter its decision; but he felt himself bound to say that no mere trial of the Inflexible at sea in time of peace would give him confidence in her fighting powers. During the war between Austria and Italy, the disastrous consequences of putting naval officers into vessels concerning which they had no accurate knowledge were made very manifest. The Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Navy found himself in a most unfortunate position, and he was tried for his life in consequence of being placed in command of a vessel with the powers of which he was imperfectly acquainted. He should be sorry to find that an admiral or a captain of this country was sent to sea in a ship of a similar character, for he would be liable, in the presence of an enemy, to disasters which might have been foreseen, and which nothing but official obstinacy had

  1403
  prevented from being remedied. He knew very well that the Report of the Committee was to the effect that these ships were not liable to rapid destruction; but he knew also that if these vessels were liable to that destruction the worst consequences would ensue. It was not his intention, and it would not be desirable for him to go further than to express his opinion, and having done so, to leave the responsibility with those upon whom it properly rested. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had omitted to indicate to them, no doubt by oversight, the nature of the new vessel which was to be constructed. He was not complaining of that; but he could not help thinking it a pity that two or three new vessels should be commenced about which the Committee knew nothing whatever. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give them some little information with regard to those vessels, so that the Committee was not left entirely in the dark. In his former remarks, he adverted to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck)—namely, the possibility of improving the sailing powers of iron-clads. He thought the hon. Gentleman had always underestimated the sailing powers of existing iron-clads. It was true that if they could not go so well under sail as the old sailing ships they could, nevertheless, do a great deal. An iron-clad on the western station recently became disabled, and was compelled to proceed to Portsmouth under canvas; she did so, and cast her anchor there just as if she were no ironclad at all. He could assure his hon. Friend that a great deal of sailing was done by some of the iron-clads. He was bound to say that there were no more determined opponents of the attempt to make iron-clads efficient sailing ships than naval officers who had served the greater portion of their lives in sailing ships. But they had at length realized the fact that in first-class ships of war they must depend mainly upon steam; but the fact should be recognized that there was another class of vessels that might be built, and that ought to be built, and ought to have been built many years ago—namely, a much smaller class of iron-clads which might have efficient sailing power and be able to keep at sea for a long time without using engine power at all. For distant
  1404
  stations such a class of vessels would be invaluable to the country. Reference had been made to Her Majesty's ship Northumberland; but it should be remembered that that vessel was a very different ship from those with which she was originally classed. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), he fully concurred with him with respect to the non-efficient Services. At the present time, about £2,000,000 sterling were paid for the non-efficient Naval Service, and that amount was increasing. Thus the country was getting into the position of having to spend one-fifth of it whole Naval Expenditure upon the Non-Effective Services. By that course naval economy was made absolutely hopeless, and something worse was done, for our naval efficiency was placed in very serious peril. When they found this amount for the Non-Effective Services constantly increasing, it actually imperilled the efficiency of the Navy. It was a most serious question whether something should not be done to reduce that enormous non-effective expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, in his opinion, touched upon the right chord, when he said it was a very large Vote, and Parliament ought to set its face against it, and that, at the present time, that Vote was mainly caused by the various schemes we had had for retiring officers in order to make way for others. They had now frequently to get rid of most valuable officers at 30 years of age or much below 40. At 40 men were paid a bonus to leave the Service, and they were taken off the active list when they were capable of rendering most valuable service, and placed upon the retired list, where they could be of no use whatever. He did not know whether that was the sort of system that would be endured in any private concern; but he hardly thought it was. He was satisfied the position of the Navy would be imperilled if something was not done. All that his hon. Friend had been able to do was to increase the outlay on the Ajax and the Agamemnon. The increase was in each ease judicious. In looking down the programme he did not see any items in which reduction could well have been made.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he wished, first of all, to make one or two remarks with

  1405
  regard to something that had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down. In both his speeches the hon. Member had dwelt at considerable length on the magnitude of what he called the "Non-Effective" Votes in the Navy Estimates. Exception must be taken to the name "Non-Effective." He (Captain Price) did not think the Votes were to be called by any means "Non-Effective." In fact, he looked through the Navy Estimates, and he did not see that they were so called there. It was true that the first 14 Votes on the list were stated to be for the "Effective Services;" but the Votes for pensions and half-pay were nowhere called "Non-Effective" Votes; and he considered that if they were so called it would cause a wrong impression in the minds of hon. Members and the public at large. The fact was, they were no more "Non-Effective" Votes than the Votes they were called on to pass for salaries and wages of men and officers in the Navy. His hon. Friend thought these Votes—these"Non-Effective"Votes—should be cut down, as he said, "very largely." Well, what did they consist of? The Votes for Military Pensions were over £800,000, the civil pensions over £320,000, which, with the half pay of naval officers, made altogether £1,500,000 out of the £2,000,000 which the hon. Member had told them the "Non-Effective" Votes amounted to. What were these pensions? No more than payments to the Navy, and if they were to be done away with the wages and salaries of the men must be increased. They must give the men something like what seamen got in the Merchant Service. It must be remembered that in Her Majesty's Service the seamen were a superior article, and that they had greater hardships to undergo, so that if they reduced the "Non-Effective" Votes, as the hon. Member suggested, they must increase the Effective Votes, which would have the effect of largely increasing the Navy Estimates. The same argument largely applied to half-pay for naval officers, which amounted to £108,000. He did not think anyone would deny that naval officers were about the worst paid class of men in the world, and not only were they badly paid when actually serving afloat, but they were subject to the disadvantage that when their ships came home they were sent away on half-pay.
  1406
  When they were "waiting for orders"—as was said in the American Navy—they were only receiving half-pay. If the Government were going to abolish half-pay, he thought the Navy would be delighted if all the officers were to be put on full pay; but he warned his hon. Friend and the Committee that if that. were done the effect would be to largely increase the Navy Estimates. The whole gist of his hon. Friend's remarks was that the Vote for shipbuilding and for increasing the efficiency of the Navy, was small as compared with what he called the "Non-Effective" Votes. He fully agreed with him there, but thought his remarks pointed to this—that instead of reducing the amount of the "Non-Effective" Votes, they should increase the Votes for shipbuilding and for repairing. Then his hon. Friend made some remarks—some lengthy remarks—with regard to the Inflexible. He had said that before we went on building these ships we should have certain experiments made to test their seaworthiness. He fully agreed with what his hon. Friend had said—not to test what he might call their seaworthiness in time of peace, but to test whether, in time of war, they were safe ships to carry our guns at sea. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend in that. But the hon. Gentleman had not told them what kind of experiment he would wish to see carried out. Did he mean that experiments should be carried out to test the stability and seaworthiness of the Inflexible and ships of her class as they were? For he took it that these experiments had already been carried out; but if he meant that experiments should he essayed to show whether the unarmoured ends of these vessels could be destroyed by artillery fire or by any other means, then—though he entirely differed from the conclusions his hon. Friend arrived at—he thought the experiments suggested would be very useful. He thought they should be carried out, and he did not consider that they would necessarily be expensive. He had stated before in that House that, in his opinion, such destructibility as the hon. Member supposed was impossible. He should be quite willing to argue the point with his hon. Friend again; but he thought the suggestion, coming from such a quarter, was well worth of being accepted, and he hoped the present

  1407
  Admiralty would cause these experiments to be carried out. He hoped the Committee would not think from what he had said, and from the action he had taken in the House with regard to the Inflexible, that he was at all in favour of multiplying that class of vessel. He was not in favour of it. He considered that they were a great deal too large and unwieldy, and he thought that what the Secretary to the Admiralty had said tonight was very sound. They should rather look to multiplying the number of small ships. An hon. Member had asked them to compare the size of our Fleets with the size of Fleets of foreign countries; but this was a practice which was always deprecated on the Treasury Bench. They were told that it was unwise to make these comparisons—to compare our Fleets with those of foreign Powers. But the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone further than that. He had said to-night that it was impossible to make these comparisons, and with this he could not agree at all. He did not think it was at all impossible to make them. It might be unwise to go into all these matters in the House; but there was no difficulty in making most accurate and minute comparisons between our Fleets and those of Germany or France or any other Power. He could go further than this and say that these comparisons had been made and that they were perfectly well known at the Admiralty. The comparisons had been made, he would be bound to say, to the perfect satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman who sat below him (Mr. W. H. Smith), and every First Lord of the Admiralty or Secretary to the Admiralty who sat in that House—he would not say to the political satisfaction, but to the professional satisfaction, of these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The Secretary to the Admiralty had made a most interesting statement to them that night, and had concluded by moving Vote 1, which was the Vote for Wages and Salaries for Seamen and Officers in the Service. It was customary on this Vote to go into all matters connected with the Navy; and he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to call his attention to just two matters in this particular Vote which was now under discussion; and, first of all, he would ask him whether he could tell the Committee what was going to be done with the Corps of
  1408
  Royal Marines. It was within the knowledge of most Members of the Committee that a Departmental Committee had been sitting upon the whole question of the future of the Corps of Royal Marines. That Committee had reported. He had asked a Question in the House the other day as to whether the Report of that Committee could be laid upon the Table of the House, and he was informed—and he believed the noble Lord the Member for Chichester also asked the same Question and received the same answer-—that the Report was confidential, and that the House could not be told at present whether the result of it could be made known. But it was to be hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty was not going to shelve that question very much longer, because he could assure him that the question was an important and burning one in the Corps. The Corps was by no means a small one. It amounted to 13,000 men—13,000 of the finest men in the British Army. They had been suffering for many years under great disabilities. This Committee had been appointed, and had taken a great amount of evidence on the matter, and had it now reported, why could not they have that Report laid on the Table? Was it that the Report was to the effect that certain improvements were desirable, which improvements would cost money, and that the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Government did not like this fact to be known, because they were not in a position to come and ask for more money? He could quite understand that that might be the case; but he did not think it would be a generous way to deal with the Corps. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty tell them to-night whether the Committee had reported that the pay of the Royal Marines as compared with that of the Army was not what it should be? He had asked the Question in the House when the right hon. Gentleman below him was responsible for the Admiralty, and the answer he had always received was, that it was not fair to compare the position of the Royal Marines with that of the Army. Well, of course, it could always be said that there was not an exact analogy between any two circumstances; but he was bound to say the Report of this Committee he was speaking about would show that the Marines did not compare favourably in this respect with the Army. He should be told,

  1409
  of course, that the Marines had some advantages which the Army had not; but he was certain of this, that for every advantage which could be pointed out that the Marines had over the Army, he could bring forward two advantages which the Army had over the Marines. He was also told that there was no intention of increasing the pay of the Royal Marines, for the reason that we can get as many Marines as we want. He doubted this very much. From all he had been able to gather it was not at all the case. The Royal Marines had been reduced within the last year or two from 14,000 to less than 13,000 men. Why was that done? It was made a virtue of necessity because the men could not be obtained. He believed the strength of the Royal Marines at the present time was little over 12,500men, and that was because the men that were wanted could not be procured. He would not go at greater length into this question, because he hoped that at some future time he would have an opportunity of doing so. But he trusted the Board of Admiralty would treat the matter in a generous and straightforward manner, and that they would let hon. Members know before long what it was the Committee had reported and what was intended to be done. There was one other topic he wished to touch upon—namely, that of providing ponsions for widows of seamen and marines, although he should only say a few words about it. He was not going to bring forward an annual Motion about the matter; but the Board of Admiralty was a new one and the subject, of course, would come before them. This Board had the full particulars of the various schemes that had been suggested; and though he did not ask the hon Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to give any decided answer upon the question, he did appeal to him to go thoroughly into it and to tell them to-night, if he could do so, that he would consider it and that he would endeavour to do something. Seamen were very much interested in this matter, and he thought the House was agreed that it was an important subject and one that should not be lightly dropped. He would briefly tell those hon. Members who were not in the last Parliament what were the facts of the case. The seamen expressed a wish that there should be subscrip-
  1410
  tions from their pay to form a fund from which pensions should be given to their widows. They hoped that by a very small subscription—1s. 6d. or 2s. a-month—they would be able to provide a pension of £20 a-year for their widows. The late Admiralty went fully into the matter, and found, after careful investigation, that the sum proposed was a great deal too small. In fact, the Government Actuaries reported that it would require a subscription of at least 10 s. per month to provide the necessary pension of £20. Of course, it was entirely out of the question that such a large sum could be subscribed by the seamen and Marines out of their pay; but he thought he was correct in saying that the late Government were prepared to subscribe half that amount. It was never stated that they would subscribe 5s. per month on behalf of the men; but this they did, they sent round for information to the different ships of the Fleet and to the different naval stations, and endeavoured to get at the number of married men who would be inclined to subscribe 5s. a-month to provide a pension to their widows—of course, implying that they would be willing in that event to subscribe the other 5s. themselves. He was sorry to have to confess that the answers returned to the inquiries made were very unsatisfactory. Not more than about 3 per cent of the married seamen and Marines expressed their willingness to subscribe so large a sum as 5s. a-month. Whether it was that they believed that by refusing they would get the Government to subscribe more he could not say; but he thought the present Board of Admiralty might go into the matter, and if they found the seamen were not willing to subscribe so large an amount, then let it be proposed that a smaller sum should be subscribed, and that instead of a pension of £20 being given to a widow a pension of £15 should be allowed. He did not wish to go more fully into the matter; but he was sure hon. Members would see that the question was one which ought not to be dropped. What had occurred showed that the seamen of to-day were of provident habits, and that they wished to make some provision for their widows instead of leaving them to appeal to the public for assistance—as the widows of seamen had had to do

  1411
  frequently of late. He joined with his right hon. Friend (Mr.W. H. Smith) in congratulating the Secretary to the Admiralty on his speech on the Navy Estimates. He could assure him that, standing there in the unfortunate position of the only naval officer on the Opposition side of the House, he should do all he could to back him up, and to assist him in insuring the efficiency of the Navy and in maintaining the finest Fleet in the world.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he would join the hon. and gallant Member in urging upon the Secretary to the Admiralty the advisability of doing something to make known the recommendations of the Departmental Committee with reference to the Royal Marines. There ought to be no secrecy as to what were the views of the Committee, for he had never found any good result from concealment in matters of this kind. The sooner the results of the Inquiry that had been going on for some time were made known the better it would be for the Public Service. He had heard rumours that the Marines were to be taken away entirely from the Admiralty, and he should like to know whether those rumours were well founded? This corps was one of the finest military bodies in the world, and ought to be maintained in efficiency. There was another point in the Estimates on which he wished to make a remark. They were called upon to vote £3,000,000 sterling in Vote 1. He objected strongly to the Vote being so large, and comprising so many different kinds of Services. After the recent decision the Treasury had come to—which he considered unfortunate—portions of the sums voted were allowed to be transferred from one item to another of the same Vote, the money being thus lumped together as if it were intended for one Service, and, notwithstanding that it was for different purposes, it stood as one large item and might, by the Treasury decision, be employed by the Department as they saw fit, without the Auditor General having the power or right to challenge the misapplication of funds. It was only a few years since No. 10 Vote was divided into Parts 1 and 2, in order to prevent the misappropriation that had been going on for some time in regard to making transfers from item to item of the same Vote. He hoped the Government would
  1412
  give attention to the matter and would come back to the old practice of diminishing the Votes as much as possible, and thereby keeping the sums voted for each item within the particular purpose for which it was voted. There could be no objection to this sub-division of the large sums under Vote 1, because Vote 9 of the Navy Estimates amounted to the small sum of £21,000, and Vote 13 to the smaller amount of £9,000. Nevertheless, here they had one Vote containing the large amount of £3,000,000, containing Services of a most diverse character, portions of which might, under the Treasury Order, be misapplied. It would be wise if they were to transfer the whole of the money they voted under Vote 1 for the pay and allowances of the Marines, to Vote 9, which was for the same purpose—namely, for the Marine divisions. He should take every opportunity of calling attention to this decision which the Treasury had lately come to, of permitting funds voted for one purpose being misused for other and different Services merely because the House of Commons were forced to vote in one Vote a large sum, and because the Treasury permitted the Army and Naval Departments to collect, under Vote 1, the enormous sums of respectively £5,000,000 and £3,000,000.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was gratified to find how pleasantly the Government accepted the Estimates of their Successors. They had heard so much out of the House of the monstrous extravagance of the late Government that it was extremely gratifying to find, on responsible authority in the House, that, at all events, on this great matter of Naval Expenditure they were not open to the charge of extravagance at all. The Secretary to the Treasury had pointed out that the only item in which there had been an increase since the happy days of the previous Liberal Administration had been the Non-effective Vote, and for that the Conservative Government wore not responsible. He agreed with the hon. Member who had said that the great part of that Vote was really for the deferred pay of officers and seamen of the Navy. But there was a considerable part of it that was not for deferred pay; he meant that sum of money paid to officers to induce them to retire. That had always seemed to him to be a great waste of money, because it

  1413
  was actually paying a man who was fit for service a considerable sum for allowing his name to be transferred from one list to another—from one in which he might be employed to another in which he might not. There were rather reckless engagements made with seamen of the Reserve which very well deserved the attention of the Government. This Vote which had so increased was one for which the Conservative Government, at all events, was not primarily responsible. Perhaps, he might take this opportunity of expressing—which, owing to the Forms of the House, he was unable to do whilst the Speaker was in the Chair—the extreme satisfaction with which he at last heard the announcement as to flogging in the Navy. He had cheered the statement when it was made, though the hon. Member had not noticed the cheer in his observations. He, at least, and he thought many others on his side of the House, heard with gratification the announcement that the hon. Member was able to make. There was only one drawback to that announcement, and that was, that the Royal Marines shared to only a limited extent in the benefit which was to be conferred on the Navy, because the Naval Discipline Act, which was to be amended by the entire abolition of flogging, applied to Marines only when they were afloat. When they were on shore they were under Army discipline, and he was sorry to say the statement made as to the Army Discipline Act was not quite so explicit or unconditional as that with reference to the Navy. He had listened with great attention to the language of the Secretary of State for War; but the right hon. Gentleman had entirely avoided saying positively and categorically that flogging under the Army Discipline Act would be abolished. With reference to the Royal Marines Corps, he should like to join in the pressure which had already been put upon the Government to induce them to consider carefully the future of this most valuable arm of the Service. There was no doubt whatever that at this moment the pay and pensions of privates and sergeants, in the Royal Marines, were inferior in value to the pay and pensions of corresponding ranks in the Army. The reason stated had been this, that when the man was afloat his pay and his position were somewhat better than those of
  1414
  a soldier on shore; and that, therefore, taking the time afloat and the time on shore together, the position of the Royal Marines was about equal to that of a soldier. This was not the case. Formerly the position of the Royal Marine on shore was made equal to that of the soldier, and the slight improvement in his position afloat was considered to be a compensation for additional hardships and services that he had to endure and render when he went afloat. Besides that, this point was worthy of consideration, that there were a considerable number of Royal Marines who never went afloat at all. The bandsmen at the stations of Royal Marines, and other members of the Corps who were connected with head-quarters at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, never went to sea, and therefore were in an inferior position as to their pay and pensions. With regard to these pay and pensions, if the Corps was to be kept up to its present standard of excellence, it would be necessary to revise the scale and endeavour to put it in the same state as that which applied to the Army. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiff as to the debate which took place some years ago with regard to the Inflexible; but he could not think that either the present or the past Lords of the Admiralty quite appreciated what took place on the occasion of that debate. The statement made by the hon. Member for Cardiff was that if the Inflexible had her unarmoured ends destroyed by artillery fire, her stability would be compromised, and that the original Admiralty design had stated that she should be so constructed as not to have her stability quite independent of the unarmoured ends. That was the position of the hon. Member for Cardiff, and that position was amply borne out by the Report of the Committee. They admitted that if that happened which was in the contemplation of the hon. Member, the result he apprehended would follow. What they reported was, that in their opinion the conditions which the hon. Member contemplated were not such as were likely to occur in actual warfare. They certainly did admit that such damage as was likely to occur would very seriously diminish the stability of the vessel, and render her by no means a very safe ship in such a condition. It was also shown by experiments made by

  1415
  the Committee that another danger that had not been contemplated by the hon. Member for Cardiff might arise—which was, that if she was driven at any speed at all in this disabled condition she would go down headforemost, which was not a desirable thing for a ship of war to do. The opinion of this House might not much affect the Constructive Department of the Admiralty. They might, perhaps, take into consideration the statement made by such an authority as the hon. Member for Cardiff; but he could not think that the public were at all reassured by the result of that Committee or debate. He did not think the performances of the Inflexible at sea would throw the slightest light on the question under discussion. He should like, in conclusion, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a question about a change in the programme—not with reference to the effect it would have on ship-building in the Navy, but with regard to the men in the Dockyards at Chatham. He understood that the £20,000 transferred from the Contract Vote to the ship-building Vote would be spent in artificers' wages at Chatham. The Agamemnon was now building, and the Ajax was to be transferred there to be completed. As the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Westminster had said, it was important that there should not be great fluctuations in the number of men employed in these Dockyards, and the addition of this £20,000 to the amount spent in artificers in Chatham meant an addition of 10 per cent. He wanted to know whether that meant that the Admiralty were going to increase the average establishment at Chatham 10 per cent, because, if it did, he should receive such an announcement with the greatest satisfaction; but if it meant that for this one year only there was to be an increase of 10 per cent in the number of persons employed in the Dockyards, that would be causing at Chatham one of those fluctuations which the right hon. Gentlemen had so decidedly condemned. It would, no doubt, impair the efficiency of the Dockyards. A rapid progress of the Agamenmon and the Ajax might be effected at a cost of the tone and character of the Yard. He should be glad if, when the Secretary to the Admiralty spoke again, he would re-assure the minds of Members of the Committee on this subject.
  MR OTWAYsaid, it appeared that Europe was engaged in a wild, race as to who should build the most unmanageable class of vessels; but he did not wish to dwell on this matter. All he desired to point out to the Secretary to the Admiralty was the desirability of giving some information on the matter referred to by three or four Members—namely, the Corps of Royal Marines. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had referred to the pay and pensions of the Royal Marines; but he would point out to him that there was a matter of far more importance, and that was the existence of the Corps at all. What he wished to know was what was really intended to be done with this Corps? He was brought very much into contact with officers of the Corps, and very often had opportunities of seeing them, and he could only describe the state of feeling existing amongst them at present as being one of consternation. There was a feeling that was very general, that they were going to be done away with, and this feeling was shared by persons both in the House of Commons and out of it. He wished to say, that if his hon. Friend had determined in any way to get rid of the Corps of Royal Marines, he would be disposing of one of the most useful and, perhaps, the best corps of soldiers that had ever existed in this or any other country. He was told that it had already been determined to get rid of the Royal Marine Artillery. Well, he doubted whether there had ever been a body of men either afloat or ashore to compare with this, and when he was told that the Government were going to get rid of it he found it difficult to credit the report. A rather complicated scheme had been mentioned by him in the House some years ago on the authority of general naval officers—namely a scheme for utilizing the Corps by putting them on garrison duty in fortresses—in such a place as Malta. For instance, it had been complained of the Corps that it had not sufficient opportunity when serving afloat for exercising and drilling. If they garrisoned places like Malta, however, with Marines, that objection was at once done away with. He thought that the getting rid of a Corps so popular as the Royal Marines was not to be taken seriously into consideration. On several occasions during the last Parliament he had asked ques-

  1417
  tions with regard to the desirability of sending out the Royal Marines to Africa during the Zulu War, and he found that there existed objections to giving military command to Marine officers; and for that reason the Royal Marines were not sent out till it was too late for them to display their metal, or any of the good qualities which they possessed. That was a very unfortunate state of things; the officers felt they were being kept back from service which they were eminently qualified to perform, and they were now in a state of consternation. An officer said to him the other day—"Do something with us; get rid of us or anything, rather than keep us in the position we are in at present; the Corps is losing all those qualities which ought to distinguish it as a military force." He pressed this upon the Government, because he had seen in the newspapers that a number of officers of this Corps had been transferred from the Royal Marines to the Indian Staff. What the officers of Marines were to do when they got to India he did not know; and for that reason he pressed upon his hon. Friend to make some explicit statement on the point, inasmuch as it was absolutely necessary to remedy the uncertainty which existed.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham seemed to have taken advantage of a remark made upon the Treasury Bench, to conclude that all which had been said for the last two or three years with regard to the expenditure of the late Government being excessive was entirelyun-justified. He wished to point out, however, that if hon. Members would take the trouble to sum up the total expenditure for the naval purposes of the country during the last six years and compare the result with the expenditure of the former Liberal Government, they would find that the excess of the former over the latter amounted to some millions. It was on that account that the expenditure of the late Government had been condemned; but, leaving out of view the Estimates for previous years and looking simply at the Estimate before the Committee, he thought they had a right to say, that when the Government came into power and found the Estimates on the Table, and also the arrangements made by the late First Lord, it would be very unreasonable to
  1418
  expect that they should at once make any substantial reduction in those Estimates. On the other hand, he should be sorry if it were supposed that that expenditure was approved by the present Government. If they looked back to the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract was First Lord—that was to say, in the year 1869–70—he thought it would be found that the charge for the Navy was considerably below the charge on the Estimates for the present year. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman at that time adopted measures which were not inconsistent with the necessities of the Service, and which were not inconsistent with what was necessary for the protection of the country. Nevertheless, they did secure a very considerable reduction in the naval expenditure. There was, however, something to be considered beyond the mere question of amount. He would wish to ask what would be done with the money voted? £10,000,000 sterling might be voted for the late Government or the present Government; but it did not follow that the money was properly applied, and, unless he was mistaken, there was a good deal of money spent under the late Administration in a manner by no means satisfactory. Indeed, he believed it would be found, when the present Government had been for some time in power, that they would be able to make a substantial impression, not only by reducing the amount of expenditure, but by applying the money in a way more beneficial to the Public Service. He entirely agreed that it was most undesirable to retain in the Dockyards a large number of men; but the number of men should be steadily kept up to a certain point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had laid down the rule that he would only have a certain number of men on the establishment; but that number had been very much increased under the late Administration. He was glad that the present Government had no intention of increasing the number of men.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it would be seen that the Estimates submitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were £500,000 short of the average Estimates for the last six years. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, already brought down the Estimates by a very

  1419
  large amount, as he had stated at an earlier period of the evening. He was sorry he could not reply to the question with reference to the future position of the Royal Marines, and he must claim the indulgence of the Committee for the purpose of studying the Report, which had only just been laid before him, upon this important and difficult subject. He begged to assure hon. Members that the Admiralty were quite aware of the importance of coming to an early decision upon the question. In reply, however, to the hon. Member for Rochester, he would state that there was no intention on the part of the Admiralty to do away with that important and gallant body, the Royal Marines. There had been a question with reference to the re-organization of that Corps, and a Committee had been appointed to report whether it was expedient to amalgamate it with the Royal Marine Artillery, and as soon as a decision was arrived at he would communicate it to the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff had asked a question with regard to the designs of the two iron-clads which it was proposed to build, in reply to which he might supplement a statement of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that the vessels to be laid down at Pembroke would be of the same size and type as the Colossus, with guns mounted in towers and upon revolving platforms, by saying that the weight saved in this respect as compared with the old-fashioned turret, would be utilized in increasing the engine-power of the ship, so as to give a speed of 15 knots per hour instead of 14, and that it would have a powerful broadside battery and a large capacity for carrying a supply of coal. The responsibility for the design of the vessel rested with the late Board of Admiralty. He did not wish to disclaim all responsibility with regard to the future, because, as far as he could form an opinion, he thought the vessel would prove to be very valuable to the Navy. It was necessary, before determining with regard to the other new vessel to be laid down at Portsmouth, that very careful experiments should be made, and Lord Northbrook had directed that they should take place as soon as possible at Shoeburyness. It would not be necessary to commence that vessel before December next. He hoped to be able to state to the House, before the Session
  1420
  was over, what the new type would be; but was at present unable to give any further answer. With regard to the third cruiser, alluded to in the programme of the late Government, he thought it right to say that, while the Government approved the principle of building cruisers, it was still doubted whether the third cruiser should be built on the same lines as the other two, or whether it might not be as well to have a vessel which might be described as an "improved Volage." The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport had remarked upon the wrong impression conveyed by describing certain portions of the Vote as for non-effective purposes. He agreed that the Non-effective Vote must not be looked upon as altogether a loss to the Navy, although the subject required very careful watching. In reply to the hon. Member for Chatham, the Government only proposed to increase the number of artificers by 100, and the money asked for in addition to the Vote would be spent in working overtime, which it was considered would be the most economical way of accelerating the iron-clads to which he had alluded. With regard to the question of pensions to widows of seamen and Marines, the subject should receive his consideration; although he ventured to think that the hon. Member for Devonport had answered the question himself, when he said that when the late Government had proposed to contribute one-half of the charge the men themselves had declined to contribute the remainder. That being the case, it would be extremely difficult for the Admiralty to go any further into the matter.
  MR. W. H. SMITHwished to suggest to the Government that they should give up the improved Volage, and adhere to the third cruiser. That was a point on which the Navy was most weak, and the cruisers appeared to be of far more value than the Volages or Comuses, while the latter could not be constructed without much greater expense. With regard to overtime, he could not help saying that, taken as a rule, he regarded it as a very great mistake. The result attained was not equal to the expenditure, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way to the pressure which would be put upon him; for if he once opened the gate to overtime, he would never know where the system

  1421
  was to stop. His own opinion was that the results were always disappointing, and that such expenditure was always attended by great waste.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press on this Vote, and would be content with the very interesting discussion which had already been raised in the Committee. Nothing could be more gratifying than the pleasant manner in which the late First Lord and the present First Secretary congratulated each other over Estimates which the first had prepared and the second had accepted; but he must, nevertheless, think that the new Members of the House had some reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in regard to this matter. They did not get their Estimates until Friday, and nobody knew that they were to be taken that night until the Secretary of the Admiralty told him so at 3 o'clock on Saturday morning. It was, therefore, a little unreasonable to expect new Members, who could not be very conversant with the figures in that bulky volume, to master them, to any reasonable extent, in the short time that had been allowed. It would have been much fairer if the Government had taken in Committee that night the Civil Service Estimates, which had been before them for some time, instead of springing on them these Navy Estimates in the manner in which they had done. An important fact was, that this was the first year in which an extended audit of the Navy had been made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For that reason, the House ought to be allowed rather more time to consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness of demands made upon them. In the next place, the Committee of Public Accounts had not yet been appointed, and they had not the advantage of the examination of the accounts by the Committee, which would have given them assistance in the work of dealing with these Estimates. He therefore thought they might reasonably ask the Government not to get ahead of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts, but to allow these Votes in Committee of Supply to be taken pari passû with the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. The points brought before the House by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was not the only extra-
  1422
  ordinary instance of expenditure unearthed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In some 30 or 60 closely printed pages, the Comptroller had drawn the attention of the House to matters deserving of its consideration, and the particular expenses to which he directed attention ought certainly to be examined by the Committee before the Estimates were submitted to a vote. On his part, he believed if the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to report Progress, he would really very much assist the progress of his work. Take his own case for instance. The Government had thought fit to postpone anything like practical legislation with regard to Ireland until next year. As an Irish Member, he should much prefer to be concerned with matters relating to his own people; but the Government did not give him an opportunity of using his time and energies on matters which only fell within his province. He therefore turned to matters which were of ordinary interest, because he did not intend to be idle. He had made the best of his time since he had had these Estimates in his hands, and he had made notes on every one of the Votes of points which he wished to have explained, or observations which he wished to submit to the Committee; but if the Government would consent to postpone these Votes until the Committee of Public Accounts had been able to investigate them, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the Committee with many questions which he wished to raise. He therefore hoped that the Government would consent to the Motion he then would make to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sitagain.—(Mr. Arthur 0' Connor.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped the Motion would not be pressed. The Committee had now discussed these Estimates for two nights, once before Easter and again that night; and he believed every Member who wished to address the Committee had had an opportunity of doing so. He must point out, also, that the Committee on Public Accounts would only sit for the first time next day, and if these Estimates

  1423
  were to wait until they had dealt with them the Vote could not be taken for at least a month.
  MR. BIGGARhoped the Government would agree to the Motion. It was true that, on general questions with regard to the Admiralty, most Members who wished to speak had spoken; but, on the other hand, in regard to the details, he knew that on the very first Vote some Members of the Irish Party wished to raise certain questions, and to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. It might be the fact that some Members had a discussion on these Votes before Easter; but a very large portion of the Members of the House were not Members of the House at that time, and had not the advantage of hearing the discussions which then took place. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had just spoken, was an instance in point. It was also very desirable that the Committee on Public Accounts should have an opportunity of examining these Estimates, and of ascertaining whether there was anything in them which required revision. On this very first Vote, he was aware that large payments were made to certain persons, in reference to which payments it was intended to have a discussion, and, therefore, it was very desirable to postpone the Vote.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he wished to offer some remarks with regard to the position of Prince Leiningen. He found that he occupied the post of one of the Rear Admirals; but he was not aware, nor could he find from any source of information supplied to him, what Prince Leiningen did for his salary as Rear Admiral. He was aware that for the last 18 years or thereabouts he had encountered the dangers of the sea between Cowes and Portsmouth, and that he had occasionally braved the severity of the Solent. He had also heard it said that he was responsible for a very serious accident which occurred some time ago. He did not understand, however, why a gentleman capable of taking a yacht into those troubled waters was thereby entitled to the position of Rear Admiral, and to the very handsome pay attached to that post. He could not let this Vote pass, therefore, without entering—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing an item which belongs to another Vote.
  MR. FINIGAN: Sir, this is a Vote for the pay of seamen, and I had always thought that a Rear Admiral was a seaman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,041,152, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."'
  Original Question put, and agreed, to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £760,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he must beg leave to move to report Progress. He was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman was rather quick in the decision in the last Vote. His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) was raising a question. Whether that point was or was not out of the Vote under consideration he did not know; but he thought it would only have been courteous of the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Committee, to have given an opportunity to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ennis to have pointed out to him in what respect he was mistaken. He should like to know whether a Rear Admiral was a flag officer or not? He did not know enough of the Navy to say; but, at any rate, the mistake was a very natural one to fall into. If, however, his hon. Friend did not make that mistake, and a Rear Admiral was a flag officer, the right hon. Gentleman was clearly in the wrong.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Big gar.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis was, perhaps, he would not say unfairly stopped, but stopped under a misapprehension on the part of the Chairman, because the Vote for the pay of Rear Admirals did undoubtedly come under the heading of Vote 1. On referring to page 146, he

  1425
  found that this Vote included the pay of Admirals, Vice Admirals, Hear Admirals, Commanders, &c, &c. Therefore, he apprehended the hon. Member for Ennis was quite in Order. However, it was a misapprehension all round on the part of the Committee, except so far as his hon. Friend for Ennis was concerned, and he thought it would be better for his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw his Motion and allow the House to go on with the Business.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was always disposed to act upon the advice of the Parliamentary Chairman of their Party, and he was exceedingly anxious to follow his advice and withdraw his Motion; but, at the same time, under other circumstances, he would be disposed to say that the right hon. Gentleman should make an apology to his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Motion should be withdrawn?
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg your pardon; I have not yet withdrawn it. I must ask—["Order, order!"]
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGasked if it was competent for a Member of the House to get up and ask the Chairman to apologize? He certainly expected somebody in a more prominent position in the House than himself to get up and put the question; but, nobody else having done so, as an old Member of the House he must ask whether it was right and proper, whether it was even decent, that their Chairman should thus be asked to apologize? He did not know the hon. Member for Ennis; but he knew that he was a young Member of that House, and, therefore, must be thoroughly unacquainted with the Forms of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I feel there is some truth in the observation of my hon. Friend opposite, and that I ought to have been more ready to take notice of this observation. At the same time, I always feel very great reluctance to interfere with the full liberty of Members of this House. It was certainly with great astonishment that I heard the demand addressed to you, Sir, to make an apology to a Member of this House. It would, under any circumstances, be a very extraordinary demand; but it was a demand which, in
  1426
  this case, almost surpassed all belief, for it was addressed to you without any reason, without any statement, and without any attempt on the part of the hon. Member to show that you had deviated one hair's breadth from your duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ennis had fallen into an error—[Mr. PARNELL: No, no !]—I am not speaking of the hon. Member for Cork—[Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear !]—I am speaking of the Gentleman who brought on this discussion—[Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!]—who has fallen into an error—[Mr. PARNELL: No, no !]—and the hon. Member for Cork undertakes to contradict me. [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear !] It would be better for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork to reserve his contradiction, because his assertion, whether it be "Aye" or "No," is not of avail to re-constitute the Order of the Proceedings of this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ennis fell into an error in this respect—that when a Vote was before the House for the pay of those in the Navy who are on full pay, he raised a question with regard to a person who is not on full pay, but an officer on half-pay, who is provided for under another Vote. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, fell into an error; and, now, what has become of the contradiction of the hon. Member for Cork? But that is a small question. What is a serious question is, that any hon. Member of this House should take upon himself to make a demand for an apology from the Chairman of Committees, to be made not to himself, but to another Member of the House, that other Member having fallen into an error—the Chairman of Committees pointed out that error, and directed that we should proceed in the regular order of Business—not only that the hon. Gentleman should make this most untimely and unsuitable demand for an apology, but that he should address it, Sir, to you, without the slightest attempt on his part to show that there was any call for any apology whatever. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will himself make an apology to the House for the unseasonable and highly unbecoming demand that he has addressed to you.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there were one or two points in this matter which he wished to mention. He wished, first of

  1427
  all, to make some explanation. ["Withdraw, withdraw!"] He wished the hon. Chairman would tell him what it was that the House wished him to withdraw?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member had already asked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that he must first ask leave to explain, and then to withdraw his Motion to report Progress. He was anxious to defer on all occasions to the authority of the Chair. What occurred was this, that the Chairman, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord to the Treasury had pointed out, had called the hon. Member for Clare to Order because he was in error in raising a question on a Vote before the House; but the Chairman did not point out to the hon. Member in what respect he was wrong. If he had used any expression, it was because he believed that the question raised by his hon. Friend did come under the Vote. The Chairman had very properly stopped his hon. Friend in the middle of his speech, and, although he (Mr. Biggar) then thought that the Chairman was wrong, it now turned out that he was justified in pointing out the error into which the hon. Member had fallen. That being so, he (Mr. Biggar) was wrong, and had no right to ask for any apology from anyone; but, at the same time, he would wish to point out that the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro was mistaken in his observations. The hon. Baronet said that he asked for an apology from the Chairman of Committees. He did not do so; he only contended that under certain conditions an apology ought to be given. If, however, he was guilty of what was imputed to him, he begged to apologize to the hon. Gentleman for what he had done. He begged to ask leave of the House to with draw his Motion and report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he merely wished to explain, with reference to his contradiction of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister by saying "No," that he had consulted the Navy List, and, from the information contained in that, it was not surprising that he should take the view he had. He found in the list of Rear Admirals given in the Monthly Navy List of last month the name of Prince
  1428
  Leiningen as one of the Rear Admirals; he also found on page 146 that the Rear Admiral's pay was taken in Vote 1. He thought, therefore, he had some justification for the error into which he had fallen.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £134,614, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the Admiralty re-organization had resulted in the Admiralty Office being practically disorganized, and so much was this the case that the work at the Admiralty had fallen very much into arrear. According to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General work which ought to have been done months and months ago was still incomplete. This was a point to which he had before referred; but, as it very properly came under consideration on the present Vote, he thought it would save time if he now drew attenton to it. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was anxious to get through the Estimates in order that a measure might be proceeded with, and he might assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not the only one who was anxious that this discussion should close as soon as possible. To show the utter disturbance which this re-organization of the Admiralty had wrought in the Admiralty Office, it was only necessary to draw attention to paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General—
  "I regret to have to state that the late period at which the accounts were delivered for audit has prevented a detailed examination of all the charges appearing in the quarter to the 31st of March, 1879. On the 12th of December, 1878, a letter was addressed to the Admiralty stating that the detail test examination of Navy accounts having been commenced, it was considered that it would tend greatly to the convenience of my Department, and probably also to the convenience of the Account branch of the Admiralty itself, if some definite arrangement could be arrived at as to the date on which the quarterly accounts of Her Majesty's ships and of several home and foreign Dockyards, Victualling Yards, Medical Establishments, and Marine Divisions should, as a rule, be submitted for examination to my officers. In the same letter the Admiralty were informed that my Department was prepared at once to commence the examination of the accounts for the quarter ending the 30th of June, 1878, and an inquiry was made as to whether the accounts in question could at once be furnished. In a reply dated the 3rd of January, 1879, it was stated—'That the final passing of

  1429
  accounts being dependent on many unforeseen circumstances, it is hardly practicable to fix a date on which they can, as a rule, be ready, but that every effort will be made to have them completed as soon as possible after the date of receipt. As regards the accounts for Midsummer, I am to inform you that, owing to many changes which have lately taken place in the re-organization of the Accountant General's Department, these accounts are in arrear, but that they are now being proceeded with as rapidly as possible.' Judging, however, from the fact that, at the commencement of the present year 1880, not a single account even for the first quarter of the year 1879–80 had been sent in for examination, and that only two ship accounts for the entire quarter and a few for broken periods had been received, the arrear in their delivery seems likely to continue. If this is the ease, it will, I fear, be impossible for any of the accounts for the last quarter of the financial year 1879–80 to be subjected to anything like a complete detailed examination."
  They had heard a good deal of the manner in which the War Office had resisted the demands of the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate their accounts; but he thought that much the same could be said of the Navy. He wished to point out that a detailed examination of the Navy accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which it was the intention of this House should be carried out, was practically rendered impossible by the delay of the Admiralty authorities, who had sought to shift the blame from themselves by alleging that it was due to the inevitable arrear arising from the re-organizing of the Department. With regard to this Admiralty re-organization, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty some questions. He should like to know what the total expense connected with the re-organization, not only in the shape of present pay, but also in the case of pensions and gratuities was, and what was the present and also the prospective saving of the country?
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that he felt very deeply interested in this matter. If he were in Order, he should like to ask upon what particular Vote the half-pay of Prince Leiningen was to be found?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the half-pay of Prince Leiningen would be found accounted for under Vote 14. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County as to the re-organization of the Admiralty, he might say that it was possible that, when the re-organization was proceeding, the Comptroller and Auditor General might have been kept some time waiting for
  1430
  the accounts. He was, however, able to inform the House that the re-organization was complete, and was working extremely well and smoothly, and that the accounts were furnished sooner now than formerly. A considerable reduction had been effected since last year in the cost of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman asked what was the actual financial result of the change. He could inform him that the ultimate saving to the country would be about £57,000 per annum, but at present there was a saving of some £15,000 a-year. About£13,000 had been given in gratuities, and pensions had been awarded to the amount of about £42,000 per annum, on the expiry of which the greatest saving would accrue.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £145,709, to complete the sum for the Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Reserves, &c.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £84,831, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. GORSTsaid, that there were really certain important questions to discuss upon this Vote, and he thought it would be much better if the discussion were postponed at that hour. If the discussion were to proceed, he wished to draw attention to the sum paid by the Admiralty to the Greenwich Hospital Fund for the use of Greenwich Hospital as a Naval College. The buildings of Greenwich Hospital belonged to Greenwich Hospital Fund—a charitable fund, of which the Lords of the Admiralty were the trustees under the authority of an Act of Parliament. It was the duty of the Lords of the Admiralty, as such trustees, to administer the funds for the benefit of the persons entitled to them—namely, aged and disabled seamen and Marines. The buildings of Greenwich Hospital were, of course, of great value, and they were not now of the slightest use to the persons entitled to the funds. They were not now used by disabled seamen and Marines, and if the Hospital were sold, no doubt that it would fetch a very large sum, which would go a con-

  1431
  siderable way to increasing either the pensions or the number of the recipients. Instead of that, the Admiralty, in their capacity of the Board of Admiralty, rented from the Admiralty, as trustees of the Greenwich Hospital Fund, these expensive buildings for the use of the Naval College at a most inadequate rent. Of course, if they paid a fair rent, there would be no objection, and it would be a very satisfactory arrangement. But, instead of paying for the buildings such a rent as any other persons would be obliged to pay, the whole amount which the Admiralty paid was £100 a-year. That was an injustice to the Greenwich Hospital Fund, against which he protested in the former Parliament, and against which he still protested. He held that the Lords of the Admiralty were bound to do the best they could to increase the Greenwich Hospital Fund. They were really committing a breach of trust in permitting the building to be used for so inadequate a rent as £100 a-year. It was not open to him to move to increase the rent, and he did not know in what way he could bring the case before the notice of the House except upon this Vote. It was a subject which demanded the very serious attention of the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, they could not properly discuss this subject on the Vote which was brought forward after 12 o'clock at night. He must most vigorously protest against the Lords of the Admiralty in their capacity as trustees of the Greenwich Hospital Fund for doing so great an injustice towards those for whom they held a fund as letting these buildings at the paltry rent of £100 a-year. He might inform the Committee that this was considered to be a great grievance upon the part of the seamen and Marines who were entitled to the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. It was perfectly absurd that such a rent as £100 a-year should be paid for such buildings. The least thing which the Government could do would be to have a fair valuation of the property made and to apportion a fair rent. He, for one, would be very sorry to see the property sold; but even that would be fairer to the persons entitled to the benefit of the Fund than the continuance of the present system of paying £100 a-year for the rent of Greenwich Hospital buildings. He trusted that the
  1432
  Government would take this matter into its consideration, and perform an act of justice towards those entitled to the Fund.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, as he was responsible for the Act under which Greenwich Hospital was now managed, perhaps he might say that the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken were quite mistaken in the views they took. In 1864 the first settlement of Greenwich Hospital took place, and in 1869 a second settlement was made. In the second settlement there was a set-off on the one hand of the advantages derived by the State from Greenwich Hospital, against, on the other, the advantages which the Greenwich Hospital Fund derived from the State. One of the parts of that bargain was expressed in the 7th clause of the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1869, which was to the effect that the Admiralty was from time to time to permit Greenwich Hospital to be used for the purposes of the Naval Service or for any other part of Her Majesty's Government, either without requiring a rent or upon such terms as to the Admiralty should see fit. Under this bargain, a portion of the Hospital was handed over for the use of the men of the Mercantile Marine requiring surgical or medical care who had formerly been accommodated upon the Dreadnought. A few years afterwards another large portion of the Hospital was given over for the purpose of a Naval College, and later, for some reason which he did not profess to understand, the Admiralty paid for this a rent of £100 a-year. He thought that the hon. Gentlemen were mistaken in supposing that the Admiralty had got full power and authority under the Statute which he had mentioned to act as they had done, and that is was really part of the bargain that they should have, if they required it, the use of the Greenwich Hospital buildings.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he did not dispute that the Admiralty had power to make this arrangement; but the question was whether it was a proper exercise of the discretion given them as trustees? No doubt, they had power to grant a portion of the Hospital for the use of the service as a Naval College without requiring a rent, but it did not follow that it would be fair to the persons entitled to the trust. The Admiralty had granted a portion of the

  1433
  Greenwich Hospital buildings to the Mercantile seamen in place of the Dreadnought Hospital; and no one would dispute that that was a good exercise of their discretion. But they had gone further, and in their capacity as trustees had granted for their own advantage, as representing the Naval Service of the country, a large portion of the buildings at a most inadequate rent. Those buildings were to be used for persons who had not the slightest interest in the Fund, for it could not be said that seamen and Marines had any interest in the Naval College. Doubtless it was an advantage to the Naval Service of the country to have a Naval College, but the country ought to pay the seamen and the Marines for enjoying that advantage. Supposing that, instead of the Admiralty being the trustees of Greenwich Hospital, and having authority under the section of the Act of Parliament read by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, the Charity Commissioners were the trustees, was it likely that the Charity Commissioners would allow a portion of the Greenwich Hospital buildings to be used as a Naval College without demanding a fair rent? They would say—"It is true we have the power to let you the buildings without rent; but, in the interests we represent, we ask a fair rent, say, £1,500 a-year for the accommodation." That would be an exercise of the power under the Act for the benefit of the persons entitled to the Fund; and he thought that course ought to be pursued in the present case.
  M. CHILDERSsaid, that the Act of 1869 contained a number of provisions, some advantageous, some disadvantageous, to Greenwich Hospital. The State took over various burdens from the Greenwich Hospital Fund in the way of payment of pensions and other matters, and, among other concessions, in return the Greenwich Hospital buildings were given for the use of the State. The clause was drawn so as to enable the use of the buildings to be given to any Public Department with or without rent, and it was the intention that the Admiralty should be at liberty to use the building without rent. No doubt, the object of permitting the Admiralty to charge a rent was in the possible event of the buildings being used for the Military or Civil Services;
  1434
  but he could most distinctly state that there was no intention that the Naval Department should pay anything more than a nominal rent for the use of the building. The Act was a deliberate bargain made by the State with the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He thought it would be useless at that time going into the matter at greater length, and that it was only necessary to state that the intention of the Act was that concessions were made by the Hospital for distinct benefits conferred upon it.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that there could be no question that the rent of £100 a-year paid for these buildings was most inadequate. This was a very important question, and it was deeply interesting to his constituents; and he did not think it could be properly discussed at that hour, when their deliberations could not be adequately reported. He had asked the Government to consent to a valuation of the property, in order that it might be found what it was worth and that a fair value might be paid for it. It seemed to him that the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was extremely unsatisfactory. As he considered that the discussion on this subject ought to take place when the country could appreciate the value of the arguments brought forward, he begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that they could hardly be expected to continue the discussion on the Estimates at that hour. He would suggest that the Motion for reporting Progress should be withdrawn, and that they should argue the question upon the Greenwich Hospital Vote. He would further ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would report Progress after this Vote had been taken, and would postpone Votes 6 and 10?
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that it would be seen, from page 210 of the Estimates, that Greenwich Hospital Fund derived £3,400 a-year from the State.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that, from the observations just made, it was clear that

  1435
  the Committee was disinclined to discuss a Vote of this amount at the present time. There were questions arising upon it in connection with the Britannia and the training of Naval cadets, and upon this point the hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty had in previous Parliaments raised questions. He had previously drawn attention to these matters, and he had lately intended to do so again; but it was absurd for him to attempt it at half-past 12 o'clock. He was sure that the Government would not wish to have a discussion on so important a matter stifled. There was a great deal to be said on both sides, and he hoped that, in consideration of the desire of many hon. Members, the Government would consent to report Progress.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, during the late Parliament, unless there were some very great pressure, he invariably asked the Government to report Progress whenever an important discussion arose after half-past 12 o'clock. He was bound to say that he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were making no unreasonable appeal to the Government in this matter. The questions which they wished to raise were very important ones, and required considerable discussion, and it was clear that at the present hour it was impossible to do full justice to the latter.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that he thought the Committee had some reason to complain of the hon. Members who had brought this subject forward. If they had taken the pains to inform themselves of the facts of the matter from past debates in that House, they would have seen that the subject had been raised before, and that a perfectly satisfactory explanation had been given. It was then explained what the arrangement was, forming a complete answer to the observation that a fair rent was not paid for the buildings. He thought that hon. Members ought to inform themselves fully of the facts before raising questions in the manner they had done.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he was perfectly willing to postpone Votes 6 and 10, if the Committee would proceed with the other Votes. There would be an opportunity for the hon. Member for Chatham to bring the question of Greenwich Hospital before the Com-
  1436
  mittee in connection with the Greenwich Hospital Vote. With regard to the question about the Britannia, he thought it would be admitted that it was one upon which he had taken very great interest. It seemed to him a matter which could not be dealt with then, and could be very well deferred to another occasion.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, this was far too serious a matter to be treated in this way, although the hon. Member for Bedford was so anxious that they should trust to his memory for their Parliamentary conduct. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) had told them that the charge for ordinary repair and maintenance was £3,500. [An hon. MEMBER: £45,000.] He found the amount stated at£3,500. [An hon. MEMBER: £4,500.] He was speaking in reference to the item of £3,500. [An hon. MEMBER: £4,500.] The hon. Member who so persistently corrected him had better read the Estimate. [Mr. T. BRASSEY: The ordinary Vote is £4,500.] Then, he begged pardon for his mistake, but it was not so in his copy of the Estimates; but if the amount was really £4,500, that merely had the effect of strengthening his argument; for if these buildings cost £4,500 for repair, they were worth certainly more than £100 a-year for rent. He did hope that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty would consent to report Progress.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 175: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 16.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the Government must see that it was most unreasonable to expect the Committee, at that hour of the night, to go on with the discussion, involving matters of so much importance. He understood there was an important discussion coming on with reference to the Britannia, and he observed that the Auditor General had made some very strong remarks with regard to that particular item. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not be so unreasonable as to ask to go on. He begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair,
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 173: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 17.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that he thought that his hon. Friend who had moved "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," had done so with very good reason, for these were very important questions, and ones upon which they ought to have a fair debate. He had pointed out, also, that it was now nearly 1 o'clock, and that it was not reasonable on the part of Her Majesty's Government to ask them to go into these important matters at so late an hour. He did not think that it was a fact that they would have another opportunity of raising this question of the Britannia upon Report. He should, therefore, move "That the Chairman do now re-port Progress, and ask leave to sitagain."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Makins.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he wished to support the Motion for reporting Progress on no factious grounds, fie felt very strongly that this was a question upon which, without any desire to obstruct the Business of the House, but simply to get a fair discussion, they ought to adjourn the debate. He did not think it would prevent their making progress with the Votes if this particular one was postponed. He should be very happy to remain to discuss the other Votes, if that one were postponed. He wished that a fair discussion of this matter should take place, and that at an hour when their debates might be reported. He asked this in the interests of the seamen and Marines, who had the strongest possible feeling on the subject.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if the House would agree to this one Vote, he should not object to reporting Progress. The hon. Member would have further opportunities of raising the question of the Greenwich Hospital Vote. With reference to the Britannia, that question could be raised on Report. As the hon. Member was aware, he en-
  1438
  tirely agreed with him upon that subject, and it must be admitted that it was a very large subject. He trusted that there would be no objection to his proposal.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that they ought not to be put in the position of fighting in this way for an opportunity of discussing a most important matter which affected the interests of their constituents in so very large a degree, at the price of being taunted with factious opposition. They simply wished to do their best for their constituents in this matter, and, in doing so, they had received very little assistance from the natural Leaders of their Party. When this Vote was first proposed, he stated that there were two important questions raised upon it, one relating to the poor, and the other to the rich. The first was the question of the payment made for the Greenwich Hospital buildings, a question which was of the greatest interest to the persons he represented, and also to the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. They might be right, or they might be wrong, and their constituents might be wrong in their opinion; but it was an important question, and it ought to be discussed in that House at a time when the proceedings of the House could be reported. If they were wrong, that ought to be proved and their error pointed out. The hon. Member for Bedford lectured them just now for being factious in what they were doing. He was good enough to say that they had no right to discuss this question because, two Parliaments ago, someone or other had raised the question and had proved to be in the wrong. They really could not consent, in doing their duty to their constituents, to be put down, because the hon. Member for Bedford said that they were wrong. They had a right to have the question discussed in the present House, and it they were wrong it ought to be proved here. The other question to which he wished to refer was one in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House must sympathize with them. The hon. Member for Burnley had frequently spoken on the extravagance of the Naval Estimates. About £40,000 in these Estimates was voted on account of the training of naval cadets. He wished to take the opinion of the Committee as to whether it was necessary that the country should spend

  1439
  £40,000 a-year in educating cadets for the Navy. They did not spend anything in educating cadets for the Military or for the Civil Services. In those cases immense numbers came forward to compete at the examinations, and they could readily supply their Navy with officers in the same manner. If the Admiralty would publish the qualifications they required for the naval cadets, 20 times as many as they required would come forward to compete, animated with the desire of serving their country. Was it justifiable for them to spend £40,000 a-year in doing what they could get done for nothing. That was one of the questions that he did not feel could be properly discussed at 1 o'clock in the morning. It was a perfectly fair question, and one which ought to be discussed by the Committee. So far as he was concerned, he should do his duty to his constituents by endeavouring to obtain a fair discussion of the matter.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that no one could for one moment suspect the hon. and learned Member for Chatham of what he disclaimed—namely, a desire to obstruct the Business of the Committee. Anyone who remembered the Session before last, would never suspect any hon. Member upon the opposite side of the House of doing anything that could bear the complexion of preventing the Business of the country being carried on in the quickest possible manner. But he would, nevertheless, venture to tell the hon. Member a little story which a very wise old friend of his told him. His friend said—"There are a great many solemn facts, but the most solemn fact of all is that the life of man is three score years and ten.". The most solemn fact before them now was that the life of this Parliament had now scarcely two months to run, and he did not see how, consistently with this fact, they could discuss all those questions which the hon. Member now desired to raise, but which he might have discussed with advantage during the last Parliament. The Session had been so curtailed by what had occurred, and by the necessary incidents which it appeared had changed the minds as well as the scats of some hon. Gentlemen that, for his part, he should always to the end of this Session, give his Vote in favour of limiting discussions upon these questions, based upon the consideration that if they were to do the Business of the
  1440
  country at all, they must, during the next two months, not allow Business to be delayed even by considerations of £40,000, which seemed now to weigh so much upon the conscience of the hon. Member for Chatham, but which had weighed solittle upon it during the previous Session. Under these circumstances, he should vote against the Motion for reporting Progress, even when made by an hon. Gentleman who was a Member of the Conservative Party—a Party with which some of his Irish Friends seemed to have such sympathy.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he thought that the question which the hon. Member for Chatham wished to raise was that with regard to the cadets of the Britannia. He had already told them that he was not prepared to discuss the matter at that time, but that he would give it his best consideration at another. The hon. Member had not said that he wished to raise the whole question of the expense of training naval cadets, which he said amounted to about £40,000. The hon. Member was, however, mistaken in that, for it was only £27,000. Nevertheless, the question which the hon. Member wished to raise was a serious one, and he was, therefore, willing to accede to the Motion that Progress should be reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

MOTIONS.
  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name. He might state that, in place of Sir John Mowbray, he intended to move that the name of one of the hon. Members for the City of London should be added to the Committee. Some desire had been expressed that power should be given to the parties interested to appear before the Committee by counsel; and, therefore, he should give Notice that it should be added to the Instructions of the Committee that the Corporation of the City of London,

    1441
    the Metropolitan Board of Works; and the Water Companies should be allowed, if they thought fit, to appear by counsel.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on London Water Supply do consist of 17 Members."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that he had given Notice of a Motion similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated he intended to propose. He thought it only right that the Water Companies should be allowed to state their case before the Committee in the manner that they thought best. He could assure the House that their desire was to state their case in the fairest possible way.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that he thought it his duty to draw attention to the fact that the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro, who had taken a very active part in promoting rival Water Companies, had been placed upon this Committee. He should like to ask whether it was usual, in a case of this sort, for the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, in his capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had promoted a rival scheme a few years ago, should be added to the Committee. He thought it would be far better that independent Members with impartial views, and unprejudiced as to the question which would come before them, and unconnected with the Water Companies, should be placed on the Committee.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he must point out to the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough that the Question now before the House was whether the Select Committee on the London Water Supply should consist of 17 Members. The observations of the hon. Baronet would be in order upon the Motion to nominate the Committee.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary state his intention to allow the parties interested to appeal by counsel if they desired it. He wished to state that the great object the late Government had in view was, if possible, to get all the Water Companies and the rateyayers—the water consumers—together at the same table, in order that matters might be talked over. The great object and
    1442
    principle of the Bill presented in the last Session was to bring the Water Companies and the water consumers together, and submit their case to the judgment of the Committee. It had been stated throughout the country that the object of the Government was directly contrary to that; and the late Government was charged with wishing to force the undertakings of the Water Companies upon the ratepayers of London at a very high price; but all they wanted to do was to secure the water consumers such terms with the Water Companies as were fair. It was desired by him that the matter should be discussed in all its various bearings, and he had no desire whatever to force the direction of the Water Companies upon the Metropolis. It must be remembered, however, that whether they got the water supply of London from the present Water Companies, or from some other source, the whole of London was now intersected with pipes; and it would be a very serious question to break up those pipes. The object which they had in view had been misrepresented, so as to make it appear that they were trying to force on the consumers of the Metropolis a burden for which they were not willing to pay. He therefore wished to say, in the plainest terms, that the simple object of the Government was to get the lowest terms which the Water Companies were willing to sell at, and to submit those terms to the ratepayers and consumers, and see whether they would have them or not.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James M' Garel-Hogg be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, after the intimation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Companies would have power of appearing by counsel and tendering evidence on this question, he thought the objection he had made to the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Truro came with even greater force, because it would now be in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to employ counsel. It was surely in the interests of the public, and in the interests of the Companies, that this tribunal should be

    1443
    constituted with every regard to impartiality; and it could scarcely be said that a Gentleman who had promoted a rival Bill to take away the rights of the Water Companies, and to seek fresh sources of supply, and who had actually appeared in Parliament as a direct opponent of the Water Companies, could be considered a strictly impartial person on this question. So late even as last Saturday he had appeared as the supporter of the rival scheme to supply London with water; and, therefore, of all men in the House, he surely was the one who ought not to be put on a Committee of this kind. He was not authorized at all to speak on behalf of the Water Companies, for he had raised this question entirely on his own Motion; but he knew that no single Member interested in Water Companies had been asked to sit upon this inquiry in order that it might be a fair and impartial one. He had no doubt his hon. and gallant Friend was of a judicial mind, and would do his best to be fair; but it was not possible for him to come to this subject with complete impartiality. Therefore, he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would relieve him from the necessity of opposing his name. His hon. and gallant Friend must remember that he had expressed very strong views, even in that House, with regard to Water Companies, and that only two years since he had actually to go to the House to ask it to pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify him for what he had spent in opposing certain schemes of the Water Companies on his own Motion. He believed all Constitutional precedents were against such appointments, and that his hon. and gallant Friend, of all men, should not be nominated on the Committee.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the objection to this name would not be persisted in, for the principle just laid down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough would make appointments on Committees of that House almost impossible. If it was to be a rule that no man was to be appointed on a Committee who had never expressed an opinion on the particular question with which the Committee was to deal, they would have very few Committees in that House. He thought, on the contrary, the better way was to get on the Committee persons who had expressed strong views on the subject, taking care, as far
    1444
    as possible, that one particular view should not be allowed to predominate. It surely could not be said that out of 17 Members of the Committee, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro would have a predominating voice. It was said that his hon. and gallant Friend had opposed the Water Companies; but that had not been done in his private capacity, but in his public position as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was not interested in Water Companies as holding shares, but merely as the representative of the ratepayers. The Corporation of London was represented on the Committee by two of its most distinguished Members, and it seemed to him that it was only fair that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be represented in a similar manner.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSentirely agreed with the observations of the Home Secretary, and said when he was consulted on the matter one of the first names he suggested was this one. The distinction between private interests and public duty was a very clear one, and he took it as a result of that distinction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was peculiarly fitted to serve on this Committee.
    COLONEL MAKINSthought it would be in the interests of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, in spite of what had been said, that he should not act on this Committee. He knew that it caused considerable surprise and was not calculated to give confidence in Parliamentary Committees, when the hon. and gallant Member was acting on a Committee recently with reference to a Gas Bill in the same way, in his official capacity? It was noticed that he left his seat behind the Table and instructed his counsel on the other side of the room. It was remarked that this practice was not calculated to increase confidence in the impartiality of Parliamentary Committees. He was quite sure that there must be Members who would be quite as well capable of protecting public rights as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, and he must think that it did not seem a correct position for his hon. and gallant Friend to hold.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he should leave himself entirely in the hands of the House in regard to this matter, and he should not have risen had it not been for the observation just made. The hon. and gallant Member for South

    1445
    Essex (Colonel Makins) had ventured to tell Mm that he had acted as a Member of a Committee in an improper way.
    COLONEL MAKINS: If I expressed anything of that kind I at once and unreservedly withdraw it. I merely said that the conduct of the hon. and gallant Gentleman might give that appearance to the public, and that was all that I intended to say or convey.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGwas very much obliged for the correction, and he begged leave to recommend the hon. and gallant Member in the future not to suggest inferences of that kind. When he sat upon the Committee he did so by the appointment of the House. He never sought the appointment at the hands of the House, and if the House wished to put him upon such Committee he should always do his duty. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough had talked about his interest in this matter. How could he possibly have any personal interest in it? He had never had a gas or a water share in his life. What he looked to was the public interest; and as long as he occupied the position which during 10 years he had the honour of holding, he should always endeavour in that House and out of it to protect the interests of the public and the ratepayers.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobserved, that the real point at issue was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had committed himself to certain views which the Water Companies, at any rate, would not think wore to their advantage. The Committee had a right to ask, in his opinion, that when hon. Gentlemen met to discuss a question of this kind they should meet and discuss it on terms of equality. Now, as at present arranged, the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be merely represented by their counsel and their agent before the Committee; but they would be represented on the Committee personally by their Chairman. He did not think that was quite fair. He quite admitted the difficulty of forming a Committee in which every personal feeling should be got rid of; but as a great effort had been made that the Water Companies should not be represented on this Committee, and an hon. Member had gone so far as to ask whether every hon. Member who held water shares ought not, by the Rules of the House, to be precluded from serving,
    1446
    as was, of course, the case in all Private Bills, that surety ought to be followed out in regard to his hon. and gallant Friend. When they heard wild schemes talked about of bringing water by aqueduct from the West of England, it was high time that the ratepayers should look sharply into their position. He knew that there was no desire on the part of the Water Companies to put themselves forward, but that they were quite satisfied that they were allowed to state their case in a fair way, and he thought the Board of Works might be satisfied by the same concessions. If, however, the House should decide that the hon. and gallant Member should serve on the Committee, his vote, of course, would only go for what it was worth.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERthought the Committee would be very incomplete if so distinguished a Member of the House as his hon. and gallant Friend was not on it, especially as he was perfectly acquainted with all Metropolitan questions. He certainly felt that it was very desirable that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be properly represented on this Committee.
    Question put. and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Baron Henry do Worms be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    COLONEL MAKINSpointed out that the hon. Gentleman was also proposed as a Member of another Committee which would be sitting at the same time, and he would therefore suggest that some other name should be substituted.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERreplied that that Committee was not to be proposed that night, and the question had far better be raised when the hon. Gentleman's name was proposed on the second Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining names agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on London Water Supply do consist of Seventeen Members:—Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Sir RICHARD CROSS, Mr. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE, Mr. BRAND, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. CAINE, Baron HENRY DE WORMS, Mr. FIRTH, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr. THO-

    1447
    ROLD ROGERS, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, and Mr. PARNELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    And, on June 8, Mr. HUBBARD added.

    WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. DILLWYN, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the protection of Wild Birds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, and Mr. JAMES HOWARD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 211.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.